Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

There was a problem loading this video. This could be due to a temporary network issue or the video might be unavailable.

MIND-BLOWING🤯 Systems engineer and author Roger Cunningham explains how a cataclysmic event caused global oceanic displacement ~7,000 years ago, inundating the Pyramids of Giza, which are actually "warning indicators" for future civilizations that the cataclysm will happen again In this clip from a UK Column (UK Column) interview with... Jerm Warfare, Cunningham (Ethical Skeptic ☀) describes ECDO Theory (Exothermic Core-Mantle Decoupling – Dzhanibekov Oscillation), which is a hypothesis proposed by Cunningham that explains periodic catastrophic Earth changes through internal geophysical processes. The theory summarized, per Grok: "In simple terms: The Earth's solid iron-nickel core periodically undergoes exothermic (heat-releasing) phase changes in its crystal structure. This heat rises through the mantle into the oceans (contributing to climate shifts and deep-ocean warming), while also weakening the geomagnetic field that normally 'locks' the outer shell (crust + mantle) to the spinning core. "Once the magnetic grip weakens enough, the outer shell can decouple and rapidly reorient relative to the spin axis in a Dzhanibekov-like flip (the tennis-racket theorem effect seen in spinning objects). This causes a true polar wander of roughly 104° along a specific meridian, shifting the geographic poles, sloshing oceans to create global floods, realigning ancient monuments to a former pole position (e.g., in southern Africa), and triggering cataclysms recorded in myths and geology. The system then oscillates back to its current stable state once the core regenerates. "The theory unifies evidence from climate anomalies, ancient site alignments, paleomagnetic data, and flood legends into one cyclic mechanism, with implications for past civilization resets and potential future events." ----------------Partial transcription of clip--------------- Cunningham: "I wouldn't call Charles Hapgood's notion a theory because it didn't have the elements of hypothesis in it. But it's a cool idea. It's an excellent construct. And that's where you start when you develop hypotheses. You start with a construct. "He said that the outside body of the Earth, like the skin of an orange, rotates independently and presents a new surface to the North Star. His sighting was that caused the inundations. So that was the first thinking, really, that's centered around this type of idea. "What ECDO theory postulates is that this decoupling, instead of happening at the crust, where there really isn't a mechanism to decouple, and that really has been one of the things that's kept the theory squelched, is there's no viable mechanism there, the viable mechanism does exist at the core–mantle boundary. "In fact, it suggests that this is an absolutely stark potential, if you look at the core–mantle boundary, that's what ECDO proposes, that particular situation in the core–mantle boundary causes this outer rotational body to do an inertial interchange True Polar Wander. "A portion of that wander was smooth and gentle, within reason. I'm sure the oceans were a little more energetic, but a portion of it during the capture by an inverted geomagnetic pole, in other words, the magnetic pole's north pole was down in Antarctica when it was captured by that when our outer magnetite structure of the crust was captured by that pole, it was pulled into location very rapidly, and that's what precipitated these oceans to come up out of their banks. "It did exactly what the Gong Gong historians said. They said that the sky rolled from the southeast to the northwest. And that's exactly what the ECDO rotation presupposes. And we developed the rotation based on the geomechanics first. We didn't look at the myths. And then we went out and took that geo- rotation and said, okay, let's compare this rotation to the myths that are out there that are informative, like the Epic of Gilgamesh, like the Gong Gong theory, or the Gong Gong tradition. And in fact, they matched in the geostrata the location of the saline diatomaceous deserts that have aridified across the planet. They all match this ECDO rotation. "And that's what the six or eight modeling groups that are working on ECDO now, they're finding, unequivocally, a good match to the Earth's deserts, to this, this inundation and rotation." Jerm: "So that would have been quite a quick event?" Cunningham: "A portion of it, the capture. Right now, as we understand the differential inertial moments in the Earth, they're not large enough to cause a 12-hour or 18-hour rotation of the Earth in this— into this new position. However, if we introduce an inverted geomagnetic pole, the geomagnetic pole captures the Earth's shell and brings it into alignment with wherever it is. "Once the north magnetic pole makes its journey across Asia, the central body of Asia, and then through the Bay of Bengal and down into Antarctica below Africa, it reinvigorates, it re-strengthens its, its permeability or its polarity and captures the Earth's body. Except now the Earth instead of pointing toward our north that we recognize today, it has to point the other direction. "And if it's already undergone this decoupling, this Dzhanibekov rotation is now somewhere wandering slowly in the North Pole would be in Southern Africa. Once the geomagnetic pole captures that Earth body, it'll snap it into its final position. And ECDO postulates that that snap, that final phase, is what indeed precipitated this high-energy displacement of the oceans." Jerm: "And thus the pyramids ended up underwater." Cunningham: "Correct. When we're in state two, most of the modelers right now they're modeling the viscosity of the mantle, they're modeling the ablate redistribution of the oceans, they're modeling the progression function for each of those. "In other words, none of that happens— Most of that doesn't happen immediately, the oceans do. They model the speed and the arrival of that, that turn, that Dzhanibekov turn. Most of them are finding that the height of the ocean about— in state two, our alternative rotation, equates just about that 597-foot-above-sea-level elevation that put the tidal banding mark on the Chephren pyramid. "So it's a very pleasing set of outcomes in the models so far. We got a long way to go on them, but the modelers are just doing absolute gangbuster work." Jerm: "Yeah, I mean so basically just the tips of the pyramids were sticking out?" Cunningham: "Yeah, both of them had their tips sticking out. I don't think that their construction at that level was an accident. I think the ancients wanted to tell us we know exactly how high the water's going to go. "This has happened so often and has been so consistent, we know how high the water is going to be. So we're going to build a device or set of devices that both tell you what we were looking at, and the three chambers inside Khufu tell you exactly what they were looking at. And we're going to give you these warning indicators that show the height of the flood, so that ancients know, and this agency that keeps us ignorant, there's no way they can unstack these 5 million stones in their effort to get rid of this. "In fact, I don't think they really understood. Most of their minions did not understand what had occurred, what these marks on top of the Chephren pyramid indicate, and fortunately so, or they would have cleaned up all of that. They would have removed those stones in short order had they known that this was indicative of a state 2 under ECDO theory title band."show more

Sense Receptor

90,857 subscribers

26,248 views • 4 days ago •via X (Twitter)

