Sensitive content

This media may contain sensitive content.

Video yükleniyor...

Video Yüklenemedi

Bu video yüklenirken bir sorun oluştu. Bu geçici bir ağ sorunundan kaynaklanıyor olabilir veya video kullanılamıyor olabilir.

Ana Sayfaya Dön

NEW POST! When I cum inside 🍆💦 you can see it 😈😍! (runtime: appx 9min 29sec) #tantaly #pornhub #adulttoys #sexdoll #fuckfansly #onlyfans #cumshot #tantalysexdoll #bigblackcock #colorado #bbc #creampie #nsfw

Beld of Marmo (FREE OnlyFans)

11,568 subscribers

27,553 görüntüleme • 27 gün önce •via X (Twitter)

NSFW #tantaly #pornhub #adulttoys #sexdoll #fuckfansly #onlyfans #cumshot #tantalysexdoll #bigblackcock #colorado #bbc #creampie #nsfw

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Yorum

Yorum bulunmuyor

Orijinal gönderinin yorumları burada görünecek

Benzer Videolar

Sensitive content

Models/Artists: EXCITING AND MAJOR NEW ANNOUNCEMENTS 1. You can now upload any zip or pdf file to sell in your store or include in a post, up to 2gig. 2. The Media Center now has a “Files” category where you can see the files you have uploaded, create a post or a store item. 3. There are new Art categories you can choose when posting a product for sale, and that users can use to search the store. These will evolve over time and we know they don’t cover every use case yet. 4. There is a new Artists page that lists the artists on the site. There aren’t many yet, but this will obviously grow a lot. 5. The verification process now has better instructions for artists vs. video creators. 6. When you sign up, you choose whether you are an artist or on-screen talent. If you already have your account and need to update this, reach out to customer service and they can do it for you. If your current artwork fits within our TOS, go ahead and start selling your works now on JFF. If you aren’t sure, we hope to have clarity around our TOS this week, so please be patient as we get that done. Folks, this is Phase I, and we’ve done this all since Friday to try to help the NSFW artists in our community. There will be more phases as we see what is needed. We are doing our best, so if something you want isn’t there yet, send a note to customer service and help us build this area out on the site over time. We hope Phase I meets a good percentage of your immediate needs to start earning money. But we also know that our site, like ALL adult sites, will have content restrictions that will exclude some of you. That’s not our choosing or our doing. But if we want to keep our credit card processors and not deplatform everyone (like other sites just did) then we need to play by their rules. That sucks and we are sorry about that. We use adult processors, so we have a lot fewer restrictions than the other sites that are deplatforming ALL NSFW content. For those of you new to the site, we have made a VIDEO TUTORIAL (thank you, Alice Skary) on how to upload files, post them for sale, set your store as the default view of your profile, etc. You can watch that here:

JustForFans

461,360 görüntüleme • 2 yıl önce

Does the Hellfire Object Operate Like a "Marsupial"? Corbell: There's 5+ more minutes of footage after the Hellfire hit the object. On today's WEAPONIZED, Jeremy Kenyon Lockyer Corbell said the folks he spoke to said the Hellfire missile "bounced off" the UAP, or whatever that object was. I just don't see that. Deflected at the last minute? Changed direction once it lost the laser tracking? Both can be debated. But bounced? IMO (and the opinion of some of the folks who did their own analysis, which I share shared on here), no. Also, he said it was labeled UAP by the DOD and still is. By whom? I would never ask him for names. How many folks? What type of folks? Is it the same folks who claim it "bounced off" the object? Corbell added that the UAP/object, "didn't descend. Neither did the tagalongs. They did not descend after, for a large amount of time." Here's James Fowler from yesterday's interview with ProPixel Video Analysis and Research. Fowler: "I think it's important to note that post-impact, the target did descend. You know, if the crosshairs were left in the same spot, as in the system operators letting it drift off screen so they can see it not occluded by the crosshairs... You'll see the object and the other objects that were ejected from it. You'll see it in a descent, initially. It does look like it levels out later on in the flight. "The three items that were ejected from the target are very interesting. That's actually what brought me and Billy together on this topic was, Billy was doing some analysis on the video and zoomed and enhanced, and I said, 'Oh my God, I've seen those shapes somewhere before. We should talk about this.' "So, before that, I was like, 'Ah, it's something prosaic, maybe it's something natural, you know, something, you know, it's a balloon. Who knows? Maybe some new technology.' But these three items are very interesting, not just the way they're moving, but the way they're shaped and how they present." Corbell said AARO can go and get the other 5+ minutes of footage. It's on SIPRNET. ~~~ Corbell: "One of the weirdest things is when it was reported to me and George Knapp, there was this word that was attached to it within the file and a briefing. And it was marsupial. So I had to go look that up. And it turns out, when you look it up, marsupials [are] things that like, keep other living things in pouches, right? And so it was so funny to me, and I didn't know what to make of it for months and months and months. "But then I started thinking, this really is reminiscent of a good friend of mine, his footage, this guy named Jim Martin. And he was filming in ultraviolet and IR through a camera off the coast of California. And there's this weird, anamorphous blob that it's dropping out these orbs. I'm mean, just dropping these orbs out. "I'll play this here just as like a sort of symbolic, um, why they might use the word marsupial. Think of like, a kangaroo with a pouch and objects inside of it. So that's why I said online, I think you're on to something, Marik vR. Now I can't prove that, but I'm reporting to you what came to me and George, associated with this footage prior to its public release. So that's something of note. "There have been so many weird, dismissive theories of this without proper investigation. I think it was even Avi Loeb was suggesting that the object itself that got hit was a Houthi Samad drone. Have you ever seen a photo of one of these? They're not an anamorphous blob. And you know, because your thermal research Marik, you would see the huge wings, the X on the tail, the long length of this if it was hitting some known drone. So what you're seeing is representative of the shape of what's there. "So there's a lot of questions with this footage. This will be an ongoing thing. But I can tell you that even as of today, it is a UAP designated by the DOD, to this day, even after the footage came out. If that changes, if we find out about it, George and I will report that."

Does the Hellfire Object Operate Like a "Marsupial"? Corbell: There's 5+ more minutes of footage after the Hellfire hit the object. On today's WEAPONIZED, Jeremy Kenyon Lockyer Corbell said the folks he spoke to said the Hellfire missile "bounced off" the UAP, or whatever that object was. I just don't see that. Deflected at the last minute? Changed direction once it lost the laser tracking? Both can be debated. But bounced? IMO (and the opinion of some of the folks who did their own analysis, which I share shared on here), no. Also, he said it was labeled UAP by the DOD and still is. By whom? I would never ask him for names. How many folks? What type of folks? Is it the same folks who claim it "bounced off" the object? Corbell added that the UAP/object, "didn't descend. Neither did the tagalongs. They did not descend after, for a large amount of time." Here's James Fowler from yesterday's interview with ProPixel Video Analysis and Research. Fowler: "I think it's important to note that post-impact, the target did descend. You know, if the crosshairs were left in the same spot, as in the system operators letting it drift off screen so they can see it not occluded by the crosshairs... You'll see the object and the other objects that were ejected from it. You'll see it in a descent, initially. It does look like it levels out later on in the flight. "The three items that were ejected from the target are very interesting. That's actually what brought me and Billy together on this topic was, Billy was doing some analysis on the video and zoomed and enhanced, and I said, 'Oh my God, I've seen those shapes somewhere before. We should talk about this.' "So, before that, I was like, 'Ah, it's something prosaic, maybe it's something natural, you know, something, you know, it's a balloon. Who knows? Maybe some new technology.' But these three items are very interesting, not just the way they're moving, but the way they're shaped and how they present." Corbell said AARO can go and get the other 5+ minutes of footage. It's on SIPRNET. ~~~ Corbell: "One of the weirdest things is when it was reported to me and George Knapp, there was this word that was attached to it within the file and a briefing. And it was marsupial. So I had to go look that up. And it turns out, when you look it up, marsupials [are] things that like, keep other living things in pouches, right? And so it was so funny to me, and I didn't know what to make of it for months and months and months. "But then I started thinking, this really is reminiscent of a good friend of mine, his footage, this guy named Jim Martin. And he was filming in ultraviolet and IR through a camera off the coast of California. And there's this weird, anamorphous blob that it's dropping out these orbs. I'm mean, just dropping these orbs out. "I'll play this here just as like a sort of symbolic, um, why they might use the word marsupial. Think of like, a kangaroo with a pouch and objects inside of it. So that's why I said online, I think you're on to something, Marik vR. Now I can't prove that, but I'm reporting to you what came to me and George, associated with this footage prior to its public release. So that's something of note. "There have been so many weird, dismissive theories of this without proper investigation. I think it was even Avi Loeb was suggesting that the object itself that got hit was a Houthi Samad drone. Have you ever seen a photo of one of these? They're not an anamorphous blob. And you know, because your thermal research Marik, you would see the huge wings, the X on the tail, the long length of this if it was hitting some known drone. So what you're seeing is representative of the shape of what's there. "So there's a lot of questions with this footage. This will be an ongoing thing. But I can tell you that even as of today, it is a UAP designated by the DOD, to this day, even after the footage came out. If that changes, if we find out about it, George and I will report that."

Joe Murgia

28,107 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

MY GROK BOT CONTENT SYSTEM JUST WENT VIRAL ON X – SO I THINK YOU NEED TO SEE WHAT'S ACTUALLY IN IT It wasn't the visual that got people. It was realizing this is already possible, today, for anyone. That's the part worth saying out loud. AI agents used to be a developer thing. You needed an API key, a server, a framework, and a weekend you weren't getting back. Grok Bot deleted all of that. You describe the job in plain language, and you have an agent that does it – with its own computer, its own browser, its own files, running whether you're at the desk or not. Which means the question stopped being can I build this and became what do I point it at. People are pointing it at everything: sales outreach, research, SEO, bookkeeping, customer replies, personal admin. This one is aimed at the thing most people say they'll start and never do – publishing consistently. It's seven agents. One in the centre, six in orbit. Here's what each one actually does. CHIEF OF STAFF – the centre. Every request lands here first, gets broken into jobs, and gets routed to whoever owns that kind of work. It chases what's late, keeps the others from duplicating each other, and surfaces exactly one thing to me when a real decision is needed. Everything else it just handles. RESEARCHER – goes out and finds what's actually moving in the niche. Reads the sources, checks the claim, drops the duplicates, and hands over a brief with links attached. Not "here's what I think" – here's what's true and where it came from. WRITER – takes that brief and writes the finished piece in my voice. Hooks, threads, captions, long-form. It's had my old posts as reference, so what comes back isn't a draft I rewrite – it's a draft I approve. VISUALISER – I fed it my reference visuals once. Now every cover, image and dashboard comes back in that exact style, without a single new instruction. This is the agent that kills the "I have the post but no visual" excuse. ANALYST – reads what actually performed. Not vanity numbers: which hook shape landed, which format died, which time slot was dead air. Then it tells the Writer and the Scheduler what to do differently. This is the loop almost every setup is missing, and it's why most of them plateau. SCHEDULER – owns timing. Holds the queue, spaces things properly, protects the calendar, and makes sure nothing ships into an empty feed at 3am. PUBLISHER – ships it. Formats per platform, posts, confirms it went out, logs it back to the Chief. The reason it holds together instead of falling apart: they share memory. The research is already sitting inside the draft before the draft starts. No copy-pasting between tools, no re-explaining context, no approving every step. And you can teach any of them a repetitive task by recording yourself doing it – start recording, do the thing, stop. I wrote the whole thing up below – every agent, what each one is told, how they hand off, and how to wire it together. Read it and you can start building this today, not "eventually" ↓

