Sensitive content

This media may contain sensitive content.

Загрузка видео...

Не удалось загрузить видео

На главную

Grace Ashcroft just find something very interesting 😜 #ResidentEvilVillage #ResidentEvil #ResidentEvil3remake #ResidentEvil9 #ResidentEvil4Remake #ResidentEvil2 #Resident_Evil #RE9 #バイオハザード #ResidentEvilReqiuem #GraceAshcroft

_The_Rule_34_'s profile picture

Rule #34 💚

110,512 subscribers

66,700 просмотров • 23 дней назад •via X (Twitter)

NSFW#ResidentEvilVillage#ResidentEvil#ResidentEvil3remake#ResidentEvil9#ResidentEvil4Remake#ResidentEvil2#Resident_Evil#RE9#バイオハザード#ResidentEvilReqiuem#GraceAshcroft
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

Комментарии: 0

Нет доступных комментариев

Здесь появятся комментарии из оригинального поста

Похожие видео

Resident Evil: Requiem | Hands-On Details ▶️ ▪️"I came out of my demo with a sense of Resi 9 feeling like something between Alien: Isolation and PT" ▪️Gamescom demo focused on Grace Ashcroft in the Rhodes Hill Care Center, no firearms in this specific demo ▪️The game features some of the most impressive lighting and character rendering yet from RE Engine ▪️"Feels like a souped-up version of the immersive survival horror found in recent entries of the series" ▪️The new stalker enemy can and will travel above you through ceilings as you play, similar to the Xenomorph in Alien: Isolation ▪️Grace can use glass bottles to draw attention away from her ▪️Your best bet against this for is to sneak and take advantage of hiding spots, flicking open your lighter will draw its attention ▪️The monster is vulnerable to bright light and its skin burns when exposed to it, giving you safe spaces to escape for a moment ▪️"It feels like Capcom has created a new, lumbering foe that more than lives up to the mantle of a Resident Evil stalker" ▪️You can change the camera between first and third person anytime from the menu, doesn't feel like an afterthought ▪️"Both viewpoints are extremely well-designed, with moments tailored for each experience to maximize the player's fear" ▪️Capcom has made efforts to maintain scares despite your preference ▪️Some scenarios feel much scarier in first person, like the stalker's giant claw-shaped hand scaping past a window, inducing panic ▪️Running away from the monster in a hallway in first person can fairly smooth and simple, while going into third person implements camera-specific animations that have Grace stumble and fall, increasing the tension to make up for the reduced level of threat produced by the wider, vision-granting perspective ▪️Grace feels like a more defined character, thrust into an unfamiliar situation, talking to herself, stronger connection to her sense of vulnerability as a protagonist IGN ➡️ Eurogamer ➡️ Engadget ➡️ #ResidentEvil9 #ResidentEvilReqiuem
1:17

Resident Evil: Requiem | Hands-On Details ▶️ ▪️"I came out of my demo with a sense of Resi 9 feeling like something between Alien: Isolation and PT" ▪️Gamescom demo focused on Grace Ashcroft in the Rhodes Hill Care Center, no firearms in this specific demo ▪️The game features some of the most impressive lighting and character rendering yet from RE Engine ▪️"Feels like a souped-up version of the immersive survival horror found in recent entries of the series" ▪️The new stalker enemy can and will travel above you through ceilings as you play, similar to the Xenomorph in Alien: Isolation ▪️Grace can use glass bottles to draw attention away from her ▪️Your best bet against this for is to sneak and take advantage of hiding spots, flicking open your lighter will draw its attention ▪️The monster is vulnerable to bright light and its skin burns when exposed to it, giving you safe spaces to escape for a moment ▪️"It feels like Capcom has created a new, lumbering foe that more than lives up to the mantle of a Resident Evil stalker" ▪️You can change the camera between first and third person anytime from the menu, doesn't feel like an afterthought ▪️"Both viewpoints are extremely well-designed, with moments tailored for each experience to maximize the player's fear" ▪️Capcom has made efforts to maintain scares despite your preference ▪️Some scenarios feel much scarier in first person, like the stalker's giant claw-shaped hand scaping past a window, inducing panic ▪️Running away from the monster in a hallway in first person can fairly smooth and simple, while going into third person implements camera-specific animations that have Grace stumble and fall, increasing the tension to make up for the reduced level of threat produced by the wider, vision-granting perspective ▪️Grace feels like a more defined character, thrust into an unfamiliar situation, talking to herself, stronger connection to her sense of vulnerability as a protagonist IGN ➡️ Eurogamer ➡️ Engadget ➡️ #ResidentEvil9 #ResidentEvilReqiuem

Shinobi602

55,857 просмотров • 11 месяцев назад

I'd be careful in how you talk about this subject. It is very easy, even if you are familiar with it, to spread misinformation. The Vril Droning process involves cloning and exposing the clone to a Vril parasite that takes over the central nervous system. It is very possible. It is said to be one of the darkest masonic secrets, and that they inhabit the hollow earth through the entrance in Antarctica. I find it really interesting, but it could just be something created to excuse behaviors. I have a video that explains how they actually use adrenochrome for nutrition. It is a theory but I think it has some ground to stand on. It is said that it is the reason for the floods/storms because they are waging war on them and they inhabit the deep underground bases. It is a subterranean war. It is a fun subject to talk about.
6:22

I'd be careful in how you talk about this subject. It is very easy, even if you are familiar with it, to spread misinformation. The Vril Droning process involves cloning and exposing the clone to a Vril parasite that takes over the central nervous system. It is very possible. It is said to be one of the darkest masonic secrets, and that they inhabit the hollow earth through the entrance in Antarctica. I find it really interesting, but it could just be something created to excuse behaviors. I have a video that explains how they actually use adrenochrome for nutrition. It is a theory but I think it has some ground to stand on. It is said that it is the reason for the floods/storms because they are waging war on them and they inhabit the deep underground bases. It is a subterranean war. It is a fun subject to talk about.

Mofobian

127,903 просмотров • 1 год назад

Apo: Namsai is a very interesting character and also very difficult to portray. But ppl get to see her.. right here J: actually, P Pond met Freen C: yes… J: and Freen is like this.. F: HEY! 🤣🤣🤣 J: I mean you fit the character Apo: cute J: she can just speak normally but…. 🤔 is it normal? There’s something there. So it makes the character intriguing when she plays it. F: the first time I met P Pond he said the casting is done. The only character he couldn’t find someone to play is Namsai. He was like.. I haven’t found Namsai the day we accidentally met. After a while he was like… you’re Namsai. I was like WHO IS THAT? 🤣🤣🤣 Apo: who? J: your friend? F: I was like… what are you talking about and he was like, let’s talk later. I went okay… sure. I eventually realized what Namsai was like. But I did get to know the character. I didn’t just play me. I got to know her. She expresses a lot while I don’t sometimes.
1:27

Apo: Namsai is a very interesting character and also very difficult to portray. But ppl get to see her.. right here J: actually, P Pond met Freen C: yes… J: and Freen is like this.. F: HEY! 🤣🤣🤣 J: I mean you fit the character Apo: cute J: she can just speak normally but…. 🤔 is it normal? There’s something there. So it makes the character intriguing when she plays it. F: the first time I met P Pond he said the casting is done. The only character he couldn’t find someone to play is Namsai. He was like.. I haven’t found Namsai the day we accidentally met. After a while he was like… you’re Namsai. I was like WHO IS THAT? 🤣🤣🤣 Apo: who? J: your friend? F: I was like… what are you talking about and he was like, let’s talk later. I went okay… sure. I eventually realized what Namsai was like. But I did get to know the character. I didn’t just play me. I got to know her. She expresses a lot while I don’t sometimes.

panpan

34,215 просмотров • 5 месяцев назад

Deadlock developer Hopoo appeared in the chat during the DLNS podcast ZP: ... has this very delicate balance where to a certain extent a game needs to annoy you to some extent it can't annoy you to the extent that you quit the game But you think about MOBAs right? Like every nearly every MOBA ever has a hook hero hook hero inherently no one likes getting hooked Like it sucks but it's also one of those things where it's like oh **** they got this character I gotta look out for this Like it's stuff that like adds to the you know overall experience to where I don't think you want to remove these things because you know the downside is that if you remove everything that annoys you you get this like very sanded out overly like you know all the rough edges are gone and then the gameplay just feels very samey and boring you know?" Lightbringer: What's solvable is what the problem up being like you're trying to solve a mathematical equation rather than something that could be interesting Like you know you could find your niche in the game and just do some goofy stuff you know like Spirit Silver or some you know just some crazy build like that More hook characters okay After these words, Hopoo wrote the following in the chat: More heroes with hooks - got it.
1:00

Deadlock developer Hopoo appeared in the chat during the DLNS podcast ZP: ... has this very delicate balance where to a certain extent a game needs to annoy you to some extent it can't annoy you to the extent that you quit the game But you think about MOBAs right? Like every nearly every MOBA ever has a hook hero hook hero inherently no one likes getting hooked Like it sucks but it's also one of those things where it's like oh **** they got this character I gotta look out for this Like it's stuff that like adds to the you know overall experience to where I don't think you want to remove these things because you know the downside is that if you remove everything that annoys you you get this like very sanded out overly like you know all the rough edges are gone and then the gameplay just feels very samey and boring you know?" Lightbringer: What's solvable is what the problem up being like you're trying to solve a mathematical equation rather than something that could be interesting Like you know you could find your niche in the game and just do some goofy stuff you know like Spirit Silver or some you know just some crazy build like that More hook characters okay After these words, Hopoo wrote the following in the chat: More heroes with hooks - got it.