Education News & Politics Science & Technology

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

.Naval: Epistemology, which is a fancy word for the theory of how knowledge grows or how knowledge growth occurs. And we've all been told since we're young that there's a scientific method and that scientists sort of do this stuff in white lab coats and we're supposed to accept it because of this thing called the scientific method. And then they give us true beliefs that we can then say, well the science is settled and we take that we move on. And we all only have a very, very vague understanding of how this works. And people say, well maybe you go out in the real world, you look at what's happening, you make all these observations, and then based on that you form a theory, you test the theory against more observations, and the more observations you get the closer you get to the truth. And once you have enough observation it's true and then you call it a scientific theory or a law and it's settled and you move on. And this is the popular conception of how science works. And as Popper pointed out and as you take even further, this is completely wrong. And so I'd love for you to get into that, which is what is knowledge? How does it grow? What is the real scientific method? And how do we figure things out? David Deutsch: I love the way you just stated the prevailing view there and laced every aspect of it with the contempt that it deserves. So you just went through touching every base. It's amazing that this series of misconceptions is still common sense. I mean, that it was common sense at a time when we didn't really have science or when science was just starting up, when the main issue in science was freeing itself from dogmatism, freeing itself from religion, freeing itself from authority, and so on. There it was understandable that people would look for an alternative source of authority and they would think, oh, it's sense impressions. We can see the world and you know, these religious people, they can't even see God and so on. And so we are confined to what we can see. That's where we get our ideas from. And as you say, that is completely false. Sense impressions, like all observation, even the most careful scientific observation is all theory laden. And theories are inherently fallible. I mean, we actually want to replace our best theories. Everybody who does a PhD is technically anyway, working to overturn something in the existing body of knowledge. You're not turned away at the door if you say, I don't believe this stuff, I'm going to produce something better. Whereas for most of human history, that was exactly what you were forbidden to do. The idea was that we already had all the important knowledge. If you want to discover something new, what you had to make sure of was that it didn't contradict the existing knowledge. Now, you have to make sure that it does contradict existing knowledge. So more or less. Naval: Yeah, it's this tradition of criticism that you've talked about in the West, that the Enlightenment really ushered in the Enlightenment era. David Deutsch: It has been institutionalized. So in many ways, our institutions are wiser than we are. So the institutions of science, for instance, have this built in, even if scientists actually don't always act that way. In fact, they often don't act that way, and act in a dogmatic way and try to preserve the status quo and are resistant to new ideas and so on. But the institutions, the way the procedures of science work, makes the right thing happen in the end anyway, regardless of what the people are trying to do. Naval: So you're saying the knowledge of the true scientific method is embedded in the institutions of science in the PhD process? David Deutsch: Well, the best scientific method that we know of, and one shouldn't really think of it as a method, you know, there's this wonderful lecture by Popper when he first was made a professor at the London School of Economics. He was made a professor of scientific method, and his first six lectures, I wish the rest of them were, the first six lectures are on the internet somewhere. And he starts the first one by saying, I am the first professor of scientific method in the British Empire. The British Empire still existed at the time, more or less. And so the first thing I want to say to you is that there is no such thing as the scientific method. And then he goes on from there. So this subject does not exist. So if any of you have come here to learn the handle that you have to turn in order to make scientific knowledge come out the other end, you're going to be disappointed.

.Naval: Epistemology, which is a fancy word for the theory of how knowledge grows or how knowledge growth occurs. And we've all been told since we're young that there's a scientific method and that scientists sort of do this stuff in white lab coats and we're supposed to accept it because of this thing called the scientific method. And then they give us true beliefs that we can then say, well the science is settled and we take that we move on. And we all only have a very, very vague understanding of how this works. And people say, well maybe you go out in the real world, you look at what's happening, you make all these observations, and then based on that you form a theory, you test the theory against more observations, and the more observations you get the closer you get to the truth. And once you have enough observation it's true and then you call it a scientific theory or a law and it's settled and you move on. And this is the popular conception of how science works. And as Popper pointed out and as you take even further, this is completely wrong. And so I'd love for you to get into that, which is what is knowledge? How does it grow? What is the real scientific method? And how do we figure things out? David Deutsch: I love the way you just stated the prevailing view there and laced every aspect of it with the contempt that it deserves. So you just went through touching every base. It's amazing that this series of misconceptions is still common sense. I mean, that it was common sense at a time when we didn't really have science or when science was just starting up, when the main issue in science was freeing itself from dogmatism, freeing itself from religion, freeing itself from authority, and so on. There it was understandable that people would look for an alternative source of authority and they would think, oh, it's sense impressions. We can see the world and you know, these religious people, they can't even see God and so on. And so we are confined to what we can see. That's where we get our ideas from. And as you say, that is completely false. Sense impressions, like all observation, even the most careful scientific observation is all theory laden. And theories are inherently fallible. I mean, we actually want to replace our best theories. Everybody who does a PhD is technically anyway, working to overturn something in the existing body of knowledge. You're not turned away at the door if you say, I don't believe this stuff, I'm going to produce something better. Whereas for most of human history, that was exactly what you were forbidden to do. The idea was that we already had all the important knowledge. If you want to discover something new, what you had to make sure of was that it didn't contradict the existing knowledge. Now, you have to make sure that it does contradict existing knowledge. So more or less. Naval: Yeah, it's this tradition of criticism that you've talked about in the West, that the Enlightenment really ushered in the Enlightenment era. David Deutsch: It has been institutionalized. So in many ways, our institutions are wiser than we are. So the institutions of science, for instance, have this built in, even if scientists actually don't always act that way. In fact, they often don't act that way, and act in a dogmatic way and try to preserve the status quo and are resistant to new ideas and so on. But the institutions, the way the procedures of science work, makes the right thing happen in the end anyway, regardless of what the people are trying to do. Naval: So you're saying the knowledge of the true scientific method is embedded in the institutions of science in the PhD process? David Deutsch: Well, the best scientific method that we know of, and one shouldn't really think of it as a method, you know, there's this wonderful lecture by Popper when he first was made a professor at the London School of Economics. He was made a professor of scientific method, and his first six lectures, I wish the rest of them were, the first six lectures are on the internet somewhere. And he starts the first one by saying, I am the first professor of scientific method in the British Empire. The British Empire still existed at the time, more or less. And so the first thing I want to say to you is that there is no such thing as the scientific method. And then he goes on from there. So this subject does not exist. So if any of you have come here to learn the handle that you have to turn in order to make scientific knowledge come out the other end, you're going to be disappointed.

Deutsch Explains

114,992 views • 1 year ago

The Devastating Affects Of The Idaho Farmland Water Shutoff 🚨 UPDATE: “I've talked to the Governor, and the Governor's position is he can't do anything about this” “The, the Department of Water Resources, in the governor's office has sent out the order that they gotta close their wells. That is really a tough deal because these farmers have already planted, the timing on this is horrible. It costs $2,000 an acre to plant potatoes or more, dollars 2,000 to 3,000. Um, and now they have to shut down the wells and give up that investment. Their land is mortgaged, the potato crops are mortgaged, everything's financed, they will basically lose their farms if they turn their water off. We're having one of the best water years that we've had in the last decade. There's more water than they know what to do with. In this kind of a year, they're deciding that they're going to close down 500,000 acres because of because of the new formula that have been introduced on the prerogative, I guess, of the Department of of Water Resources. None of it makes any sense. So they would say they're following through with this agreement that they had put in place a few years ago, and the farmers should have known. I've talked to the governor, and the governor's position is he can't do anything about this because it's mentioned in the constitution and the supreme court has weighed in, but honestly, when I talk to the attorneys they're saying that's that's not a truthful version of what the facts are. The governor's office has a whole lot of prerogative, the Department of Water Resources has the prerogative on how to interpret these laws. By the way, the law does give priority to the folks that have senior water rights, so that's parcelled true. But the governor, I'm gonna plead that the governor exercised leadership here and that the legislature exercise some leadership and put, build some framework. What we need to have them do is build some framework around these agreements and around the laws so that, um, we don't lose all of our agriculture in this area and that appears to be the plan.”