MY GROK BOT CONTENT SYSTEM JUST WENT VIRAL ON X – SO I THINK YOU NEED TO SEE WHAT'S ACTUALLY IN IT It wasn't the visual that got people. It was realizing this is already possible, today, for anyone. That's the part worth saying out loud. AI agents used to be a developer thing. You needed an API key, a server, a framework, and a weekend you weren't getting back. Grok Bot deleted all of that. You describe the job in plain language, and you have an agent that does it – with its own computer, its own browser, its own files, running whether you're at the desk or not. Which means the question stopped being can I build this and became what do I point it at. People are pointing it at everything: sales outreach, research, SEO, bookkeeping, customer replies, personal admin. This one is aimed at the thing most people say they'll start and never do – publishing consistently. It's seven agents. One in the centre, six in orbit. Here's what each one actually does. CHIEF OF STAFF – the centre. Every request lands here first, gets broken into jobs, and gets routed to whoever owns that kind of work. It chases what's late, keeps the others from duplicating each other, and surfaces exactly one thing to me when a real decision is needed. Everything else it just handles. RESEARCHER – goes out and finds what's actually moving in the niche. Reads the sources, checks the claim, drops the duplicates, and hands over a brief with links attached. Not "here's what I think" – here's what's true and where it came from. WRITER – takes that brief and writes the finished piece in my voice. Hooks, threads, captions, long-form. It's had my old posts as reference, so what comes back isn't a draft I rewrite – it's a draft I approve. VISUALISER – I fed it my reference visuals once. Now every cover, image and dashboard comes back in that exact style, without a single new instruction. This is the agent that kills the "I have the post but no visual" excuse. ANALYST – reads what actually performed. Not vanity numbers: which hook shape landed, which format died, which time slot was dead air. Then it tells the Writer and the Scheduler what to do differently. This is the loop almost every setup is missing, and it's why most of them plateau. SCHEDULER – owns timing. Holds the queue, spaces things properly, protects the calendar, and makes sure nothing ships into an empty feed at 3am. PUBLISHER – ships it. Formats per platform, posts, confirms it went out, logs it back to the Chief. The reason it holds together instead of falling apart: they share memory. The research is already sitting inside the draft before the draft starts. No copy-pasting between tools, no re-explaining context, no approving every step. And you can teach any of them a repetitive task by recording yourself doing it – start recording, do the thing, stop. I wrote the whole thing up below – every agent, what each one is told, how they hand off, and how to wire it together. Read it and you can start building this today, not "eventually" ↓

SCOTTY BEAM

10,486 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

This is going to be a long one. Below is a response to my "no posting" until BTC is over $100k post. I also a quick scroll of my timeline. I figure I owe a response, so here I am. But this perfectly encapsulates the life of an NFT founder. Specifically, the non rugging founders. ✅Regarding not posting until Bitcoin hits $100k 1.) Obviously a joke, since I posted 2 days later and have been reposting others since. 2.) Knew I was going to be light on X because of grandmother's funeral and busy time with IRL work. 3.) I thought BTC would bounce back within a few days. 4.) I loathe being on X in general. I surely loath it when prices are down. ☑️People crying ☑️People trolling ☑️People lying ☑️Holders getting frustrated ☑️People who don't have the money, upset that their get quick rich hopes did not pan out. ☑️Shysters prowling the timeline dragging their clout chasing and money desperate followers from meta to meta making money off them. ☑️etc. Just look at the quick scroll on my timeline in the video below. *It is the equivalent to what you would see if you put a flea market inside of an insane asylum.* ✅Regarding me talking about my bags not going up, but also saying I don't care about the Frog floor price. 1⃣If I was on the timeline saying an asset I sold to you was going to increase in price because of actions I am taking (through no efforts of your own), then it would be considered a security. This is a black and white issue. That is a risk I am NOT willing to take. Period. 2⃣ Also, how are all those other founders doing that were bull posting their floors? Now they have a bunch of new holders that are down bad. Down tens of thousands of dollars in some cases. As you said.. once your number is hit, then you will sell. So then what happens? A new group of holders come in with a higher cost basis. When does that loop end? Set the legal stuff from #1 aside. I do my best to give an honest assessment. And I have been saying for years that NFTs are not going to have the same bull run they had in 2021/2022. That does not mean prices will not go up. It simply means that the returns will be less. So I am sorry. But I am not going to bull post our floor price, because I have NO IDEA what the floor or the ceiling is on any NFT project. 3⃣ You log in every day to check the floor price to see if something you bought has increased in price so that you can make a return on your investment and show your friends and family. I wake up every day. Work my IRL job to the best of my ability. Because that is what the stakeholders in that company expect of me and that is what my family needs from me. I then spend the majority of my additional time figuring out how to keep the Frogs relevant and how to bring utility and ultimately relevancy to our ecosystem. I work 80-100 hours a week to make these things happen. I don't log on and wait for someone else to do it for me. 4⃣ I talk about my bags because I have to talk about something relevant to our industry. Because I have to stay relevant in the industry and stay on people's algo in order to keep the Frogs front and center. I don't want to talk about any of this crap. I don't care about anyone's opinion on this app. Most of the opinions and takes are fake, recycled, or made by people who have no idea what they are talking about. I also don't expect anyone to care about mine. But I still have to push it forward on this app. Because if I don't the ecosystem will die. So yes. I talk about my bags. But do you see me complaining to any of the founders? Do you see me asking them what they are doing? Do you see me under the posts being pissed off that the price is not going up? No. Because I am speculating on them. That is not their problem. That is my problem. By the way, I also try and give an honest take on all the things I talk about. That is not always popular and has probably hurt our project from a floor price standpoint. But that won't stop either. Again. I would rather post nothing. But I can't do that. ---------------------------- To anyone else reading this. Stop trying to get rich quick. Contrary to what these all these 20 year old life coaches tell you... that is not how life works. It takes hard work, skills, intelligence, and luck. If you only rely on the luck... you are not going to make it. P.S. -- Buying a coin that 1000X is luck. Don't fool yourselves.

Sensitive content

This is going to be a long one. Below is a response to my "no posting" until BTC is over $100k post. I also a quick scroll of my timeline. I figure I owe a response, so here I am. But this perfectly encapsulates the life of an NFT founder. Specifically, the non rugging founders. ✅Regarding not posting until Bitcoin hits $100k 1.) Obviously a joke, since I posted 2 days later and have been reposting others since. 2.) Knew I was going to be light on X because of grandmother's funeral and busy time with IRL work. 3.) I thought BTC would bounce back within a few days. 4.) I loathe being on X in general. I surely loath it when prices are down. ☑️People crying ☑️People trolling ☑️People lying ☑️Holders getting frustrated ☑️People who don't have the money, upset that their get quick rich hopes did not pan out. ☑️Shysters prowling the timeline dragging their clout chasing and money desperate followers from meta to meta making money off them. ☑️etc. Just look at the quick scroll on my timeline in the video below. It is the equivalent to what you would see if you put a flea market inside of an insane asylum. ✅Regarding me talking about my bags not going up, but also saying I don't care about the Frog floor price. 1⃣If I was on the timeline saying an asset I sold to you was going to increase in price because of actions I am taking (through no efforts of your own), then it would be considered a security. This is a black and white issue. That is a risk I am NOT willing to take. Period. 2⃣ Also, how are all those other founders doing that were bull posting their floors? Now they have a bunch of new holders that are down bad. Down tens of thousands of dollars in some cases. As you said.. once your number is hit, then you will sell. So then what happens? A new group of holders come in with a higher cost basis. When does that loop end? Set the legal stuff from #1 aside. I do my best to give an honest assessment. And I have been saying for years that NFTs are not going to have the same bull run they had in 2021/2022. That does not mean prices will not go up. It simply means that the returns will be less. So I am sorry. But I am not going to bull post our floor price, because I have NO IDEA what the floor or the ceiling is on any NFT project. 3⃣ You log in every day to check the floor price to see if something you bought has increased in price so that you can make a return on your investment and show your friends and family. I wake up every day. Work my IRL job to the best of my ability. Because that is what the stakeholders in that company expect of me and that is what my family needs from me. I then spend the majority of my additional time figuring out how to keep the Frogs relevant and how to bring utility and ultimately relevancy to our ecosystem. I work 80-100 hours a week to make these things happen. I don't log on and wait for someone else to do it for me. 4⃣ I talk about my bags because I have to talk about something relevant to our industry. Because I have to stay relevant in the industry and stay on people's algo in order to keep the Frogs front and center. I don't want to talk about any of this crap. I don't care about anyone's opinion on this app. Most of the opinions and takes are fake, recycled, or made by people who have no idea what they are talking about. I also don't expect anyone to care about mine. But I still have to push it forward on this app. Because if I don't the ecosystem will die. So yes. I talk about my bags. But do you see me complaining to any of the founders? Do you see me asking them what they are doing? Do you see me under the posts being pissed off that the price is not going up? No. Because I am speculating on them. That is not their problem. That is my problem. By the way, I also try and give an honest take on all the things I talk about. That is not always popular and has probably hurt our project from a floor price standpoint. But that won't stop either. Again. I would rather post nothing. But I can't do that. ---------------------------- To anyone else reading this. Stop trying to get rich quick. Contrary to what these all these 20 year old life coaches tell you... that is not how life works. It takes hard work, skills, intelligence, and luck. If you only rely on the luck... you are not going to make it. P.S. -- Buying a coin that 1000X is luck. Don't fool yourselves.

Pons Asinorum

15,951 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

The left is truly sick and deranged... Read this sickos post and compare with what Trump actually said... Donald Trump, 9/13/2001 "[NBC Reporter] Now just a few moments ago Donald Trump passed through here, so we had a minute to talk with him Let's roll that tape. [Donald Trump] You can see what he had to say Well, I've never seen anything like it I've seen two huge hundred and ten story buildings that are reduced to rubble Thousands and thousands of lives. I just got to see something that I've never seen before I have hundreds of men inside working right now, and we're bringing down another hundred and twenty five in a little while And they've never done work like this before and they're hard-working people, but they've never seen anything like it And they've never they've never done work like this before. It's terrible. [NBC Reporter] Tell me what it's like at ground zero Tell me about the workers that you saw and and what they're doing there [Donald Trump] Well, not only is it devastation But it's very dangerous because every few minutes a whistle would go off and everybody would just run because you have all the buildings around It which are in such a weakened state that people just don't know and so they just have to take off and then they come Back and they're working under 50 story buildings that you don't know if they're gonna fall down So it's a terrible thing for the workers and it's a terrible thing for the world. [NBC Reporter] Really How have you spoken to any of your men? [Donald Trump] Do you know how they're reacting to this because emotionally this must be so incredibly difficult Well, there are a lot of them, but they've never seen bodies like this I mean the bodies all over the I mean the the great thing is when they find somebody that's alive like the five Firemen that they just found a little while ago. So that's the great thing and that's what they're all striving for But generally speaking that's not what the case that's not the case So they are working very very hard But it's it's a very depressing situation for these folks as you walked around and as you saw the piles of rubble [NBC Reporter] There are thousands of families out there Who are hoping that someone might be in a pocket somewhere still alive still breathing waiting to be dug up as you assess that damage From your perspective. Do you believe that's possible? [Donald Trump] Well, I would certainly not want to be the one to say it's not possible. Certainly. It's It's a tough situation, but you can't give up hope because there's always hope I mean the five men I'm sure their Families thought that they probably were gone and now they walk in the door a couple of them walked away after they were dug out So there probably are some more people in there and therefore you can't give up hope You've had an impact on the skyline of New York. [NBC Reporter] What is it like as you see it now? [Donald Trump] It's like a whole different skyline. It's like a whole different city and world I cannot believe the site of lower, Manhattan without the World Trade Center And therefore we have to rebuild not necessarily in that form, but we have to rebuild at least as good and maybe better Just finally, can you tell me emotionally as you walked around? [NBC Reporter] We've we've heard some of the stories from the firemen They're so exhausted and and mentally and physically. What was it like for you personally to go in and see all of what you saw? [Donald Trump] Well, it was amazing to see it. It was a very depressing scene But I'll tell you what you really can take heart these firemen and policemen and the construction workers equally the courage they have is Unbelievable. I mean they're working digging out and lifting up steel and above them You have 55 story buildings that are very possibly going to be pouring down on them any minute and they're working like nothing's wrong I mean, it's they're amazing