DEADLOCK PROJECT 8

29,147 просмотров • 17 дней назад

jordan peterson explains how to become more articulate. “pay attention to what you say. that’s a good start. and what do i mean by that? i mean, really pay attention to what you say.” “imagine you’re trying to walk across a swamp. you know there’s a path of stones under the water, but you have to feel for each one before taking the next step. that’s exactly what speaking is like.” “every time you speak, ask yourself: is this the right word? is what i’m saying putting me together and making me stronger, or is it tearing me apart and making me weaker?” “you have to align what you say with who you are. that’s a necessary precondition for becoming someone people see as genuine and trustworthy.” “when your words and your actions are aligned, people don’t just trust you. they find you compelling and interesting. that’s something that’s very difficult to fake.” “you don’t become articulate by memorizing better words. you become articulate by feeling your way toward the truth every time you speak.”
2:38

jordan peterson explains how to become more articulate. “pay attention to what you say. that’s a good start. and what do i mean by that? i mean, really pay attention to what you say.” “imagine you’re trying to walk across a swamp. you know there’s a path of stones under the water, but you have to feel for each one before taking the next step. that’s exactly what speaking is like.” “every time you speak, ask yourself: is this the right word? is what i’m saying putting me together and making me stronger, or is it tearing me apart and making me weaker?” “you have to align what you say with who you are. that’s a necessary precondition for becoming someone people see as genuine and trustworthy.” “when your words and your actions are aligned, people don’t just trust you. they find you compelling and interesting. that’s something that’s very difficult to fake.” “you don’t become articulate by memorizing better words. you become articulate by feeling your way toward the truth every time you speak.”

gomi

33,352 просмотров • 18 дней назад

Ross Coulthart thinks the Mormon church has an inordinate amount of people within the legacy UFO program and he knows who they are 😳 and also the church of Scientology knows more about UFOs than it’s letting on Link to source in comments Rosscoe -“One thing that does interest me is I do think the Church of Scientology knows a lot more than it's letting on, and it's interesting because Danny Sheen has indicated something about this. I strongly recommend people go back and have a look at his interviews. I also think that it's interesting that the Mormon Church has an inordinate number of people working inside the legacy program. And yes, we know who you are. I have names, I have locations. I have people who are managerial roles in the Mormon church who just also happen to be in very senior positions in the Legacy program. And it's interesting, maybe, maybe people in the Mormon faith find it in many ways because so much of the Mormon faith is derived, allegedly from an alien communication. If you read the history of the church, maybe they believe that it validates their religion for this to be revealed or explored, I don't know. But no, I'm not aware of any kind of sect or religion that is sharing this knowledge. I do think that there are some religious institutions, though, such as the Mormons and the Scientologists that have done a lot of work into this area. And frankly, I don't think there's anything sinister in that. If I had the resources, I'd be pouring money into investigating this as well.”
1:13

Ross Coulthart thinks the Mormon church has an inordinate amount of people within the legacy UFO program and he knows who they are 😳 and also the church of Scientology knows more about UFOs than it’s letting on Link to source in comments Rosscoe -“One thing that does interest me is I do think the Church of Scientology knows a lot more than it's letting on, and it's interesting because Danny Sheen has indicated something about this. I strongly recommend people go back and have a look at his interviews. I also think that it's interesting that the Mormon Church has an inordinate number of people working inside the legacy program. And yes, we know who you are. I have names, I have locations. I have people who are managerial roles in the Mormon church who just also happen to be in very senior positions in the Legacy program. And it's interesting, maybe, maybe people in the Mormon faith find it in many ways because so much of the Mormon faith is derived, allegedly from an alien communication. If you read the history of the church, maybe they believe that it validates their religion for this to be revealed or explored, I don't know. But no, I'm not aware of any kind of sect or religion that is sharing this knowledge. I do think that there are some religious institutions, though, such as the Mormons and the Scientologists that have done a lot of work into this area. And frankly, I don't think there's anything sinister in that. If I had the resources, I'd be pouring money into investigating this as well.”

neandrewthal

71,413 просмотров • 1 год назад

Here is a VERY Interesting video, I just learned about while watching Alex, Criminal Network and Damian was a Guest, 857Tucson talked about, and they showed the video....The Creator is Doug Live North Port, I clipped this video, and cut it short while I started this post, and while it still played.....I learned that Daphne’s Case Files 🫆 was the one who found the info......SO Daphne deserves ALOT of Credit on this as well!!! So I find it WORTH asking FBI Phoenix to look into it!! My interesting takes...... 1. TMZ.......and guy wants to be famous 2.Dude asks about what the neighbors are saying 3. When Damian says something about cameras, DUDE LOOKS DIRECTLY At The CAMERAS at Nancy's House, and facial expression changes!! 4. ONE BIG CLUE No ONE has talked about yet........WATCH his hand gestures.......He PEACE signs with his left hand, he holds phone in right hand, and he interacts with his left hand, while doing things that are secondary, like grabbing steering wheel with right hand. Think about those things and how you do them, based on your hand dominance!!!!! I THINK HE IS LEFT HANDED!!! 5. The WHOLE Demeanor of Guy is Weird and Alarming!!! SOME OF THE IMAGES at end of video APPEAR to be AI generated........so LOOK at VIDEO images of him ONLY for purposes of seeing him!!!!
5:50

Here is a VERY Interesting video, I just learned about while watching Alex, Criminal Network and Damian was a Guest, 857Tucson talked about, and they showed the video....The Creator is Doug Live North Port, I clipped this video, and cut it short while I started this post, and while it still played.....I learned that Daphne’s Case Files 🫆 was the one who found the info......SO Daphne deserves ALOT of Credit on this as well!!! So I find it WORTH asking FBI Phoenix to look into it!! My interesting takes...... 1. TMZ.......and guy wants to be famous 2.Dude asks about what the neighbors are saying 3. When Damian says something about cameras, DUDE LOOKS DIRECTLY At The CAMERAS at Nancy's House, and facial expression changes!! 4. ONE BIG CLUE No ONE has talked about yet........WATCH his hand gestures.......He PEACE signs with his left hand, he holds phone in right hand, and he interacts with his left hand, while doing things that are secondary, like grabbing steering wheel with right hand. Think about those things and how you do them, based on your hand dominance!!!!! I THINK HE IS LEFT HANDED!!! 5. The WHOLE Demeanor of Guy is Weird and Alarming!!! SOME OF THE IMAGES at end of video APPEAR to be AI generated........so LOOK at VIDEO images of him ONLY for purposes of seeing him!!!!

Capt KEVman!!!

22,888 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

New: Annie Jacobsen on Rogan "Extraterrestrial beings [are] certainly going to be a lot more [intelligent] than us. It wouldn't be visible to our spectrum." ~AJ "A lot of really legitimate-thinker people that didn't have an opinion about [UFOs] before, [are now] more open to the idea." ~AJ (Most of the full segment (cued up in the replies) is AJ expressing her skepticism, leaning towards government deception and disinformation, and her disinterest in the UFO subject. But this was interesting.) ~ Annie Jacobsen: "I find the most interesting concept is something that Jacques Vallée explained to me. This has to be a decade ago, where he said, 'The problem with UFOs is they're not a military problem; they're an intelligence-community problem,' for precisely the reason you're talking about. "Like, if you're actually talking about extraterrestrial beings, their certainly going to be a lot more [intelligent] than us, and certainly if they got here. And that's where I think a lot of that idea of invisibility. And again, that's like - I'm using the word poetically - comes up, right? That an extraterrestrial being would be, would be intel(ligent). You know, it wouldn't be visible to our spectrum. It's not like hardware, like military hardware." Rogan: "Right. What is your take on all these videos then, of these objects? You think these things are some top-secret military program?" AJ: "I mean, I've seen them, but again, I enter into it... You know, sometimes when you have a bias, and mine is certainly biased towards disinformation. So I'm just totally aware of it. And it's also...it's not that interesting to me. It just actually really isn't. I've got all these other serious interests. "But I do call up people I know who might have a more interesting take than me, who do not have the horse in the race of absolutely being convinced that aliens are among us. So, I would, for example, I'll call up fighter pilots and talk to them, or I'll talk to someone, an astronaut who is on the ISS, Jeff Ashby, who's married to my cousin Mary. "And it's interesting to hear them talk about the possibility. And these are people who do look at the objects more, also sometimes from their military-training background. And I will say that there has been a shift from 15, 18 years ago when I first wrote 'Area 51' and was reporting it, where it was definitely like a like a stigmatized subject. To a lot of really legitimate thinker people that didn't have an opinion about it before, being more open to the idea. And that kind of thing I find really interesting. Those are conversations I like having." Rogan: "Well, that really changed with the New York Times article, right?" AJ: "I don't know because I felt like that article was written by a lot of, and interviewed a lot of, people who already were very serious believers." Rogan: "Yes, but it was in the New York Times."
2:43