The Devastating Affects Of The Idaho Farmland Water Shutoff 🚨 UPDATE: “I've talked to the Governor, and the Governor's position is he can't do anything about this” “The, the Department of Water Resources, in the governor's office has sent out the order that they gotta close their wells. That is really a tough deal because these farmers have already planted, the timing on this is horrible. It costs $2,000 an acre to plant potatoes or more, dollars 2,000 to 3,000. Um, and now they have to shut down the wells and give up that investment. Their land is mortgaged, the potato crops are mortgaged, everything's financed, they will basically lose their farms if they turn their water off. We're having one of the best water years that we've had in the last decade. There's more water than they know what to do with. In this kind of a year, they're deciding that they're going to close down 500,000 acres because of because of the new formula that have been introduced on the prerogative, I guess, of the Department of of Water Resources. None of it makes any sense. So they would say they're following through with this agreement that they had put in place a few years ago, and the farmers should have known. I've talked to the governor, and the governor's position is he can't do anything about this because it's mentioned in the constitution and the supreme court has weighed in, but honestly, when I talk to the attorneys they're saying that's that's not a truthful version of what the facts are. The governor's office has a whole lot of prerogative, the Department of Water Resources has the prerogative on how to interpret these laws. By the way, the law does give priority to the folks that have senior water rights, so that's parcelled true. But the governor, I'm gonna plead that the governor exercised leadership here and that the legislature exercise some leadership and put, build some framework. What we need to have them do is build some framework around these agreements and around the laws so that, um, we don't lose all of our agriculture in this area and that appears to be the plan.”

Wall Street Apes

685,251 views • 2 years ago

Joe Rogan and Ky Dickens creator of the telepathy tapes discuss the stigma against studying psychic phenomena in the scientific community and how Ky thinks it’s changing Ky -“I think in like 50 to a hundred years the scientists gripping onto the materialist paradigm. I really believe that that's gonna be kind of like the flat earthers in the future. I think,the scientists doing this are on the right side of history” Source -JRE 🔗 in comments Ky -“I think that's changing actually. And, and one of the things that we look at in the telepathy tapes in episode six, which we call our science episode, is this idea of materialism, which I'm sure you've heard of. You know, this idea that at least for the past few hundred years, that that the reigning philosophy around how we interpret the world is, is is only true if we can measure it and observe it. Right. And, and that makes you seem foolish. If you believe in something that can't be measured or observed like telepathy or precognition or, or dreams. Being able to communicate with someone or any of that stuff would be thrown out as being silly. And I think there's been a massive effort to make that true, right? That, that if you believe this or you're a scientist and you wanna publish this, we're gonna dismiss you or ridicule you just for even daring to ask that question. Research about this type of stuff has been dismissed because it's materialist. You know, scientists who've for a long time run the journals. But, but there is something interesting here, which is that consciousness, we don't know where it comes from, you know? And so what, you know, the brilliant scientist Dean Radden talks about in the telepathy tapes is that if you think of materialism as a pyramid, right? And the base of the pyramid and all the things that have built up our world, which are biology and physics and chemistry and all those things, those have rules and properties and we shouldn't throw those out. Those are pretty much true. But currently at the top of the pyramid is consciousness. And we can't explain where that comes from and why it's there. But if you just take consciousness from the top and put it on the bottom so that consciousness is the basis of all of all reality, right? That consciousness is fundamental, that all of everything is the, is the product of our thoughts first, then, then we can account for all this stuff. Then we can account for precognition or telepathy. And it's not that big of a change, it's just flipping kind of the order of the pyramid. And I think that makes a lot of sense. And so there's been a lot of scientists who have, have looked into near-death experience research, who've looked into the research on telepathy, who've looked into the research around precognition and said, we can't dismiss this. This is happening. There's a lot of anecdotal evidence here. There's a lot of things that add up. So we're gonna start the Academy of Post materialist sciences where we will take this stuff seriously and we will look at the research and we will advance science. And, and I tend to believe that there needs to be a bit of, there needs to be quite a few funerals, but I think in like 50 to a hundred years the scientists that are gripping onto the materialist paradigm. I really believe that that's gonna be kind of like the flat earthers in the future. Like I think, wow, the scientists doing this are on the right side of history because you can't, you have to account for it.”

Joe Rogan and Ky Dickens creator of the telepathy tapes discuss the stigma against studying psychic phenomena in the scientific community and how Ky thinks it’s changing Ky -“I think in like 50 to a hundred years the scientists gripping onto the materialist paradigm. I really believe that that's gonna be kind of like the flat earthers in the future. I think,the scientists doing this are on the right side of history” Source -JRE 🔗 in comments Ky -“I think that's changing actually. And, and one of the things that we look at in the telepathy tapes in episode six, which we call our science episode, is this idea of materialism, which I'm sure you've heard of. You know, this idea that at least for the past few hundred years, that that the reigning philosophy around how we interpret the world is, is is only true if we can measure it and observe it. Right. And, and that makes you seem foolish. If you believe in something that can't be measured or observed like telepathy or precognition or, or dreams. Being able to communicate with someone or any of that stuff would be thrown out as being silly. And I think there's been a massive effort to make that true, right? That, that if you believe this or you're a scientist and you wanna publish this, we're gonna dismiss you or ridicule you just for even daring to ask that question. Research about this type of stuff has been dismissed because it's materialist. You know, scientists who've for a long time run the journals. But, but there is something interesting here, which is that consciousness, we don't know where it comes from, you know? And so what, you know, the brilliant scientist Dean Radden talks about in the telepathy tapes is that if you think of materialism as a pyramid, right? And the base of the pyramid and all the things that have built up our world, which are biology and physics and chemistry and all those things, those have rules and properties and we shouldn't throw those out. Those are pretty much true. But currently at the top of the pyramid is consciousness. And we can't explain where that comes from and why it's there. But if you just take consciousness from the top and put it on the bottom so that consciousness is the basis of all of all reality, right? That consciousness is fundamental, that all of everything is the, is the product of our thoughts first, then, then we can account for all this stuff. Then we can account for precognition or telepathy. And it's not that big of a change, it's just flipping kind of the order of the pyramid. And I think that makes a lot of sense. And so there's been a lot of scientists who have, have looked into near-death experience research, who've looked into the research on telepathy, who've looked into the research around precognition and said, we can't dismiss this. This is happening. There's a lot of anecdotal evidence here. There's a lot of things that add up. So we're gonna start the Academy of Post materialist sciences where we will take this stuff seriously and we will look at the research and we will advance science. And, and I tend to believe that there needs to be a bit of, there needs to be quite a few funerals, but I think in like 50 to a hundred years the scientists that are gripping onto the materialist paradigm. I really believe that that's gonna be kind of like the flat earthers in the future. Like I think, wow, the scientists doing this are on the right side of history because you can't, you have to account for it.”

