正在加载视频...
视频加载失败
Jean is doing that voodoo shit to Peter again. Enough with those naughty little shenanigans 😳 ・OG Video:♦️~The Drawing Creator~♦️ ・Type/EN Ver: AKKUA/イタロ #SpiderManBrandNewDay #SpiderMan #BrandNewDay #PeterParker #JeanGrey #PeterJean #SpiderPhoenix #Marvel 🕷️🐦🔥
188,005 次观看 • 4 天前 •via X (Twitter)
0 条评论
暂无评论
原始帖子的评论将显示在这里
相关视频
![Elad Gil’s 3 archetypes of hyper-successful founders Elad Gil has invested in and advised some of the largest companies in the world, including Stripe, Airbnb, Figma, Instacart, and Coinbase. When asked what made the founders of these companies so successful, Elad replies: “I think a lot of it is: Do you end up in the right market? Is the market big enough? Is it growing? Is it dynamic in the right way? I think half of it just is that you find the right market…. So you need the right market, but within that, there are tons of people who enter these markets and do horribly. So what’s different?” He notices that hyper-successful founders tend to fall into three buckets: “The first one is the polymathic, hyper-intellectual, yet very competitive person. And that’s probably Patrick and John [Collison] from Stripe. That was Larry and Sergey when I worked at Google — they were very polymathic, very deep on everything.” He continues: “I think the second one is the super hardcore, extremely focused, really really driven, overdrive founder. That may be Travis [Kalanick] from Uber… And I think there are almost signals of those because a lot of people in our ecosystem now, for example, are doing angel investing or they’re involved with lots of other companies while they’re running their own company. And this second class of founders doesn’t do any of that. They say no to everything, and they’re all-in on one thing.” Joe Lonsdale adds that this second type reminds him of Peter Thiel or Elon Musk in the early days: “I feel like Elon used to be more that way because he literally would say no to everything.” And then the third type of founder is one who is early to a network effects business: “If you have something that has network effects, you’re going to do well.” Video source: American Optimist Joe Lonsdale (2024)](https://image.24vids.com/tw-2013294696362074509/amplify_video_thumb/2013285562690449409/img/TNqiWXZM94BN0a0r.jpg)
![[UAP], "were frying the equipment on the aircraft. Some of our most state-of-the-art technology." ~Luna (Note: Transcript is much longer than video clip below) 🤔 Luna: There Are No "Holy Shit" Videos That I've Seen That The Public Has Not 🤔 The 46 videos we requested, "have all now been declassified." ~Rep. Anna Paulina Luna "ALL 46 [videos] have not been released." ~Jeremy Kenyon Lockyer Corbell to Me (I'd like to get that clarified from Rep. Luna) "If they would release the things that I've seen, you would stay up at...you'd be up at night worrying about, or thinking about this stuff." ~Rep. Tim Burchett Press Office to Rob Finnerty And Burchett added that we'd, "come unglued." We also had this... "It was one of those moments where everyone in the room gasped. Everyone. Even the staffers who are like, the most skeptical people in the room just gasped when they saw that video. Because there's not a single aerial thing that can do something like that, that can pull that off." ~Rep. Eric Burlison (Has that video been released?) Compare that to what Luna said... Douthat: "Is there anything else out there (video-wise) that is like, a holy-shit moment?" Luna: "As far as a lot of the meat and potatoes that we've been able to see and gotten briefings on, it's, for the most part, been put out." (So nothing to keep us up at night or to make us come unglued, or...make us gasp. I appreciate her being level headed with that and not hyping it. So, what are Burlison and Burchett talking about? I have learned to see things for myself first before getting too excited about what others say about x, y and z. Some of those videos in the two releases ARE very interesting but nothing has kept me up at night or made me gasp. Do videos like that even exist? It's not the first time I've asked that question.) ~~~Extended Transcript from Segment~~~ Douthat: "You have had access, before these videos were released. In what context have you seen these videos before they were released? Luna: "So I went into the SCIF and...I went and actually observed and saw all the videos before they were released to go through, numerically, to make sure that those were the ones that correlated to the ones that we had actually put out in the request. So those have all now been declassified." Douthat: "All of the ones?" Luna: "Yeah, in the list." (Remember: Regarding the list of 46, Corbell told me that, ""ALL 46 [videos] have not been