New: Annie Jacobsen on Rogan "Extraterrestrial beings [are] certainly going to be a lot more [intelligent] than us. It wouldn't be visible to our spectrum." ~AJ "A lot of really legitimate-thinker people that didn't have an opinion about [UFOs] before, [are now] more open to the idea." ~AJ (Most of the full segment (cued up in the replies) is AJ expressing her skepticism, leaning towards government deception and disinformation, and her disinterest in the UFO subject. But this was interesting.) ~ Annie Jacobsen: "I find the most interesting concept is something that Jacques Vallée explained to me. This has to be a decade ago, where he said, 'The problem with UFOs is they're not a military problem; they're an intelligence-community problem,' for precisely the reason you're talking about. "Like, if you're actually talking about extraterrestrial beings, their certainly going to be a lot more [intelligent] than us, and certainly if they got here. And that's where I think a lot of that idea of invisibility. And again, that's like - I'm using the word poetically - comes up, right? That an extraterrestrial being would be, would be intel(ligent). You know, it wouldn't be visible to our spectrum. It's not like hardware, like military hardware." Rogan: "Right. What is your take on all these videos then, of these objects? You think these things are some top-secret military program?" AJ: "I mean, I've seen them, but again, I enter into it... You know, sometimes when you have a bias, and mine is certainly biased towards disinformation. So I'm just totally aware of it. And it's also...it's not that interesting to me. It just actually really isn't. I've got all these other serious interests. "But I do call up people I know who might have a more interesting take than me, who do not have the horse in the race of absolutely being convinced that aliens are among us. So, I would, for example, I'll call up fighter pilots and talk to them, or I'll talk to someone, an astronaut who is on the ISS, Jeff Ashby, who's married to my cousin Mary. "And it's interesting to hear them talk about the possibility. And these are people who do look at the objects more, also sometimes from their military-training background. And I will say that there has been a shift from 15, 18 years ago when I first wrote 'Area 51' and was reporting it, where it was definitely like a like a stigmatized subject. To a lot of really legitimate thinker people that didn't have an opinion about it before, being more open to the idea. And that kind of thing I find really interesting. Those are conversations I like having." Rogan: "Well, that really changed with the New York Times article, right?" AJ: "I don't know because I felt like that article was written by a lot of, and interviewed a lot of, people who already were very serious believers." Rogan: "Yes, but it was in the New York Times."

Joe Murgia

24,033 просмотров • 9 дней назад

A guy with sexy ENERGY is far more captivating to a girl than a guy who just looks good or is rich or tall. Girls CHASE this guy. But girls are terrible at describing what it actually is that is attracting them to a guy like this. So, let me lay out the formula for you for understanding it. We can go back to the Year 2000 movie THE TAO OF STEVE for the answer. The movie (based on a real life guy) is about an overweight male kindergarten teacher who smashes a ton of women by using this magic ‘sexy energy’ formula: 1️⃣ BE DESIRELESS. Unlike the average guy, who approaches a woman needing or wanting something, a guy with Tao of Steve energy wants NOTHING from her. He is simply just there to socialize, shoot the breeze, and have a good time. Rather than want anything from her, he is actually OFFERING something: good vibes. There is nothing from her he wants or needs. 2️⃣ BE EXCELLENT. No girl wants a guy who is average at EVERYTHING. Whatever you are NOT average at, find a way to showcase that around women. The guy from Tao of Steve expounds on philosophical concepts that he finds interesting. He gives women new insights and things to think about (this is actually not very hard if you study philosophy a bit. All women find it interesting, but few women study it deeply). If you have great social skills, showcase them. If you have athletic skills or artistic skills, showcase them. Find what’s excellent about you and SHOW IT. 3️⃣ BE GONE. Finally, Duncan North (the Tao of Steve guy) never hangs around too long. He never overstays his welcome. You know how if you hang out with someone too long, you start to get that feeling of, “Okay, well, something should happen, it’s getting kind of stale/awkward now?” You simply leave BEFORE you reach that point. Exit on a high point. Leave her wanting MORE from you. You’re the guy who’s excellent and who needs/wants nothing from her whatsoever. And now you’re leaving. But she doesn’t want you to go! The next time she sees you, she is going to work even harder to keep you around! That’s the Tao of Steve. If you do THAT with girls, you will run circles around the good-looking guys and tall guys with them. No, you do not have to be clownishly energetic. No, you do not have to be Mr. Funny Jokes or The Entertainer. Those guys are NEEDY. They NEED something (her attention, her approval). They violate the first tenet of the Tao of Steve. You just need to be the cool, excellent guy who doesn’t actually need anything from her, just drops whatever value he has to drop, then gets gone before she’s had her fill. Women WILL chase you when you are this guy. They will value you far more highly than the guy whose only value is his chiseled jaw line or his 6-figure income.
1:43

A guy with sexy ENERGY is far more captivating to a girl than a guy who just looks good or is rich or tall. Girls CHASE this guy. But girls are terrible at describing what it actually is that is attracting them to a guy like this. So, let me lay out the formula for you for understanding it. We can go back to the Year 2000 movie THE TAO OF STEVE for the answer. The movie (based on a real life guy) is about an overweight male kindergarten teacher who smashes a ton of women by using this magic ‘sexy energy’ formula: 1️⃣ BE DESIRELESS. Unlike the average guy, who approaches a woman needing or wanting something, a guy with Tao of Steve energy wants NOTHING from her. He is simply just there to socialize, shoot the breeze, and have a good time. Rather than want anything from her, he is actually OFFERING something: good vibes. There is nothing from her he wants or needs. 2️⃣ BE EXCELLENT. No girl wants a guy who is average at EVERYTHING. Whatever you are NOT average at, find a way to showcase that around women. The guy from Tao of Steve expounds on philosophical concepts that he finds interesting. He gives women new insights and things to think about (this is actually not very hard if you study philosophy a bit. All women find it interesting, but few women study it deeply). If you have great social skills, showcase them. If you have athletic skills or artistic skills, showcase them. Find what’s excellent about you and SHOW IT. 3️⃣ BE GONE. Finally, Duncan North (the Tao of Steve guy) never hangs around too long. He never overstays his welcome. You know how if you hang out with someone too long, you start to get that feeling of, “Okay, well, something should happen, it’s getting kind of stale/awkward now?” You simply leave BEFORE you reach that point. Exit on a high point. Leave her wanting MORE from you. You’re the guy who’s excellent and who needs/wants nothing from her whatsoever. And now you’re leaving. But she doesn’t want you to go! The next time she sees you, she is going to work even harder to keep you around! That’s the Tao of Steve. If you do THAT with girls, you will run circles around the good-looking guys and tall guys with them. No, you do not have to be clownishly energetic. No, you do not have to be Mr. Funny Jokes or The Entertainer. Those guys are NEEDY. They NEED something (her attention, her approval). They violate the first tenet of the Tao of Steve. You just need to be the cool, excellent guy who doesn’t actually need anything from her, just drops whatever value he has to drop, then gets gone before she’s had her fill. Women WILL chase you when you are this guy. They will value you far more highly than the guy whose only value is his chiseled jaw line or his 6-figure income.

Girls Chase 🏃‍♀️💨

88,439 просмотров • 6 месяцев назад

Interesting argument. If we were to steel man this and represent it as a syllogism I think it would look like this: 1. God is perfect 2. A perfect being would only create perfect things 3. The world is imperfect 4. Therefore, a perfect God could not have created this world ...And then we'd further conclude a perfect God doesn't exist. The problem is with premise two, for a number of reasons. Firstly, what does it mean to be perfect? To be perfect is to lack for nothing, to be without flaws, to be fully actualized. But only God is like that, so the only way for God to make something perfect would be to make another God exactly like Himself. But there's a problem with this because the second God couldn't be exactly the same since he had to be created, rather than simply existing by his very nature. So logically speaking God can't create something perfect. This means that if* God creates, God can only create things that are imperfect. So now that we've established that God can't make something perfect, I guess the question is... why would God create? Here's a thought. Ontologically speaking God is the greatest conceivable being... would the greatest conceivable being create things? Or not create things? It seems obvious that creating is greater than not creating. An artist that creates no art wouldn't be much of an artist. If this is correct, it means God will create, and from my first argument God will create something imperfect... something flawed. Something lacking. Another thing worth pointing out is that as humans we knowingly create imperfect beings. We know when a baby is born, it's not perfect... yet we choose to do it anyway. Why? Is our desire to bring new life into the world something evil or wicked? I don't think so. I think it comes from our love for each other and our understanding that giving life is a blessing, even if that child screws up, even if they suffer, their life is a blessing. If God is good, wouldn't He want to bless something with the gift of life, the same way we do? I don't see why not. From this I think it follows that if God exists we'd expect to be in some sort of imperfect or flawed reality, and that's exactly what we find ourselves in. But how does atheism explain the existence of a flawed world? To say that something is flawed is to say it's not how it should be. But how can the world be flawed if atheism is true? On atheism the world just... is. It's not meant to be any sort of way. To be consistent the atheist would have to say reality isn't flawed, which is obviously absurd. This means that not only can Christianity explain the world we find ourselves in, it predicts it logically. Atheism on the other hand would have to predict a totally neutral world with no flaws, no issues, no evil... and no one in their right mind would say that's the world we find ourselves in. So this argument not only fails, it gives us more great reasons to reject atheism.
1:05

