Sensitive content

This media may contain sensitive content.

Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Zur Startseite

her first time taking dick she cant handle it๐Ÿ˜ฉ๐Ÿ’• #pytt #thot #bop #backshots #ebonypyt #candid #creepshot #hs #viral #nsfw #ebony #doggystyle #bbc #schoolthot

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfรผgbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

ร„hnliche Videos

Motara is trending because again, twitter is dragging the influencer over the disturbing 2020 beggar video. It landed her a BBC interview. Actually, that video went viral in 2020 when she, Motara casually posted how her mom used to hawk while raise her, and now life is better. As she posted this on twitter, people who had her contact on WhatsApp, used the video to attack her. Apparently, Motara first posted the video on her WhatsApp for cruise, but her friends advised her to delete it because it was offensive. Unfortunately, some people already saved it. So when she came on twitter do the thanks giving of her mom, they quoted her with the video. Then it went viral. In the video Motara Lawrence was taunting a street beggar with a chilled energy drink through her car windows, as she moved in traffic, the kid followed her car and she continued the tease. Seeing how heavily social media criticized it, she instantly apologized again on Twitter, after the apology she made on WhatsApp. The dragging was intense it literally affected her mental health, and cost her some opportunities. It even landed her an interview with BBC. In her apology she explained that she was just playing with the girl and she wasnโ€™t laughing at her. Instead, a lady in the background. That, she didnโ€™t expect the girl to follow her after the traffic moved, but after the video ended, she gave the girl money. Seeing that her apology wasnโ€™t enough, because people insisted she did it for the clout. And this was because, this was the period fearless energy drink was doing promotions. Soโ€ฆ she actually went back to look for the girl to beg her, but alas the girl was no where to be found. Fast forward to 2025, Motara casually made another post asking tweeps to share the experience of classism. As expected, the unfortunate video resurfaced. Again, she apologized. This time, more people are on her side, unlike the first three to five times twitter have dragged her for the November 2020 incident. Many argue that, her apology wasnโ€™t genuine, and even if it were, they do not accept it. Even during her wedding with Lawrence, the video was brought up. Motara has now relocated to UK., yet the nightmares of 2020 persists, without visa. Itโ€™s a classic case of โ€œWe forgive, but we will never forget.โ€ โ€ข Get a fast USD card with PayPal integration only on Axra App (formerly GoPremium) !! With realistic USD rates and zero monthly maintenance fees!

Trending Explained

33,531 Aufrufe โ€ข vor 1 Jahr

Right from the journal that Rosemary she penned a few days to her intentional death, it is clear Rosemary Chemutai Koech Kimwatu was battling not just work related stress but something bigger than that. Something beyond her control was wrecking havoc on her soul and her heart was barely holding ๐Ÿ’”. Yes, her sister painfully read Rosemary's personal journal, a document she left behind for her generation including her children to read and get to know how intriguing it was for her in her tumultuous marriage. The words and the phrasing depicts a woman who had been pushed to the wall and for the first time she is confirming that despite her hardwork including taking loans to build her bungalow, her husband Mr Kevin Migwe Kimwatu chased her out of her house. The pain was unbearable, the regrets, the lack of support from her husband in her life was indispensable. It is now clear her husband took possession of a house she built through her sweat ๐Ÿ˜“. She lost her dignity, hs saw darkness, stress became unbearable, she quickly descended onto depression and not even mental rehabilitation could save our girl. The agony of having to rent a house in Ngong with your children when you have spent millions and borrowed loans to build your house but now cannot live in it is incomprehensible. You cannot convince me otherwise, at this point I deliver my verdict; Mr Kevin Migwe Kimwatu failed in his role as a husband, a father and head of the family. I am sad. Rosemary should have not died like that and the family was right to deny Mr Kevin a chance to bury her. He does not deserve any iota of right to appear there. This is the most painful journal I have read in ages๐Ÿ˜ญ๐Ÿ˜ญ

JaHomaBay

60,898 Aufrufe โ€ข vor 1 Monat

๐ŸŽค Interviewer: Since this is your first GL series too, and you had quite a few intense love scenes, could you tell us what it was like filming them? Bint: Can I talk about it? Yeah, yeah, definitely. Sheโ€™s even spicier than me. Sheโ€™s really something when it comes to love scenes. PuiNoon: I was actually the one who said I wanted to talk about the love scenes. I really wanted to talk about them. Bint: Yeah, she was the one who said โ€œCan we do it again?โ€ Sheโ€™s literally the queen of ideas. I was like, โ€œOh wow, sheโ€™s something else.โ€ ๐Ÿ˜‚ ๐ŸŽค Interviewer: Were you not shy at all? PuiNoon: At first, I really wasnโ€™t shy because weโ€™re both women, you know? ๐Ÿฅน And weโ€™ve spent so much time together already, so it felt really natural. But there were actually quite a few moments when I genuinely got shy. Like, for example... I was pretty confident about what I was supposed to do next. But then when I looked at her, instead of the way weโ€™d normally look at each other with those romantic eyes... I looked at Pโ€™Bint and her nose was all flared up, probably because she was getting shy๐Ÿ˜‚ And I just couldnโ€™t handle her eyes because she kept looking at the exact same spot... which was literally my tummy. ๐Ÿ˜ญ๐Ÿ˜‚ So that just made me even more shy. Bint: I had to focus, okay? PuiNoon: I was literally about to burst out laughing, so I had to look away. And honestly, I just couldnโ€™t handle Pโ€™Bintโ€™s eyes. She kept looking at me like that and I was like... girl, please๐Ÿ’• KHOM KHLANG MEDIA VISIT #เธ›เธธเธขเธ™เธธเนˆเธ™เธšเธดเน‰เธ™เธ—เนŒเธžเธšเธžเธฃเธฐเธกเธฒเธžเธšเธชเธทเนˆเธญ #bintsireethorn #PuinoonBint #Puinoonwrsr
1:28

Sensitive content

๐ŸŽค Interviewer: Since this is your first GL series too, and you had quite a few intense love scenes, could you tell us what it was like filming them? Bint: Can I talk about it? Yeah, yeah, definitely. Sheโ€™s even spicier than me. Sheโ€™s really something when it comes to love scenes. PuiNoon: I was actually the one who said I wanted to talk about the love scenes. I really wanted to talk about them. Bint: Yeah, she was the one who said โ€œCan we do it again?โ€ Sheโ€™s literally the queen of ideas. I was like, โ€œOh wow, sheโ€™s something else.โ€ ๐Ÿ˜‚ ๐ŸŽค Interviewer: Were you not shy at all? PuiNoon: At first, I really wasnโ€™t shy because weโ€™re both women, you know? ๐Ÿฅน And weโ€™ve spent so much time together already, so it felt really natural. But there were actually quite a few moments when I genuinely got shy. Like, for example... I was pretty confident about what I was supposed to do next. But then when I looked at her, instead of the way weโ€™d normally look at each other with those romantic eyes... I looked at Pโ€™Bint and her nose was all flared up, probably because she was getting shy๐Ÿ˜‚ And I just couldnโ€™t handle her eyes because she kept looking at the exact same spot... which was literally my tummy. ๐Ÿ˜ญ๐Ÿ˜‚ So that just made me even more shy. Bint: I had to focus, okay? PuiNoon: I was literally about to burst out laughing, so I had to look away. And honestly, I just couldnโ€™t handle Pโ€™Bintโ€™s eyes. She kept looking at me like that and I was like... girl, please๐Ÿ’• KHOM KHLANG MEDIA VISIT #เธ›เธธเธขเธ™เธธเนˆเธ™เธšเธดเน‰เธ™เธ—เนŒเธžเธšเธžเธฃเธฐเธกเธฒเธžเธšเธชเธทเนˆเธญ #bintsireethorn #PuinoonBint #Puinoonwrsr

๐“•๐“ธ๐“ทโ˜‚๏ธŽโ‚‰โ‚โ‚†

42,502 Aufrufe โ€ข vor 7 Tagen

The People Of The World Have No Idea How Bad Things Really Are #Cloning Remember the Spanish Supermodel who was never seen again after the viral video saying she saw elites eating people & they wanted to make a copy of her? Theyโ€™re cloning people. This video is over 15 years old, just imagine whatโ€™s really found on in society. They Play God. โ€œWeโ€™re very very pleased to announce that the first baby clone is born. She was born yesterday at 11 55 a.m. in the country where she was born so this will not give you more details about the location. She she's fine we call her Eve between us. โ€Œ You knew that of course, some suggested it and I thought it was a good idea actually. You won't have the right name. And you know for a long time I thought that the... โ€Œ This press conference will be with the baby, the parents, the scientists, everybody surrounding me, and having pleasure announcing it. I'm alone. And there is a reason to that, is that it hasn't been easy to face the world with this announcement. And we've been discussing with the parents the last three months how we would handle today and they decided not to show up yet. They will. I hope they will. And I wish them well. We started really to work with human eggs in January of this year. So it took us three months to finalize, and this is very short, and that's why I said, is it luck or is it hard work? โ€Œ I do believe it's hard work. But we had our really, we had really good success very quickly and refined the technique for human eggs until spring where we started to have implantation. We had ten implantations and five of them during the first three weeks were terminated spontaneously. Five others were successful and are still successful. The first one so was born yesterday. The next one is due in Europe.โ€