released.") Douthat: "But how did you get the list of videos in the request?" Luna: "We had a group that came forward, it was bipartisan, former whistleblowers from the intelligence community that had access to... I would compare it to something like YouTube that exists within the intelligence community. And they came up with the files, and they said you need to get access to these files and have them released. And so, before the order came out from the President, we had come up with this list. We had been getting push back, and then after [Trump] gave the green light for it, it was declassified, and those are now up and able to be [viewed] at the Department if War." Douthat: "And what do you think they show?" Luna: "Well, there's some interesting stuff. I think that they show UAPs. There has been one of the videos that has since been debunked to be actually the infrared that was picking up aircraft that was farther in distance, but the optics are kind of an illusion in that sense. So there's been one that's been debunked. But there are ones that they cannot explain. They've tried to cross-reference it with other data, and the way that these things are maneuvering are pretty wild. And so, again, I think that they show UAPs in some instances." Douthat: "Right. And you think that one reason to take this stuff seriously is that they correlate with direct-pilot testimony of the kind that you've heard, right. So it's not like, I'm just... Imagine the completely skeptical listener or viewer, of which there are reasonably many, who says, 'Okay, you have some number of videos, we don't know what they are, but if one of them turns out to be sort of some prosaic explanation, we can assume a lot of them will be.' So what else makes you think..." Luna: "In the specific incident of Eglin Air Force Base, which is where we had the pilot testimony and we were able to see some images, these things were frying the equipment on the aircraft. Some of our most state-of-the-art technology is getting completely fried." Douthat: "And this is something that pilots told you had happened to them? Luna: "Yes, yep. Now, the other issue is, sometimes pilots won't report because they don't want to be taken off flight status. So there's removing the stigma of if you're supposed to have safe flying. You want to also track national security issues. You have to be able to document this stuff. But when you have this type of stuff impacting military training, impacting flight operations, impacting our technology, it's a problem. "We should follow up, and then say, 'Okay, well, is this technology that, potentially, could be advanced tech from adversary nations? I don't, necessarily, think that's the case, because if that was true, we wouldn't be number one, currently. Some of this stuff that we're seeing is pretty wild. You saw the New York Times report (2017 and the Tic Tac ~Joe), and just how it's defying physics, if you will. But then the other aspect of, what can we as Congress do next? We can declassify. I don't think, you know, this aspect of people saying it's not enough..." Douthat: "Are there things that you've seen in a SCIF, or not in a SCIF, that are wilder than this (the videos that have already been released)? That would like, make the front page of the New York Times as, you know, no one can be skeptical anymore?" Luna: "No, I think the aspect of, do I have, you know, a location where there's a little green man on a slab in a fridge (laughs). I don't think I'm gonna get that (laughs)." Douthat: "Wait, we're gonna get to that. Just stick with the videos. Is there anything else out there that is like, a holy-shit moment?" Luna: "Well, I think that there's probably going to be some more release of other videos as well, other testimony. They're still combing. But, as far as a lot of the meat and potatoes that we've been able to see and gotten briefings on, it's, for the most part, been put out."](https://image.24vids.com/tw-2064130794973774042/amplify_video_thumb/2063015130917732352/img/1I_Up7yZ_LcHIuXv.jpg)
7:15
Sensitive content