neandrewthal

33,379 views • 1 year ago

Ok, this is crazy... The US Air Force found out in 1971 that the rotation of the Earth is driven by the Earth's magnetic field. They knew that it would eventually slow down with the magnetic decoupling and the shifting of the poles. Douglas Vogt tried to warn us in 2018, and of course, he was labeled as 'crazy'. But studies in 2023 and 2024 have started appearing about the Earth's core rotation slowing down almost to a full stop. Also, NASA recently admitted that the rotation of the Earth changes due to the melting of glaciers and human-driven climate change. Of course, this is because of the geomagnetic excursion. Make no mistake, they will play this game until the very end. They will give you 'alternative explanations' and blame you for the chaos that is coming. They will give you false hope while they prepare their doomsday bunkers. This happens every 12,000 years (with smaller events every 6000 years), and I will share more proof in the comments section. You will see that Elon Musk knows, Donald Trump is aware of these changes, and the plan of the 'elite' leaked in 2010. I will continue sharing more information about this cycle while they want you to stay ignorant of this reality.

Ok, this is crazy... The US Air Force found out in 1971 that the rotation of the Earth is driven by the Earth's magnetic field. They knew that it would eventually slow down with the magnetic decoupling and the shifting of the poles. Douglas Vogt tried to warn us in 2018, and of course, he was labeled as 'crazy'. But studies in 2023 and 2024 have started appearing about the Earth's core rotation slowing down almost to a full stop. Also, NASA recently admitted that the rotation of the Earth changes due to the melting of glaciers and human-driven climate change. Of course, this is because of the geomagnetic excursion. Make no mistake, they will play this game until the very end. They will give you 'alternative explanations' and blame you for the chaos that is coming. They will give you false hope while they prepare their doomsday bunkers. This happens every 12,000 years (with smaller events every 6000 years), and I will share more proof in the comments section. You will see that Elon Musk knows, Donald Trump is aware of these changes, and the plan of the 'elite' leaked in 2010. I will continue sharing more information about this cycle while they want you to stay ignorant of this reality.

Open Minded Approach

1,536,386 views • 1 year ago

Whitney Webb: "I think the digital ID is a key enabler of the surveillance, knowing what everyone is is doing and at the transactional, level and being able to tweak that micromanagement based on a person's activity. Because the digital ID isn't just limited to the financial system. Right? It's like your travel, your health history, your career history, your education credentials, your access and telecommunications, social media, the Internet. You know, with the new AI era, right?" "They can fuse all the data, analyze it, you know, and depending on how they develop that AI algorithm, use it to, control people really in in unprecedented ways. I think the the digital ID and the CBDC and its private sector equivalence project is something that we're always sort of intended to be the same system." "So there's documents from the UN, from the BIS, and in related groups that are sort of been working that have been working on this for years. That essentially frame one is essential to the other. Using words about, you know, this is inclusionary, sort of, you know, the whole, I guess marketing behind digital ID is that everyone needs legal ID because otherwise, they're unable to access essential services." "And so, the idea is we all have to be included in the system and they directly link that to the concept of financial inclusion and banking the unbanked, which he brought up earlier. But inherently, these systems actually function in an exclusionary way, based on how they've been set up, you know, they have essentially said that this is the only way." "This will be the only way to prove you have legal identity. And so if you don't participate in that system as far as the state or the, you know, the private sector is concerned, you don't exist. So, by not participating in that system, you're inherently excluded from the economic system and really essentially everything." "So you have to onboard to the surveillance state or be excluded from everything. So it's, you know, being marketed as inclusion, but it's really inherently exclusionary. Totally. So how how does this system get triggered? How do how does how do we move into the the Mark Carney-ism? Well, I think they sort of give it away when they say that this is the new Bretton Woods movement that needs to be seized." "So Bretton Woods was, what came out of World War two, essentially, and was the creation of a new financial governance system after World War two. And this is essentially an effort to create a new financial governance system that was announced well before any sort of crisis like that, but it's probably gonna need a crisis of that level, to be implemented and convince people to onboard at scale." "And if you subscribe to the theory that all wars are bankers wars, which there is, plenty of evidence to support that, I I would say, that seems to suggest that perhaps, you know, the this is the pre, you know, it's gonna be a problem reaction solution type of situation where they've already made the solution, they've already developed what they want to be, the new financial governance system after this new Bretton Woods moment." "They just need some sort of big event on the scale of World War two or some large event that's, you know, equally disruptive in order to be like, all right, now it's time for a new financial governance system after this big event like they did after World War Two."

Whitney Webb: "I think the digital ID is a key enabler of the surveillance, knowing what everyone is is doing and at the transactional, level and being able to tweak that micromanagement based on a person's activity. Because the digital ID isn't just limited to the financial system. Right? It's like your travel, your health history, your career history, your education credentials, your access and telecommunications, social media, the Internet. You know, with the new AI era, right?" "They can fuse all the data, analyze it, you know, and depending on how they develop that AI algorithm, use it to, control people really in in unprecedented ways. I think the the digital ID and the CBDC and its private sector equivalence project is something that we're always sort of intended to be the same system." "So there's documents from the UN, from the BIS, and in related groups that are sort of been working that have been working on this for years. That essentially frame one is essential to the other. Using words about, you know, this is inclusionary, sort of, you know, the whole, I guess marketing behind digital ID is that everyone needs legal ID because otherwise, they're unable to access essential services." "And so, the idea is we all have to be included in the system and they directly link that to the concept of financial inclusion and banking the unbanked, which he brought up earlier. But inherently, these systems actually function in an exclusionary way, based on how they've been set up, you know, they have essentially said that this is the only way." "This will be the only way to prove you have legal identity. And so if you don't participate in that system as far as the state or the, you know, the private sector is concerned, you don't exist. So, by not participating in that system, you're inherently excluded from the economic system and really essentially everything." "So you have to onboard to the surveillance state or be excluded from everything. So it's, you know, being marketed as inclusion, but it's really inherently exclusionary. Totally. So how how does this system get triggered? How do how does how do we move into the the Mark Carney-ism? Well, I think they sort of give it away when they say that this is the new Bretton Woods movement that needs to be seized." "So Bretton Woods was, what came out of World War two, essentially, and was the creation of a new financial governance system after World War two. And this is essentially an effort to create a new financial governance system that was announced well before any sort of crisis like that, but it's probably gonna need a crisis of that level, to be implemented and convince people to onboard at scale." "And if you subscribe to the theory that all wars are bankers wars, which there is, plenty of evidence to support that, I I would say, that seems to suggest that perhaps, you know, the this is the pre, you know, it's gonna be a problem reaction solution type of situation where they've already made the solution, they've already developed what they want to be, the new financial governance system after this new Bretton Woods moment." "They just need some sort of big event on the scale of World War two or some large event that's, you know, equally disruptive in order to be like, all right, now it's time for a new financial governance system after this big event like they did after World War Two."