The left is truly sick and deranged... Read this sickos post and compare with what Trump actually said... Donald Trump, 9/13/2001 "[NBC Reporter] Now just a few moments ago Donald Trump passed through here, so we had a minute to talk with him Let's roll that tape. [Donald Trump] You can see what he had to say Well, I've never seen anything like it I've seen two huge hundred and ten story buildings that are reduced to rubble Thousands and thousands of lives. I just got to see something that I've never seen before I have hundreds of men inside working right now, and we're bringing down another hundred and twenty five in a little while And they've never done work like this before and they're hard-working people, but they've never seen anything like it And they've never they've never done work like this before. It's terrible. [NBC Reporter] Tell me what it's like at ground zero Tell me about the workers that you saw and and what they're doing there [Donald Trump] Well, not only is it devastation But it's very dangerous because every few minutes a whistle would go off and everybody would just run because you have all the buildings around It which are in such a weakened state that people just don't know and so they just have to take off and then they come Back and they're working under 50 story buildings that you don't know if they're gonna fall down So it's a terrible thing for the workers and it's a terrible thing for the world. [NBC Reporter] Really How have you spoken to any of your men? [Donald Trump] Do you know how they're reacting to this because emotionally this must be so incredibly difficult Well, there are a lot of them, but they've never seen bodies like this I mean the bodies all over the I mean the the great thing is when they find somebody that's alive like the five Firemen that they just found a little while ago. So that's the great thing and that's what they're all striving for But generally speaking that's not what the case that's not the case So they are working very very hard But it's it's a very depressing situation for these folks as you walked around and as you saw the piles of rubble [NBC Reporter] There are thousands of families out there Who are hoping that someone might be in a pocket somewhere still alive still breathing waiting to be dug up as you assess that damage From your perspective. Do you believe that's possible? [Donald Trump] Well, I would certainly not want to be the one to say it's not possible. Certainly. It's It's a tough situation, but you can't give up hope because there's always hope I mean the five men I'm sure their Families thought that they probably were gone and now they walk in the door a couple of them walked away after they were dug out So there probably are some more people in there and therefore you can't give up hope You've had an impact on the skyline of New York. [NBC Reporter] What is it like as you see it now? [Donald Trump] It's like a whole different skyline. It's like a whole different city and world I cannot believe the site of lower, Manhattan without the World Trade Center And therefore we have to rebuild not necessarily in that form, but we have to rebuild at least as good and maybe better Just finally, can you tell me emotionally as you walked around? [NBC Reporter] We've we've heard some of the stories from the firemen They're so exhausted and and mentally and physically. What was it like for you personally to go in and see all of what you saw? [Donald Trump] Well, it was amazing to see it. It was a very depressing scene But I'll tell you what you really can take heart these firemen and policemen and the construction workers equally the courage they have is Unbelievable. I mean they're working digging out and lifting up steel and above them You have 55 story buildings that are very possibly going to be pouring down on them any minute and they're working like nothing's wrong I mean, it's they're amazing

Apple Lamps

184,849 görüntüleme • 29 gün önce

I am done being polite about this industry. Not disappointed. Done. I spent the last months pulling wallets apart instead of posting charts, and what sits in my database now is not a pile of unlucky trades. It is hundreds of thousands of connections between wallets, coins, launch tools and payment flows, and they draw the same picture every time: industrial draining. On Solana first, because that is where the machine runs fastest, but the same hands show up on other chains under other tickers. This is not degens getting rekt. This is organised crime with a Pumpfun profile and a leaderboard rank. You want to know what "KOL" means in 2026? Last week I followed 3 wallets off a copy trading leaderboard. Their money does not come from calls. It comes from wallets that create coins by the hundred and by the thousand. One of those feeder wallets has 4,578 coins to its name. In September alone 852 SOL net moved from the factories to the 3 "influencers". One coin was created, dumped 33 seconds later, and the money sat in the KOL wallet 2 minutes after that. Then I checked the big names. Leaderboard wallets with 103,000, 134,000 and 146,000 followers on Pumpfun that have personally created 1,759, 953 and 1,217 coins. One of them is at 6,464. Create, buy in the same transaction, sell everything 3 to 5 blocks later into whoever got there in that second. Same second, or the next one. Over and over. And these people get called traders. They get podcasts. They get "gm". And the platforms? Fee on the way in, fee on the way out, and they call it volume. So no, I am not writing you another post-mortem every time retail gets emptied. The post-mortem is always the same and it changes nothing, because the people who benefit are the same people who get the reach. Every "isolated incident" conveniently skips the question of who keeps getting paid, who keeps promoting, and why the exact same wallets are back in the game before the thread has finished loading. I will keep saying it, because this space forgets everything the moment there is a new bag to chase. Some of my posts will get fewer views for that. Fine. But anger alone is content, and content is exactly what they want from me. What I want is tools. You should be able to look at a wallet and see its 1,217 launches before you ape. You should see who funded the dev, which "KOL" he paid last week, and what you are about to sign, before the damage is done, not in my thread 2 days later. That is where MASTR goes now. The intelligence machine gets wired into my apps and my sites, so the research lives where you trade instead of dying in a timeline. The people who support this work get that intelligence first. That is the only alpha I care about: knowing what is happening before someone else's exit becomes your loss. And I will say the uncomfortable part out loud: I cannot run this for free forever. Data, infrastructure, development, investigation, it all costs real money, even when the finished tool makes it look effortless. I refuse to pay for it by renting my name to whichever project needs a clean reputation this week. I also refuse to pretend I can subsidise everyone out of my own pocket while the drainers cash out your SOL and climb the next leaderboard with it. If I survive in this industry, it will be because I built something useful enough that people choose to back it, and stayed angry enough to keep pointing at the machine it runs inside. Receipts are coming. Every transaction linked. Check me.

MASTR

23,605 görüntüleme • 4 gün önce

I’m recording this about 17 minutes before I hop on a zoom call so what’s your watching here? It’s a lot of what you’re watching. I think most importantly what you’re seeing is me having a good time and enjoying myself I’ve been really paying attention to that you know I can be so formulated formulaic strategic just because of you know the muscle memory of being an artist and a professional that sometimes I forget to you know, laughing and have a good time so the top of the year has been very consistent. You know we talked about the optimism you have come January 1 here we are in March. I’m not sure the date but we’re in March now almost in the first quarter and I’ve been working every single day. I’ve been living every single day but two weeks ago I got sick and I don’t know if it was allergies or whatever or something that was just going around because a few of my collaborators also was out and are still out to this to this day but everyone’s good everyone’s getting rest but that break really jolted me and scared me just how when I take the weekends off to go and live I always have this thought of when I go back on Monday do I still have it? Am I still in that mode that I’ve been feeling? the answer to that question is yes and I say that to say there’s this Producer, who I found on TikTok just because I love keeping my ear to the streets. It’s not good on the back and you shouldn’t keep your ear to the street for too long because it’ll make your back hurt, but it’s worth the pain. I promise you, but I found this Producer and the captain was. I’m making a beat every day and if I miss a day I quit and I sell all of my equipment. I’ve been in the search of just new production. I’m looking for a new bounces of drums and I feel like the youth is where it’s always gonna be at. I take pride in pointing at people who may not have the experience or anything yet but that doesn’t mean that you you don’t have what it takes to change the world or the Sonic’s so I reached out to trippy and I told him yo I’ve been looking for help on drums and swings I’m gonna nerd out for you but like I’m kind of getting tired of hearing the snare on the two and four or a repetitive high hat patterns and what I seen when I seen trvpyyy post well what I heard rather with someone who was taking liberties and swings and bounces, so I shot my shot in DM them got his number and we hopped on a FaceTime call and he told me his name was trippy and immediately I started smiling from the inside and out because I have a friend by the name of trippy who very early on took the chance to say yo I like what you doing I want you to get a front seat of what it’s like to be a superstar and also what it’s like to show love and be a friend and pour into someone so recording this now healthy me and Jason are back in the gym. We had a very strong week I had a very exciting week of being outside and just being with friends and loved ones Lotta late nights but we make sure we still get up in the morning and hit our 3 mile run or our leg days, upper body or full body . The weekends are usually my time to rest and live, but I’m recording live now from the studio excited and ready to play and Jam just because I genuinely love what I do there’s a lot That’s about to happen in a great way actually coming up this week and I’m excited for that but I’m even more excited to have a great time and just have a blast I’m so thankful I’m so present. I’m so appreciative of the life that I lived. I love that I get to speak these things and it gets transcribed in a text but I mean every single word. I love you and I’ll see you later, Playboy it’s about to be a fun week.

I’m recording this about 17 minutes before I hop on a zoom call so what’s your watching here? It’s a lot of what you’re watching. I think most importantly what you’re seeing is me having a good time and enjoying myself I’ve been really paying attention to that you know I can be so formulated formulaic strategic just because of you know the muscle memory of being an artist and a professional that sometimes I forget to you know, laughing and have a good time so the top of the year has been very consistent. You know we talked about the optimism you have come January 1 here we are in March. I’m not sure the date but we’re in March now almost in the first quarter and I’ve been working every single day. I’ve been living every single day but two weeks ago I got sick and I don’t know if it was allergies or whatever or something that was just going around because a few of my collaborators also was out and are still out to this to this day but everyone’s good everyone’s getting rest but that break really jolted me and scared me just how when I take the weekends off to go and live I always have this thought of when I go back on Monday do I still have it? Am I still in that mode that I’ve been feeling? the answer to that question is yes and I say that to say there’s this Producer, who I found on TikTok just because I love keeping my ear to the streets. It’s not good on the back and you shouldn’t keep your ear to the street for too long because it’ll make your back hurt, but it’s worth the pain. I promise you, but I found this Producer and the captain was. I’m making a beat every day and if I miss a day I quit and I sell all of my equipment. I’ve been in the search of just new production. I’m looking for a new bounces of drums and I feel like the youth is where it’s always gonna be at. I take pride in pointing at people who may not have the experience or anything yet but that doesn’t mean that you you don’t have what it takes to change the world or the Sonic’s so I reached out to trippy and I told him yo I’ve been looking for help on drums and swings I’m gonna nerd out for you but like I’m kind of getting tired of hearing the snare on the two and four or a repetitive high hat patterns and what I seen when I seen trvpyyy post well what I heard rather with someone who was taking liberties and swings and bounces, so I shot my shot in DM them got his number and we hopped on a FaceTime call and he told me his name was trippy and immediately I started smiling from the inside and out because I have a friend by the name of trippy who very early on took the chance to say yo I like what you doing I want you to get a front seat of what it’s like to be a superstar and also what it’s like to show love and be a friend and pour into someone so recording this now healthy me and Jason are back in the gym. We had a very strong week I had a very exciting week of being outside and just being with friends and loved ones Lotta late nights but we make sure we still get up in the morning and hit our 3 mile run or our leg days, upper body or full body . The weekends are usually my time to rest and live, but I’m recording live now from the studio excited and ready to play and Jam just because I genuinely love what I do there’s a lot That’s about to happen in a great way actually coming up this week and I’m excited for that but I’m even more excited to have a great time and just have a blast I’m so thankful I’m so present. I’m so appreciative of the life that I lived. I love that I get to speak these things and it gets transcribed in a text but I mean every single word. I love you and I’ll see you later, Playboy it’s about to be a fun week.