‼️SHOCKING: Erika Kirk CAUGHT Doing Weird Shit With UNDERAGE Girls Again—This Sure Doesn't Help Her Beat Those GROOMING Allegations!😱 This video is from two high school girls who are part of Turning Point USA’s Club America program. They were invited to the grand opening of TPUSA’s Las Vegas HQ where Erika gave a speech. While they were outside near the food truck, Mikey McCoy noticed them and brought them over to meet Erika. What happened next is raising a lot of eyebrows — especially in light of the ongoing grooming allegations surrounding Erika. The girls described Erika immediately grabbing both of them and pulling them into an extremely tight, long bear hug with both arms. One of the girls said she was so shocked she started crying and her whole body was shaking while Erika just kept squeezing her. She said it felt intense". In my opinion, way too intense for someone she had never met before. Erika then signed both of their shirts, kept complimenting them, and told them how cute their shirts were. The girls were visibly overwhelmed and emotional afterward — one of them called her mom crying right after. Who grabs two random underage high school girls they’ve never met before and bear-hugs them that hard? Especially someone already facing serious allegations about inappropriate behavior with minors — including allegedly grooming her own best friend Tracy_ officially's daughter (who btw now works as Erika’s assistant). This is the same pattern people have been warning about. Erika seems to have a very specific way of interacting with young girls that makes a lot of people uncomfortable. This is also the exact type of predatory behavior that sex traffickers use to gain the trust of their victims. The grooming allegations were already bad enough. This kind of behavior isn’t helping her case at all. Watch the full clip below and tell me if this seems normal to you. My channel is under coordinated attack to bankrupt and silence this investigation into the Charlie Kirk assassination. If you believe in independent journalism and want the truth to keep coming, your support right now is everything. Donate Here: CC: Candace Owens
Project Constitution
613,044 次观看 • 2 个月前
!["I'm still a little suspicious of who they know, but I don't think that's the big deal. I don't think Jen McCabe's social life is the big deal. Nobody cares. Nobody fucking cares. Sorry for cussing. "The big issue is that Jen was friends with Brian Tully. Tully's unit knew literally where the bodies were buried. And I think they brought on the PI, Marty Kraft, and Kate Peter to insulate their exposure [as to Sandra Birchmore] from the coming publicity that they knew was going to be brought upon them by Alan Jackson. "Therefore, I think what Alan Jackson's actual plan was—I don't think he ever said this, but this is what I think he was up to. I think Alan Jackson was using the fact that this unit had to sense that the more attention got paid to them, the more the microscope of national and international focus zeroed in on Norfolk County, Massachusetts, the more likely it was that Sandra Birchmore's grave was going to become the locus of the investigatory scrutiny. And that is why I believe they had something to hide. Tully had something to hide. Fanning had something to hide. Yuri had something to hide. Guarino had something to hide, although I'm pretty sure they made him do it. They had something to hide, in my opinion. And so they were worried. "And who would you bring in? If you had covered up a murder—if you were a state police unit—you'd bring in someone like Kate Peter. Because you can read her in on that. She's hardened. She doesn't give a fuck. She lost two of her kids. And I don't think she even fucking cared. So who the fuck is the perfect person? Be like, 'If that shit gets national attention, we're fucked. So you better control that fucking narrative and handle all these different people who get too close to this, or we're going to get our spot blown up here—not literally, figuratively. We're going to be exposed for what we did with Birchmore.'" "That's what really pisses me off. Like, that it's so hardened. It's such a jaded fucking view of the world. It's like people who leverage children to stay in other people's lives. Okay, they're the sickest, most demented humans, especially if they're only not in jail because they gave people up or something like that for serious drug crimes. And then they walk around like sanctimonious hypocrites. That's the only type of person in the world that I loathe more than someone who would knowingly try to manipulate a public narrative to insulate a state police unit from accountability for covering up Sandra Birchmore's murder. It's the lowest, most disgusting, most base form of existence. It requires one to have literally numbed their soul to the point where you can sleep at night, having participated in that. I don't think there's enough alcohol, drugs, or sedatives in the world that could make me sleep if I was a party to such a thing. And I question how some of these people do it. "But let me bring it back to the point here, which is: In 2022, the feds clearly—I believe—were starting to poke around. And come 2023, I think Brian Tully's unit was desperate. Who was going to find out because of the coverage of the Read case? Could they make sure that Kate Peter got close