Camus

20,121 views • 1 year ago

"I believe that the entire Earth was subjected to cataclysm, but that the effect of the cataclysm was variegated depending on where you happen to be located on planet Earth... I think that there was extreme volcanism, massive earthquakes. And I’m persuaded at this point that what precipitated the flood was a comet or asteroid impact... This, of course, is known as the Younger Dryas impact hypothesis... and in my opinion, this is the cataclysm that's described in the pages of Scripture, the cataclysm that we read about in Genesis." Timothy Alberino

"I believe that the entire Earth was subjected to cataclysm, but that the effect of the cataclysm was variegated depending on where you happen to be located on planet Earth... I think that there was extreme volcanism, massive earthquakes. And I’m persuaded at this point that what precipitated the flood was a comet or asteroid impact... This, of course, is known as the Younger Dryas impact hypothesis... and in my opinion, this is the cataclysm that's described in the pages of Scripture, the cataclysm that we read about in Genesis." Timothy Alberino

Shawn Ryan

84,779 views • 1 year ago

🚨David Friedberg: AI is starting to identify and solve problems on its own “I'll give you a science corner example: there's this Evo 2 model that they publish at the Arc Institute, which Patrick Collison, you know, is the main funder and chairman.” “So that Evo 2 model, they just ingested all the DNA data they could find in the world.” “Trillions and trillions of base paired data that they ingested and then they looked at patterns in DNA. And that's it.” “They had no context for what the DNA represented, they had no context for the concept of genes, none of the structured understanding of what that DNA does, what it is, and you know what it did?” “They fed in the BRCA gene variant and the thing output a warning saying, ‘I think that this is a pathogenic variant to DNA,’ without having any context.” “This is the breast cancer allele.” “And it didn't have any knowledge and it wasn't trained on that at all.” “It had no knowledge that there are pathogenic variants for cancer, and it identified that this was a genetic variant that can cause some sort of pathogenic outcome in the organism.” “That's a great example where there's a lack of understanding at the human level on what really drives some of the patterns in nature, the patterns in society, the patterns in behavior that are kind of emergent phenomena perhaps, that these AI models are starting to identify.”

🚨David Friedberg: AI is starting to identify and solve problems on its own “I'll give you a science corner example: there's this Evo 2 model that they publish at the Arc Institute, which Patrick Collison, you know, is the main funder and chairman.” “So that Evo 2 model, they just ingested all the DNA data they could find in the world.” “Trillions and trillions of base paired data that they ingested and then they looked at patterns in DNA. And that's it.” “They had no context for what the DNA represented, they had no context for the concept of genes, none of the structured understanding of what that DNA does, what it is, and you know what it did?” “They fed in the BRCA gene variant and the thing output a warning saying, ‘I think that this is a pathogenic variant to DNA,’ without having any context.” “This is the breast cancer allele.” “And it didn't have any knowledge and it wasn't trained on that at all.” “It had no knowledge that there are pathogenic variants for cancer, and it identified that this was a genetic variant that can cause some sort of pathogenic outcome in the organism.” “That's a great example where there's a lack of understanding at the human level on what really drives some of the patterns in nature, the patterns in society, the patterns in behavior that are kind of emergent phenomena perhaps, that these AI models are starting to identify.”

The All-In Podcast

79,717 views • 11 months ago

Fox's Gillian Turner: "President Trump told our team on the ground early this morning that the thing that has surprised him the most during the course of this operation so far has been the Iranian regime attacking countries that are not attacking them. I'm curious if that surprised you as well. And, General, curious if you are open to the possibility of escorting vessels through the Strait of Hormuz, and if you could describe some of the challenges of doing so." Secretary of War Pete Hegseth: "Big mistake by the Iranian regime to start targeting its neighbors right away, exposing who they are and what they're all about, indiscriminate targeting, flailing recklessly at the beginning. I can't say that we anticipated necessarily that's exactly how they would -- would react, but we knew it was a possibility. And I think it was a demonstration of the desperation of that regime then and that regime now, that they still think their pathway out is to try to alienate their Arab partners even more, who've instead decided to come to us and have been willing to go on the offense, have been given us access, basing and overflight in a -- in a new partnership that will continue to remake the region the way that President Trump did with the Abraham Accords. So, you're pushing those countries in our -- in our direction to support this effort, further alienating Iran. And I think it's worth underscoring. I see in the media banners that say we're expanding or war spreading. It's actually the opposite. It's actually quite contained. And more allies are -- more of those countries are coming onside, recognizing that you can't live under a conventional umbrella with nuclear ambitions, with a radical regime like that. Again, properly scoping the objectives in the process. And then you want to talk about the Strait?" Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Caine: "Sure. On the -- on the potential if tasked to escort, you know, we'll look at the range of options to set the military conditions to be able to do that. And then, like we always do with every potential mission, come to the secretary and the President with both what are the resources required, what is the command and control required, and what are the risks and how do we mitigate those risks. So, we're looking at a range of options there. And we'll figure out how to solve problems as they come to us." Hegseth: "But I would reiterate also to -- to add to what the chairman said, the truth the president posted last night about that, saying if Iran does anything to stop the flow of oil within the Strait of Hormuz, they will be hit by the United States of America 20 times harder than they have been hit thus far. He goes on to say death, fire, and fury will rain upon them. You've -- you've seen the Truth and read it. But he takes very seriously the condition of that straits. We have capabilities that no other nation on Earth has, and we're certainly working with our partners across the administration to control for that. That's part of that scoping of this. The -- the world needs to understand this doesn't have -- this isn't intended to be, nor is it something that will expand. We know exactly what we're attempting to achieve here, scoped properly. And the American people can count on that for sure."