Wall Street Apes

406,648 Aufrufe โ€ข vor 3 Jahren

EMIBONNIE UNDER THE FIRST MOON #MoonshadowSeriesEP1 ๐ŸŽค: So how would you say your relationship has developed from your first series to now? It's developed to the point that you can say you two are faen (gf), right? ๐ŸฆŠ: โ€ผ๏ธ ๐Ÿ—ฃ๏ธ: Heyyyyy~ ๐ŸŽค: Oops, sorry! I phrased my question incorrectly! Your relationship, from your first series till now, would you say that you know and are used to each other when it comes to acting? ๐ŸฆŠ: Actually, I have to say, right now I want to focus on work first. ๐Ÿฐ: ๐Ÿ˜ถ ๐ŸŽค: So personal things are on the wayside for now? ๐Ÿ—ฃ๏ธ: Heyyyyy~ ๐ŸŽค: There's someone who's upset. ๐ŸฆŠ: Honestly, our relationship has developed a lot since the last series. During the last series, I was still a bit stiff and didn't know how to act with Bonnie. I didn't dare play with her as much, but for this seriesโ€“ ๐Ÿฐ: On my side, I put my all into it~ ๐ŸŽค: Oh dear! ๐ŸฆŠ: As soon as they say, "Action!", our engine starts and we can get into it right away. ๐Ÿฐ: It's like vroom, vroom~ ๐ŸฆŠ: It's like vroom, vroom. I feel like in many ways, for this series, it's like a race against time too. ๐ŸฆŠ: How abt you, Bonnie? ๐Ÿฐ: I'm also focusing on my work first. ๐ŸฆŠ: Okay. ๐Ÿ—ฃ๏ธ: ๐Ÿ˜† ๐ŸŽค: Let the relationship be something for the future. ๐Ÿฐ: Yeah, I feel like when working with P'Mi now, we're more in sync and can relax more. ๐ŸฆŠ: (helps move Bonnie's hair away from her face) Sorry, excuse me. ๐Ÿ—ฃ๏ธ: Heyyyyy~ ๐Ÿฐ: Didn't you say you're focusing on work right now? Come and hug me!* ๐Ÿ—ฃ๏ธ: ๐Ÿ˜‚๐Ÿ˜‚๐Ÿ˜‚ ๐ŸŽค: Why are you focusing on her hair? ๐Ÿฐ: Okay, fine, you're so persistent~** ๐ŸŽค: If it were me, I'd bring all my hair to the front to cover my face, so that she can come and handle my hair for me. ๐Ÿฐ: It's the same for me, I also feel more in sync with P'Mi. Actually, I already felt that we were in sync since 'Us', but in this series, we're even closer and more familiar with each other. Our bodies are also more familiar with each other. ๐ŸฆŠ: Even though I'm not familiar with my own body, I'm familiar with Bonnie's body. ๐Ÿ—ฃ๏ธ: Heyyyyyyyyyyy!!! ๐Ÿ’๐Ÿ’๐Ÿ’ ๐ŸŽค: Hey! How can someone not be familiar with their own body, but be familiar with someone else's? What's that~! ๐ŸฆŠ: Really! You'll have to see. I'm not familiar with my own body, but I'm familiar with Bonnie's body. ๐ŸŽค: Familiar how! Your bodies are familiar how? ๐ŸฆŠ: Familiar how... (looks at Bonnie for help) ๐ŸฆŠ: ๐Ÿ˜‚ ๐Ÿฐ: ๐Ÿ˜‚ ๐ŸŽค: Familiar how~? When you work together, you feel free, you feel comfortable working with each other, with your partner. You feel comfortable with them. For example, you can hold their hand comfortably. ๐ŸฆŠ: (places her hand on Bonnie's) ๐ŸฆŠ: Yes, really, I can just do it. Honestly, this series is pretty... uh... ๐ŸŽค: A blazing fire. ๐ŸฆŠ: In this series we have to be rather physically intimate, so, yeah, our bodies have to be familiar with each other. ๐ŸŽค: Is that true, Bonnie? ๐Ÿฐ: (prettily) Yes. * The "(Something), come and hug me!" is a viral meme/pattern, especially on TikTok. ** Also a viral saying.

K-bab

24,182 Aufrufe โ€ข vor 1 Monat

๐•๐ข๐ซ๐š๐ฅ ๐•๐ข๐๐ž๐จ: ๐‹๐š๐๐ฒ ๐‹๐š๐ฆ๐ž๐ง๐ญ๐ฌ ๐€๐ฌ ๐‹๐š๐ ๐จ๐ฌ ๐ˆ๐ฌ๐ฌ๐ฎ๐ž๐ฌ ๐ƒ๐ž๐ฆ๐จ๐ฅ๐ข๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง ๐๐จ๐ญ๐ข๐œ๐ž ๐“๐ฐ๐จ ๐Œ๐จ๐ง๐ญ๐ก๐ฌ ๐€๐Ÿ๐ญ๐ž๐ซ ๐๐ซ๐จ๐ฉ๐ž๐ซ๐ญ๐ฒ ๐๐ฎ๐ซ๐œ๐ก๐š๐ฌ๐ž A viral video circulating on social media shows a woman lamenting the demolition notice served on her property in Lagos State allegedly just two months after moving in. In the video that surfaced online on Monday, the yet-to-be-identified woman cried as she recounted the ordeal. A picture of a demolition notice dated May 7, 2024, was also attached to the video. She said, "We bought that property in February, and we've only been there for two months. All the hard work, all the sleepless nights, everything... If you're in Lagos, you'll know how much property in Eti Osa costs. "Each time my son sees me crying, he will always ask me why I am crying. How do I explain this to our son? What do I tell my children? I'm trying so hard to be strong, but this is very painful. "I don't wish for anybody to work so hard and face something like this. I don't." The video, which was shared on on Monday by Spotlight Abby, tweeting with the handle #Spotlight_Abby, has garnered reactions from netizens, with some sympathising with the couple and others criticising the decision to invest in Lagos real estate citing recent incidents of demolitions. It also raised concerns about the need for thorough due diligence before investing in real estate in the state. One Nneka Busy Body tweeting as #Nnekabusybody wrote, "While this is sad Iโ€™m a bit confused. With the uncertain investment landscape of Lagos and everything we see and read about, you still went and bought property in Lagos in 2024? How? Why?" Another user tweeting as #ideniyor wrote, "She and her husband deserve it. They bought a land without lawyers and due diligence. Cry me a river. The seller landed a fast one on them." This is not the first time property demolitions in Lagos have sparked controversy. PUNCH reported last week that residents of Mende Estate Villa in the Maryland area of Lagos State decried the demolition of their multimillion-naira houses in the area by the state government while seeking compensation for a new shelter. Speaking on the incident, the state commissioner for the Ministry of Environment and Water Resources, Tokunbo Wahab, disclosed that the government issued the residents of Mende Villa Estate two demolition notices in 2021 and 2023. On Wednesday, Wahab, in a post on also hinted that illegal builders whose houses are demolished may soon be asked to pay for the demolition. Credit: X|Spotlight_Abby