Interesting argument. If we were to steel man this and represent it as a syllogism I think it would look like this: 1. God is perfect 2. A perfect being would only create perfect things 3. The world is imperfect 4. Therefore, a perfect God could not have created this world ...And then we'd further conclude a perfect God doesn't exist. The problem is with premise two, for a number of reasons. Firstly, what does it mean to be perfect? To be perfect is to lack for nothing, to be without flaws, to be fully actualized. But only God is like that, so the only way for God to make something perfect would be to make another God exactly like Himself. But there's a problem with this because the second God couldn't be exactly the same since he had to be created, rather than simply existing by his very nature. So logically speaking God can't create something perfect. This means that if* God creates, God can only create things that are imperfect. So now that we've established that God can't make something perfect, I guess the question is... why would God create? Here's a thought. Ontologically speaking God is the greatest conceivable being... would the greatest conceivable being create things? Or not create things? It seems obvious that creating is greater than not creating. An artist that creates no art wouldn't be much of an artist. If this is correct, it means God will create, and from my first argument God will create something imperfect... something flawed. Something lacking. Another thing worth pointing out is that as humans we knowingly create imperfect beings. We know when a baby is born, it's not perfect... yet we choose to do it anyway. Why? Is our desire to bring new life into the world something evil or wicked? I don't think so. I think it comes from our love for each other and our understanding that giving life is a blessing, even if that child screws up, even if they suffer, their life is a blessing. If God is good, wouldn't He want to bless something with the gift of life, the same way we do? I don't see why not. From this I think it follows that if God exists we'd expect to be in some sort of imperfect or flawed reality, and that's exactly what we find ourselves in. But how does atheism explain the existence of a flawed world? To say that something is flawed is to say it's not how it should be. But how can the world be flawed if atheism is true? On atheism the world just... is. It's not meant to be any sort of way. To be consistent the atheist would have to say reality isn't flawed, which is obviously absurd. This means that not only can Christianity explain the world we find ourselves in, it predicts it logically. Atheism on the other hand would have to predict a totally neutral world with no flaws, no issues, no evil... and no one in their right mind would say that's the world we find ourselves in. So this argument not only fails, it gives us more great reasons to reject atheism.

Darwin to Jesus

57,618 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

Day 3 of our Xinjiang RV roadtrip: we're standing right at the border between the North of Xinjiang and the South, separated by the massive TianShan mountain range with some of the world's highest mountains (highest peak at 7,439 meters, 24,406 ft). That's something people often don't realize: if you take the top 10 highest mountain ranges in the world, 7 of them are in China and 4 in Xinjiang specifically: Karakoram (which includes K2, the world's 2nd highest peak), Pamir, TianShan (these very mountains we're at the bottom of) and Kunlun. People have this impression of Xinjiang as just deserts but it's actually one of the most mountainous regions on Earth. The TianShan mountains are especially interesting in terms of geography because they literally cut Xinjiang in two - North and South - with completely different climates, ecosystems and cultures on each side. We're currently standing North of the mountains which is the comparatively green and rainy part of Xinjiang. Yes, the dry landscape you see in the video is the *rainy* part of Xinjiang which gives you an idea of just how dry the South is! Our program for the next few days is to drive alongside the mountains until we reach the Ili valley, which is especially famous for its flower fields and lush green landscape - probably the last thing you'd expect to find in Xinjiang - due to its position between mountains that allows it to trap a lot of the region's moisture.
3:08

Day 3 of our Xinjiang RV roadtrip: we're standing right at the border between the North of Xinjiang and the South, separated by the massive TianShan mountain range with some of the world's highest mountains (highest peak at 7,439 meters, 24,406 ft). That's something people often don't realize: if you take the top 10 highest mountain ranges in the world, 7 of them are in China and 4 in Xinjiang specifically: Karakoram (which includes K2, the world's 2nd highest peak), Pamir, TianShan (these very mountains we're at the bottom of) and Kunlun. People have this impression of Xinjiang as just deserts but it's actually one of the most mountainous regions on Earth. The TianShan mountains are especially interesting in terms of geography because they literally cut Xinjiang in two - North and South - with completely different climates, ecosystems and cultures on each side. We're currently standing North of the mountains which is the comparatively green and rainy part of Xinjiang. Yes, the dry landscape you see in the video is the *rainy* part of Xinjiang which gives you an idea of just how dry the South is! Our program for the next few days is to drive alongside the mountains until we reach the Ili valley, which is especially famous for its flower fields and lush green landscape - probably the last thing you'd expect to find in Xinjiang - due to its position between mountains that allows it to trap a lot of the region's moisture.

Arnaud Bertrand

25,257 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

"Trump Suggested Injecting Bleach" is still a widely cited story that also happens to be a complete hoax. Read on to learn what Trump actually said, and just how stupid and disingenuous "journalists" are. While looking into the origin of this story I came to learn that while this was in part an intentional and concerted effort to mislead people about what Trump was actually saying, evidence points to some of people who reported or recounted what happened being really, really stupid and projecting their stupidity on to Trump. What I find fascinating is that the media's hatred of Trump actually affected their ability to even understand what Trump was saying. The hoax was born from remarks Trump made at a Coronavirus Press Briefing on April 23, 2020 where just prior, William Bryan who was the Acting Homeland Security Under Secretary for Science and Technology explained what factors helped control the virus. A slide was used to help illustrate ways to combat the virus. Among these were listed: -Heat and humidity -Sunlight -Disinfectants like bleach and alcohol Moments later Trump went back to the podium and said, "So I asked Will a question that some of you are thinking of if you're totally into that world, which I find to be very interesting. So, supposing we hit the body with a tremendous, uh, whether it's ultraviolet or just powerful light.... And then I said, supposing you brought the light inside the body, which you can do, either through the skin or in some other way... And then I see the disinfectant where it knocks it out in a minute and is there a way we can do something like that, uh, by injection inside, or almost a cleaning, cuz you see it get in the lungs and [the coronavirus] does a tremendous number on the lungs so it would be interesting to check that...it sound interesting to me." Clearly Trump is using Layman's terms for a complicated idea in medical science which has been and is being explored. (which I'll be posting below in a thread) It's now my opinion that the morons on Trump's team as well as morons in the media were influenced by their own bias against Trump to connect the words on the slide used by Mr. Bryan to the words Trump used when talking about something related but completely different, moments later. Trump NEVER suggested "injecting bleach" as the MSM claims and it seems this very notion may have (ironically) come from the then White House communications director, Alyssa Farah Griffin, who later went on to become a host on The View. A 12/30/22 article by The Hill stated, "Griffin said that when she was on the coronavirus task force she tried to stop the Department of Homeland Security report that was initially sent to then-Vice President Mike Pence from getting to Trump, according to (Jan 6 committee) testimony released Thursday. Pence thought that the report that people should consider exposing the body to light, heat and disinfectants as a potential treatment for the coronavirus was “interesting” and that Trump should be “briefed” on it." In her testimony at the Jan 6 committee hearings, Griffin stated: "I tried to stop it outside of the Oval Office, because I knew the President was willing to go on national television, having not been able to properly digest what the report was indicating, and say something stupid or dangerous to the public. And I went to Mark Meadows, and I said, Sir, this is going to blow up in our faces. He's not ready. Like, what are we encouraging? Are we saying like, you know, go buy a humidifier? Do we want to put a run on humidifiers? Or turn your heat up to 95 degrees. Like, it just didn't make any sense. And Meadows overruled me, and we got the injecting bleach thing." Whether Griffin got her wording from the press or whether the press got their wording from Griffin, I don't know. What is clear is that Trump never said anything about injecting bleach.
1:52

"Trump Suggested Injecting Bleach" is still a widely cited story that also happens to be a complete hoax. Read on to learn what Trump actually said, and just how stupid and disingenuous "journalists" are. While looking into the origin of this story I came to learn that while this was in part an intentional and concerted effort to mislead people about what Trump was actually saying, evidence points to some of people who reported or recounted what happened being really, really stupid and projecting their stupidity on to Trump. What I find fascinating is that the media's hatred of Trump actually affected their ability to even understand what Trump was saying. The hoax was born from remarks Trump made at a Coronavirus Press Briefing on April 23, 2020 where just prior, William Bryan who was the Acting Homeland Security Under Secretary for Science and Technology explained what factors helped control the virus. A slide was used to help illustrate ways to combat the virus. Among these were listed: -Heat and humidity -Sunlight -Disinfectants like bleach and alcohol Moments later Trump went back to the podium and said, "So I asked Will a question that some of you are thinking of if you're totally into that world, which I find to be very interesting. So, supposing we hit the body with a tremendous, uh, whether it's ultraviolet or just powerful light.... And then I said, supposing you brought the light inside the body, which you can do, either through the skin or in some other way... And then I see the disinfectant where it knocks it out in a minute and is there a way we can do something like that, uh, by injection inside, or almost a cleaning, cuz you see it get in the lungs and [the coronavirus] does a tremendous number on the lungs so it would be interesting to check that...it sound interesting to me." Clearly Trump is using Layman's terms for a complicated idea in medical science which has been and is being explored. (which I'll be posting below in a thread) It's now my opinion that the morons on Trump's team as well as morons in the media were influenced by their own bias against Trump to connect the words on the slide used by Mr. Bryan to the words Trump used when talking about something related but completely different, moments later. Trump NEVER suggested "injecting bleach" as the MSM claims and it seems this very notion may have (ironically) come from the then White House communications director, Alyssa Farah Griffin, who later went on to become a host on The View. A 12/30/22 article by The Hill stated, "Griffin said that when she was on the coronavirus task force she tried to stop the Department of Homeland Security report that was initially sent to then-Vice President Mike Pence from getting to Trump, according to (Jan 6 committee) testimony released Thursday. Pence thought that the report that people should consider exposing the body to light, heat and disinfectants as a potential treatment for the coronavirus was “interesting” and that Trump should be “briefed” on it." In her testimony at the Jan 6 committee hearings, Griffin stated: "I tried to stop it outside of the Oval Office, because I knew the President was willing to go on national television, having not been able to properly digest what the report was indicating, and say something stupid or dangerous to the public. And I went to Mark Meadows, and I said, Sir, this is going to blow up in our faces. He's not ready. Like, what are we encouraging? Are we saying like, you know, go buy a humidifier? Do we want to put a run on humidifiers? Or turn your heat up to 95 degrees. Like, it just didn't make any sense. And Meadows overruled me, and we got the injecting bleach thing." Whether Griffin got her wording from the press or whether the press got their wording from Griffin, I don't know. What is clear is that Trump never said anything about injecting bleach.