enough to Netflix and Gretchen Voss so that they couldn't find out what was actually going on? And could the Birchmore cover-up be kept alive, even in light of the national spotlight? "When you think about it from that perspective—when you think about the fact that some people may not have been loyal to the Justice for John O'Keefe movement, but were instead primarily loyal to Brian Tully's unit. And when you think about the fact that maybe Tully's unit didn't run the best investigation on Karen Read—maybe there were some flaws. But if you think about the fact that they did get her. But if you think about it in the context that Karen knew from the jump that the MSP were dirty over Birchmore, then you understand why it was going to become an incident. Everyone knew—everyone around Tully, his friends, all of them, the unit—they knew they covered up Birchmore's murder. And they knew Karen had it in her hands if she could just figure out the PR. And that's exactly what she did to put enough pressure on them. They took her to trial anyway, and it destroyed the fucking Norfolk DA. It destroyed Brian Tully's unit. It cost them dearly, and she's a tactical fucking genius. "I'm fully of the opinion that Karen Read staged a fake falling out with Natalie so that Natalie would get in the orbit of the MSP in June, July, and August of 2023 and feed information back to Karen. Likewise, I think Brian Tully thought he was slicker than he was by using the criminal prosecution of Aidan Kearney—not to get a genuinely, in my opinion, bad guy who was deserving of the indictment handed up by a grand jury of his peers. But because Tully wanted to know what the real target of the federal probe is. "If you don't know what a backhand is, folks, a backhand is where you investigate one thing on the surface, because you're dealing with a very, very high-level operation like the state police, who are a paramilitary intelligence-gathering operation. So you trick them. You make them think they're under investigation for John's death and the investigation of that death, but really you're investigating them for the cover-up of Sandra Birchmore's murder. And that's exactly what I think happened to this unit. That's what I think Brian Tully was trying to figure out from August of 2023 until about December. I think they eventually put it together, and by August of 2024, Matthew Farwell got wind of it and died. "Now it's a question of all this as a result of today. I want to be very clear: This is what was called for. There needed to be an independent voice with power—who takes no nonsense—who came into this and said, "Nope, it's out of your hands." And that's what Judge Doolin did today. The exposure potential—someone just needed to not be involved with Karen Read, Kearney, or the Norfolk DA, or Kate Peter or Marty Kraft, and prosecute this. Now, all those other witnesses, I have no idea what the hell is going to happen there, but at least for Lindsey Gaetani, Judge Doolin said, 'enough of this nonsense.'"](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1971224663935025588/amplify_video_thumb/1971224278365265920/img/-xkeU1RSHb9v3nSr.jpg)
!["Expecting rebuttals to remain confined to journals, while misinformation spreads freely online, is neither realism nor appropriate. If something is promoted in public, it must be corrected in public." ~Proctor's Response to Coulthart (Why am I spending more time on this? American Alchemy's video on the mummies has 904,000 views. @incredhistory's video has 5,500 views. The original, sensationalistic claims always do MUCH better than any evidence that is presented later that throws cold water on said claims. That's always been an issue. That could change if Jesse makes a short video on his YT channel right now, linked to the @incredhistory video, and implores his viewers to watch it with an open mind. And/or if he pins a tweet linking his X followers to the "Incredible History" analysis.) "At one point in time, I was truly wondering if these [mummies] were a new species." ~Accused Debunker, Will Brown 🙂 "It's just too early, yet, for me to make any kind of definitive statement about what I think about these objects." ~Ross Coulthart (After watching the new video by "Incredible History" and the interview done on "Weaponized," it's not too early for me (and MANY other people) to say I believe they're fake. Others felt they were fake right from the start but I wanted to wait for more evidence. We have that now. From yesterday's "Reality Check" with Coulthart and Meagan Medick.) Coulthart: "I think (the new @incredhistory video) is important. It raises... I've actually been in touch with the gentleman who made it, Will (Brown), and I'm hoping to