Mr.Mrs

38,088 görüntüleme • 6 ay önce

Made $530,000 with Ai Bot that started with $313. Didn't know how to code. Now this bots run 24/7 printing money while sleeping. I've made the exact step-by-step guide to build this Claude Code Polymarket trading bot. Prompts. Code. Risk settings. Paper trading checklist. Everything from zero to running bot. It's free. For 24 hours. After that I'm charging $499 for it. To grab it right now: 1. Comment "Claude Bot" 2. Like and Retweet this post 3. Follow me Himanshu Kumar ( I can't send DMs to non-followers ) I'm DMing everyone who Complete the 3 steps. I spent hundreds of thousands hiring developers because he was too scared to learn. Then learned Claude Code. Built algorithmic trading systems. $313 → $530,000. You have the same tools available right now. And you're using them to ask ChatGPT for Instagram captions. This attached video is a goldmine. Full live walkthrough. Claude Code building actual Polymarket trading bots. From zero. Every line of code. Every decision explained. Now let me break down why everything you're doing in trading is wrong and exactly how to fix it. Save this post. You'll hate yourself if you lose it. ↓ Let's start with why you keep losing money. You already know the answer. You just won't admit it. You overtrade. Every. Single. Day. You see a candle move. You feel something. You enter. No plan. No edge. No reason. Just feelings. Then it goes against you. You feel something else. Panic. Anger. Denial. You move your stop loss. Or you didn't set one at all. "It'll come back." It doesn't come back. So you take another trade. A revenge trade. Bigger size this time. Because you need to "make it back." That one fails too. Now you're emotional. Now you're tilted. Now you're using leverage you have no business touching. 40x. 50x. 100x. On a trade you entered because a candle looked "bullish" and some guy on Twitter said "send it." You get liquidated. Close the laptop. Punch something. Tell yourself you'll be "more disciplined" tomorrow. Tomorrow comes. Same cycle. Same result. Same liquidation. You've been doing this for months. Maybe years. And you still think the problem is your strategy. The problem isn't your strategy. The problem is you. Save this post right now. What I'm about to show you is the only way to remove yourself from the equation. Follow Himanshu Kumar so you don't miss any of this. ↓ Here's what's actually killing your account. It's not the market. The market doesn't care about you. It's not your indicators. RSI works fine. MACD works fine. They all "work." It's not your timeframe. It's not your broker. It's not the "manipulation." It's four things: 1. Emotions. You hold losers because hope feels better than loss. You cut winners because fear feels stronger than greed. You size up when angry. You skip trades when scared. Your emotional state determines your position size. That's insane. And you know it's insane. But you keep doing it. 2. Overtrading. You take 15 trades a day. Maybe 5 of them had actual setups. The other 10 were boredom. Boredom trades are the most expensive hobby in human history. 3. Leverage. You use 20x-50x on trades where you're not even sure about the direction. That's not trading. That's a casino with a nicer interface. 4. Fees. You're smashing market orders. Paying spread. Paying commission. On 15 trades a day. Your broker makes more money from your account than you do. Think about that. Your broker is profitable on your account. You're not. You're the product. Not the trader. These four things are why 90% of traders lose. Not bad luck. Not the market. You. Save this post and follow Himanshu Kumar because the solution is coming next. ↓ The solution is painfully obvious. Remove yourself from the equation. Not partially. Not "I'll be more disciplined." Not "I'll journal my trades." Not "I'll meditate before trading." Completely remove yourself. Build a bot. Let the bot trade. You go live your life. The bot doesn't feel emotions. The bot doesn't overtrade. The bot doesn't use reckless leverage. The bot doesn't smash market orders and bleed fees. The bot follows the rules. Every single time. Without exception. Without "just this once." Without "I have a feeling about this one." Rules in. Execution out. No human in the middle to mess everything up. That's algorithmic trading. And before your ego jumps in with "but I'm different, I have discipline" — No you don't. Your account balance proves you don't. If you had discipline, your account would be green. It's not. So you don't. Accept it. Automate it. Move on. This is the hardest truth in trading. Your discipline will always fail. A bot's won't. Save this post. Follow Himanshu Kumar for the exact bot setup that removes your emotions permanently. ↓ "But I don't know how to code." Neither did he. The guy in this video didn't know how to code for most of his life. Got held back in 7th grade. People counted him out early. Spent years building apps and SaaS businesses without writing a single line of code. Hired developers on Upwork instead. Spent hundreds of thousands of dollars paying other people to build what he could have built himself. Because he was scared to learn. That fear cost him years. And hundreds of thousands of dollars. Sound familiar? You're doing the same thing right now. Not with developers. But with your time. You're spending thousands of hours trading manually because you're scared to learn the thing that would make trading automatic. The fear of learning to code is costing you more than any bad trade ever did. Because every month you trade manually is a month of emotional decisions, overleveraged entries, and unnecessary losses that a bot would never make. And here's the thing that should really frustrate you: AI does the hard parts now. You don't need a computer science degree. You don't need to work at a hedge fund. You don't need to be "good at math." Claude Code writes the code for you. You just need to think clearly about trading ideas. That's it. If you can describe a strategy in English, Claude can build it in Python. "I don't know how to code" stopped being a valid excuse in 2024. It's 2026. You're 2 years late on that excuse. Find a new one. Or stop making excuses entirely. Save this post. Follow Himanshu Kumar because I'm showing you how people with zero coding experience are building profitable bots. ↓ The process that actually makes money. Three letters. R. B. I. Research. Backtest. Implement. That's it. That's the entire process. Every single day. Research: Find an idea. A pattern. A market inefficiency. Don't trade it yet. Don't even think about trading it yet. Just research it. Backtest: Test the idea against historical data. Does it work? Not "does it look good on one chart." Does it work across thousands of trades? Across different market conditions? Across in-sample AND out-of-sample data? If no, kill it. Find another idea. If yes, move to step 3. Implement: Build the bot. Deploy it. Paper trade first. Then live with small size. Scale only on evidence. Research. Backtest. Implement. Every day. No exceptions. You know what your current process is? Feel. Enter. Pray. F. E. P. Feel bullish. Enter a trade. Pray it works. That's not a process. That's gambling with a TradingView subscription. RBI is the only process that works. Save this post. Tattoo it on your forearm. Follow Himanshu Kumar for daily RBI breakdowns. ↓ What Claude Code actually does that your manual process can't. You can maybe test 3-5 strategy ideas per week. Manually adjusting parameters. Manually checking results. Manually writing code (badly). Claude Code tests 50-100 ideas per week. With parallel agents running simultaneously. Multiple strategies being built, tested, and validated at the same time. While you sleep. The guy in this video spends 4-8 hours a day building systems with Claude Code. Not trading. Building. Research. Backtest. Implement. Then iterate. Improve. Optimize. Every day the systems get better. Every day the edge compounds. Every day the bots get smarter. While you? You spend 4-8 hours a day staring at charts making the same mistakes you made last month. Same indicators. Same patterns. Same entries. Same losses. He's iterating forward. You're running in circles. Same 8 hours per day. Completely different outcomes. Because he's building systems. And you're feeding a casino. Stop feeding the casino. Start building the machine. Save this post and follow Himanshu Kumar for the Claude Code workflow that iterates strategies while you sleep. ↓ Jim Simons. That's the benchmark. You probably don't know who Jim Simons is. And that tells me everything about how seriously you take trading. Jim Simons. Mathematician. Founded Renaissance Technologies. Built a net worth of $31 billion. 100% from algorithmic trading. Not one single manual trade. Not one "gut feeling" entry. Not one RSI divergence. Not one "smart money concept." Algorithms. Bots. Systems. Data. $31 billion. His fund averaged 66% annual returns for over 30 years. While you're excited about making $200 on a trade that you'll give back tomorrow. The best trader in human history never placed a manual trade in his life. And you think your edge is staring at a 5-minute chart with bloodshot eyes at 2 AM? Your edge is building the system. Not being inside it. Jim Simons is the benchmark. Everything else is noise. Save this post. Follow Himanshu Kumar because I'm building toward the same goal and showing every step publicly. ↓ What you need to understand about patience. This is not get-rich-overnight. The guy in this video says it directly: "This channel is not for people looking to get rich overnight. It's not plug and play. There are no shortcuts. If you're impatient, this probably isn't for you." And that's exactly why most people will fail at this. Because you want results now. Today. This trade. You don't want to spend a week building a bot. You don't want to paper trade for 2 weeks. You don't want to test 50 ideas to find 1 that works. You want to copy someone's bot, run it live with your rent money, and be rich by Friday. That's why you'll be broke by Friday. The guy making $2.3M spent months iterating. Testing. Failing. Rebuilding. Testing again. He was patient when you would have quit. He was calm when you would have panicked. He was consistent when you would have given up. Patience isn't just a virtue in trading. It's the only virtue. Without it, everything else fails. Impatience is the most expensive personality trait in trading. Save this post. Follow Himanshu Kumar and learn to build systems with the patience that actually pays. ↓ The live streams where the real learning happens. The YouTube video is the trailer. The live streams are the movie. Real-time bot building. Real-time questions answered. Real code shown. Real mistakes made and fixed. Not polished highlight reels where everything works perfectly. Actual development. Where things break. Where strategies fail. Where code doesn't compile. Where the fix takes 2 hours. Because that's what real development looks like. And seeing the messy parts is more valuable than any polished tutorial. Because when your bot breaks at 3 AM, you need to know how to fix it. Not just how to celebrate when it works. The streams mix beginner and advanced. Start with how to automate trading. How to use AI for code generation. Then dive into the daily work. Claude Code. Parallel agents. Constant iteration. Live debugging. 4-8 hours of real algorithmic trading development. Live. Uncut. No filter. Most "trading education" shows you the wins. This shows you the work. Save this post. Follow Himanshu Kumar for the stream schedules and breakdowns. ↓ The belief that changes everything. Code is the greatest equalizer. Not money. Not connections. Not a degree. Not where you grew up. Not what school you went to. Code. Once you can build systems, you can build anything. For the rest of your life. A trading bot today. A SaaS product tomorrow. An automation business next month. A completely different life next year. The skill isn't "algorithmic trading." The skill is building systems. And that skill transfers to everything. The guy who can build a trading bot can also build a lead gen tool. Can also build a content pipeline. Can also build a SaaS product. Can also build literally anything that runs on logic and code. One skill. Infinite applications. And AI makes learning it 100x easier than it was 5 years ago. You don't need to be smart. You don't need talent. You need Claude Code and the willingness to sit down and build something instead of consuming content about building something. Building is the skill. Everything else is entertainment disguised as education. Save this post. Follow Himanshu Kumar because I'm showing you how to build, not just how to watch. ↓ If any of this applies to you, pay attention. If you've lost money from overtrading. If you've been liquidated. If you know trading is the vehicle but manual execution keeps crashing you. If you've tried "being more disciplined" and it never lasted more than a week. If you keep saying "next month I'll start automating." If you've spent more money on courses than you've made from trading. There is a better way. It's not a magic indicator. It's not a signal group. It's not a $997 mentorship from a guy who makes money teaching, not trading. It's building your own system. A system that trades without emotion. A system that follows rules without exception. A system that runs while you sleep. A system that compounds while you live your life. That's the answer. It's always been the answer. You've just been too scared to accept that the solution requires building something instead of buying something. ↓ What the next 30 days look like if you actually commit. Week 1: Watch the video. Learn Claude Code basics. Build your first simple strategy. Run your first backtest. Week 2: Iterate. Let Claude improve the strategy. Run Monte Carlo validation. Paper trade. Week 3: Go live with $50-100. Tiny positions. Watch every trade. Compare to paper results. Week 4: Scale based on evidence. Not based on excitement. Not based on one good day. Based on data. 30 days from now you either have a running bot that trades without your emotions destroying every position. Or you're exactly where you are right now. Reading another post. Making another promise. Breaking it by Tuesday. Same 30 days either way. Different actions. Different results. Different life. ↓ Full video tutorial attached. Live bot building with Claude Code. From zero to running Polymarket trading bot. Every line of code. Every decision explained. The video is free. Claude Code is available now. The market is open 24/7. The only thing standing between you and a profitable trading bot is the same thing that's been standing there for months. You. Get out of your own way. Follow Himanshu Kumar for daily AI trading bot breakdowns, live build sessions, and the full RBI process. Save this post. Watch the video. Build the bot. Or keep trading manually and keep losing. The choice has never been easier. And you've never been more stubborn about making the wrong one.