Rebecca 🇺🇸

80,157 просмотров • 2 лет назад

⃤ Video of a Black Triangle - What's the Frequency, Gerry? ⃤ "A very clear visual representation of what was on the radar. It resembled a very black, triangular or delta shape to it" "It was always slightly out of focus for some reason." "Garry Nolan told us to watch for the cloud formations." (If you scroll down to the bottom, I'll tell you the exact time stamps for each the UAP videos that were shown.) "We believe [it's NHI]. Either that or some very sophisticated technology that maybe we're reverse engineering." "There was a specific electronic signature (frequency) emanating from them when they were going into or coming out of the water, so they were easy to track." ~Bob Fish ~ Gerry Tedesco: August 29th, "we were in the RV, running tests on our equipment because we was planning on going out that weekend." John Tedesco: "And we noticed that we had a signature (on their spectrum analyzer) there that was well presented, very unusual for the area. And we kind of collaborated that with some radar data. Radar seemed to align with what we had on the spectrum analyzer. The object, we believe, was over the water at that point, simply because of the distance that we were able to capture it on the radar. It presented in a cloud layer, exited a cloud layer, produced a signature." Gerry; "This was a single thunderstorm cloud in the sky and the weather was great. We had cumulous clouds out there, mostly clear. And this was a dark, cumulonimbus cloud. It was a very dark thunderstorm cloud, and it looked out a place. " Ross Coulthart: "Do you think that that cloud might have been a fake cloud?" Donna Lee Nardo: "So Garry P. Nolan, he came out with us for our field study one night. He told us, Watch for the cloud formations.' And John, Gerry, and I saw one really nasty-looking...it looked like 10 motherships situated...oriented north to south, one night when we were doing the field study. And I believe this was early on in 2022. And it also was a clear night, but it just looked out of place. It was dark, yet there were lighted portions. But it was just so humongous. And we always remember that Garry had said, look at the cloud formations." Gerry: "Yeah, we definitely had some oddities out there." Coulthart: "I've had people, multiple people have sent me imagery. There's quite famous ones on YouTube where you see what looks like a cloud, and it's shaped just ever so slightly like a disc or a craft. And it's got the fluffy edges of a cloud, and then it suddenly maneuvers and just moves away. And I sometimes wonder whether something or someone is using clouds as a form of stealth or signature management." Gerry: "That's a possibility. We look at that, we look to see if it is a cloud. We use shortwave infrared, which does pick up moisture. And it'll actually differentiate the precipitation in a cloud, or moisture in a cloud, so we know it is a real cloud." Coulhart: "Did you do that with this cloud that night?" John: "Exactly, exactly. And this is something that we could determine that there wasn't moisture content." Coulthart: "So you were able to show it wasn't a classic cumulonimbus cloud, even though it looked like one." John: "No, no. Yeah, and the object was well hidden for a short period of time. Actually, relatively long period of time before it emerged from the cloud body." Coulthart: "So Donna is probably right: This is probably some kind of intelligent stealth management by something." Gerry: "It's a possibility." Donna: "Possibly." John: "It could very well be." (I like how all three will only go as far as, Possible and Could be.) Coulthart: "This is where it gets really interesting. Talk me through what happens next. " Gerry: "Okay, so we watched an object emerge from the cloud on radar. John and I quickly went to get our binoculars, we have what's called Vortex binoculars. These are high-end binoculars, great optical glass. John had began looking at the cloud with those, and he told me, we both went outside. I was trying to find one of the other cameras, scrambling, trying to get one of the other cameras going. "And John said, 'There's a black object moving between the cloud.' And then it was emerging from the cloud. So I grabbed my cell phone and videotaped it. While John was looking at them, we switched. And what we saw was something...originally it resembled a very black, triangular or delta shape to it, or bell shape to it. It had that Delta shape, or triangular shape." Coulthart: "And was this showing up on radar at this stage, that delta shape?" Gerry: "Yes." John: "Yes." Coulthart: "Wow!" John: "Yes, we did have a radar target." Gerry: "We tracked it on radar. On radar, it appears to separate into two more objects, which is quite interesting." Coulthart: "You found something interesting in the frequency, and you can't talk about it, can you? Has the FBI asked you, not to talk about it?" Gerry: "Yes, that's the sensitive part. There was quite a bit of interesting signals, but that goes into signals intelligence, which we can't talk about." Coulthart: "Just let me guess. 1.6 by any chance?" (They all laugh) Donna: "You've been talking to people." Gerry: "No comment." Coulthart: "No, it just fascinates me. Is it 1.6 gigahertz, or megahertz? I'm trying to remember." John: "It's gigahertz. Yeah, I know with Skinwalker Ranch, I know the one, 1.6 seems to come up quite a bit. There's also a three-gigahertz signal, supposedly." Gerry: "There's a few others, too. We'll leave it at that." Coulthart: "No, but it's interesting. It's such a consistent thing, and I'm really interested because all around the world, people are contacting me, talking about 1.6, in particular, but also about three gigahertz. And nobody's explaining it. But often it's an indicator." ~~~From My Bob Fish Blog~~~ Bob Fish: "In that same TS/SCI building cafeteria in El Segundo, I had lunch with a senior USAF NCO who had worked for Project Blue Book in the 1970s (after it had been 'officially disbanded'). He was an ELINT technician (electronic intelligence) who flew in RC-135s from MacDill AFB in Florida. The 'normal' target was Cuba where they did lots of snooping and sometimes challenging the Cubans to turn on radar and other systems. "He said there were times when they were diverted from these missions to track UFOs off the east coast of Florida. His claim was that UFOs had a landing and takeoff spot in the ocean east of Miami, north of Bermuda. He also claimed there was a specific electronic signature (frequency) emanating from them when they were going into or coming out of the water, so they were easy to track. On several occasions they filmed the UFO as it transitioned from water to air or vice versa. High quality film of UFOs is 'out there' somewhere!" (What was the signature? 1.6 gigahertz? 3.0?) ~~~End Bob Fish Excerpt~~~ Coulthart: "And as you say - without giving away the frequency that you detected - you detected a frequency anomaly on your spectrum analyzer. You saw it there. Then you got it on your radar. And then when you visually observed it with the binoculars, the vortex binoculars, you then corroborated that object on the radar as well. So you've got four separate data points to corroborate something anomalous." John: "And a very, very clear visual representation of what was on the radar. The interesting thing I will say that we had observed flights of commercial aircraft at the same time through these lenses, these very clear lenses that we use. The commercial aircraft was extremely detailed, in focus. You can even make out the writing on the on the aircraft. The object itself? No." Gerry: "It was always slightly out of focus for some reason." John: "It was poorly presented." Coulthart: "And you gents would understand, and I'm sure Donna as well, that the Alcubierre-drive principles. That, essentially, if something is coming, if it's warping space time, there's allegedly some kind of plasma or some kind of distortion field around the object. Do you think that might explain what you were seeing? Gerry: That's a possibility." John: "That's a very strong possibility." Gerry: "It's something we're looking into. There was also, there was a shimmer around it. Definitely a possibility of some kind of field effect around it." ~~~ Time Stamps Extremely bright, luminous sphere over the ocean. Not visible to the naked eye. - 13:33 The Black Triangle - 33:31 Orb-Like Object Over Land in Farmingville, N.Y. (Where my sister lives) ~ 58:18 Similar to what @MeaganOurada saw - 1:14:05
8:29