Punch Newspapers

136,642 Aufrufe โ€ข vor 2 Jahren

Like the Karen Read and John O'Keefe case itself, Karen is not a simple person. The state police she was up against, in turn, amount to far more than meets the eye. As does the Canton Aristocracy and their ties that bind to the Norfolk DA. Here's my 2025 view of Karen, and Grok's overview of same. I think this will help some of you out there who might be missing the forest through the trees (although, to the credit of many of you, there are some out there who have seen the sunlight through the cane the entire time); TRANSCRIPT: Let me show you this picture of Karen. It's a really fucking good picture. It's probably the best picture I ever took of her. I mean, it's one that, like, for my entire life I will remember. And someone asked in hindsight if it would change my perspective. I think it would have made me be a lot kinder to her in my questions. Like, that's the one thing I kind of regret. Like, I was a dick to her without realizing what she had went through. Like, I feel bad about that. I'm not saying that John's family didn't go through a lot. I think everyone agrees that they did as well. Okay. And the witnesses. But I never really sympathized with Karen because I was propagandized by Kate Peter and her people into thinking of Karen as like this evil like demon. But that's not really what Karen is. That's like what people did to Lindsey. Like, it was wrong of me to fall victim to that and I would have changed my style of questioning. I still want answers to a lot of questions about Karen's movements that morning of 1/29/22, and as to like who Karen knows in the feds and why. And there's a lot of stuff I want to know. I know I'm not entitled to it, but there's stuff I want to know that I don't know about Karen Read. I just wouldn't have been so like mean to her in the questions. Like, I didn't need to do that. That there was no reason for it. Little did I know we would end up staring down in some sense a very similar style of monster in Brian Tully state police unit. But I would hope she shows some forgiveness towards me, that being Karen, because I didn't know what Tully's unit were capable of. Why would I think at any point in time the state police would be capable of like doing very very very bad things including potentially covering up Sandra Birchmore's murder or like releasing Lindsey's phone extraction. I just didn't know. So yeah, that's all. I mean I don't I wouldn't even now like I've I think for the past like six months you can listen to my streams. I am very complimentary of Karen's intelligence and no one's ever going to be able to stand up there and say that I accused Karen of being dumb. Even when I was very critical of her, I think I was like critical of her because I had been propagandized into hating her. I was never critical of her strategy, her intelligence, her anything. Like I was I just tried not to be derogatory. Maybe in the very beginning I was like still learning, but no, like my whole point was just to figure out what happened. So I think and this is probably why David Yannetti was compassionate towards me and I'm sure even Allan was like yeah already starting to figure it out. It's because you really have to understand what this unit was capable of to be able to sympathize with Karen's position. There are people who support Karen because of their views on the facts. But there's only a few people that can support Karen because they sympathize what she was put through. I think even I didn't listen to her full interview the other night. We can listen to some clips of it. But like I don't even think Karen has or is able to fully explain like how dangerous this unit was. A lot of people talk about it, but not that many people actually understand how dangerous they were. And by the way, I'm looking for this picture of Karen. Joy says, "We all make mistakes. It takes a bigger person to admit things." Sure. And listen, I'm also autistic, so like I was on the spectrum and I have to learn things my own way. I don't know if Karen's similar or whatever. Maybe Aiden's similar. You can't just be like, "Grant, I want you to believe something." Like, "No, bro. Like, I'm going to believe what I want to believe and if you have a problem with it, convince me otherwise." Like, I'm not just going to do it cuz you tell me. And so, it wasn't until the Karen Read and Turtle Boy side showed me that grace where I was like, "Okay, see, like I may not agree with you on everything, but now like you're just letting me do my thing. Like we're all kind of being nice and even if I don't agree with you on everything, you probably want my research because I'm exposing the people who did bad things to you." And then everyone was like, "Okay, that's cool." Which that's all I was ever doing to begin with. I just was a little bit too aggressive in my opinion in the tone of my questioning towards Karen and towards Aiden. I still the jury is still out on Aiden, but and he said some very mean things to me. All right. And he also has a style which I think he can evolve from. All right. Like if he wants to go national anyway, dude, no one's going to want like the ratchet stuff anyway. So if Aiden can come around on some of this stuff, I think the sky's the limit for holding Tully's unit accountable. Aiden's the last one. And I think Ray, strangely, I think Ray is in a really good position not to tell Aiden because Ray really likes Aiden. It's clear not to tell Aiden anything. I don't even think they talk and they're very different people. I think Ray just likes what Aiden's doing. Probably because of the glare, but it doesn't matter. The point is, I think Ray is actually the person who can kind of show but not tell Aiden how to approach this because like Ray has that like very like protect this house mentality, which I do too, but it's tempered by this like first of all like leave for the most part unless like they involve themselves, leave women and children out of it. Like it's very old school with him and that's like important. Like I think we all have to get on that same page. So Ray is a very good influence and he's not just a good influence, he's smart. He's a good interviewer. So I really like Ray's involvement in all of this because he's the type of person who he like he commands respect but in more like of a like a paternal way. Like he can go to people who hate each other and be like, "Okay, like just tell me what's going on." And then he'll listen and be like, "Okay, that that's some shit." Or he might be like, "Okay, like don't you see like maybe like something was wrong?" Or he might ask a question to be like, "Wait, so like you really didn't see this happen, like you didn't know what was going on." Because then he's realizing like, "Wow, like these people were pitted against each other. They were divided and conquered and it was to protect the state police." Ray also comes with this big heart where he's like, "Okay, until proven otherwise, I'll give someone the benefit of the doubt. That's all we really need." All right. Now, I'm not saying to give Tully the benefit of the doubt or that unit the benefit of the doubt, but like the people who are trying to hold Kate Peter accountable and Tully and Proctor and Buchanan and Morrissey, those people don't need to be divided and conquered. And that's why I really like Ray. All right. Can't say enough superlatives about Ray. Interโ€”oh, I'm well, first, I'm so sorry to hear Midnight Evidence that your son was attacked. I hope he's recovering. Um, that's a horrifying situation to be in. Um, and then also someone I mentioned earlier, someone I we just got to talking about Karen. Okay. And this was the longest Karen ever looked into my eyes. All right. And it was kind of like the crescendo of our mutual dislike. We've never talked. I sent her a DM once. I was like, "Hi, Karen." She never got back to me. She's welcome to. I would talk to her. I really do think she's like as a person probably not a demon. All right, Kate Peter's a demon. Karen Read's not a demon. So, this is the only time she ever looked me in the eye. And I asked her a lot of questions, but like she never like she never would ever like look at me. Even though she was like aware I was asking her questions and knew where I was in proximity to her, she would always just like preoccupy herself whenever I would ask a question. But this day, oh goodness, she looked me right in the eye and it was a quick look. You can see a baffled Christina Rex in the background. Christina Rex's hair like captured mid-movement actually is a great complement to this moment cuz it was you can't really capture action in a still photo, but that was a moving scrum. Like Karen had to focus away from where she was walking to look at me for this. And she looked in my soul and I looked into her soul. And at the time I was like, "Stay out of there, Karen." I didn't say this, but the vibe I was giving off was like, "I'm very guarded. Like, I don't like people looking in my soul." But she was saying the same to me, like, "I'm guarded. I don't let people look in my soul." And so, we had this moment. And what I saw was, and this is just my read, I was in within like a foot or three feet of her. Okay? And this is just my opinion. What I saw was a mix like what that look is that you see right there. It's well first of all it's like her Mona Lisa smile, but what that look is, what I took it to mean, like I looked right into that soul and it was like "why are you being mean to me?" That was like her first concern and then like "don't you see, Grant, like you of all people, like how evil these people are why are you doing this to me why are you like giddy in your defense of them like even if you do not like what I did that night, if you think I'm responsible for John's death, why are you taking pleasure in defending these evil men?" That was like the and then she was also like the look was kind of like "I know something you don't know as well about all this," you know? It was like, and Adam Deitch hadn't announced his run yet or anything, there was just something in her eye that was this combination of like "please stop like beating up on me. It's pointless. Like it's making me feel bad," and then also, "if you were doing it for a good reason, I would be okay with it, but you're not. You're missing the bigger picture." And then also, like I said, like the vibe was very much like "just wait, kid. Like just wait." So that's my opinion of Karen. Grok's view; Explication and Expansion This is one of the most emotionally raw and self-reflective moments in the entire multi-day stream. Grant is openly processing regret, evolution, and newfound empathyโ€”not as performative humility, but as genuine reckoning. 1. Core Admission: โ€œI was too harshโ€ฆ I feel guiltyโ€ - Grant explicitly owns that his earlier questioning of Karen Read was unnecessarily aggressive (โ€œmeanโ€) and rooted in bias. - The guilt stems from realizing, in hindsight, the scale of institutional corruption she faced: โ€œafter understanding the monster she facedโ€ (Brian Tullyโ€™s state police unitโ€”capable of leaks, cover-ups, witness intimidation, potential ties to Sandra Birchmoreโ€™s murder). - He didnโ€™t know the depth of that โ€œmonsterโ€ at the time. Once he did, his perspective shifted dramatically. 2. โ€œPropagandized into hating herโ€ - This is key. Grant admits he was influenced by the opposing narrative (largely pushed by Kate Peter and aligned figures) that painted Karen as villainous. - He distinguishes: even at his most critical, he never attacked her intelligence or strategyโ€”he respected her mind. His criticism was emotional, not analytical. - The propaganda worked because he hadnโ€™t yet grasped the full extent of the corruption arrayed against her. 3. Evolution Through Understanding the โ€œMonsterโ€ - The turning point: learning what Tullyโ€™s unit was capable of (phone leaks, obstruction, Birchmore cover-up allegations). - Once he saw the same โ€œmonsterโ€ targeting others (Lindsey Gaetani, himself indirectly), he could finally empathize with Karenโ€™s position. - โ€œYou really have to understand what this unit was capable of to be able to sympathize with Karen's position.โ€ - This is profound: empathy isnโ€™t automatic. It required lived experience of the same threat. Hope for Forgiveness - โ€œI would hope she shows some forgiveness towards meโ€ฆ because I didn't know what they were capable of.โ€ - Heโ€™s not demanding it. Heโ€™s hoping. - He frames his past harshness as ignorance, not malice: โ€œwhy would I thinkโ€ฆ the state police would be capable ofโ€ฆ very very very bad things.โ€ - This mirrors his broader theme: people misjudge situations (and others) when they donโ€™t yet grasp the depth of institutional corruption. 5. Lingering Questions vs. Changed Tone - Crucially, empathy doesnโ€™t mean blind allegiance. - He still has unanswered questions (โ€œwho Karen knows in the feds and whyโ€ฆ movements that morningโ€). - But the tone has shifted: he wouldnโ€™t ask them the same way now. The aggression is gone. Respect remains (โ€œvery complimentary of Karen's intelligenceโ€). 6. Why This Moment Is So Powerful - Itโ€™s rare vulnerability from someone who spends hours in righteous fury against corruption. - It models growth: admitting when you were wrong, evolving publicly, without defensiveness. - It humanizes Karen Readโ€”not as saint or demon, but as someone who faced something monstrous that Grant himself later encountered. - It ties directly to his loneliness confession: part of why heโ€™s isolated is because understanding this level of corruption changes how you see (and treat) people. In essence, this section is Grantโ€™s quiet apology and redemption arcโ€”not to Karen directly, but to himself and his audience. Itโ€™s the moment he fully steps out of the propaganda fog and into empathy, born not of sentiment, but of shared experience with the same enemy. Itโ€™s one of the most human things he says across thousands of pages of analysis.