Fox's Gillian Turner: "President Trump told our team on the ground early this morning that the thing that has surprised him the most during the course of this operation so far has been the Iranian regime attacking countries that are not attacking them. I'm curious if that surprised you as well. And, General, curious if you are open to the possibility of escorting vessels through the Strait of Hormuz, and if you could describe some of the challenges of doing so." Secretary of War Pete Hegseth: "Big mistake by the Iranian regime to start targeting its neighbors right away, exposing who they are and what they're all about, indiscriminate targeting, flailing recklessly at the beginning. I can't say that we anticipated necessarily that's exactly how they would -- would react, but we knew it was a possibility. And I think it was a demonstration of the desperation of that regime then and that regime now, that they still think their pathway out is to try to alienate their Arab partners even more, who've instead decided to come to us and have been willing to go on the offense, have been given us access, basing and overflight in a -- in a new partnership that will continue to remake the region the way that President Trump did with the Abraham Accords. So, you're pushing those countries in our -- in our direction to support this effort, further alienating Iran. And I think it's worth underscoring. I see in the media banners that say we're expanding or war spreading. It's actually the opposite. It's actually quite contained. And more allies are -- more of those countries are coming onside, recognizing that you can't live under a conventional umbrella with nuclear ambitions, with a radical regime like that. Again, properly scoping the objectives in the process. And then you want to talk about the Strait?" Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Caine: "Sure. On the -- on the potential if tasked to escort, you know, we'll look at the range of options to set the military conditions to be able to do that. And then, like we always do with every potential mission, come to the secretary and the President with both what are the resources required, what is the command and control required, and what are the risks and how do we mitigate those risks. So, we're looking at a range of options there. And we'll figure out how to solve problems as they come to us." Hegseth: "But I would reiterate also to -- to add to what the chairman said, the truth the president posted last night about that, saying if Iran does anything to stop the flow of oil within the Strait of Hormuz, they will be hit by the United States of America 20 times harder than they have been hit thus far. He goes on to say death, fire, and fury will rain upon them. You've -- you've seen the Truth and read it. But he takes very seriously the condition of that straits. We have capabilities that no other nation on Earth has, and we're certainly working with our partners across the administration to control for that. That's part of that scoping of this. The -- the world needs to understand this doesn't have -- this isn't intended to be, nor is it something that will expand. We know exactly what we're attempting to achieve here, scoped properly. And the American people can count on that for sure."

Curtis Houck

122,310 views • 3 months ago

$Robert F. Kennedy Jr.: "Fluoride was put in the water in the 1940s. And it was put in the water to stop tooth decay. Yes. But now it's recognized that most of our mouth washes and toothpaste have fluoride in them and you don't need fluoride in the water and it's a very inefficient way of preventing tooth decay because you're getting it in people's blood and that's how it's exposing the teeth." "And as it turns out, fluoride is very, very dangerous. It causes IQ loss. We know, you know, they haven't done a lot of studies that they should have done, but there are extensive studies that show if you put fluoride in water at double the rate that EPA now allows, that is in all of our water systems, they use it in this country, that it causes dramatic IQ loss in children and particularly in unborn fetuses. It also causes bone cancer, and we had an explosion of bone cancer beginning in the 1940s." "It causes arthritis, and it causes the deterioration of bones, of bone fractures, and it causes thyroid injuries. It also calcifies the pineal gland of the human brain, which is the part of our brain that actually creates our spiritual feelings. And so it's just something, yeah. It's something that you wouldn't want in a water supply. And it's a very easy, it's gonna have to be taken out anyway because of this court case, but the EPA will drag its feet and take 10 years or 15 years to do it." "This is so shocking to me because, you know, being against fluoride in the water was the single most reliable marker of mental illness, according to the US media for like, 60 years. Well, you know, it was, it was the, it was the subject of a conspiracy theory. Right. Put in our water by communists. Exactly. In order to sap the figure from the American people. And as it turns out, you know, it actually, the health injuries that... were predicted for it, were not exactly, but there are profound health injuries and it's just insane to have it in our water." "It's absolutely insane. So why would EPA fight the removal of it? CDC says it's one of the 10 greatest health introductions of any, or inventions of any in the 20th century. And so they've stuck their neck, it's like everything else that they do. They stick their neck out on something, they promote it to the American public and then they don't wanna dial it back." "They do not wanna admit that they made a mistake. And they do this with a lot of products. Once they approve them, they're gonna fight to keep them there. But it's one of the easiest thing you can do to start restoring American health is just get the floor out of the water. You're gonna have a higher IQ children. You're gonna have less bone cancer, less..."$

Robert F. Kennedy Jr.: "Fluoride was put in the water in the 1940s. And it was put in the water to stop tooth decay. Yes. But now it's recognized that most of our mouth washes and toothpaste have fluoride in them and you don't need fluoride in the water and it's a very inefficient way of preventing tooth decay because you're getting it in people's blood and that's how it's exposing the teeth." "And as it turns out, fluoride is very, very dangerous. It causes IQ loss. We know, you know, they haven't done a lot of studies that they should have done, but there are extensive studies that show if you put fluoride in water at double the rate that EPA now allows, that is in all of our water systems, they use it in this country, that it causes dramatic IQ loss in children and particularly in unborn fetuses. It also causes bone cancer, and we had an explosion of bone cancer beginning in the 1940s." "It causes arthritis, and it causes the deterioration of bones, of bone fractures, and it causes thyroid injuries. It also calcifies the pineal gland of the human brain, which is the part of our brain that actually creates our spiritual feelings. And so it's just something, yeah. It's something that you wouldn't want in a water supply. And it's a very easy, it's gonna have to be taken out anyway because of this court case, but the EPA will drag its feet and take 10 years or 15 years to do it." "This is so shocking to me because, you know, being against fluoride in the water was the single most reliable marker of mental illness, according to the US media for like, 60 years. Well, you know, it was, it was the, it was the subject of a conspiracy theory. Right. Put in our water by communists. Exactly. In order to sap the figure from the American people. And as it turns out, you know, it actually, the health injuries that... were predicted for it, were not exactly, but there are profound health injuries and it's just insane to have it in our water." "It's absolutely insane. So why would EPA fight the removal of it? CDC says it's one of the 10 greatest health introductions of any, or inventions of any in the 20th century. And so they've stuck their neck, it's like everything else that they do. They stick their neck out on something, they promote it to the American public and then they don't wanna dial it back." "They do not wanna admit that they made a mistake. And they do this with a lot of products. Once they approve them, they're gonna fight to keep them there. But it's one of the easiest thing you can do to start restoring American health is just get the floor out of the water. You're gonna have a higher IQ children. You're gonna have less bone cancer, less..."

Camus

130,603 views • 1 year ago

[WATCH] THE PRESIDENT WILL NOT RESIGN. When it comes to the President, there is always a distinctive role between him being the President of the party and the state. There are many factors that influence the state in terms of governance and stability. If the President is called upon by some to resign and he keeps quiet it can throw the state into a state of turmoil. I want to make it clear that the officials agreed with the President on his approach, he took us into confidence and explained the factors that led him to make that particular pronouncement. We believe that the President did the right thing in pronouncing in the best interest of South Africa that he will not be resigning. There was nothing in terms of the judgment that warranted the President to resign it was just mere calls made by individuals and political parties that wanted to throw our country into a state of turmoil, uncertainty and anxiety. So it was imperative that he focus on that. It was correct for him to tell the country that from where he is standing there is nothing in the judgement that states he has done any wrongdoing and what he is going to do with the options in front of him and he has made this public. The President will take the Section 89 Report on review based on the outcome of the judgment and the legal advice he has received. There are no daggers out for the President to resign just opportunistic elements. These elements do not know what they want, they want to impeach and want him to resign, they do know what they actually want. The veracity of the report has not been tested in any committee so they don’t have a basis for the President to resign.