some stage, talk to him. And I'd like to include what he says in any analysis that we do on NewsNation about the tridactals." (Who are the experts featured in the new "Incredible History" video segments that I clipped below? Dr. Daniel Proctor (Galaxopithecus), "has a PhD in bio-anthropology. Specifically, his area of focus is the hands and the feet. He has published papers on the evolution of the hands and the feet, including focusing of the ability to grasp." Dr. Joseph A.P. Wilson (Joseph A P Wilson), "earned his doctorate in anthropology from the University of Florida. he's current lecturer in archeology at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, and part time lecturer in anthropology at Fairfield University. And more importantly., before academia, he worked as a molecular genetic technologist at Greenwood Genetic Center in South Carolina." Michele - Mrs Anthrope (Radiographer) - Mrs. Anthrope The descriptions of their credentials is from the "Incredible History" video which I clipped a few segments from and included below.) ~More from Reality Check~ Coulthart: "We've filmed in Peru, and we've spoken directly with the doctors there. As I said in social media commentary that was posted before I left Peru, it's just too early, yet, for me to make any kind of definitive statement about what I think about these objects. I'm very careful not to even say, beings." (Again, after the seeing the "Incredible History" video, it shouldn't be too early to offer up a new opinion.) Coulthart: "I certainly got the impression from the CT tomography scans that they seemed like intact beings of some kind. But frankly, I'm not an anatomist. I'm not an anthropologist or anyone with any kind of experience in a scientific analysis of these beings. And I think we'll have to go with what good science says. And all the way through in this, what the scientists in Peru have told me, and what the scientists in America and indeed in Mexico have told me, is they want independent review. They want independent assessment. "And I guess what I'm a little worried about is the partisan way, the way that on UFO, UAP, Twitter, social media, people take their positions and adopt in a definitive position once and for all. This is a hoax, or this is real. Frankly, I just don't think we know enough right now. I don't think you can base a final conclusion on an analysis of a couple of bones in one alleged being's scans. I've heard arguments two and for." (With the new information, it's NOT "partisan" and I am NOT saying "once and for all." But I think the arguments for fraud put forth by "Incredible History" are pretty damning and are enough to show anybody with an open mind that there are massive problems with the hypothesis that these are non-human beings or...hybrids of humans and non-humans. It appears to be a done deal: aka Fake.) Coulthart: "What I think will be definitive, and I'm aware that there is a DNA analysis underway at the moment. I don't know the name of the institution in the United States that's doing it, but there is some kind of DNA analysis underway, which will hopefully provide us with more answers as to the genetic origins of whatever these objects are. And that should be coming out sometime this year, hopefully fairly early up. "Until then, yes, I do think that we should acknowledge that there's been some great work done to raise, I think, serious questions about the legitimacy or the authenticity of the beings or the objects, but let's keep an open mind and let's reward and applaud good science where it's done. "This isn't like some kind of wrestling bout. You know, there's not a winner or a loser." (The credibility of the non-human subject is in danger of being set back because so many people in this community want to believe so hard and will ignore anything that goes against those beliefs. If these, apparent, hoaxes are not called out and done so, forcefully, we're all going to lose.) Coulthart: "Science is an iterative process where people basically do an analysis and make an assessment. Let's make those assessments, do the independent work, make sure that independent scientists with rigor get peer reviewed and checked and assessed, and then we can come up with a judgment. "I think the real tragedy would be if these are, potentially, if they are significantly important objects that have, basically, been procured as part of Peru's natural, cultural, significant history, it would be really tragic if, because of a sweeping assertion that these are a hoax, that the entire thing is not taken seriously. I'm not so sure I can dismiss it out of hand just because of this latest debunk, but I'm very, very happy to let independent, rigorous science do