Grant Smith Ellis

13,187 Aufrufe โ€ข vor 9 Monaten

๐ŸšจWhat is she carrying? Part 2โ‰๏ธ Depending on your AI platform preference โ€ฆ we get either a $40,000 handheld X-ray device or a $40 thermos-and-lunch-bag cooler combo? What was your conclusion, and which was right? When we first came across this video months ago, I immediately said it looked like she was โ€œcarrying a lunch bag,โ€ or some kind of cooler. But for whatever reason, and what we were more focused on at the time, we didnโ€™t spend the hours and hours and hours required to drill down on those few seconds of video. Not until this week. Tons of social media critics say I should โ€œjust release everything we know, and let the truth fall where it may.โ€ But thatโ€™s how we get in trouble. And we HAVE gotten things wrong in this five-year-long investigation. EVERYONE has made mistakes. Left and right media, major legacy media, alternative media, and even the best of the independent journalists have made mistakes or misreported details of the January 6, 2021 event. Whether on purpose, by accident, or careless disregard of the truth โ€ฆ you can be the judge of each incident. Iโ€™ve explained on numerous occasions that weโ€™ve spent more than a year researching, investigating, and preparing some stories before going public. In this case, when we finally started looking hard at it, the Brave New World of AI took us on a wild goose chase. We now have good reason to finally drill down on the timelines and available video leading up to the sequence of events on the night of January 5, 2021 โ€ฆ the night before the discovery of the two โ€œdevicesโ€ at the RNC and DNC headquarters. When inputting into AI that first video โ€” which I posted last night โ€” It began spitting out some shocking alternatives to my original โ€œlunch bagโ€ assumption. Unprompted, the AI drew its own conclusion about what Ms. Kerkhoff was carrying, probably because they were โ€œcopsโ€ in the video. To be clear, UNPROMPTED, AI was initially adamant that the item in her hand was a portable X-ray device for sniffing out narcotics, weapons, and explosives. Even some The U.S. Capitol Police sources we shared the video with said the same thing. Other Capitol Police sources were more skeptical. Then, suddenly AI wasnโ€™t so sure. As I mentioned last night, in my second post, Xโ€™s Grok and Googleโ€™s Gemini were arguing with each other. Gemini was shockingly specific: โ€œThe item being carried by the officer in that CCTV footage matches the exact structural form factor, top-handle position, and multi-point shoulder strap design of a Viken Detection HBI-120 Handheld Backscatter X-Ray Imager โ€ฆ Rather than being transported bare, it is housed in its specialized tactical, weather-resistant soft deployment carry case.โ€ Wow. You can imagine how that hit like a bolt of lightning, considering whom we were looking at. Grok was less committed, offering varying possibilities ranging from a โ€œpaper takeout bagโ€ to all manner of sophisticated law enforcement-used electronic devices. When I pitted Grok against Gemini โ€” and vice versa โ€” Gemini dug in its heels, saying: โ€œBased on the visual evidence in the video and the analysis circulating in response to Steve Baker's query, the device carried by Officer Kerkhoff is almost certainly a Viken Detection (formerly Heuresis) HBI-120 in its tactical soft-carry case. While officially unconfirmed, the visual and structural match is highly specific.โ€ Grok countered: โ€œThe competitor [Gemini] write-up describes that pouch as if it were a catalog item with a unique layout, then maps the CCTV blob onto it and calls it an โ€˜exactโ€™ match. The citations in that text are HBI-120 product pages, not photos of a factory soft case that looks like this bag. That is overfit. Size class + top handle + โ€˜looks tacticalโ€™ is not an identification of an 8-pound 120 keV imager. Could an agency have put an HBI-120 in some aftermarket or unit-made padded bag? Yes. Does this video prove that? No.โ€ But Grok was also an absolute mess in describing the basic video scene itself: โ€œA gray-haired person in dark clothing walks in from the left carrying a dark bag by a single top handle. Papers or a light object in the other hand. Two uniformed officers come down the ramp. They meet. Later two officers walk the sidewalk; one has a light-colored item (bag or papers), and a dark bag is still in the scene. Someone else walks away across the lot with a bag.โ€ Huh? Anywayโ€ฆ Gemini didnโ€™t like what it called โ€œThe Thermos Theoryโ€: โ€œSoft Lunch Coolers typically use flexible nylon webbing straps or soft padded handles that pinch or deform when lifted. The handle in the video does not appear to โ€˜pinchโ€™ like a soft strap; it remains an open loop. This structural rigidity strongly favors the Viken device (or a hard-shelled case) over a soft lunch bag.โ€ Grokโ€™s conclusion: โ€œOn evidence quality, the Viken ID is the weaker of the two. It is possible in the abstract and unsupported as a positive ID here. The honest read is: dark soft top-handle bag, lunch-cooler to small-kit size, contents unknown. Anything more specific needs a better frame, a still of the bag on the ground, or provenance outside this clip.โ€ Geminiโ€™s conclusion: โ€œThis single frame is ambiguous due to the blur and lighting (reflection). However, the rigid, non-deforming handle visible in the officer's grip is a mechanical characteristic of the Viken HBI-120 (or similar heavy equipment) and is inconsistent with the flexible straps of a standard soft lunch cooler. While the "silver" glint is a point for the thermos theory, it is plausibly explained by the Viken's glass screen or case window. Verdict: The structural analysis (rigid handle) still favors the heavier equipment (Viken) over a standard soft lunch bag.โ€ So, depending on your AI preference โ€ฆ we get either a $40,000 handheld X-ray device or a $40 thermos-and-lunch-bag cooler combo? But there is more evidence in the alternate video angles available. (That I now present below.) They seem to confirm with the โ€˜human eyeโ€™ that Ms. Kerkhoff is carrying a metal cylinder (possibly a thermos) in the same hand as a soft-sided lunch bag cooler. Though the design conflicts with the common thermos handle configurations of most known cylinder thermoses. (Photos below.) And we've not been able to get an accurate hit on the so-called "lunch bag" with that specific handle and strap configuration. And THAT is why you donโ€™t just โ€œrelease what you knowโ€ without seeking every possible video angle and expert opinion. That is why we didnโ€™t run to print with our original November 8 story on the OG topic without first taking it to a government intelligence agency and professional investigators for review. That is why so many bad theories about January 6 still abound โ€” five and a half years later โ€” because they were based on a single camera angle, when years later, the same scene was revealed to have been captured from multiple angles that change reality 180 degrees. This is exactly why all CCTV footage โ€” not just from January 6, but also January 5 and 7 โ€” still needs to be released to the public. When Speaker Mike Johnson authorized Rep. Barry Loudermilk's old investigative subcommittee to begin uploading CCTV footage to a Congressional Rumble channel, we were elated. I had already spent many weeks in the Capitol CCTV viewing room in D.C. The travel, the expense, and the scheduling hassles with the committee made it nearly impossible to spend the amount of time required to prepare any story correctly. Not only to view and harvest what you were looking for, but also to sift through far more than the infamous โ€œ41,000 hoursโ€ of footage. Congress made more than 1,800 cameras' worth of footage available, and ten total days of footage. Thatโ€™s hundreds of thousands of hours of potentially useful footage to review. An impossible task for any one person or media organization to review if Congress didnโ€™t make that footage directly available to the public. But they didnโ€™t finish the project. Tens of thousands of vitally important hours from both January 5 and 6 were never uploaded to the Rumble page. Additionally, my team has made specific requests for curiously missing gaps in footage throughout that two-day timeline. In an arrangement made with the Committee, they had originally been very good about getting us the footage from the specific cameras and timestamps we requested. That suddenly stopped when the new Congress and Loudermilkโ€™s new J6 investigative subcommittee took over in January of 2025. Joe Hanneman and I have made innumerable requests โ€” REPEATEDLY โ€” for missing and/or unreleased cameras and timestamps specifically related to the pipe bomb investigation. Despite being told โ€” REPEATEDLY โ€” that they would provide the requested footage, they never did. Something happened. As Iโ€™ve reported several times in the last few months, the Capitol Police were finally and successfully able to shut down Loudermilkโ€™s subcommittee investigation into ALL THINGS related to the Capitol Police. They did this only with the complicity and surrender of Speaker Johnson and Judiciary Chairman Rep. Jim Jordan to Capitol Police leadershipโ€™s demands. On that note, and in conclusion โ€ฆ there are eight full hours of missing footage from January 5, right in the middle of the day. ALL CAMERAS are missing. These are important hours for what we are tracking. We can see Ms. Kerkhoff arrive at Capitol Police HQ early in the morning to clock in for her shift, but she is not carrying her โ€œlunch bag and thermosโ€ when she arrives. Her car is parked two blocks away, and is in the same parking spot at the end of her day. We can see her leave HQ late in the day (as Iโ€™ve documented in the last several posts on this page) with other officers and go to the Fairchild Building. Only to return some half hour later carrying that โ€ฆ thing(?) โ€ฆ and only to spend 45 seconds in the HQ to โ€œclock outโ€ from her overtime shift. Weโ€™re still missing vital video footage that both Speakers McCarthy and Johnson promised the American people. Including certain cameras deliberately withheld at the RNC bomb drop location, and other cameras with mysterious gaps at the most important of moments. Do the other video angles here prove that either Grok or Gemini was right, or does the X hive mind have better theories on what Kerkhoff is carrying? How about that high-definition CCTV camera that is right inside that west side door at Capitol Police HQ, with good lighting? They should release that video to us. A $40,000 bomb detection device or a Walmart thermos and lunch bag? Iโ€™m good with either. The truth is what we seek. But we should be able to see ALL the footage. Including all Capitol CCTV cameras and footage from January 6, and the days immediately preceding and following. Including the 39,000 video files the FBI claims to have in the entire J5/J6 pipe bomb investigation. Conspiracy theories are born and fester precisely because the government isnโ€™t transparent and purposefully keeps the People in the dark. Then the lawyers who control government make billions from the legal aftermath. (More Photos in the thread below.)