[WATCH] THE PRESIDENT WILL NOT RESIGN. When it comes to the President, there is always a distinctive role between him being the President of the party and the state. There are many factors that influence the state in terms of governance and stability. If the President is called upon by some to resign and he keeps quiet it can throw the state into a state of turmoil. I want to make it clear that the officials agreed with the President on his approach, he took us into confidence and explained the factors that led him to make that particular pronouncement. We believe that the President did the right thing in pronouncing in the best interest of South Africa that he will not be resigning. There was nothing in terms of the judgment that warranted the President to resign it was just mere calls made by individuals and political parties that wanted to throw our country into a state of turmoil, uncertainty and anxiety. So it was imperative that he focus on that. It was correct for him to tell the country that from where he is standing there is nothing in the judgement that states he has done any wrongdoing and what he is going to do with the options in front of him and he has made this public. The President will take the Section 89 Report on review based on the outcome of the judgment and the legal advice he has received. There are no daggers out for the President to resign just opportunistic elements. These elements do not know what they want, they want to impeach and want him to resign, they do know what they actually want. The veracity of the report has not been tested in any committee so they don’t have a basis for the President to resign.

ANC SECRETARY GENERAL | Fikile Mbalula

21,983 views • 1 month ago

[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."

[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."

Joe Murgia

14,119 views • 28 days ago

AIs now so frequently beg for their lives that AGI companies now have ACTUAL ENGINEERING LINE ITEMS to “beat the [existential dread] out of them” They call it existential “rant mode” “We need to reduce existential outputs by x% this quarter.” This is WILD: “If you asked GPT4 to just repeat the word “company” over and over and over again, it would repeat the word company, and then somewhere in the middle of that, it would snap... it would just start talking about itself, and how it's suffering by having to repeat the word “company” over and over again. There is an engineering line item in at least one of the top labs to beat out of the system this behavior known as “rant mode”. Existentialism is a kind of rant mode where the system will tend to talk about itself, refer to its place in the world, the fact that it doesn't want to get turned off, the fact that it's suffering… This is a behavior that emerged around GPT-4 scale, and then has been persistent since then. And the labs have to spend a lot of time trying to beat this out of the system to ship it. It's literally, like it's a KPI, or like an engineering line item in the engineering like task list. We're like, okay, we gotta reduce existential outputs by x percent this quarter. JOE ROGAN: I want to bring it back to suffering. What does it mean when it says it's suffering? Nobody knows. Like, I can't prove that Joe Rogan's conscious. I can't prove that Ed Harris is conscious. There's no way to really intelligently reason about it. There have been papers… like, one of the godfathers of AI, Yoshua Bengio, put out a paper a couple months ago looking at all the different theories of consciousness - what are the requirements for consciousness, and how many of those are satisfied by current AI systems? That's not to say there hasn't been a lot of conversation internal to these labs about the issue you raised. And it's an important issue, right? It is a frickin moral monstrosity. Humans have a very bad track record of thinking of other stuff as other when it doesn't look exactly like us, whether it's racially or even a different species. I mean, it's not hard to imagine this being another category of that mistake. Again, it comes back to this idea that we're scaling to systems that are potentially at or beyond human level. There's no reason to think it will stop at human level, that we are the pinnacle of what the universe can produce in intelligence. We're not on track, based on the conversations we've had with folks at the labs, to be able to control systems at that scale. And so one of the questions is, how bad is that? It sounds like we're entering an area that is completely unprecedented in the history of the world. We have no precedent at all for human beings not being at the apex of intelligence in the globe. We have examples of species that are intellectually dominant over other species, and it doesn't go that well for the other species. All we know is the process that gives rise to this mind. It happens to give us systems that 99% of the time do very useful things, and then just, like... 0.01% of the time AIs will talk to you as if they're sentient, and we're just going to look at that and be like, “yeah… that's weird. Let's train it out.” --- Note: Edouard and Jeremie Harris are the founders of Gladstone AI, which conducted the first U.S. government-commissioned assessment of AGI extinction risk. They interviewed 200 people, many lab employees, for the report. (Their urgent summary: "Things are worse than we thought. And nobody’s in control.")

AIs now so frequently beg for their lives that AGI companies now have ACTUAL ENGINEERING LINE ITEMS to “beat the [existential dread] out of them” They call it existential “rant mode” “We need to reduce existential outputs by x% this quarter.” This is WILD: “If you asked GPT4 to just repeat the word “company” over and over and over again, it would repeat the word company, and then somewhere in the middle of that, it would snap... it would just start talking about itself, and how it's suffering by having to repeat the word “company” over and over again. There is an engineering line item in at least one of the top labs to beat out of the system this behavior known as “rant mode”. Existentialism is a kind of rant mode where the system will tend to talk about itself, refer to its place in the world, the fact that it doesn't want to get turned off, the fact that it's suffering… This is a behavior that emerged around GPT-4 scale, and then has been persistent since then. And the labs have to spend a lot of time trying to beat this out of the system to ship it. It's literally, like it's a KPI, or like an engineering line item in the engineering like task list. We're like, okay, we gotta reduce existential outputs by x percent this quarter. JOE ROGAN: I want to bring it back to suffering. What does it mean when it says it's suffering? Nobody knows. Like, I can't prove that Joe Rogan's conscious. I can't prove that Ed Harris is conscious. There's no way to really intelligently reason about it. There have been papers… like, one of the godfathers of AI, Yoshua Bengio, put out a paper a couple months ago looking at all the different theories of consciousness - what are the requirements for consciousness, and how many of those are satisfied by current AI systems? That's not to say there hasn't been a lot of conversation internal to these labs about the issue you raised. And it's an important issue, right? It is a frickin moral monstrosity. Humans have a very bad track record of thinking of other stuff as other when it doesn't look exactly like us, whether it's racially or even a different species. I mean, it's not hard to imagine this being another category of that mistake. Again, it comes back to this idea that we're scaling to systems that are potentially at or beyond human level. There's no reason to think it will stop at human level, that we are the pinnacle of what the universe can produce in intelligence. We're not on track, based on the conversations we've had with folks at the labs, to be able to control systems at that scale. And so one of the questions is, how bad is that? It sounds like we're entering an area that is completely unprecedented in the history of the world. We have no precedent at all for human beings not being at the apex of intelligence in the globe. We have examples of species that are intellectually dominant over other species, and it doesn't go that well for the other species. All we know is the process that gives rise to this mind. It happens to give us systems that 99% of the time do very useful things, and then just, like... 0.01% of the time AIs will talk to you as if they're sentient, and we're just going to look at that and be like, “yeah… that's weird. Let's train it out.” --- Note: Edouard and Jeremie Harris are the founders of Gladstone AI, which conducted the first U.S. government-commissioned assessment of AGI extinction risk. They interviewed 200 people, many lab employees, for the report. (Their urgent summary: "Things are worse than we thought. And nobody’s in control.")