⃤ Video of a Black Triangle - What's the Frequency, Gerry? ⃤ "A very clear visual representation of what was on the radar. It resembled a very black, triangular or delta shape to it" "It was always slightly out of focus for some reason." "Garry Nolan told us to watch for the cloud formations." (If you scroll down to the bottom, I'll tell you the exact time stamps for each the UAP videos that were shown.) "We believe [it's NHI]. Either that or some very sophisticated technology that maybe we're reverse engineering." "There was a specific electronic signature (frequency) emanating from them when they were going into or coming out of the water, so they were easy to track." ~Bob Fish ~ Gerry Tedesco: August 29th, "we were in the RV, running tests on our equipment because we was planning on going out that weekend." John Tedesco: "And we noticed that we had a signature (on their spectrum analyzer) there that was well presented, very unusual for the area. And we kind of collaborated that with some radar data. Radar seemed to align with what we had on the spectrum analyzer. The object, we believe, was over the water at that point, simply because of the distance that we were able to capture it on the radar. It presented in a cloud layer, exited a cloud layer, produced a signature." Gerry; "This was a single thunderstorm cloud in the sky and the weather was great. We had cumulous clouds out there, mostly clear. And this was a dark, cumulonimbus cloud. It was a very dark thunderstorm cloud, and it looked out a place. " Ross Coulthart: "Do you think that that cloud might have been a fake cloud?" Donna Lee Nardo: "So Garry P. Nolan, he came out with us for our field study one night. He told us, Watch for the cloud formations.' And John, Gerry, and I saw one really nasty-looking...it looked like 10 motherships situated...oriented north to south, one night when we were doing the field study. And I believe this was early on in 2022. And it also was a clear night, but it just looked out of place. It was dark, yet there were lighted portions. But it was just so humongous. And we always remember that Garry had said, look at the cloud formations." Gerry: "Yeah, we definitely had some oddities out there." Coulthart: "I've had people, multiple people have sent me imagery. There's quite famous ones on YouTube where you see what looks like a cloud, and it's shaped just ever so slightly like a disc or a craft. And it's got the fluffy edges of a cloud, and then it suddenly maneuvers and just moves away. And I sometimes wonder whether something or someone is using clouds as a form of stealth or signature management." Gerry: "That's a possibility. We look at that, we look to see if it is a cloud. We use shortwave infrared, which does pick up moisture. And it'll actually differentiate the precipitation in a cloud, or moisture in a cloud, so we know it is a real cloud." Coulhart: "Did you do that with this cloud that night?" John: "Exactly, exactly. And this is something that we could determine that there wasn't moisture content." Coulthart: "So you were able to show it wasn't a classic cumulonimbus cloud, even though it looked like one." John: "No, no. Yeah, and the object was well hidden for a short period of time. Actually, relatively long period of time before it emerged from the cloud body." Coulthart: "So Donna is probably right: This is probably some kind of intelligent stealth management by something." Gerry: "It's a possibility." Donna: "Possibly." John: "It could very well be." (I like how all three will only go as far as, Possible and Could be.) Coulthart: "This is where it gets really interesting. Talk me through what happens next. " Gerry: "Okay, so we watched an object emerge from the cloud on radar. John and I quickly went to get our binoculars, we have what's called Vortex binoculars. These are high-end binoculars, great optical glass. John had began looking at the cloud with those, and he told me, we both went outside. I was trying to find one of the other cameras, scrambling, trying to get one of the other cameras going. "And John said, 'There's a black object moving between the cloud.' And then it was emerging from the cloud. So I grabbed my cell phone and videotaped it. While John was looking at them, we switched. And what we saw was something...originally it resembled a very black, triangular or delta shape to it, or bell shape to it. It had that Delta shape, or triangular shape." Coulthart: "And was this showing up on radar at this stage, that delta shape?" Gerry: "Yes." John: "Yes." Coulthart: "Wow!" John: "Yes, we did have a radar target." Gerry: "We tracked it on radar. On radar, it appears to separate into two more objects, which is quite interesting." Coulthart: "You found something interesting in the frequency, and you can't talk about it, can you? Has the FBI asked you, not to talk about it?" Gerry: "Yes, that's the sensitive part. There was quite a bit of interesting signals, but that goes into signals intelligence, which we can't talk about." Coulthart: "Just let me guess. 1.6 by any chance?" (They all laugh) Donna: "You've been talking to people." Gerry: "No comment." Coulthart: "No, it just fascinates me. Is it 1.6 gigahertz, or megahertz? I'm trying to remember." John: "It's gigahertz. Yeah, I know with Skinwalker Ranch, I know the one, 1.6 seems to come up quite a bit. There's also a three-gigahertz signal, supposedly." Gerry: "There's a few others, too. We'll leave it at that." Coulthart: "No, but it's interesting. It's such a consistent thing, and I'm really interested because all around the world, people are contacting me, talking about 1.6, in particular, but also about three gigahertz. And nobody's explaining it. But often it's an indicator." ~~~From My Bob Fish Blog~~~ Bob Fish: "In that same TS/SCI building cafeteria in El Segundo, I had lunch with a senior USAF NCO who had worked for Project Blue Book in the 1970s (after it had been 'officially disbanded'). He was an ELINT technician (electronic intelligence) who flew in RC-135s from MacDill AFB in Florida. The 'normal' target was Cuba where they did lots of snooping and sometimes challenging the Cubans to turn on radar and other systems. "He said there were times when they were diverted from these missions to track UFOs off the east coast of Florida. His claim was that UFOs had a landing and takeoff spot in the ocean east of Miami, north of Bermuda. He also claimed there was a specific electronic signature (frequency) emanating from them when they were going into or coming out of the water, so they were easy to track. On several occasions they filmed the UFO as it transitioned from water to air or vice versa. High quality film of UFOs is 'out there' somewhere!" (What was the signature? 1.6 gigahertz? 3.0?) ~~~End Bob Fish Excerpt~~~ Coulthart: "And as you say - without giving away the frequency that you detected - you detected a frequency anomaly on your spectrum analyzer. You saw it there. Then you got it on your radar. And then when you visually observed it with the binoculars, the vortex binoculars, you then corroborated that object on the radar as well. So you've got four separate data points to corroborate something anomalous." John: "And a very, very clear visual representation of what was on the radar. The interesting thing I will say that we had observed flights of commercial aircraft at the same time through these lenses, these very clear lenses that we use. The commercial aircraft was extremely detailed, in focus. You can even make out the writing on the on the aircraft. The object itself? No." Gerry: "It was always slightly out of focus for some reason." John: "It was poorly presented." Coulthart: "And you gents would understand, and I'm sure Donna as well, that the Alcubierre-drive principles. That, essentially, if something is coming, if it's warping space time, there's allegedly some kind of plasma or some kind of distortion field around the object. Do you think that might explain what you were seeing? Gerry: That's a possibility." John: "That's a very strong possibility." Gerry: "It's something we're looking into. There was also, there was a shimmer around it. Definitely a possibility of some kind of field effect around it." ~~~ Time Stamps Extremely bright, luminous sphere over the ocean. Not visible to the naked eye. - 13:33 The Black Triangle - 33:31 Orb-Like Object Over Land in Farmingville, N.Y. (Where my sister lives) ~ 58:18 Similar to what @MeaganOurada saw - 1:14:05

Joe Murgia

14,232 просмотров • 9 месяцев назад

🚨Prof. John Mearsheimer on the risk of a future FALSE FLAG attack and SERIOUS escalation in the Ukraine🇺🇦 proxy war: ‘The very interesting question is what does the end game look like here? I mean, I think you’re eventually going to get a frozen conflict. You’re not going to get a meaningful peace agreement because the demands on the two sides are so far apart. So at some point, I think you’ll get an armistice, something along the lines of what you got after the Korean War ended in 1953. But getting to that frozen conflict could be very tricky. You want to remember that if the Ukrainians lose, that will put the Europeans in a desperate situation. They’ll be desperate and they’ll be looking for some way to rescue the situation…they have convinced themselves that losing to the Russians would be catastrophic. You want to remember that this is not just a war between Ukraine and Russia🇷🇺, that NATO is almost fully committed to this war. Of course, we’ve not had NATO soldiers on the ground doing the fighting, or NATO pilots in the air, but NATO otherwise has been completely committed to helping Ukraine win this war. And we have fought this war for almost four years. And for NATO to lose to Russia will be a humiliating defeat. And the Europeans will be desperate to see if they can find a way to avoid that. And that’s why your point about false flag operation, all for the purposes of dragging the United States back into the fight in a more full-fledged way so that the United States can help pull the Europeans’ chestnuts out of the fire. The temptation to do that will be very great. And I think that we have to worry about the serious possibility of escalation once we head towards the endgame here.’ -Prof. John Mearsheimer on the season finale episode of Going Underground FULL INTERVIEW BELOW IN THE REPLIES👇
2:42

🚨Prof. John Mearsheimer on the risk of a future FALSE FLAG attack and SERIOUS escalation in the Ukraine🇺🇦 proxy war: ‘The very interesting question is what does the end game look like here? I mean, I think you’re eventually going to get a frozen conflict. You’re not going to get a meaningful peace agreement because the demands on the two sides are so far apart. So at some point, I think you’ll get an armistice, something along the lines of what you got after the Korean War ended in 1953. But getting to that frozen conflict could be very tricky. You want to remember that if the Ukrainians lose, that will put the Europeans in a desperate situation. They’ll be desperate and they’ll be looking for some way to rescue the situation…they have convinced themselves that losing to the Russians would be catastrophic. You want to remember that this is not just a war between Ukraine and Russia🇷🇺, that NATO is almost fully committed to this war. Of course, we’ve not had NATO soldiers on the ground doing the fighting, or NATO pilots in the air, but NATO otherwise has been completely committed to helping Ukraine win this war. And we have fought this war for almost four years. And for NATO to lose to Russia will be a humiliating defeat. And the Europeans will be desperate to see if they can find a way to avoid that. And that’s why your point about false flag operation, all for the purposes of dragging the United States back into the fight in a more full-fledged way so that the United States can help pull the Europeans’ chestnuts out of the fire. The temptation to do that will be very great. And I think that we have to worry about the serious possibility of escalation once we head towards the endgame here.’ -Prof. John Mearsheimer on the season finale episode of Going Underground FULL INTERVIEW BELOW IN THE REPLIES👇