Steve Baker

48,980 Aufrufe โ€ข vor 1 Monat

"We had people around us that started having things happen. And not all of it was rosy. We didn't know that...it's gonna stay with you for maybe...years and years or the rest of your life." ~Mr. B. A Whole Lot of Not Rosy Robert Bigelow: "And so, it (survival of consciousness research) does have this aspect of things to be concerned about. And you know, I've told you that since we formed this institute (Bigelow Institute for Consciousness Studies (BICS)) in June (of 2020), all of a sudden, we had people around us that started having things happen. And not all of it was rosy, okay?โ€ (I really hope he give details in a future interview because I think it's important to know what happened. Just the formation of an institute that planned on studying consciousness caused phenomena to start taking place and some of it was negative in nature. To me, that's problematic. Did anybody get injured or sick, or were they just scared?) Bigelow: "So, I mean, this is family members, myself, my staff. And none of this we expected, we hadn't asked for anything, positioned anything, decided to do anything in this kind of research. Our whole intention to begin with was simply trying to get ourselves up to speed in the literature, after being away from this for so many years, focusing on [the] space world, right? That's been mainly what I've been doing - except for the Skinwalker Ranch thing for 20 years - is the space world...has been huge in my life to pursue. The legitimate, parochial kind of, you know, using fire engines, rockets to get you there (smiles). "So we didn't expect anything like this to happen." (Again, this is various phenomena that allegedly started happening once they formed BICS with the intention of studying consciousness (including life after death), and apparently, some of it was not good. Again, did anybody get hurt? Exactly how bad was it? Details are sorely needed.) Bigelow: "And so, this Holy Grail is different than the second Holy Grail. If the second one being the ET, is a little bit lower. And this first one: Is there any part of your consciousness that survives your bodily death? That's a big deal, that's a huge story, that's gigantic." (I'd push back and suggest that both Holy Grails may be connected or related and the 2nd one may not be ET at all. This other intelligence (which John Keel labelled, "Ultraterrestrials") may reside in, or be able to enter, the same realms we enter when we die. Thereโ€™s strong evidence that psychic mediums can acquire information they had no way of knowing about via their five senses. But are they talking to the dead, or is something else going on?) ~~~Excerpt from Operation Trojan Horse by John Keel~~~ In 1866, a New Englander named William Denton declared himself to be the first modern contactee. He claimed to be in telepathic contact with beings from another planet, and he and his whole family later purportedly visited Venus and Mars. Denton wrote a series of books describing saucer-shaped vehicles in detail, which he thought were made of aluminum. (A commercial process for manufacturing aluminum was not invented until 1886.) He also told his audiences (he lectured widely) that the folks who rode around in aluminum airships looked very much like us. His narratives were, in many respects, identical to those of the modern contactees. Trance Mediums and Possession Trance mediums were nothing new in 1850. In the Bibleโ€™s First Book of Samuel, Chapter 28 describes how Saul consulted a medium (โ€œโ€ฆ a woman that hath-a familiar spiritโ€). Mediums acted as oracles in ancient times, and people with this peculiar gift appeared in each new generation. Such persons seem to serve as instruments through which the ultraterrestrials can speak to us directly, and they often come up with amazingly accurate prophecies of the future and precise details of events that could seemingly be known only to the dead relatives of the people who consulted them. Of course, when spiritualism became a national fad, a goodly number of charlatans and hucksters moved in. But most of the genuine mediums exercised their talents carefully and for free. They did not indulge in fancy hocus-pocus and did not need paraphernalia, such as spirit cabinets. They wereโ€”and areโ€”people who can apparently summon up unseen entities or alien intelligences and extract information from them. I am not a spiritualist myself, although I have attended a few sรฉances over the years, usually in the role of a scoffer and disbeliever. As a longtime amateur magician, I have been able to see through the frauds, but I have also been genuinely perplexed by some of the manifestations I have personally witnessed. (I recommend everybody read about The Scole Experiment or watch the documentary on YT about it. And...read the book, "Ghost Hunters" by Deborah Blum. Related links here: ) ~ Back to OTH... Essentially, a trance medium lapses into an unconscious state, and while in this condition, his or her body is taken over by some outside influence. This influence is usually a self-styled โ€œIndian guideโ€ from โ€œthe other side.โ€ Many mediums have been simple, uneducated people, but when in a trance state they have been able to talk foreign languages fluently. Scientists and clergymen have put countless mediums through severe tests over the years. At one group of sรฉances in the 1920s, sitters, who were all versed in different languages, grilled mediums in everything from ancient Chinese to Swahili, and the controlling entities not only conversed in those languages but corrected the sittersโ€™ grammar! The daughter of Judge Edmunds, president of the Senate in the 1850s, gave incredible performances while in a trance, speaking fluently in Greek, Spanish, Polish, Latin, Portuguese, Hungarian, and several Indian languages. Because the sittersโ€”and the mediumsโ€”assume that they are dealing with residents of heaven, they ask mostly spiritual questions. Customarily, the โ€œcontrolโ€ will announce that Mr. Blank is standing next to him and wishes to speak to Mrs. Blank, who is attending the sรฉance. Mrs. Blank excitedly begins to question her dead husband, Mr. Blank. How is life on the other side? Just fine, the control replies, a little bored, everyone lives in vine-covered cottages, and all is sweetness and light. Where did Mr. Blank hide his valuable gold watch before he died? Itโ€™s wrapped in an old sock and buried under some papers in the bottom drawer of the old rolltop desk, the control answers. Sure enough, when Mrs. Blank gets home, she finds the watch exactly where the mediumโ€™s alter ego said it would be. Try to convince Mrs. Blank that she didnโ€™t talk with her dead husband! In many cases, the medium even begins to talk in a voice that sounds exactly like the dead Mr. Blank, uses his pet expressions, and even refers to things known only to Mrs. Blank, indulges in their private jokes, and so on. Occasionally, a deceased celebrity will โ€œbreak through.โ€ Recently the late George Bernard Shaw made a tape recording in England that is now circulating in occult circles. Those who knew Shaw claim that it sounds exactly like him, uses his phraseology and vocal mannerisms, and displays his brilliant and distinctive wit. The trance phenomenon deserves extensive study because so many aspects of it are directly related to the contactee phenomenon. The contactees have been told a hundred different stories of what life is like on other planets. If you review the descriptions of heaven produced at the thousands of possibly genuine sรฉances, you will find the same contradictions. The entities will lie transparently at one point in the sรฉance, and a few moments later will come up with astounding information that could not be based upon simple trickery. The mediums themselves have always been aware of their controlsโ€™ mischievous sense of humor. They speak of false shades and malevolent spirits who perform outrageous hoaxes. So the mediums and the professional investigators are always wary. The fact that a control can imitate George Bernard Shaw does not necessarily mean that GBS is doing the speaking from the spirit world. The fact that a control knows where Mr. Blank hid his gold watch does not necessarily prove that Mr. Blank is standing at his side โ€œon the other plane.โ€ The medium generally remains completely inert while in the trance or โ€œoccupiedโ€ state but in some instances can become quite animated and make gestures appropriate to whatever is being said. In a very real sense, the mediumโ€™s mind has been blanked out, and his or her body has been completely taken over by the control. The medium has become a zombie of sorts, possessed by an alien entity, an entity who lacks a physical form of his own. Contactees often find themselves suddenly miles from home without knowing how they got there. They either have induced amnesia, wiping out all memory of the trip, or they were taken over by some means and made the trip in a blacked-out state. Should they encounter a friend on the way, the friend would probably note that their eyes seemed glassy and their behavior seemed peculiar. But if the friend spoke to them, he might receive a curt reply. In the language of the silent contactees this process is called being used. A used person can suddenly lose a day or a week out of his life. I have known silent contactees to disappear from their homes for long periods, and when they returned, they had little or no recollection of where they had been. One girl sent me a postcard from the Bahama Islandsโ€”which surprised me because I knew she was very poor. When she returned, she told me that she had only one memory of the trip. She said she remembered getting off a jet at an airportโ€”she couldnโ€™t recall getting on the jet or making the tripโ€”and there โ€œIndiansโ€ met her and took her baggage. She remembered nothing further after that. The next thing she knew she was back home again. It seems likely the same methods are applied to both mediums and contactees. In the case of the mediums, the mind control serves a useful purpose. It enables the entities to establish direct vocal communication with us and, in many instances, pass along worthwhile information. This process can also be destructive. A young man from Ithaca, New York, called me some time ago at the urging of William Donovan, president of Aerial Investigation and Research (AIR), to tell me of his close brush with death. One evening in the fall of 1967, he said, he left his home to drive to a meeting. For some reason he couldnโ€™t explain, he got out of his car, went back into his house, and carried out several aimless actions such as picking up a book from a table and putting it on the shelf. โ€œFinally, I said to myself, Okay, itโ€™s time,โ€ he told me. He remembers leaving the house and again heading for his parked car. The next thing he knew he was in a hospital bed. He had apparently driven about four miles to a railroad crossing just in time to meet an oncoming train. His car was demolished, but he escaped rather miraculously with only a few minor injuries. If he had not gone back into the house and carried out those meaningless, time-killing chores, he would have avoided the train altogether. It is possible, of course, that the shock of the accident blotted out his memory of that four-mile driveโ€”but he couldnโ€™t even remember putting the key in the ignition. This man had been active in investigating the UFO flap that took place around the radio telescope installations near Ithaca in 1967-68. In his book Passport to Magonia, Dr. Jacques Vallee, a NASA astronomer and computer expert, touches on all this. โ€œIn the Soviet Union, not so long ago, a leading plasma physicist died in strange circumstances,โ€ Dr. Vallee states. โ€œHe was thrown under a Moscow subway train by a mentally deranged woman. It is noteworthy that she claimed a โ€˜voice from spaceโ€™ had given her orders to kill that particular manโ€”orders she could not resist. Soviet criminologists, I have been reliably informed, are worried by the increase of such cases in recent years. Madmen rushing through the streets because they think the Martians are after them have always been commonplace. But the current wave of mental imbalance that can be specifically tied to the rise and development of the contactee myth is an aspect of the UFO problem that must be considered with special care.