Made $530,000 with Ai Bot that started with $313. Didn't know how to code. Now this bots run 24/7 printing money while sleeping. I've made the exact step-by-step guide to build this Claude Code Polymarket trading bot. Prompts. Code. Risk settings. Paper trading checklist. Everything from zero to running bot. It's free. For 24 hours. After that I'm charging $499 for it. To grab it right now: 1. Comment "Claude Bot" 2. Like and Retweet this post 3. Follow me Himanshu Kumar ( I can't send DMs to non-followers ) I'm DMing everyone who Complete the 3 steps. I spent hundreds of thousands hiring developers because he was too scared to learn. Then learned Claude Code. Built algorithmic trading systems. $313 → $530,000. You have the same tools available right now. And you're using them to ask ChatGPT for Instagram captions. This attached video is a goldmine. Full live walkthrough. Claude Code building actual Polymarket trading bots. From zero. Every line of code. Every decision explained. Now let me break down why everything you're doing in trading is wrong and exactly how to fix it. Save this post. You'll hate yourself if you lose it. ↓ Let's start with why you keep losing money. You already know the answer. You just won't admit it. You overtrade. Every. Single. Day. You see a candle move. You feel something. You enter. No plan. No edge. No reason. Just feelings. Then it goes against you. You feel something else. Panic. Anger. Denial. You move your stop loss. Or you didn't set one at all. "It'll come back." It doesn't come back. So you take another trade. A revenge trade. Bigger size this time. Because you need to "make it back." That one fails too. Now you're emotional. Now you're tilted. Now you're using leverage you have no business touching. 40x. 50x. 100x. On a trade you entered because a candle looked "bullish" and some guy on Twitter said "send it." You get liquidated. Close the laptop. Punch something. Tell yourself you'll be "more disciplined" tomorrow. Tomorrow comes. Same cycle. Same result. Same liquidation. You've been doing this for months. Maybe years. And you still think the problem is your strategy. The problem isn't your strategy. The problem is you. Save this post right now. What I'm about to show you is the only way to remove yourself from the equation. Follow Himanshu Kumar so you don't miss any of this. ↓ Here's what's actually killing your account. It's not the market. The market doesn't care about you. It's not your indicators. RSI works fine. MACD works fine. They all "work." It's not your timeframe. It's not your broker. It's not the "manipulation." It's four things: 1. Emotions. You hold losers because hope feels better than loss. You cut winners because fear feels stronger than greed. You size up when angry. You skip trades when scared. Your emotional state determines your position size. That's insane. And you know it's insane. But you keep doing it. 2. Overtrading. You take 15 trades a day. Maybe 5 of them had actual setups. The other 10 were boredom. Boredom trades are the most expensive hobby in human history. 3. Leverage. You use 20x-50x on trades where you're not even sure about the direction. That's not trading. That's a casino with a nicer interface. 4. Fees. You're smashing market orders. Paying spread. Paying commission. On 15 trades a day. Your broker makes more money from your account than you do. Think about that. Your broker is profitable on your account. You're not. You're the product. Not the trader. These four things are why 90% of traders lose. Not bad luck. Not the market. You. Save this post and follow Himanshu Kumar because the solution is coming next. ↓ The solution is painfully obvious. Remove yourself from the equation. Not partially. Not "I'll be more disciplined." Not "I'll journal my trades." Not "I'll meditate before trading." Completely remove yourself. Build a bot. Let the bot trade. You go live your life. The bot doesn't feel emotions. The bot doesn't overtrade. The bot doesn't use reckless leverage. The bot doesn't smash market orders and bleed fees. The bot follows the rules. Every single time. Without exception. Without "just this once." Without "I have a feeling about this one." Rules in. Execution out. No human in the middle to mess everything up. That's algorithmic trading. And before your ego jumps in with "but I'm different, I have discipline" — No you don't. Your account balance proves you don't. If you had discipline, your account would be green. It's not. So you don't. Accept it. Automate it. Move on. This is the hardest truth in trading. Your discipline will always fail. A bot's won't. Save this post. Follow Himanshu Kumar for the exact bot setup that removes your emotions permanently. ↓ "But I don't know how to code." Neither did he. The guy in this video didn't know how to code for most of his life. Got held back in 7th grade. People counted him out early. Spent years building apps and SaaS businesses without writing a single line of code. Hired developers on Upwork instead. Spent hundreds of thousands of dollars paying other people to build what he could have built himself. Because he was scared to learn. That fear cost him years. And hundreds of thousands of dollars. Sound familiar? You're doing the same thing right now. Not with developers. But with your time. You're spending thousands of hours trading manually because you're scared to learn the thing that would make trading automatic. The fear of learning to code is costing you more than any bad trade ever did. Because every month you trade manually is a month of emotional decisions, overleveraged entries, and unnecessary losses that a bot would never make. And here's the thing that should really frustrate you: AI does the hard parts now. You don't need a computer science degree. You don't need to work at a hedge fund. You don't need to be "good at math." Claude Code writes the code for you. You just need to think clearly about trading ideas. That's it. If you can describe a strategy in English, Claude can build it in Python. "I don't know how to code" stopped being a valid excuse in 2024. It's 2026. You're 2 years late on that excuse. Find a new one. Or stop making excuses entirely. Save this post. Follow Himanshu Kumar because I'm showing you how people with zero coding experience are building profitable bots. ↓ The process that actually makes money. Three letters. R. B. I. Research. Backtest. Implement. That's it. That's the entire process. Every single day. Research: Find an idea. A pattern. A market inefficiency. Don't trade it yet. Don't even think about trading it yet. Just research it. Backtest: Test the idea against historical data. Does it work? Not "does it look good on one chart." Does it work across thousands of trades? Across different market conditions? Across in-sample AND out-of-sample data? If no, kill it. Find another idea. If yes, move to step 3. Implement: Build the bot. Deploy it. Paper trade first. Then live with small size. Scale only on evidence. Research. Backtest. Implement. Every day. No exceptions. You know what your current process is? Feel. Enter. Pray. F. E. P. Feel bullish. Enter a trade. Pray it works. That's not a process. That's gambling with a TradingView subscription. RBI is the only process that works. Save this post. Tattoo it on your forearm. Follow Himanshu Kumar for daily RBI breakdowns. ↓ What Claude Code actually does that your manual process can't. You can maybe test 3-5 strategy ideas per week. Manually adjusting parameters. Manually checking results. Manually writing code (badly). Claude Code tests 50-100 ideas per week. With parallel agents running simultaneously. Multiple strategies being built, tested, and validated at the same time. While you sleep. The guy in this video spends 4-8 hours a day building systems with Claude Code. Not trading. Building. Research. Backtest. Implement. Then iterate. Improve. Optimize. Every day the systems get better. Every day the edge compounds. Every day the bots get smarter. While you? You spend 4-8 hours a day staring at charts making the same mistakes you made last month. Same indicators. Same patterns. Same entries. Same losses. He's iterating forward. You're running in circles. Same 8 hours per day. Completely different outcomes. Because he's building systems. And you're feeding a casino. Stop feeding the casino. Start building the machine. Save this post and follow Himanshu Kumar for the Claude Code workflow that iterates strategies while you sleep. ↓ Jim Simons. That's the benchmark. You probably don't know who Jim Simons is. And that tells me everything about how seriously you take trading. Jim Simons. Mathematician. Founded Renaissance Technologies. Built a net worth of $31 billion. 100% from algorithmic trading. Not one single manual trade. Not one "gut feeling" entry. Not one RSI divergence. Not one "smart money concept." Algorithms. Bots. Systems. Data. $31 billion. His fund averaged 66% annual returns for over 30 years. While you're excited about making $200 on a trade that you'll give back tomorrow. The best trader in human history never placed a manual trade in his life. And you think your edge is staring at a 5-minute chart with bloodshot eyes at 2 AM? Your edge is building the system. Not being inside it. Jim Simons is the benchmark. Everything else is noise. Save this post. Follow Himanshu Kumar because I'm building toward the same goal and showing every step publicly. ↓ What you need to understand about patience. This is not get-rich-overnight. The guy in this video says it directly: "This channel is not for people looking to get rich overnight. It's not plug and play. There are no shortcuts. If you're impatient, this probably isn't for you." And that's exactly why most people will fail at this. Because you want results now. Today. This trade. You don't want to spend a week building a bot. You don't want to paper trade for 2 weeks. You don't want to test 50 ideas to find 1 that works. You want to copy someone's bot, run it live with your rent money, and be rich by Friday. That's why you'll be broke by Friday. The guy making $2.3M spent months iterating. Testing. Failing. Rebuilding. Testing again. He was patient when you would have quit. He was calm when you would have panicked. He was consistent when you would have given up. Patience isn't just a virtue in trading. It's the only virtue. Without it, everything else fails. Impatience is the most expensive personality trait in trading. Save this post. Follow Himanshu Kumar and learn to build systems with the patience that actually pays. ↓ The live streams where the real learning happens. The YouTube video is the trailer. The live streams are the movie. Real-time bot building. Real-time questions answered. Real code shown. Real mistakes made and fixed. Not polished highlight reels where everything works perfectly. Actual development. Where things break. Where strategies fail. Where code doesn't compile. Where the fix takes 2 hours. Because that's what real development looks like. And seeing the messy parts is more valuable than any polished tutorial. Because when your bot breaks at 3 AM, you need to know how to fix it. Not just how to celebrate when it works. The streams mix beginner and advanced. Start with how to automate trading. How to use AI for code generation. Then dive into the daily work. Claude Code. Parallel agents. Constant iteration. Live debugging. 4-8 hours of real algorithmic trading development. Live. Uncut. No filter. Most "trading education" shows you the wins. This shows you the work. Save this post. Follow Himanshu Kumar for the stream schedules and breakdowns. ↓ The belief that changes everything. Code is the greatest equalizer. Not money. Not connections. Not a degree. Not where you grew up. Not what school you went to. Code. Once you can build systems, you can build anything. For the rest of your life. A trading bot today. A SaaS product tomorrow. An automation business next month. A completely different life next year. The skill isn't "algorithmic trading." The skill is building systems. And that skill transfers to everything. The guy who can build a trading bot can also build a lead gen tool. Can also build a content pipeline. Can also build a SaaS product. Can also build literally anything that runs on logic and code. One skill. Infinite applications. And AI makes learning it 100x easier than it was 5 years ago. You don't need to be smart. You don't need talent. You need Claude Code and the willingness to sit down and build something instead of consuming content about building something. Building is the skill. Everything else is entertainment disguised as education. Save this post. Follow Himanshu Kumar because I'm showing you how to build, not just how to watch. ↓ If any of this applies to you, pay attention. If you've lost money from overtrading. If you've been liquidated. If you know trading is the vehicle but manual execution keeps crashing you. If you've tried "being more disciplined" and it never lasted more than a week. If you keep saying "next month I'll start automating." If you've spent more money on courses than you've made from trading. There is a better way. It's not a magic indicator. It's not a signal group. It's not a $997 mentorship from a guy who makes money teaching, not trading. It's building your own system. A system that trades without emotion. A system that follows rules without exception. A system that runs while you sleep. A system that compounds while you live your life. That's the answer. It's always been the answer. You've just been too scared to accept that the solution requires building something instead of buying something. ↓ What the next 30 days look like if you actually commit. Week 1: Watch the video. Learn Claude Code basics. Build your first simple strategy. Run your first backtest. Week 2: Iterate. Let Claude improve the strategy. Run Monte Carlo validation. Paper trade. Week 3: Go live with $50-100. Tiny positions. Watch every trade. Compare to paper results. Week 4: Scale based on evidence. Not based on excitement. Not based on one good day. Based on data. 30 days from now you either have a running bot that trades without your emotions destroying every position. Or you're exactly where you are right now. Reading another post. Making another promise. Breaking it by Tuesday. Same 30 days either way. Different actions. Different results. Different life. ↓ Full video tutorial attached. Live bot building with Claude Code. From zero to running Polymarket trading bot. Every line of code. Every decision explained. The video is free. Claude Code is available now. The market is open 24/7. The only thing standing between you and a profitable trading bot is the same thing that's been standing there for months. You. Get out of your own way. Follow Himanshu Kumar for daily AI trading bot breakdowns, live build sessions, and the full RBI process. Save this post. Watch the video. Build the bot. Or keep trading manually and keep losing. The choice has never been easier. And you've never been more stubborn about making the wrong one.