Going Underground

101,388 просмотров • 7 месяцев назад

So, this is one very great video for entrepreneurs, business builders, investors… and I think about it often. In 2012, Deadmau5 (the world famous DJ) listened to a random vocal that someone did on his track. He decided to give it a listen. 10 seconds in, the moment that changed the folk's life. Deadmau5 couldn’t keep his excitement in… “Motherf%cker…It is so good…I am impressed right here.” “It's got the theme and everything...he f%cking nailed it.” He has a big smile on his face and almost starts to cry. He listens another 2-3 times… “Let’s do it. I'm about to begin this man's whole career" “I’ll give you writing. I give you everything. Give your number. Dude let’s do it. That just made the track. That is amazing. It is really good.” He listens once again. “Done, let’s make it a track. My management listens to this — they're gonna sh%t themselves.” They then released the track and it blew up. Many say it’s Deadmau5’s best song. The beautiful moment in music history. This story I find so cool because it inspires other entrepreneurs to share what they build. We all can all connect with the fear of showing our work. It ain't easy. And to have unique skills like the artist on the video. Easy to copy, harder to have something unique. Don't waste hours on packaging. Spend time living an interesting life, so that you have something interesting to say. My point of sharing this video: Be proudly yourself and share your journey publicly. A LOT of people are interested in what you do. So you can become famous within your bubble. And a closed mouth doesn't get fed anyway. Once you share all your - wins / losses / learnings / lessons - you'll magically notice that the more content you create, the luckier you get. Your fans will know what articles to send you. What deals to invite you into. What event tickets to give you. What investor introductions to make. Only good things happen. So go for it.
6:56

So, this is one very great video for entrepreneurs, business builders, investors… and I think about it often. In 2012, Deadmau5 (the world famous DJ) listened to a random vocal that someone did on his track. He decided to give it a listen. 10 seconds in, the moment that changed the folk's life. Deadmau5 couldn’t keep his excitement in… “Motherf%cker…It is so good…I am impressed right here.” “It's got the theme and everything...he f%cking nailed it.” He has a big smile on his face and almost starts to cry. He listens another 2-3 times… “Let’s do it. I'm about to begin this man's whole career" “I’ll give you writing. I give you everything. Give your number. Dude let’s do it. That just made the track. That is amazing. It is really good.” He listens once again. “Done, let’s make it a track. My management listens to this — they're gonna sh%t themselves.” They then released the track and it blew up. Many say it’s Deadmau5’s best song. The beautiful moment in music history. This story I find so cool because it inspires other entrepreneurs to share what they build. We all can all connect with the fear of showing our work. It ain't easy. And to have unique skills like the artist on the video. Easy to copy, harder to have something unique. Don't waste hours on packaging. Spend time living an interesting life, so that you have something interesting to say. My point of sharing this video: Be proudly yourself and share your journey publicly. A LOT of people are interested in what you do. So you can become famous within your bubble. And a closed mouth doesn't get fed anyway. Once you share all your - wins / losses / learnings / lessons - you'll magically notice that the more content you create, the luckier you get. Your fans will know what articles to send you. What deals to invite you into. What event tickets to give you. What investor introductions to make. Only good things happen. So go for it.

PrivateEquityGuy (Mikk Markus)

204,555 просмотров • 8 месяцев назад

Tom Holland got emotional describing what he’s learned from Jon Bernthal since he was a kid and Bernthal broke down mid-interview. Sean Evans: What’s one thing about the other guy that you appreciate more than you did back then, with the last decade of experience? Jon Bernthal: That’s easy for me. Tom Holland: I want to — I’ll take this one cuz you always say such nice things about me, man. Jon Bernthal: Oh. Tom Holland: As a young man in this business, coming up, it’s so important to find people that you can look up to and people you aspire to be like. And the way John is with his family and his kids, and the way he approaches his work, the way he is with people on set, the way he’s been with me since I was a kid to now being 30 years old, is something I’m super grateful for. And I’ve learned a lot from him as a professional. Even today, listening to you talk about all that Russian bullsh*t was really interesting. Jon Bernthal: Tom, this is so bad, bro. This is so bad. Tom Holland: And the tears are my love for him. Jon Bernthal: I love you too, man. I really love you too, man. Tom Holland: The fact that we auditioned for these movies together and we took that leap of faith together and we got to share this moment together now is pretty awesome. And I’m just very grateful, very grateful that we got to do this. Even our first day on the Odyssey was together. Jon Bernthal: Yeah. Tom Holland: And we got to sit down after work and we were like, dude, how f*cking crazy was that? I’m going to drink your milk, bro.
1:38

Tom Holland got emotional describing what he’s learned from Jon Bernthal since he was a kid and Bernthal broke down mid-interview. Sean Evans: What’s one thing about the other guy that you appreciate more than you did back then, with the last decade of experience? Jon Bernthal: That’s easy for me. Tom Holland: I want to — I’ll take this one cuz you always say such nice things about me, man. Jon Bernthal: Oh. Tom Holland: As a young man in this business, coming up, it’s so important to find people that you can look up to and people you aspire to be like. And the way John is with his family and his kids, and the way he approaches his work, the way he is with people on set, the way he’s been with me since I was a kid to now being 30 years old, is something I’m super grateful for. And I’ve learned a lot from him as a professional. Even today, listening to you talk about all that Russian bullsh*t was really interesting. Jon Bernthal: Tom, this is so bad, bro. This is so bad. Tom Holland: And the tears are my love for him. Jon Bernthal: I love you too, man. I really love you too, man. Tom Holland: The fact that we auditioned for these movies together and we took that leap of faith together and we got to share this moment together now is pretty awesome. And I’m just very grateful, very grateful that we got to do this. Even our first day on the Odyssey was together. Jon Bernthal: Yeah. Tom Holland: And we got to sit down after work and we were like, dude, how f*cking crazy was that? I’m going to drink your milk, bro.

BIG JOE 🧃

334,250 просмотров • 17 дней назад

Rick Rubin: "I've met very few billionaires who are happy" "I don't look at the outside very much. I look inward. I try to focus on what do I feel, what am I seeing, in the hopes that by sharing what's going on in me, it resonates with someone else. I can't predict what someone else would like. And I don't think anybody can. So if I'm authentically true to myself, that's the best chance of someone else liking something." Rubin explains the paradox of acceptance: "People want to be accepted. And I'm suggesting that the best way to be accepted is to be yourself. It's not to change yourself to what someone else thinks. First of all, you don't really know what someone else thinks. And if you're not genuine to yourself, nothing is there. It's just a projection or a mask. It's not true." On what makes something interesting: "In a sea of information, the more yours is personal, the more it's not like hers or his or theirs, the more it's yours. If we're all thinking the same thing, it's boring. Why would we make anything if everyone thinks the same thing? What makes us interesting are the differences. Even the imperfections. The imperfections are what make us human." Rubin shares what captures his attention: "There's so much middle of the road, and it doesn't interest me. I want it because it's louder, quieter, softer, harder. It's pushing some boundary. That's why I take notice. It's not more of the same. It's the one that makes you stop and think: did I really hear that? Did I really see that? What's going on here?" On what success actually means: "If I like it, that doesn't mean anything. That's what people think. Just because I like it doesn't give it any value. But as an artist, if you like it, that's all of the value. That's the success. It comes when you say, 'I like this enough for other people to see it.' Not 'other people like it, so it's successful.' That doesn't mean anything. Because other people liking it is out of your control. All that's in your control is making the thing to the best of your ability." Rubin reframes what greatness means: "I came to realize recently, it's all an offering to God. And if you're making an offering to God, you're not thinking about the budget, or hoping this segment of the audience is going to like it. We don't think like that. It's a higher vibration. We're making the best we can make, to the best of our ability, out of love and devotion. That's what it is. There is no higher form." On criticism and reviews: "Most of the artists I work with don't read any criticism or reviews, good or bad. The ones who are the strongest in who they are can even read a terrible review and laugh at it. Because when someone gives you criticism, it's telling you as much about who they are as what you've made." Rubin explains the only real competition: "The idea of the Oscars or the Grammys, where we're saying which album is better than another, it doesn't make any sense to me. Because it's always apples and oranges. The only people we can honestly compete with is ourselves. Is this the best I can make today? Have I gone further than I've gone before? That's all we can do. That's the only competition that makes sense." On the obsession required for mastery: "Many of the artists that are great at what they do are great for one reason: they fall in love with this thing, and they just want to know everything they could possibly learn about it. I'm working on a documentary project with comedians now. One of the things they talk about is their commitment; when other people are going out on the weekend, they're going to perform every night they possibly can. For a period of 10 years. Having bad performances. Having people not like what they do. Banging their head against the wall. But that obsession with breaking through, and when I say breaking through, I don't mean to the audience. I mean with themselves." Rubin shares a hard truth about dreams and jobs: "Maybe your purpose in life isn't related to your job. Maybe your job is your job, and the job is the thing that supports you. And then the rest of your waking hours are devoted to your purpose. Don't let following your dreams undermine your ability to support yourself. If you decide 'I want to be a comedian and I'm putting all my eggs in the comedian basket', the pressure of having to support yourself will change you as a comedian. Not for the better. You want the stability of being able to take care of yourself in the world to be free to do whatever your passion is." He challenges the mythology of genius: "There's a mythology that the people who make things that we love are special people, the people on Mount Olympus, magic people who are geniuses. And then there's the rest of us. That's not the case. We're all just people. We're all doing our best. We're all good at some things, not good at other things. We're humans. And sometimes we find a way to make something beautiful." Rubin shares his most vulnerable moment: "The call came: 'How do you feel? You have the number one album in the country.' And I remember saying, 'I've never been more unhappy in my life.' We mistakenly think some kind of outward success is going to change something in us. And it does not. It may make life more comfortable. But it doesn't change who we are. Any hole in ourselves that we're hoping to fill does not get filled." He explains why successful people are often unhappy: "If you spend 20 years of your life working towards a goal that's going to solve everything, and then you finally achieve what you've been trying to do for 20 years, and nothing changes, that's when you get hopeless. It's not uncommon to see very successful artists who are very unhappy. I'm sure you've met many very successful business people. Billionaires. Very few of them are happy. Very few. They've accomplished their dreams and are unhappy. Because we don't know what we want. We're trying to fill something that maybe can't be filled through material or public success. It's something else. Some internal thing." Rubin closes with this: "Don't do things just because you think you're going to get something for it. That's not why we do things. Do what's interesting to you. Follow what's interesting. Don't worry about the outcome. We can never predict the outcome. Follow your own inner guide. It might not make sense to anyone else. It might not even make sense to us. And that's okay. The wisest thing we can do is know enough to know we don't know. Anytime you think 'I know how it is' your world just got a lot smaller."
12:19