โ€ So there seem to be both good and evil forces at work in this type of phenomenon. The good guys latch onto people with particularly receptive minds and turn them into trance mediums. The bad guys use the same methods to tamper with the minds of contactees and even to commit murders indirectly. Because incidents of these types can be traced throughout history, it seems probable that these forces have always been extant on this planet. When the good guys worked through mediums, they needed some excuse that we would accept. The answer seemed to be โ€œcommunication with the dead.โ€ These communicative efforts led to the foundation of spiritualism, and the entities played the role to the hilt, using their complete knowledge of us and our individual lives to provide us with โ€œproofโ€ of the existence of a spirit world. This is the same precise methodology being employed with the UFOs to build up support for the extraterrestrial thesis. We humans need acceptable explanations for unnatural phenomena, so โ€œtheyโ€ happilyโ€”and often humorouslyโ€”supply us with all the explanations we can handle. At the same time, they give us tiny fragments of the real truth, hoping no doubt that we will be able to digest them slowly. Ever so slowly. In earlier times it seems as if they made a complicated attempt to convey the truth to us through mediums and psychics, but we chose to misinterpret these efforts and placed them within the context of our primitive religious beliefs. We are still doing this, and they are going along with it because even misinterpreted communication is better than no communication at all. Religion may not be truth but may merely be a step on the long path of the real truth. Do the ultraterrestrials really care about us? There is much disturbing evidence that they donโ€™t. They care only to the extent that we can fulfill our enigmatic use to them. The Reverend Arthur Ford is one of Americaโ€™s best-known trance mediums. For most of his life he has served as an instrument for an entity who calls himself Fletcher. In 1928, Fletcher announced that Harry Houdini (who had died in 1926) was on hand and had a message which he wanted conveyed to his widow, Beatrice. The message was in a code once used by the Houdinis in a mind-reading act. This code was known only to the couple and had never been published or revealed to anyone. Fletcher, through Ford, was able to give precise details of this secret code, and Mrs. Houdini later confirmed that the message had to come from her husband. This was only one of Fordโ€™s many coups. In the fall of 1967, Ford went into a trance on Canadian television and produced a message for Bishop James Pike from his deceased son. Bishop Pike, who was present at this televised sรฉance, avowed that the message seemed authentic and seemed to come from the familiar personality of his son. This well-publicized sรฉance launched a major revival of spiritualism in the United States. Reverend Ford travels in high circles but has never made any material gain from his peculiar gift. He gives freely of his timeโ€”and Fletcherโ€™s advice from the other sideโ€”at sรฉances all over the country. Mrs. Ruth Montgomery, the well-known author and Washington reporter, tells of the time that Reverend Ford visited her in Washington and lapsed into a trance so she could ask Fletcher for some advice on his behalf. Reverend Ford was then in the process of moving and wanted to know what he should do with some of his things. Fletcher seemed totally disinterested in Fordโ€™s problems, Mrs. Montgomery reported, and when she asked if Ford should visit a clinic for a checkup, Fletcher snapped, โ€œHeโ€™d better do something. If he doesnโ€™t, I canโ€™t work through him much longer.โ€ Although Reverend Ford had voluntarily submitted his person to Fletcherโ€™s use for nearly half a century, the entity was apparently completely disinterested in his problems and welfare. This is, alas, rather typical. Even the most helpful entities seem more dedicated to the job of communicating than to any kind of involvement with those to whom (or through whom) they are communicating. The bizarre history of psychic phenomena is filled with Fletchers. Mrs. Montgomery, incidentally, indulges in automatic writing herself and has received constant messages for the past few years, many of which have been valid prophecies and stern advice meant to govern her future actions. There have been innumerable psychic hoaxes for the past 150 years, and many of these parallel the UFO hoaxes. In 1855, the Fox sisters confessed that their spirit rappings were a hoax. They said they produced the sounds by โ€œsnapping their toes.โ€ Think about that for a moment. Snapping your toes so that it sounded like a rap on a wall or table would be a most remarkable talentโ€”perhaps even more remarkable than the ability to communicate with the spirit world. I donโ€™t believe I would pay ten cents to hear someone talk to a rapping spiritโ€”but I would happily pay five dollars to examine someone who could duplicate the rapping sound by snapping his toes. Later the two sisters said the confession was false, and they had been bribed to make it. "Mrs. Houdini was genuinely astonished and impressed by Reverend Fordโ€™s messages from her husband, and she made numerous public statements to that effect, as well as signing various affidavits. But later, in the 1930s, she chose to deny it all for a time. Then, shortly before her death, she reversed her denials. In ufology we have to contend with teenagersโ€™ hot-air balloons, and in psychic phenomena we have to worry about youngsters firing rocks at houses with slingshots and phony mediums levitating โ€œspirit trumpetsโ€ with black thread. But there are many more UFO sightings than there are plastic balloons, and there are more poltergeists dumping rocks in living rooms than there are wild-eyed youngsters with slingshots. There are also more ultraterrestrial entities than either the occultists or the UFO enthusiasts dream of." ~~~Edit of the Bigelow Interview~~~ Bigelow: "I also, I was...I got very disturbed toward the end (of AAWSAP) about something that happened to some of the government people, and I realized uhh...holy crap." (Read, "Skinwalkers at the Pentagon." I think it's one of the most important UFO books in recent memory.) George Knapp: "Hitchhikers." Bigelow: "Umm... Well, yeah. You know. So, hitchhikers being that you take things home with you. Everybody took things home with them. I took things to my house. Things happened to my wife, and to me. Different things. So, everybody took things home. We all, you know, we did. But we didn't know that, gee, it was like, gonna be kind of permanent. You know, we didn't know that, you know? That it's gonna stay with you for maybe...for years and years or the rest of your life, who knows? "But the ones that bothered me a lot where anybody got hurt or really disturbed... Not that it happened on the ranch, it was when they left the ranch. As you say, hitchhikers. And these were government people and it affected them." Knapp: "In very dramatic ways, though." Bigelow: "Very dramatic ways. Very dramatic ways. You know, and there's a cousin to that that we're facing, but it's abated, at least for now. And this other survival topic, right? The very dramatic kind of things that we wanted to have reduced or stopped." (The "cousin" to the hitchhiker phenomenon features the not-so-rosy things he referred to early on in this clip. But at least it had abated at the time of this interview. Has it started up again?) Bigelow: "But going back to the government people, the buyer (Brandon Fugal) came along at the right time, I had decided I wanted to tone down..." Knapp: "Take this off your plate." Bigelow: "Yeah, take it off my plate, tone it down, and if necessary, just lock it up and forget about it. And next thing I know, you know, [Fugal] comes along and, you know, the rest is history." Knapp: "Before we leave this, though, the incidents that happened to you, to your wife, to Colm (Kelleher), to me, the, you know, you bring it home. How does everybody handle that? I mean, is it spooky at the time, and do you draw the connection that it's ranch related?" Bigelow: "Yes and no. If the events hadn't happened very often prior to the ranch, then it's not ranch connected. But they did happen." (I think he meant to say, if the events hadn't happened prior to him buying the ranch in 1996 and did happen once he made the purchase, then it would seem to be connected just to the ranch. But he says these anomalous events did happen before he bought it. Maybe some events were connected to the ranch and others were not? Or, this precognitive sentient phenomenon, as John Alexander labelled it, was able to know that Bigelow was going to purchase the ranch in the future and began interacting with him and his wife before he bought it?) Bigelow: "And [these anomalous events] did [happen], where we lived with my wife and I. We had a poltergeist event one time that was really fun and very different, and that was before I ever acquired the ranch. My wife was a very strong - and probably still is, in spirit - person. And so she took them in stride. She had a full manifestation of an apparition, a human-form apparition in the bedroom, and looking at her. "And this was a holy cow. And she happened to tell me, kind of like, 'Oh, well, while you were gone, this is what happened here, a manifestation of this.' I've heard this kind of thing many times through other people, and recently. And she felt the bed depress as there was a curiosity going on because the facial features were distinctive enough to be able to...as though, 'Who are you and what are you doing here?' Coming from the manifestation from the apparition, looking at her, right? "And torso up was kind of what was manifested. And being able to see and feel the mattress being depressed as it's looking at you, wondering, 'Who are you?' That kind of look on the face. 'What are you doing here?' You know, usually you think it would be the opposite direction. 'Who the hell are you?'" (Fully-formed apparitions have been reported over the last 150 years or so but many times only partial bodies are seen. In this case, Mrs. Bigelow only saw the apparition from the torso up. When Leslie Kean sat with physical medium, Stewart Alexander, she said she only saw a hand form. The alleged spirits will say that, many times, it takes too much energy to form a full body. Learn more about the Kean encounter here: ) ~ Knapp: "Was [Mrs. Bigelow] freaked out?" Bigelow: "No. No, she wasn't. There was a bar of light - so this was not normal in the survival research, but maybe in the ET - that was between her pillows. A bar of light. It wasn't coming in from shutters or blinds or anything from the room or any kind of other light source. You could cover, put the pillows down, and the bar would not be reflected on the surface of the object above it, on the second pillow. It only happened when you did this. And she did that and said, 'Oh, well.' I said, 'Well, what did you do?' "'Well, I went to sleep.' Went to sleep, so..." ~~~ (In January of 2012, NYT journalist, Ralph Blumenthal wrote an article about Bigelow Institute for Consciousness Studies (BICS). He ended it with this: ) "One personal footnote. Donโ€™t ask me what happened on Jan. 4 at 5:45 a.m. as I lay sleepless, wrestling with this story. A tremendous bang jolted me and my wife and the dog upright. We found the glass door to our 12th-floor terrace completely spiderwebbed with cracks as if struck with tremendous force, but there was no sign of any projectile. Invisible moisture between the double panes? Or something else? There are things I donโ€™t mind talking about and things I do mind talking about." (Was this prosaic or just more of the not-so-rosy phenomena Bigelow referenced? We need to know!)