Himanshu Kumar

38,288 görüntüleme • 6 ay önce

A wild bobcat. Cold, open water. A body that was never built for this. This is an animal that can kill a deer. The water was about to beat it anyway. Watch the video first. Then read on. What happens in the final seconds is the reason I can't stop thinking about it. . Some clips you watch. Some clips you feel in your chest for an hour afterward. This is the second kind, and I want to explain exactly why, because once you understand what you are actually looking at, you will never watch it the same way again. This is a long one. Every section ends with something that makes the next one worth it. Stay with me. . 01 // THE COLDEST MATH IN THE WILD Let's start with something nobody tells you about water. Water is a thief. It pulls heat out of a living body up to 25 times faster than air at the same temperature. Not a little faster. Twenty-five times. It is the reason a cold day is uncomfortable and a cold swim is an emergency. Now put that math on an animal wearing a fur coat. Fur works because of what is trapped inside it: air. Thousands of tiny pockets of warm air held against the skin. The air is the insulation. The hair is just the scaffolding that holds it in place. Soak that coat and the air is gone. What was a winter jacket becomes a wet towel wrapped around the body. It is heavy. It drags. It bleeds heat at the exact moment the animal can least afford to lose it. And swimming is not free. A cat does not swim the way an otter swims. Otters are engineered for it: dense waterproof fur, webbed feet, a body shaped like a torpedo. A bobcat is engineered for something completely different. Every stroke burns fuel it does not have, while every second in the water drains the fuel it already has. That is the trap. Heat goes out. Energy goes out. Nothing comes in. In humans, the first minute in cold water triggers what physiologists call the cold shock response: a gasp reflex, a spike in heart rate, panicked breathing. Then comes the slow part, where muscles and nerves cool down and stop doing what you tell them. Animals do not get an exemption from physics. Bodies are bodies. Survival experts who study cold water use a simple frame for humans, the 1-10-1 rule. One minute to get your breathing under control after the initial shock. Ten minutes of meaningful muscle function before your limbs start refusing orders. About an hour before hypothermia becomes the real threat to life. Now shrink the body. A smaller body has more surface area for its mass, which means it sheds heat faster. Those human numbers are a generous best case. For a 20-pound animal, the clock runs quicker. So when you see a wild animal in water it did not choose, you are not looking at a swimmer. You are looking at a countdown. Here is the part that should bother you: the animal does not know it is a countdown. It only knows that it has to keep moving, and that stopping is not an option, and that there is nothing solid anywhere. Hold that thought. Because the next thing I am going to tell you is why this particular animal is the last one you would expect to be in that position. . 02 // THE "BIG HOUSE CAT" LIE Somewhere along the way, someone decided a bobcat is basically a large housecat with attitude. Somebody was wrong. Let's do the numbers. A typical house cat weighs 8 to 10 pounds. Most adult bobcats land somewhere between 15 and 30 pounds, with big males pushing past that. That is two to three times the mass, and none of it is soft. It is wire and spring: long hind legs built to launch, shoulders built to hold, claws that retract and reset like a trap. By widely cited estimates, a bobcat can cover roughly 10 feet in a single leap. That is not a pounce. That is a projectile. It hunts the way the best hunters do: by being patient past the point where patience seems reasonable. It picks a spot. It goes still. It waits, sometimes for a very long time, until the world arranges itself into a single clean opportunity. Then it ends the situation in a second. Rabbits and hares are the staple. Mice, voles, squirrels, birds. But here is the detail that changes how people talk about them: bobcats have been documented taking down deer, animals much larger than themselves, particularly in harsh winters when deer are weakened. Think about what that means. This is a creature that routinely wins fights against animals that outweigh it. It has ear tufts that scientists still argue about. It has a ruff of fur around the face like a lion in miniature. It has a stubby tail, four to seven inches long, that gave the animal its name. It has a spotted coat that is essentially camouflage for dappled light, and, useful fact, the spot pattern is different from one animal to the next, which is how researchers identify individuals on trail cameras. And it has a voice. Purrs, hisses, growls, and a night scream that has been mistaken for a human in distress by people who did not know what they were hearing. So this is who we are talking about. Not a pet. Not a pushover. One of the most efficient small predators on the continent. Which is what makes the situation in this video so strange. Because everything I just told you about strength, speed and pride goes quiet when the ground disappears. . 03 // THE ANIMAL YOU HAVE PROBABLY WALKED PAST Here is a fact that should feel a little unsettling. Bobcats are one of the most widespread wild cats in North America. Their range stretches across the lower 48 states, into southern Canada, and down into Mexico. Forests, swamps, deserts, mountains, the ragged edges of suburbs. They are adaptable in a way that very few predators are. And yet most people, including people who have lived their entire lives near them, have never seen one. That is not an accident. Bobcats are solitary, shy, and mostly active around dawn and dusk. They live in the margins. They move through your world at times you are not looking, and they have made avoiding you into an art form. A bobcat's entire survival strategy is to see you first and never be seen. Which means any video of one, let alone a close, unhurried, unguarded look at one, is rare. Wildlife photographers wait years for angles like this. Researchers set up cameras and come back to empty memory cards. Now think about what it takes for a wild bobcat and a human being to end up in the same small space, with the animal not running. The animal has to be in a situation where running is no longer possible. That should give you chills. Because it is not a heartwarming meeting. It is what happens when a very proud animal has run out of options. And what happens next is the part that does not add up, which is exactly where the next section starts. . 04 // THE PART THAT DOES NOT ADD UP Predators do not do calm. A wild animal's nervous system is a hair trigger. When something big and unfamiliar closes in, the body floods with adrenaline and cortisol, and the decision tree is short: fight, flee, or freeze. Every instinct it has been born with says a large, upright, two-legged creature is the most dangerous thing in the environment. So when a wild animal is calm around humans, there are only a few explanations, and none of them is "it decided to trust us." Sometimes the animal is habituated, meaning it has lived near people so long it has stopped treating them as a threat. Sometimes the animal is so depleted, cold, hurt or exhausted that its body has quietly shut down the option to fight. Biologists have a name for one version of this: tonic immobility, a kind of involuntary freeze in which an animal goes still and unresponsive when escape seems impossible. And sometimes it is a mix of all of it, in ways science is still working out. Here is the line I want you to remember, because it will save you from a lot of bad internet takes: Do not confuse calm with consent. Stillness is not friendship. A quiet animal is not a tame animal. And some of the most dramatic moments in wildlife rescue come not from the fight, but from the moment the body stops fighting and everyone has to figure out what that actually means. There is even a documented condition, capture myopathy, in which the sheer stress of being restrained can damage a wild animal's muscles and organs badly enough to kill it, sometimes hours or days after the event, with no visible wound at all. Handling stress is a real cause of death in wildlife work. That is why professionals move slowly, keep things dark and quiet, and treat every second of contact like it costs something. Which means that in a situation like this, the difference between a good outcome and a tragic one can be invisible to the naked eye. That is what makes the footage so tense to watch if you know what to look for. And I am going to tell you exactly what to look for. But not yet. First I need you to understand how unlikely it was that anyone was there at all. . 05 // NATURE HAS NO AUDIENCE Almost everything that happens in the wild happens unwatched. Think about that for a second. Billions of small emergencies, every single day. Animals slipping, trapped, lost, starving, stranded. A fawn separated from its mother. A bird with a broken wing. A predator that misjudged a jump by an inch. Almost none of it is ever witnessed by anyone. No camera. No rescuer. No witness. It simply happens, and then it stops, and the world continues as if nothing occurred. For a rescue to happen, a chain of things has to line up. Somebody has to be in the right place. Somebody has to be looking in the right direction. Somebody has to notice a small, wet, dark shape in a huge moving surface, and understand what it is. Somebody has to decide to act rather than say "huh" and keep going. And somebody has to actually know how to help without making it worse. Break any single link and the story ends before it starts. Every viral rescue video you have ever seen is a chain like that, where all the links happened to hold. I think that is why these clips hit differently than almost anything else online. They are not just proof that an animal survived. They are proof that the chain can hold. That in a world that mostly does not look, sometimes someone does. The cold math says this animal had little time. The odds say nobody should have been there. And yet. I keep circling that "and yet." . QUICK PAUSE Before we go deeper, a small experiment. Without scrolling back up, answer this in your head: how long was the animal in that water before anyone noticed? Got a number? Now hold it loosely. The truth about time in a moment like this is that it never feels like what it is. Seconds stretch. Minutes vanish. Nobody in a crisis has an accurate clock. Keep your number. We will come back to it. . 06 // WHY YOUR BRAIN CANNOT SCROLL PAST THIS Let's zoom out, because this is the part that fascinates me professionally. In 2012, two Wharton researchers, Jonah Berger and Katherine Milkman, studied thousands of New York Times articles to figure out what makes online content spread. Their finding was not what most people expected. Positivity helped, but what mattered even more was how much physical arousal a piece of content produced. Awe, anger and anxiety, all high-arousal emotions, made people share. Sadness, which is low-arousal, made people stop. Now look at a clip like this through that lens. It has anxiety: will the animal make it? It has awe: this is a wild predator, close enough to see the texture of its fur. It has relief, and something bigger than relief. Psychologist Jonathan Haidt has a word for that bigger thing: elevation. It is the warm, expanding feeling you get when you witness someone behaving with unexpected goodness. It is the emotion that makes people want to be better, to call their mother, to do something kind. It is exactly the kind of emotion that makes people hit share before they have even finished watching. And then there is the mechanism behind the hook itself. In 1994, the behavioral economist George Loewenstein described what he called the information gap theory of curiosity: curiosity is the discomfort of noticing a gap between what you know and what you want to know. The bigger the gap, and the closer you feel to closing it, the harder it is to look away. That is what I did in the first three lines of this post. I gave you a wild animal, a disaster, and an unanswered question. Your brain has been carrying that open loop ever since. You cannot un-notice it. You can only close it. That is not a trick. It is how attention has worked since the first campfire story. The only difference now is that the campfire fits in your pocket and never goes out. There is one more thing, and it may be the most important one. Animals do not perform. They cannot posture for a camera, hide their fear behind a joke, or spin the story afterward. Their reactions are uncut. In an internet made mostly of people curating themselves, a wild animal reacting honestly to a moment is about as authentic as content gets. And in a feed that is ninety percent outrage, ten percent ads, and the occasional argument about sandwiches, a clip that is about competence and kindness feels like finding cold water in a desert. So no, it is not weird that you cannot look away. It would be weirder if you could. . 