the do the guesswork and do the analysis." ~ (Will Brown (@incredhistory) responded to Coulthart's take via a reply to Meagan Medick's post.) Will Brown: "Curious why you all didn’t give the same reaction to Jesse Michel's (Jesse Michels) bold proclamations in a video that received 200x the views mine did on YouTube? "Similar question for Jay Anderson’s (Jay Anderson) 'scientific proof' video which has 10X the views? "Perhaps it’s because those videos don’t throw a wrench in whatever it is you are working on? "…any and all documentaries and books moving forward should include Steve Mera's testimony about what’s actually going on in Palpa." ~ Will Brown: "Hey Ross Coulthart, I’m hoping you’ll correct yourself here. In this video you stated we only looked at scans for one of the 'beings.' That is false. The video covers Maria and Monseratt. The Podcast with Jeremy Kenyon Lockyer Corbell and George Knapp adds Paloma in addition to Maria and Monseratt... All of which have multiple signs of manipulation on hands and feet. "You told me you watched my video…you even said you thought it was excellent and that it brought up legitimate concerns. "Did you actually watch the video? "Your statements today make me believe that you didn’t watch at all." ~ (And here's Dr. Daniel Proctor's (Galaxopithecus) response to Coulthart, and others, who are holding out hope for new DNA analysis.) Proctor: "I want to respond to Ross Coulthart’s recent caution that we should be careful calling the Nazca mummies a 'hoax' because they might represent cultural heritage, and to his claim that DNA should be more definitive than anatomy. "Respectfully, this framing gets the issue backwards. "First, there is nothing new here. 'Maria' was introduced nearly a decade ago. She did not appear last year, or this year, or as some sudden scientific revelation. She has been circulating since roughly 2015–2016, and in that entire span she has never been properly documented in reputable osteological, archaeological, or forensic journals. There is no provenience, as they allegedly come from a cave from an undisclosed location. No controlled excavation, no chain of custody, no standard reports of any nature, and anonymous discoverer. "What we are actually seeing is a slow drip of bodies, which are always sensational, always just beyond proper access, always promoted as revolutionary, and always somehow unable to withstand normal scientific scrutiny. That pattern is not accidental. "Second, anatomy is not secondary evidence. "The idea that DNA should be privileged over gross anatomy in evaluating human remains is baffling. Anatomy is primary data. Bones do not lie about how they articulate. Hand bones do not mysteriously relocate into feet. Developmental biology places hard constraints on what a viable organism can look like. "DNA can tell you what tissue something came from, within the strict parameters for which the tests have been designed. No mainstream lab has tests for some hypothetical 'alien' DNA. "Anatomy tells you whether the body ever existed as a coherent organism. In this case, the anatomy alone demonstrates fabrication. That is not speculative. It is observable. "Third, the cultural-heritage argument is deeply ironic. "The Nazca mummy trade, because that is what this is, destroys real cultural heritage. Looting graves, ghoulishly disarticulating bodies, recombining bones, and fabricating specimens for sale and spectacle is the opposite of preservation. Calling attention to that destruction is not disrespectful, on the contrary, it is necessary. "We have seen this playbook before. The commercialization of mummies, the alienization of cranial modification, and the recycling of colonial myths about 'non-human' ancient peoples. 'None of this is new. 'What is new is the social-media amplification. "Which brings me to Ross’s discomfort with debunking (or defending) these claims on social media rather than in scientific venues. "Here’s the problem: this hoax does not live in scientific venues. "It never has. "It lives on YouTube, on X, on press conferences, in podcasts, and in staged congressional spectacles. It is an argument of persuasion, not evidence. Expecting rebuttals to remain confined to journals, while misinformation spreads freely online, is neither realism nor appropriate. If something is promoted in public, it must be corrected in public. "Finally, caution cuts both ways. Being 'diplomatic' toward a hoax that incentivizes grave robbery, fuels pseudoscience, and misrepresents Indigenous pasts does not protect heritage. It only enables its continued destruction."](https://image.24vids.com/tw-2010860470128062975/amplify_video_thumb/2010860334178058242/img/qeRHqrotcykdoz6v.jpg)