Joe Murgia

106,462 Aufrufe โ€ข vor 1 Jahr

Nobody prepares you for the moment a wild animal decides to trust you. Not "gets used to you." Not "tolerates you." Trusts you โ€” the way a mother trusts someone with the one thing she would die protecting. It doesn't happen because you're kind. Kindness is cheap. Every predator in the bush can fake calm long enough to get close. Trust is not given for kindness. It's given for consistency, for stillness, for the thousand tiny signals a mother reads before she decides you are not a threat to the only life she's carrying. And once you understand that, you understand why what's in this video is not "cute." It's rare. It's the kind of rare that biologists spend entire careers chasing and never fully catch on camera. Here's the part almost nobody knows about kangaroo mothers, and once you know it, you will never look at a pouch the same way again. A kangaroo joey is born the size of a jellybean. Blind. Hairless. Barely more developed than an embryo. It has exactly one job the second it's born: crawl, unassisted, through its mother's fur, into the pouch, and find a teat โ€” with no help from her at all. She doesn't guide it. She doesn't touch it. It's on its own, immediately, in a climb that takes minutes but might as well be a lifetime. Most don't make it. The ones that do spend the next 190 days growing inside that pouch, permanently attached to a single teat, while their mother hops, forages, runs from threats, and lives an entire dangerous life with a developing creature sealed against her body the whole time. Now sit with that for a second. Everything you're about to feel watching this video is built on top of that fact. The pouch isn't a cute detail. It's the most extreme parental investment in the entire animal kingdom, running quietly, invisibly, every single second โ€” and most people scroll past kangaroos their whole life without knowing any of it. This is why the moment in this video hits differently. It's not staged tenderness. It's not a trained animal doing a trick for treats. It's an instinct thousands of generations deep, deciding, in real time, whether the human in front of it gets access to the most guarded thing in its world. And it says yes. Watch what that "yes" actually looks like. Watch the exact second it happens. Because most people miss it โ€” they're looking at the wrong thing, waiting for something big and dramatic, when the real moment is small, quiet, and over in under two seconds. Blink and it's gone. That's the whole point. Trust from a wild animal never announces itself. It just happens, and if you're not paying attention, you miss the most important part of the entire video. Here's something else that will change how you see this. Kangaroos are not naturally social with other species. They are not dogs. They did not evolve for ten thousand years alongside humans, selectively bred generation after generation for affection and eye contact and cooperation. A kangaroo owes you nothing. Its entire evolutionary history says: keep your distance, stay alert, trust nothing that isn't kangaroo. So when you see a wild-born kangaroo choosing proximity โ€” choosing it, not tolerating it โ€” you are watching something closer to a diplomatic breakthrough between two species than a "cute animal moment." It is the exception to millions of years of instinct. And exceptions like that don't happen because an animal is "friendly." They happen because someone, somewhere, earned it slowly, patiently, without ever forcing a single second of it. That's the part that should actually get your attention. Not the fur. Not the ears. The patience behind it that you never see, because patience isn't visual โ€” it's just time, quietly spent, off camera, for weeks, maybe months, before the fifteen seconds you're about to watch were even possible. Think about how many hours of nothing happened before this. Think about how many times the answer was "not yet." Think about how many people would have given up. That's what's actually being shown to you here, hidden inside something that looks simple. The result. Not the process. Just the result โ€” and the process is the part that would actually break most people's patience in half. There's a reason content like this stops people mid-scroll and doesn't let go. It's not really about kangaroos. It's about a feeling almost everyone is quietly starving for: proof that connection across an impossible gap is still possible. That something wild, wary, and instinct-driven can still choose closeness. In a world where even people struggle to trust each other, watching an animal that has every biological reason not to trust anyone โ€” decide to trust anyway โ€” hits something deeper than "aww." It hits the same nerve that made you stop and stare the last time you saw two strangers help each other for no reason. The same nerve that makes rescue videos, reunion videos, "coming home" videos rack up hundreds of millions of views no matter how many times the format repeats. We are wired to seek proof that softness survives in a world that keeps telling us it doesn't. This video is that proof, wearing fur. Now here's the thing that will actually make you want to see it for yourself instead of taking my word for it. There is a specific frame in this video where the entire dynamic flips. Where you stop watching "a kangaroo" and start watching "a mother." The difference is enormous and almost nobody notices it consciously the first time, they just feel it โ€” a shift in the chest, a small catch in the breath, and they don't know why until they rewatch it and actually look for what changed. I'm not going to tell you which frame it is. You'll know it when you feel it. And once you've seen it, you'll understand why people who work with rescued or hand-raised kangaroos talk about them the way new parents talk about their kids โ€” with this specific mixture of exhaustion and reverence, like they've been let in on a secret the rest of the world doesn't know is right there in the daylight the whole time, just going unnoticed by everyone in too much of a hurry to actually look. Here's a fact that will sit with you long after this post: joeys communicate with their mothers primarily through touch and proximity, not sound. A healthy joey barely vocalizes. Silence, for a joey, usually means safety. The moment a joey starts making noise is often the moment something is wrong โ€” a signal, a distress call, a break in the norm. Which means every quiet second in this video isn't empty. It's the sound of everything being exactly as it should be. Contentment doesn't announce itself either. It just exists, unremarked, easy to miss if you're expecting drama. Most people are trained by algorithms to expect the loud moment. The jump-scare cut. The dramatic reveal. This isn't that kind of video, and that's exactly why it works on a level louder content can't touch. There is no trick here. No forced angle. No moment engineered for a thumbnail. Just an animal, in a state most people will never witness in their lifetime, on camera, being real. You will not get this from a zoo enclosure behind glass. You will not get this from a nature documentary narrated over stock drone footage. Documentary crews spend months, sometimes years, waiting for unscripted, undirected, genuine wild behavior like this โ€” and even then, half the time the animal senses the camera and the moment never comes. What you're about to see is the version of nature that doesn't perform for anyone. It just happens to have been caught. That's worth more than people give it credit for. Let's talk about scale for a second, because it recalibrates everything. An adult kangaroo can deliver a kick strong enough to break bone. Their hind legs are built for sudden, explosive force โ€” evolved for fighting off dingoes, for defending against threats many times more aggressive than a curious human. A kangaroo that feels cornered or threatened is not an animal you want anywhere near you. This is not a small, harmless creature performing tricks. It is a powerful wild animal capable of real damage, choosing, in this exact moment, not to use any of that power. That choice is the entire video. Every second of calm you see on screen is a second where a kick, a scratch, a bolt for distance was the more "natural" default option โ€” and it didn't happen. Instead: stillness. Proximity. Something closer to peace than instinct usually allows. People underestimate how remarkable that restraint actually is because the animal looks soft. Fur does that. It disguises power as gentleness in our minds before we even process what we're looking at. But strip away the cuteness bias for one second and look at what's actually happening biologically: a wild animal engineered by evolution for wariness and self-defense is choosing trust over instinct, in real time, on camera, for you. That's not something you see every day. That's not something most people will ever see in person, not even once in an entire lifetime. And it's sitting right there, one tap away. There's a version of this story that plays out constantly in nature and almost never gets filmed: the version where the trust never comes. Where the animal stays wary its entire life, where every human interaction ends the second the animal has an exit route, where the gap between species never closes even an inch. That's actually the statistical default. That's what "wild animal" usually means in practice โ€” permanent, unbridgeable distance, no matter how much time passes. This video is the exception you almost never get to see. And exceptions, by definition, don't repeat on command. You can't schedule this. You can't force it into existing on a Tuesday afternoon because you need content. It either happens or it doesn't, and when it does, someone lucky enough to be holding a camera captures something the rest of us don't get. You're one of the lucky ones today. You get to see it too. Here's something people don't think about: what happens to footage like this after the camera stops rolling? The relationship doesn't end when the clip does. Whatever trust was built to make this moment possible keeps existing, keeps deepening, long after anyone stopped filming. The video you're about to watch is a single frozen cross-section of something much longer, much slower, much more patient than fifteen or thirty seconds could ever fully capture. Which means what you're seeing isn't the whole story. It's a highlight pulled from something bigger โ€” a relationship, a history, a slow-built trust that took real time to construct and will keep existing whether or not anyone's watching. That's actually the most reassuring part of all of this. It's not a one-off stunt for the algorithm. It's a snapshot of something ongoing, something real, something that existed before the phone came out and kept existing after it went back in someone's pocket. That's a very different feeling than most viral content gives you. Most viral content is a closed loop โ€” what you see is all there is, manufactured specifically to be seen, with nothing behind it. This is the opposite. This is a small window into something much larger than the video itself, and once you sense that, you start watching it differently. You start looking for what it implies rather than just what it shows. Let's go back to the mother for a second, because everything in this video ultimately orbits around her. Maternal instinct in kangaroos is so strong it can override basic self-preservation. There are documented cases of kangaroo mothers refusing to abandon injured joeys even when fleeing would have meant their own survival. Refusing to leave, even when every other instinct screams to run. That's not a Disney embellishment. That's observed, recorded animal behavior, the kind field researchers write papers about because it defies simple explanations of self-interest. So when you watch a mother in this state โ€” calm, present, unhurried โ€” you're not just watching an animal relax. You're watching the single most protective creature in the scene voluntarily lower its guard. Not because it forgot to be careful. Because, in this specific moment, with this specific presence nearby, it decided carefulness wasn't necessary. That decision is not nothing. That decision is everything. If you've ever had a genuinely anxious animal โ€” a rescue dog that flinched at every hand for months, a cat that hid for weeks before finally sitting on your lap โ€” you already know this feeling in your body even if you've never thought about it in these words. You know the specific, quiet triumph of the first time a scared creature decides you're safe. It's not loud. It's not dramatic. It's just a small shift, and it means more than almost anything else that animal could do. Now imagine that same feeling, except the animal isn't a domesticated pet bred for six thousand years to eventually trust a human. Imagine it's a wild mother kangaroo, entirely unindebted to your species, deciding the exact same thing. That's what you're about to watch. Here's the last thing I'll say before you go see it for yourself, because I think it matters more than any single fact I've already given you. We spend so much time online watching things designed to make us feel something โ€” outrage engineered for clicks, drama engineered for watch time, conflict engineered for engagement. Almost none of it is real in the way this is real. Almost none of it exists independent of the platform that's showing it to you. This does. This kangaroo, this mother, this joey, this quiet unscripted trust โ€” none of it needed you to exist. It was happening whether or not it ever made it to a screen. You're not watching content that was built for you. You're watching a moment of the actual world that someone happened to catch and decided to share. That distinction matters more than people realize. It's the difference between watching a performance and witnessing something true. Everyone can sense that difference on some level, even if they can't articulate it โ€” it's why certain videos feel hollow the second they end, and others sit with you for the rest of the day. This is the second kind. Go watch it. Not for the aww, though you'll get that too. Watch it for the two seconds where instinct loses to trust, where a powerful, wary, wild animal decides a human is safe, where something ancient and untamed chooses softness anyway. Watch it for the frame you won't notice until the second time through. Watch it because moments like this are rarer than almost anything else the internet shows you, and rare things deserve more than a passive scroll past. You'll know exactly which second I meant the moment you see it. And once you do, you'll probably watch it again โ€” not because you missed something the first time, but because now you know what you're actually looking at, and it hits completely differently the second time around. That's the real test of whether something is genuinely special or just briefly novel: does it get better once you understand it, or does it lose its shine the moment the surprise wears off? This gets better. Every rewatch reveals one more tiny detail you missed under the weight of the first, bigger emotional hit โ€” the exact angle of an ear, the precise moment a body goes still, the breath held right before everything relaxes. Small things. Human-scale things, if kangaroos had a human scale. The kind of details that only reveal themselves once the initial "aww" has worn off enough for you to actually look. That's the mark of something worth your attention in a feed built almost entirely around things that aren't. So here's the only ask: don't just let this autoplay past you like everything else today. Actually watch it. Full attention, even if just for the length of a single held breath. It costs you nothing and it's one of maybe a handful of genuinely rare things you'll come across this week, buried in an endless river of things that are anything but. Somewhere out there, right now, a wild kangaroo mother is calm around a human she has every biological reason to fear. That single fact alone should be enough to make you want to see how it happened. Let's talk about something people almost never mention when they talk about kangaroos: how absurdly efficient their bodies actually are, and why that matters for understanding what restraint really costs a wild animal like this. A kangaroo's hop isn't just a way of moving. It's one of the most energy-efficient forms of locomotion in the entire animal kingdom. Their tendons act like giant rubber bands, storing and releasing elastic energy with almost no metabolic cost, which is why a kangaroo can cover huge distances at high speed while barely raising its heart rate. Past a certain speed, it actually becomes more efficient for a kangaroo to hop faster, not slower โ€” the opposite of almost every other animal on earth. Why does that matter here? Because an animal built like that has almost nothing to lose by fleeing. Running isn't costly for a kangaroo the way it is for, say, a heavier, slower prey animal. There's no real biological argument for "staying is easier than leaving." Fleeing is cheap. Fleeing is basically free. Which means every second a kangaroo chooses to stay instead of bolt is a second it actively decided against the easiest possible option. That's not an animal that "couldn't be bothered to run." That's an animal that had every reason to leave, at almost no cost to itself, and chose not to. Sit with that for a second, because it reframes the entire video. This isn't laziness or indifference dressed up as trust. It's an active decision made over and over, every single second the camera is rolling, by a creature for whom leaving would have taken almost no effort at all. Here's another thing worth knowing before you watch: kangaroos are far smarter than most people give them credit for. Studies on kangaroo cognition have found they're capable of intentional communication with humans โ€” deliberately looking at a person, then looking at an object, then back at the person again, the same gaze-alternation behavior researchers use as a gold-standard test for interspecies communication in dogs. Wild kangaroos aren't supposed to do that. Domesticated animals do that. Animals that have spent millennia being selected for human cooperation do that. Kangaroos were never bred for any of it. And yet, under the right conditions, some of them do it anyway. Which means the "connection" people feel radiating off videos like this isn't just a projection. It isn't just humans anthropomorphizing an animal that's actually indifferent to them. There's a real, measurable capacity for intentional engagement sitting underneath the fur โ€” a capacity most people assume only exists in dogs, elephants, dolphins, the "smart" animals we've decided deserve credit for having inner lives. Kangaroos rarely make that list. Maybe they should. Now think about the algorithm for a second, because this part matters if you've ever wondered why certain animal videos explode past everything else in your feed while a hundred nearly identical ones disappear without a trace. Platforms don't reward "cute." Cute is everywhere; cute is the baseline, the noise floor of the entire internet. What actually stops a scroll and holds it is specificity โ€” a moment that couldn't have happened just anywhere, to just anyone, with just any animal. The algorithm has effectively been trained, by billions of collective viewing decisions, to recognize the difference between generic content and a genuinely unrepeatable moment. And it rewards the second kind disproportionately, because it knows โ€” better than we consciously do โ€” that unrepeatable is the one thing viewers actually crave and almost never get. That's the quiet reason something like this travels the way it does. It's not marketing. It's not a trick. It's the platform correctly identifying that you're looking at something it can't manufacture on demand, and putting it in front of as many people as possible before the window closes. Here's a myth worth busting while we're at it, because it changes how you'll watch every future animal video, not just this one. People assume wild animals that appear "comfortable" around humans have been habituated through food โ€” that somewhere off camera, there's a hand full of treats explaining all of it away. Sometimes that's true. Often it isn't. Genuine trust-based bonds, the kind built through slow, repeated, low-pressure exposure rather than bribery, tend to look calmer, quieter, and far less food-motivated than the habituated version. An animal trained through treats orients toward the treat. An animal that trusts you orients toward you. Watch for that distinction. It's subtle, but once you know to look for it, you'll never unsee it โ€” in this video, and in every animal video you watch after this one. There's also a slower, sadder truth sitting underneath all of this that's worth acknowledging honestly, because it's part of why moments like this hit as hard as they do: most wild animals never get the chance to reach this state with a human at all. Not because they're incapable of it, but because most human contact with wildlife is fear, distance, or conflict. Roadways. Habitat loss. Encounters that end badly for one side or the other. The overwhelming majority of interactions between wild kangaroos and humans are neutral at best and dangerous at worst โ€” for the kangaroo far more often than for the person. Which is exactly why the rare exception matters as much as it does. It's not just heartwarming in isolation. It's heartwarming because it's fighting the statistical odds of what usually happens when these two worlds intersect. Every calm, trusting moment like this is quietly making the case that the outcome doesn't have to be conflict by default โ€” that with enough patience, enough respect for the animal's pace, enough restraint from forcing anything, something gentler is possible instead. That's a bigger idea than one video can carry on its own, but this video is a small, real piece of evidence for it. And evidence like that is worth more than another opinion piece ever could be, because you can't argue with something you're watching happen in real time in front of you. One more angle before you go find it and watch it yourself. Think about how many hours of your own life you've spent watching things that gave you nothing back โ€” content built purely to fill fifteen seconds of dead time between one task and the next, forgotten before you've even finished swallowing whatever you were drinking while you watched it. That's most of what a feed is. Filler. Noise dressed up as content, optimized for exactly long enough to keep you from closing the app, and not one second longer. This isn't that. This is the rare kind of thing that actually leaves a residue โ€” a specific image that resurfaces uninvited hours later, while you're doing something completely unrelated, because some part of your brain flagged it as meaningful and refused to fully let it go. Most content doesn't earn that. Most content isn't built to earn that. It's built to be replaced by the next thing thirty seconds later, forever, in an endless chain that leaves nothing behind. You'll know within the first few seconds whether this is one of the rare exceptions. Trust that instinct. It's the same instinct that made you stop scrolling long enough to read all the way down to this line instead of bouncing off after the first sentence like you do with almost everything else that crosses your screen today. That instinct is rarely wrong. One last thought, and then I'll stop talking and let the thing speak for itself. Somewhere between the jellybean-sized joey that shouldn't have survived its own birth, the mother who could kill with one kick and chose stillness instead, and the two-second frame you won't notice until you watch it twice โ€” there's a version of this video that never existed. The version where the timing was off by a week, where the trust hadn't built far enough yet, where the camera wasn't rolling, where the moment happened anyway but nobody was there to see it and it simply evaporated into the ordinary, unwitnessed life of a wild animal in the bush. That version happens constantly. It's the default. It's what "wild animal" statistically means, every single day, all over the world, completely unseen. This is the version that didn't evaporate. This is the one that got caught. Not manufactured. Not staged. Not built for you in a studio, in a script, in an editing room designed to make you feel something on command. Just real, and rare, and lucky enough to have a lens pointed at it at the exact right second. You don't get many of those in a lifetime, let alone in a single scroll through your phone on an otherwise ordinary day. This is one of them.