07 // 15 BOBCAT FACTS THAT CHANGE HOW YOU SEE THE CLIP You now know what the water does and what the animal is. Here is the rest of the file, fast. 1. The scientific name is Lynx rufus. "Rufus" means reddish. The animal has been carrying a color-coded label for centuries. 2. It is the most common wild cat in North America, which makes how rarely people see one even more remarkable. 3. Bobcats are ambush hunters, not chasers. They win by patience, not by endurance. Long chases are not their thing, and long swims are definitely not their thing. 4. Yes, bobcats can swim, and they do it when they have to: crossing rivers, fleeing danger, following prey. But it is a tool of last resort, not a hobby. 5. Kittens are born in spring, usually in litters of two to four, and the mother raises them alone. Dad is not part of the picture. 6. A kitten's eyes open at around a week and a half old. It will stay with its mother for most of its first year before heading off to find a territory of its own. 7. Young bobcats leaving home can travel dozens of miles looking for a place to settle. That means young animals are the ones most likely to end up somewhere unfamiliar, in situations nothing in their short lives prepared them for. 8. Bobcats mark territory with scent, scrapes and scratched trees. Their world is written in a language we mostly cannot read. 9. When they cannot finish a meal, they often cover the leftovers with leaves, snow or debris and come back for it later. Forward planning, from a cat. 10. They climb trees and use them for escape and lookout. If a bobcat ever wanted to get out of a situation, vertical was its first idea. 11. Their ear tufts are still debated. Camouflage? Hearing? Communication? Nobody has a definitive answer, and I love that. 12. Bobcat and Canada lynx are cousins, not twins. Lynx have longer ear tufts, bigger paws for snow, and a fully black-tipped tail. A bobcat's tail is black only on top of the tip, like someone dipped a paintbrush and stopped halfway. 13. Coat color changes by region. Desert animals run pale and sandy. Northern animals run darker and grayer. Same species, different wardrobe. 14. A bobcat is not closely related to a cougar. It belongs to the Lynx genus. The cougar belongs to another. When people call it a "baby mountain lion," a biologist somewhere loses a year of their life. 15. In the wild, life is often short and hard. Many bobcats do not make it to ten years old. In captivity, they can live far longer. Which tells you what the wild costs, every single day, on top of everything else. Fifteen facts. One conclusion. Every one of these facts describes an animal built to survive. Which is exactly why watching one in trouble is so hard to forget. . 08 // SIX MYTHS ABOUT WILD CATS AND WATER Since we are here, let's clear up some things. MYTH 1: All cats hate water. FALSE. Tigers swim. Jaguars swim. Fishing cats literally dive for a living. The idea that cats are universally water-averse comes from house cats, and even that is a generalization. Plenty of wild cats are comfortable in water. It is not fear of water. It is that most cats do not choose it unless there is a reason. MYTH 2: If an animal can swim, it is safe in water. FALSE. Being able to swim and being able to survive in water are two different skills. Temperature, distance, current, exhaustion and time all matter. A strong swimmer can lose to cold long before it loses to drowning. MYTH 3: A tough predator does not need help. FALSE. Toughness is not immunity. Predators die of exposure, injury and exhaustion all the time. Being at the top of a food chain does not mean being at the top of every situation. MYTH 4: A calm wild animal is a friendly wild animal. FALSE. We covered this. Calm can mean cold, tired, hurt or in shock. It does not mean safe to touch. MYTH 5: Wild cats attack people constantly. FALSE. It is the opposite. Bobcats avoid people so well that many humans go a lifetime without seeing one. Encounters that end badly are extremely rare, and most involve an animal that is sick, cornered or handled. MYTH 6: Rescue is easy. FALSE. Rescue is the visible five percent. Underneath it are timing, knowledge, restraint, risk and an enormous amount of luck. Six myths. Not one of them survives contact with the footage. . 09 // THE SECOND HALF OF EVERY RESCUE Here is something the clips never show you. Getting the animal out is the first half of the story. The second half is quieter, slower, and matters just as much. When a wild animal ends up in professional hands, the priorities are almost the opposite of what your instincts tell you. Warmth, calm, darkness and silence come first. Then a medical check for injuries, dehydration and hypothermia. Then, if all goes well, recovery in a space where the animal sees as little of humans as possible. Yes, as little as possible. Good rehabilitators deliberately avoid cuddling, talking to, or bonding with wild patients, because an animal that gets comfortable around people is an animal that struggles to survive once it goes back out there. The goal is never a rescued pet. The goal is a released predator. And when it is possible, animals are often returned to the area where they were found, because that is the territory they know: the routes, the hiding places, the food, the neighbors. So the real happy ending of a wildlife rescue is not a hug. It is a door opening, and an animal walking through it without looking back. Hold on to that image. It will matter in a minute. . 10 // PLEASE DO NOT TRY THIS I am going to be blunt, because the comment section will not be. Every time a clip like this goes viral, thousands of people write some version of "I would have grabbed it too" or "I want to keep it." Please do not. A wild bobcat is not a pet. It is a wild predator with claws, teeth, and a nervous system built to treat contact as an attack. Even a small, exhausted, seemingly docile animal can injure a person badly in a fraction of a second. Bites and scratches from wildlife can carry infection. Rabies in bobcats is uncommon, but it is real, and that is not a gamble you take on a hunch. And as we covered, the danger runs both ways. The stress of being handled can hurt or kill a wild animal even when nobody meant it any harm. In many places it is also illegal to keep or transport wild animals without permits, which means the well-intentioned rescuer can end up in a legal mess and the animal can end up worse off. So what should you do if you ever find a wild animal in trouble? Keep your distance. Keep noise and movement low. Do not try to pick it up, feed it, or warm it up yourself. Call your local wildlife agency, animal control, or a licensed wildlife rehabilitator, and follow their instructions. They do this for a living. They know what the animal needs, and what it does not. Love wildlife the right way: at a distance, with respect, and through the phone number of someone qualified. The best rescue stories are the ones where the animal gets to go back to being wild. Which brings me to the ending. . 11 // HOW TO WATCH THIS VIDEO Here is my one request. Do not watch it on autopilot. Before you press play, decide what you think is going to happen. Make a prediction, honestly. Then watch, and see how wrong you were. Keep your eyes on the animal, not on the people. Watch the eyes. Watch the ears. Watch the moment the animal has to decide what it wants to do. Wildlife tells you everything if you know where to look, and it does not lie. Pay attention to the way the whole tone of the clip shifts as it goes on. The first seconds and the last seconds feel like two entirely different films. And carry these five questions with you while it plays: Why is a predator this strong not fighting? What does an animal like this actually feel in a moment like that? How many other animals never get this chance? What would you have done in that spot, honestly? And what is the very last thing the bobcat does? Only one of those has an answer you can see with your own eyes. And remember the door I mentioned, the one that opens and the animal that does not look back? Keep that picture in your head while you watch. See how close reality gets to it. And stay to the last frame. There is a reason I told you the ending matters. A second watch will show you things the first one hides. . 12 // THE THREE RULES EVERY WILDLIFE PROFESSIONAL LIVES BY If you spent a week with people who do this work for a living, you would hear the same three ideas over and over. Rule one: the animal comes before the story. Good professionals never put a camera ahead of the patient. The best footage in the world is worthless if it costs the animal something. Rule two: distance is a form of kindness. The closer you get, the more stress you add. The most respectful thing you can do for a wild animal is usually to do less, from farther away, and let it be what it is. Rule three: success means the animal does not need you anymore. Not gratitude. Not a bond. Not a photo with a cute caption. Success is independence. Notice how that flips the usual story. In most human stories, success is being needed. In wildlife, success is being forgotten. . 13 // IF YOU ONLY REMEMBER FIVE LINES Screenshot this if you want to. I would. 1. Water steals heat 25 times faster than air, and a wet coat stops working. 2. A bobcat is an ambush predator with the strength of an animal twice its size, and none of that helps when the ground disappears. 3. Do not confuse calm with consent. 4. Almost everything in nature happens unwatched. That is why the times someone looks matter so much. 5. The best ending to a wild rescue is an animal that walks away on its own. . 14 // THE REAL REASON I POSTED THIS We spend a lot of time online being told the world is getting worse. Sometimes it is. But there is another truth underneath, one that rarely trends: in a random moment, on an ordinary day, with no cameras and no audience and nothing to gain, someone looked, someone cared, and something wild got another chance. Remember the number you guessed earlier, the seconds or minutes in that water? It turns out it does not matter. What matters is that somebody noticed at all. That is the whole post. Not a miracle. Not a spectacle. Just a small, stubborn piece of evidence that the chain can hold. If it moved you even a little, that is not weakness. That is the part of you that still works. If this landed for you, here is what to do: Reply with one word for how you felt watching it. Just one. I read them. Repost it for the person in your life who says they do not care about animals. Watch what happens to their face. Bookmark this thread-that-is-not-a-thread for the next time your feed makes you tired of everything. And follow me if you want more clips that make you feel something real, plus the stories behind them, without the fluff. One last thing. You made it to the bottom of a very long post. That means something. It means you are the kind of person who stays for the ending. Now go back to the video, press play, and stay for the last frame. P.S. If you scrolled straight to the bottom to see how this ends: the video is attached to this post. The ending is in the video. Nothing I write can replace it, and I would not want it to. P.P.S. Drop your prediction in the replies before you press play: what does the bobcat do in the very last seconds? Then come back after and tell me how wrong, or how right, you were. I will pin my favorite.