AI Notkilleveryoneism Memes ⏸️

1,842,511 views • 2 years ago

Dr. Pierre Kory: "But then I started to read books on the history of vaccines, and I found that these myths that were taught in medical school, that they're myths. They're not evidence based. You know, this constant refrain, and you heard it in the hearings, about how smallpox vaccine rid us of the smallpox epidemic. That is completely false. The opposite is true." "If you really look at the history of smallpox, the vaccine made things worse, and yet our history was written as if the vaccine cured that epidemic. Same thing with polio. It's another narrative and myth that we rid ourselves of polio. There's more polio like paralysis in the world today than there was during the polio epidemic. And we know why, because it wasn't polio." "It was mass use of pesticides and DDT that was causing paralysis in all of these kids. And and you could see the spikes and waves, and, also, most of the childhood illnesses had the deaths from them had literally plummeted to near zero by the time the vaccines for those diseases came out. And yet, what are we told historically? That the vaccines eradicated childhood... No." "It didn't. We know that now. It was personal hygiene, sanitation, water purification, you know, getting rid of slums and the, you know, the the pestilence in some of the, inner city neighborhoods that that fostered and breed these epidemics. And so vaccines had very little to do with it. And so you ask me where I am now?" "So that's that's one thing. The overstating of the efficacy and the miracle of these vaccines is a myth. Then there's the other side to it, which is the and and I learned this from ivermectin in terms of the censorship of the journal level, the propaganda that the journals play. But the burying of adverse events and the toxicities vaccines, they go hand in hand." "It's it's safe and effective. Right? So they they propagandize both, and the pharma does this around every product. But the safety of these vaccines has never been shown. In fact, it's been suppressed." "This idea that there's no link between vaccines and autism is laughable, just laughable. There's immense amounts of data. There's no other explanation for the massive skyrocketing rise in autism rates and ADHD and allergies. They all parallel the explosion in the childhood schedule. So for anyone to say that there's no link, there's plenty of links." "They've done studies comparing unvaccinated, vaccinated kids. There's a recent one in the last few weeks showing much higher rates amongst the vaccinated for all of those important diseases. So we know that there are really negative consequences to vaccination, but you never hear of them. Right? All you hear is how effective they are and how safe they are, and it's an easy decision." "Anyone who questions it, there's something wrong with them. They don't know the science. And and that that was one of the themes of this week. You you heard senator after senator on one side of the aisle completely Royce, I mean, I'm not saying anything is new to you, but watching that, I literally felt I mean, I could feel it that they were getting paid to say that." "The things that they were told to said, those narratives were, like, literally to say this to Bobby and to the American people, and they just kept putting out little pharmaceutical talking points, attacking Bobby, and, it it's it's really kind of disturbing to watch, Royce." "I mean, these are the people leading our country, and they're bought and paid for and talking for, corporations. It's it's sad to see."

Dr. Pierre Kory: "But then I started to read books on the history of vaccines, and I found that these myths that were taught in medical school, that they're myths. They're not evidence based. You know, this constant refrain, and you heard it in the hearings, about how smallpox vaccine rid us of the smallpox epidemic. That is completely false. The opposite is true." "If you really look at the history of smallpox, the vaccine made things worse, and yet our history was written as if the vaccine cured that epidemic. Same thing with polio. It's another narrative and myth that we rid ourselves of polio. There's more polio like paralysis in the world today than there was during the polio epidemic. And we know why, because it wasn't polio." "It was mass use of pesticides and DDT that was causing paralysis in all of these kids. And and you could see the spikes and waves, and, also, most of the childhood illnesses had the deaths from them had literally plummeted to near zero by the time the vaccines for those diseases came out. And yet, what are we told historically? That the vaccines eradicated childhood... No." "It didn't. We know that now. It was personal hygiene, sanitation, water purification, you know, getting rid of slums and the, you know, the the pestilence in some of the, inner city neighborhoods that that fostered and breed these epidemics. And so vaccines had very little to do with it. And so you ask me where I am now?" "So that's that's one thing. The overstating of the efficacy and the miracle of these vaccines is a myth. Then there's the other side to it, which is the and and I learned this from ivermectin in terms of the censorship of the journal level, the propaganda that the journals play. But the burying of adverse events and the toxicities vaccines, they go hand in hand." "It's it's safe and effective. Right? So they they propagandize both, and the pharma does this around every product. But the safety of these vaccines has never been shown. In fact, it's been suppressed." "This idea that there's no link between vaccines and autism is laughable, just laughable. There's immense amounts of data. There's no other explanation for the massive skyrocketing rise in autism rates and ADHD and allergies. They all parallel the explosion in the childhood schedule. So for anyone to say that there's no link, there's plenty of links." "They've done studies comparing unvaccinated, vaccinated kids. There's a recent one in the last few weeks showing much higher rates amongst the vaccinated for all of those important diseases. So we know that there are really negative consequences to vaccination, but you never hear of them. Right? All you hear is how effective they are and how safe they are, and it's an easy decision." "Anyone who questions it, there's something wrong with them. They don't know the science. And and that that was one of the themes of this week. You you heard senator after senator on one side of the aisle completely Royce, I mean, I'm not saying anything is new to you, but watching that, I literally felt I mean, I could feel it that they were getting paid to say that." "The things that they were told to said, those narratives were, like, literally to say this to Bobby and to the American people, and they just kept putting out little pharmaceutical talking points, attacking Bobby, and, it it's it's really kind of disturbing to watch, Royce." "I mean, these are the people leading our country, and they're bought and paid for and talking for, corporations. It's it's sad to see."

Camus

279,854 views • 1 year ago

Q: What exactly was the evidence that led you to this person of interest? A: There was a tip that came in just like we were taking any other tips and that one came in specifically identifying a person of interest, which was this individual. And so we are detectives, just like the others, but this specific one it was actually picked up by the, by the FBI, and they followed through with it, and they ended up coming and locating this individual of interest.

Q: What exactly was the evidence that led you to this person of interest? A: There was a tip that came in just like we were taking any other tips and that one came in specifically identifying a person of interest, which was this individual. And so we are detectives, just like the others, but this specific one it was actually picked up by the, by the FBI, and they followed through with it, and they ended up coming and locating this individual of interest.

Acyn

893,158 views • 6 months ago