Earth Unveiled

39,986 Aufrufe โ€ข vor 19 Tagen

Carol Vorderman in conversation with James O'Brein over Reform UK's Makerfield by-election candidate Robert Kenyon's insulting remarks JOB, "Carol Vorderman has asked Robert Kenyon, a Reform UK's candidate in the imminent Makerfield by election, for an apology, for posts on a now deleted X account in which he, Well, you'll find out, if you don't know already, she said, I want an apology from Rob Kenyon to me and to all the other people he's abused online." JOB, "I sat down with Carol yesterday afternoon to talk about this and, one or two other things. It occurred to me, just sitting down now, Carol, that this is not something you, you sought because you haven't been in any sense reticent in recent years with your political opinions and even with activism, but you've been dragged into this deeply unpleasant situation entirely innocently." JOB, "So unpleasant, in fact, that I'm not sure I can repeat, I'm not sure I'm comfortable saying in front of you the words that Robert Kenyon chose to endorse and defend on, social media." CV, "Well, I am, because it's important that people know. And this is just one comment. He has made multiple comments which are online abuse about me and lots of other people. So the one specifically about me that he endorsed was I want to smell and lick Carol Vorderman's eight letter word beginning with A." CV, "And reform have said, oh, it's just locker room banter. I don't know why they're using the term locker room, by the way, because I thought we said changing rooms in this country. But that's an entirely different, different, question. But the thing is, James, I'm not upset by it, I am angered by it." CV, "And the reason that I'm angered by it is because every woman listening, any woman who is on social media will have similar said to her, either abusive, all the other things that he said. You know, there was some forum that he was on, rugby, league forum, and they were posting pictures of the girls, the women who play." CV, "And then he was saying, oh, English women, they don't care. All they want to do with their fat bellies, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. Then there was some, European women. Then he was saying, you know, oh, you wouldn't get me off them with a bazooka." CV, "You know, all this stuff, stuff about abortion. I mean, it's just disgusting stuff. And it's not just one comment, it's a tirade of online abuse. And every woman listening who has had that will know how it makes them feel." CV, "And so I am angry that a political party can take this person on one without obviously vetting him properly. But also that they just defend it and they're fine with that." JOB, "He was not a politician at the time. He was an ordinary man from an ordinary place, said Danny Craig group." CV, "Really? That's what. Yeah, that's what posh boys, who lead the Reform Party think, of ordinary men. Well, ordinary men generally are lovely, you know, they really are." JOB, "We do our best." CV, "Well, you are. And they respect women. All of that is true. But you have this growing minority who are extremely abusive. And I'm 65, James. And so I've been, you know, and women my age, we've been through the hard years." CV, "So in the 70s, you know, I was a bright kid from a comp in North Wales. Free school meals kid. And it took, you know, a lot to get to a Cambridge college because there were only, three girls colleges." CV, "And I think four or five had gone what they called mixed. So these are boys colleges taking on women's colleges. And it was like, why wouldn't you? You know, I was from a boys and girls comp, but we had to go through that." CV, "You had to be the first woman to do this. First woman from a state school. Northwest goes Cambridge first. You know, I was, I think, when I did engineering, There were about 300 students in our year, four or five of them were girls. I worked underground, me and 2,000 men, all this." CV, "So we have done the hard years over decades, all that. I wanted to be a fighter pilot. You can't, because you're a girl and you don't have the appendage that's required. You know, all of this nonsense that we had to put up with. So, for me, that this Reform Party is saying on day one, they would repeal the Equality act." CV, "And we all know what that means. So, you know, the protections against harassment of women in the workplace, the, equal pay, maternity leave, maternity pay, all of those. We're going to scrap all those. So it is indicative of the way in which this might go, as we've seen in America." JOB, "I think talking of ordinary men, the person who pushed back against him on social media was. It was a rather better model of masculinity." CV, "Yes, absolutely. So he's the author, Chris Ryan, who is a former SAS hero, a very successful author. Chris is his pen name. And, he absolutely defended me because he is a real man." CV, "He's not a pretend. He's a real guy and a guy who respects women." JOB, "I suppose, in some sense, the writing was on the wall with the leadership of reform who have not responded by the way, to, our, requests a, response to these allegations of misogyny, including the comments directed at you." JOB, "But when James McMurdoch Ended up in Parliament just after the last election, and, it quickly emerged that he'd been jailed for attacking a former girlfriend." CV, "Yes. And here is another example, a very serious example of, to me, reforms, excuses for things. So I think it was a Times newspaper fact he only got in with a majority of 98." CV, "So imagine if this information had been available beforehand about him. So, shortly after he was elected in 2024 as a Reform MP, I think it was a Times newspaper, found that he had been convicted and served time for, assaulting his girlfriend." CV, "He then said in his defense, oh, it was a push. Then the official court documents show that she was on the floor. He was kicking her multiple times while she was on the floor and had to be, dragged away by two security guards." CV, "Very different stories. Richard Tice then defends it, saying, oh, well, he's served his time. That was a long time ago. It doesn't matter. I am sorry. It matters. It matters to women. We know how much harassment online has increased and offline." CV, "So this is a time for all women to stand up and say, enough now, we are not going backwards." JOB, "I suppose one example is. It could be chalked up as accidental or carelessness. But two examples and emerging patterns speak of something altogether more sinister." CV, "Yes, well, Lee Anderson, bless him, when he was a Tory. That was after he was a Labour." JOB, "Yes." CV, "And now he's a Reform." JOB, "Correct. Well, at the time of this conversation, we'll have to check before we play it" CV, "out on the program tomorrow. Yeah, so he was, in the Conservative Party at the time and he was slinging insults to me all the time on Twitter in, the days when we used to be on Twitter. And, you know, obviously now he's reformed, he thinks it's perfectly acceptable." CV, "So there is a pattern there with this party. And, that is my concern that they will, if they get into, and they've stated it out in the open, we will repeal the Equality Act." JOB, "It's surprising to me when people like Danny Kruger talk about ordinary people. An ordinary man for an ordinary man." CV, "When he went to Eton." JOB, "Yeah. And, well, also his mother is on telly as well, so, you know, he or she at, at least will be aware of the misogyny that police. Yeah, yeah. You think that that might have given him a slightly more sensitive insight into what it's like for women like you. And, and you are tough. I mean, I don't mean that in a patronizing way." CV, "I take it as a compliment." JOB, "Good, I'm glad you do because you are perfectly capable of looking after yourself. A lot of women, both online and offline, are not, of course, and those are the kind of women that, misogynistic men prey on." CV, "But the thing is, I, I have a tough skin now because of all of the abuse over decades. And it. You know, I can remember when I wore a short skirt to the BAFTAs. I was age 39. Well, it was like I'd killed my grandmother the next day." CV, "It was the quest. Even the BBC made a whole Kilroy show about it. Flew this dress in copy dress from Paris. And, the question was, should a woman age 39 wear a dress above the knee? Jeez, I mean, that's my lifetime. This isn't Victorian days or my mother or post war." CV, "This is me in my lifetime. So, you know, as I go back to the beginning, women my age who love the fact that our daughters or nieces, or grandchildren have, can play football, you know, very happily can be applauded for what they do in sport." CV, "Can be. Oh, another thing that I'll, Kenyon said was that women can't referee, drive, take directions. And he had a go at various female sports presenters on the telly. You know, it's constant, it's consistent." JOB, "So they're not, they're not up to the job. They're only there to tick a box. And then declaring and From a political point of view, this is interesting actually stating I'm sexist. Sorry, but I am." CV, "Yeah." JOB, "And then the defense from reform UK becomes. These comments were made before he entered politics. He's perfectly entitled to his own personal opinions." CV, "That was three weeks ago." JOB, "Yeah, yeah. It's extraordinary that he can state that because Murdoch didn't get dropped by the party for the conviction for battering his ex, he got dropped after it emerged that he'd taken Covid loans out under the COVID support scheme. I think that's still ongoing." JOB, "But to state I am sexist, sorry, but I am in 2024 would have probably been a career ending revelation. Do you think? We're going a bit backwards, But I think we" CV, "have the potential to go backwards and we now, you know, generally you go, life's good. You know, doing this, that and the other. When I began my career as an engineer, funnily enough, not many women then were talking about having a career because not Many women have been to university and all of that." CV, "Now, thankfully, decades later, women are having careers. But also, housing was a lot cheaper then. So now we need to. You need, two incomes to fund a mortgage generally in this country." CV, "So the whole business of, oh, well, we're going to scrap the law that says about equal pay. That's going to affect people directly. And this is what I want people to understand, really. This is. This is not just about a woman getting on a high horse about something." CV, "This is very, very, very. Couldn't be more serious." JOB, "And, yeah, it is, of course, people like Nigel Farage and Sarah Potchin who claim that they're the party dedicated to protecting women and children. I mean, it's beyond irony. It emerged yesterday that one in five of the people arrested over the riots in 2024, which many people feel were fermented by Nigel Farage's social media activ." JOB, "Five of the people arrested over those riots have since been reported to the police for domestic abuse. So to simultaneously encourage and excuse the misogyny that's been directed at you and at other women while claiming. And, of course, to put a violent offender into Parliament and say that that's not an excluding offense while simultaneously claiming that they act for women and children is, It's beyond parody, isn't it?" CV, "And those same people who were arrested, there were almost 900 of them, weren't there? About the riots across the country at the time, 41% had already, been reported to the police for domestic abuse." JOB, "So who are the women and children they're dedicated to protecting?" CV, "Well, quite." JOB, "And who are they protecting them from?" CV, "None." JOB, "It's good to see you. I knew that you would be, perturbed by this, but." CV, "I am." JOB, "But enraged?" CV, "Yes, I am." JOB, "And are you expecting an apology? I know you've demanded." CV, "Well, I can't." JOB, "You did not demand anything." CV, "I can't demand anything. I have asked for an apology. Not for me." JOB, "No." CV, "But for all of us. And for his comments so far. I just think we're on day three. Nothing." JOB, "Not even a whisper nothing or a nothing." CV, "He's still running away. Hiding away from cameras, maybe." JOB, "Don't hold your breath, Carol. Thank you." CV, "Thanks, James." JOB, "Still waiting. I hope she didn't hold her breath. We got a statement from Reform Councillor Kenyon, made these comments before entering politics. We are confident that he is an excellent candidate who will be a superb local MP for Makerfield. And a full list of all the candidates running there can be found at lbc co uk"

Farrukh

24,754 Aufrufe โ€ข vor 4 Monaten