Rick Rubin: "I've met very few billionaires who are happy" "I don't look at the outside very much. I look inward. I try to focus on what do I feel, what am I seeing, in the hopes that by sharing what's going on in me, it resonates with someone else. I can't predict what someone else would like. And I don't think anybody can. So if I'm authentically true to myself, that's the best chance of someone else liking something." Rubin explains the paradox of acceptance: "People want to be accepted. And I'm suggesting that the best way to be accepted is to be yourself. It's not to change yourself to what someone else thinks. First of all, you don't really know what someone else thinks. And if you're not genuine to yourself, nothing is there. It's just a projection or a mask. It's not true." On what makes something interesting: "In a sea of information, the more yours is personal, the more it's not like hers or his or theirs, the more it's yours. If we're all thinking the same thing, it's boring. Why would we make anything if everyone thinks the same thing? What makes us interesting are the differences. Even the imperfections. The imperfections are what make us human." Rubin shares what captures his attention: "There's so much middle of the road, and it doesn't interest me. I want it because it's louder, quieter, softer, harder. It's pushing some boundary. That's why I take notice. It's not more of the same. It's the one that makes you stop and think: did I really hear that? Did I really see that? What's going on here?" On what success actually means: "If I like it, that doesn't mean anything. That's what people think. Just because I like it doesn't give it any value. But as an artist, if you like it, that's all of the value. That's the success. It comes when you say, 'I like this enough for other people to see it.' Not 'other people like it, so it's successful.' That doesn't mean anything. Because other people liking it is out of your control. All that's in your control is making the thing to the best of your ability." Rubin reframes what greatness means: "I came to realize recently, it's all an offering to God. And if you're making an offering to God, you're not thinking about the budget, or hoping this segment of the audience is going to like it. We don't think like that. It's a higher vibration. We're making the best we can make, to the best of our ability, out of love and devotion. That's what it is. There is no higher form." On criticism and reviews: "Most of the artists I work with don't read any criticism or reviews, good or bad. The ones who are the strongest in who they are can even read a terrible review and laugh at it. Because when someone gives you criticism, it's telling you as much about who they are as what you've made." Rubin explains the only real competition: "The idea of the Oscars or the Grammys, where we're saying which album is better than another, it doesn't make any sense to me. Because it's always apples and oranges. The only people we can honestly compete with is ourselves. Is this the best I can make today? Have I gone further than I've gone before? That's all we can do. That's the only competition that makes sense." On the obsession required for mastery: "Many of the artists that are great at what they do are great for one reason: they fall in love with this thing, and they just want to know everything they could possibly learn about it. I'm working on a documentary project with comedians now. One of the things they talk about is their commitment; when other people are going out on the weekend, they're going to perform every night they possibly can. For a period of 10 years. Having bad performances. Having people not like what they do. Banging their head against the wall. But that obsession with breaking through, and when I say breaking through, I don't mean to the audience. I mean with themselves." Rubin shares a hard truth about dreams and jobs: "Maybe your purpose in life isn't related to your job. Maybe your job is your job, and the job is the thing that supports you. And then the rest of your waking hours are devoted to your purpose. Don't let following your dreams undermine your ability to support yourself. If you decide 'I want to be a comedian and I'm putting all my eggs in the comedian basket', the pressure of having to support yourself will change you as a comedian. Not for the better. You want the stability of being able to take care of yourself in the world to be free to do whatever your passion is." He challenges the mythology of genius: "There's a mythology that the people who make things that we love are special people, the people on Mount Olympus, magic people who are geniuses. And then there's the rest of us. That's not the case. We're all just people. We're all doing our best. We're all good at some things, not good at other things. We're humans. And sometimes we find a way to make something beautiful." Rubin shares his most vulnerable moment: "The call came: 'How do you feel? You have the number one album in the country.' And I remember saying, 'I've never been more unhappy in my life.' We mistakenly think some kind of outward success is going to change something in us. And it does not. It may make life more comfortable. But it doesn't change who we are. Any hole in ourselves that we're hoping to fill does not get filled." He explains why successful people are often unhappy: "If you spend 20 years of your life working towards a goal that's going to solve everything, and then you finally achieve what you've been trying to do for 20 years, and nothing changes, that's when you get hopeless. It's not uncommon to see very successful artists who are very unhappy. I'm sure you've met many very successful business people. Billionaires. Very few of them are happy. Very few. They've accomplished their dreams and are unhappy. Because we don't know what we want. We're trying to fill something that maybe can't be filled through material or public success. It's something else. Some internal thing." Rubin closes with this: "Don't do things just because you think you're going to get something for it. That's not why we do things. Do what's interesting to you. Follow what's interesting. Don't worry about the outcome. We can never predict the outcome. Follow your own inner guide. It might not make sense to anyone else. It might not even make sense to us. And that's okay. The wisest thing we can do is know enough to know we don't know. Anytime you think 'I know how it is' your world just got a lot smaller."

Jaynit

152,981 просмотров • 4 месяцев назад

MK: i seriously find it a bummer that it’s over JN: ‘wind up’? MK: yeah. it’s been so long since i’ve watched a drama, and that feeling of it coming to an end is something i haven’t felt in a while. HC: the two of them must have been really busy back then MK: but seriously, watching it... didn’t you guys film all of that only in the dawn? JM: yes JS: it was very cold MK: anyway, i really want everyone to know that lee woojin and kwon taehee are actually lee jeno and na jaemin who worked incredibly hard to film this drama. and you guys did so well. i really enjoyed watching it. 👏🏻 please look forward to the wind up brothers a lot JS: ‘wind up brothers’ ㅋㅋㅋ JM: why is he... this hyung is way too into ‘wind up’ right now MK: no, it’s just, it was such a great... JN: are you perhaps the PR ambassador? MK: because i was looking forward to it JM: which part made your heart flutter the most? like, one that makes you go oh~ the most RJ: the kiss scene all: .....😀 RJ: the kiss scene MK: no, but seriously, i’m usually not like this. i watched it without any expectations, but anyway- JN: without expectations? MK: i mean, i watched it without thinking! like, “let’s just see how the kids did!” JM: ay~ ㅋㅋㅋ MK: i didn’t mean it in a bad way! i meant like, “let’s see how they did,” but the story ended up being way more interesting than i thought JN: “let’s see how they did” MK: anyway, when a drama ends and you’re immersed in it, you stop seeing the actors and start seeing the characters, right? but the fact that i’m seeing my own members with that kind of feeling... JN: did you cry? MK: i heard kwon taehee and lee woojin are going to release an album... JM: so do you feel like i’m about to disappear or something? JS: okay everyone, we seriously have to go now
1:51

MK: i seriously find it a bummer that it’s over JN: ‘wind up’? MK: yeah. it’s been so long since i’ve watched a drama, and that feeling of it coming to an end is something i haven’t felt in a while. HC: the two of them must have been really busy back then MK: but seriously, watching it... didn’t you guys film all of that only in the dawn? JM: yes JS: it was very cold MK: anyway, i really want everyone to know that lee woojin and kwon taehee are actually lee jeno and na jaemin who worked incredibly hard to film this drama. and you guys did so well. i really enjoyed watching it. 👏🏻 please look forward to the wind up brothers a lot JS: ‘wind up brothers’ ㅋㅋㅋ JM: why is he... this hyung is way too into ‘wind up’ right now MK: no, it’s just, it was such a great... JN: are you perhaps the PR ambassador? MK: because i was looking forward to it JM: which part made your heart flutter the most? like, one that makes you go oh~ the most RJ: the kiss scene all: .....😀 RJ: the kiss scene MK: no, but seriously, i’m usually not like this. i watched it without any expectations, but anyway- JN: without expectations? MK: i mean, i watched it without thinking! like, “let’s just see how the kids did!” JM: ay~ ㅋㅋㅋ MK: i didn’t mean it in a bad way! i meant like, “let’s see how they did,” but the story ended up being way more interesting than i thought JN: “let’s see how they did” MK: anyway, when a drama ends and you’re immersed in it, you stop seeing the actors and start seeing the characters, right? but the fact that i’m seeing my own members with that kind of feeling... JN: did you cry? MK: i heard kwon taehee and lee woojin are going to release an album... JM: so do you feel like i’m about to disappear or something? JS: okay everyone, we seriously have to go now

Ⓙ archive

497,925 просмотров • 6 месяцев назад