A wild bobcat. Cold, open water. A body that was never built for this. This is an animal that can kill a deer. The water was about to beat it anyway. Watch the video first. Then read on. What happens in the final seconds is the reason I can't stop thinking about it. . Some clips you watch. Some clips you feel in your chest for an hour afterward. This is the second kind, and I want to explain exactly why, because once you understand what you are actually looking at, you will never watch it the same way again. This is a long one. Every section ends with something that makes the next one worth it. Stay with me. . 01 // THE COLDEST MATH IN THE WILD Let's start with something nobody tells you about water. Water is a thief. It pulls heat out of a living body up to 25 times faster than air at the same temperature. Not a little faster. Twenty-five times. It is the reason a cold day is uncomfortable and a cold swim is an emergency. Now put that math on an animal wearing a fur coat. Fur works because of what is trapped inside it: air. Thousands of tiny pockets of warm air held against the skin. The air is the insulation. The hair is just the scaffolding that holds it in place. Soak that coat and the air is gone. What was a winter jacket becomes a wet towel wrapped around the body. It is heavy. It drags. It bleeds heat at the exact moment the animal can least afford to lose it. And swimming is not free. A cat does not swim the way an otter swims. Otters are engineered for it: dense waterproof fur, webbed feet, a body shaped like a torpedo. A bobcat is engineered for something completely different. Every stroke burns fuel it does not have, while every second in the water drains the fuel it already has. That is the trap. Heat goes out. Energy goes out. Nothing comes in. In humans, the first minute in cold water triggers what physiologists call the cold shock response: a gasp reflex, a spike in heart rate, panicked breathing. Then comes the slow part, where muscles and nerves cool down and stop doing what you tell them. Animals do not get an exemption from physics. Bodies are bodies. Survival experts who study cold water use a simple frame for humans, the 1-10-1 rule. One minute to get your breathing under control after the initial shock. Ten minutes of meaningful muscle function before your limbs start refusing orders. About an hour before hypothermia becomes the real threat to life. Now shrink the body. A smaller body has more surface area for its mass, which means it sheds heat faster. Those human numbers are a generous best case. For a 20-pound animal, the clock runs quicker. So when you see a wild animal in water it did not choose, you are not looking at a swimmer. You are looking at a countdown. Here is the part that should bother you: the animal does not know it is a countdown. It only knows that it has to keep moving, and that stopping is not an option, and that there is nothing solid anywhere. Hold that thought. Because the next thing I am going to tell you is why this particular animal is the last one you would expect to be in that position. . 02 // THE "BIG HOUSE CAT" LIE Somewhere along the way, someone decided a bobcat is basically a large housecat with attitude. Somebody was wrong. Let's do the numbers. A typical house cat weighs 8 to 10 pounds. Most adult bobcats land somewhere between 15 and 30 pounds, with big males pushing past that. That is two to three times the mass, and none of it is soft. It is wire and spring: long hind legs built to launch, shoulders built to hold, claws that retract and reset like a trap. By widely cited estimates, a bobcat can cover roughly 10 feet in a single leap. That is not a pounce. That is a projectile. It hunts the way the best hunters do: by being patient past the point where patience seems reasonable. It picks a spot. It goes still. It waits, sometimes for a very long time, until the world arranges itself into a single clean opportunity. Then it ends the situation in a second. Rabbits and hares are the staple. Mice, voles, squirrels, birds. But here is the detail that changes how people talk about them: bobcats have been documented taking down deer, animals much larger than themselves, particularly in harsh winters when deer are weakened. Think about what that means. This is a creature that routinely wins fights against animals that outweigh it. It has ear tufts that scientists still argue about. It has a ruff of fur around the face like a lion in miniature. It has a stubby tail, four to seven inches long, that gave the animal its name. It has a spotted coat that is essentially camouflage for dappled light, and, useful fact, the spot pattern is different from one animal to the next, which is how researchers identify individuals on trail cameras. And it has a voice. Purrs, hisses, growls, and a night scream that has been mistaken for a human in distress by people who did not know what they were hearing. So this is who we are talking about. Not a pet. Not a pushover. One of the most efficient small predators on the continent. Which is what makes the situation in this video so strange. Because everything I just told you about strength, speed and pride goes quiet when the ground disappears. . 03 // THE ANIMAL YOU HAVE PROBABLY WALKED PAST Here is a fact that should feel a little unsettling. Bobcats are one of the most widespread wild cats in North America. Their range stretches across the lower 48 states, into southern Canada, and down into Mexico. Forests, swamps, deserts, mountains, the ragged edges of suburbs. They are adaptable in a way that very few predators are. And yet most people, including people who have lived their entire lives near them, have never seen one. That is not an accident. Bobcats are solitary, shy, and mostly active around dawn and dusk. They live in the margins. They move through your world at times you are not looking, and they have made avoiding you into an art form. A bobcat's entire survival strategy is to see you first and never be seen. Which means any video of one, let alone a close, unhurried, unguarded look at one, is rare. Wildlife photographers wait years for angles like this. Researchers set up cameras and come back to empty memory cards. Now think about what it takes for a wild bobcat and a human being to end up in the same small space, with the animal not running. The animal has to be in a situation where running is no longer possible. That should give you chills. Because it is not a heartwarming meeting. It is what happens when a very proud animal has run out of options. And what happens next is the part that does not add up, which is exactly where the next section starts. . 04 // THE PART THAT DOES NOT ADD UP Predators do not do calm. A wild animal's nervous system is a hair trigger. When something big and unfamiliar closes in, the body floods with adrenaline and cortisol, and the decision tree is short: fight, flee, or freeze. Every instinct it has been born with says a large, upright, two-legged creature is the most dangerous thing in the environment. So when a wild animal is calm around humans, there are only a few explanations, and none of them is "it decided to trust us." Sometimes the animal is habituated, meaning it has lived near people so long it has stopped treating them as a threat. Sometimes the animal is so depleted, cold, hurt or exhausted that its body has quietly shut down the option to fight. Biologists have a name for one version of this: tonic immobility, a kind of involuntary freeze in which an animal goes still and unresponsive when escape seems impossible. And sometimes it is a mix of all of it, in ways science is still working out. Here is the line I want you to remember, because it will save you from a lot of bad internet takes: Do not confuse calm with consent. Stillness is not friendship. A quiet animal is not a tame animal. And some of the most dramatic moments in wildlife rescue come not from the fight, but from the moment the body stops fighting and everyone has to figure out what that actually means. There is even a documented condition, capture myopathy, in which the sheer stress of being restrained can damage a wild animal's muscles and organs badly enough to kill it, sometimes hours or days after the event, with no visible wound at all. Handling stress is a real cause of death in wildlife work. That is why professionals move slowly, keep things dark and quiet, and treat every second of contact like it costs something. Which means that in a situation like this, the difference between a good outcome and a tragic one can be invisible to the naked eye. That is what makes the footage so tense to watch if you know what to look for. And I am going to tell you exactly what to look for. But not yet. First I need you to understand how unlikely it was that anyone was there at all. . 05 // NATURE HAS NO AUDIENCE Almost everything that happens in the wild happens unwatched. Think about that for a second. Billions of small emergencies, every single day. Animals slipping, trapped, lost, starving, stranded. A fawn separated from its mother. A bird with a broken wing. A predator that misjudged a jump by an inch. Almost none of it is ever witnessed by anyone. No camera. No rescuer. No witness. It simply happens, and then it stops, and the world continues as if nothing occurred. For a rescue to happen, a chain of things has to line up. Somebody has to be in the right place. Somebody has to be looking in the right direction. Somebody has to notice a small, wet, dark shape in a huge moving surface, and understand what it is. Somebody has to decide to act rather than say "huh" and keep going. And somebody has to actually know how to help without making it worse. Break any single link and the story ends before it starts. Every viral rescue video you have ever seen is a chain like that, where all the links happened to hold. I think that is why these clips hit differently than almost anything else online. They are not just proof that an animal survived. They are proof that the chain can hold. That in a world that mostly does not look, sometimes someone does. The cold math says this animal had little time. The odds say nobody should have been there. And yet. I keep circling that "and yet." . QUICK PAUSE Before we go deeper, a small experiment. Without scrolling back up, answer this in your head: how long was the animal in that water before anyone noticed? Got a number? Now hold it loosely. The truth about time in a moment like this is that it never feels like what it is. Seconds stretch. Minutes vanish. Nobody in a crisis has an accurate clock. Keep your number. We will come back to it. . 06 // WHY YOUR BRAIN CANNOT SCROLL PAST THIS Let's zoom out, because this is the part that fascinates me professionally. In 2012, two Wharton researchers, Jonah Berger and Katherine Milkman, studied thousands of New York Times articles to figure out what makes online content spread. Their finding was not what most people expected. Positivity helped, but what mattered even more was how much physical arousal a piece of content produced. Awe, anger and anxiety, all high-arousal emotions, made people share. Sadness, which is low-arousal, made people stop. Now look at a clip like this through that lens. It has anxiety: will the animal make it? It has awe: this is a wild predator, close enough to see the texture of its fur. It has relief, and something bigger than relief. Psychologist Jonathan Haidt has a word for that bigger thing: elevation. It is the warm, expanding feeling you get when you witness someone behaving with unexpected goodness. It is the emotion that makes people want to be better, to call their mother, to do something kind. It is exactly the kind of emotion that makes people hit share before they have even finished watching. And then there is the mechanism behind the hook itself. In 1994, the behavioral economist George Loewenstein described what he called the information gap theory of curiosity: curiosity is the discomfort of noticing a gap between what you know and what you want to know. The bigger the gap, and the closer you feel to closing it, the harder it is to look away. That is what I did in the first three lines of this post. I gave you a wild animal, a disaster, and an unanswered question. Your brain has been carrying that open loop ever since. You cannot un-notice it. You can only close it. That is not a trick. It is how attention has worked since the first campfire story. The only difference now is that the campfire fits in your pocket and never goes out. There is one more thing, and it may be the most important one. Animals do not perform. They cannot posture for a camera, hide their fear behind a joke, or spin the story afterward. Their reactions are uncut. In an internet made mostly of people curating themselves, a wild animal reacting honestly to a moment is about as authentic as content gets. And in a feed that is ninety percent outrage, ten percent ads, and the occasional argument about sandwiches, a clip that is about competence and kindness feels like finding cold water in a desert. So no, it is not weird that you cannot look away. It would be weirder if you could. . 07 // 15 BOBCAT FACTS THAT CHANGE HOW YOU SEE THE CLIP You now know what the water does and what the animal is. Here is the rest of the file, fast. 1. The scientific name is Lynx rufus. "Rufus" means reddish. The animal has been carrying a color-coded label for centuries. 2. It is the most common wild cat in North America, which makes how rarely people see one even more remarkable. 3. Bobcats are ambush hunters, not chasers. They win by patience, not by endurance. Long chases are not their thing, and long swims are definitely not their thing. 4. Yes, bobcats can swim, and they do it when they have to: crossing rivers, fleeing danger, following prey. But it is a tool of last resort, not a hobby. 5. Kittens are born in spring, usually in litters of two to four, and the mother raises them alone. Dad is not part of the picture. 6. A kitten's eyes open at around a week and a half old. It will stay with its mother for most of its first year before heading off to find a territory of its own. 7. Young bobcats leaving home can travel dozens of miles looking for a place to settle. That means young animals are the ones most likely to end up somewhere unfamiliar, in situations nothing in their short lives prepared them for. 8. Bobcats mark territory with scent, scrapes and scratched trees. Their world is written in a language we mostly cannot read. 9. When they cannot finish a meal, they often cover the leftovers with leaves, snow or debris and come back for it later. Forward planning, from a cat. 10. They climb trees and use them for escape and lookout. If a bobcat ever wanted to get out of a situation, vertical was its first idea. 11. Their ear tufts are still debated. Camouflage? Hearing? Communication? Nobody has a definitive answer, and I love that. 12. Bobcat and Canada lynx are cousins, not twins. Lynx have longer ear tufts, bigger paws for snow, and a fully black-tipped tail. A bobcat's tail is black only on top of the tip, like someone dipped a paintbrush and stopped halfway. 13. Coat color changes by region. Desert animals run pale and sandy. Northern animals run darker and grayer. Same species, different wardrobe. 14. A bobcat is not closely related to a cougar. It belongs to the Lynx genus. The cougar belongs to another. When people call it a "baby mountain lion," a biologist somewhere loses a year of their life. 15. In the wild, life is often short and hard. Many bobcats do not make it to ten years old. In captivity, they can live far longer. Which tells you what the wild costs, every single day, on top of everything else. Fifteen facts. One conclusion. Every one of these facts describes an animal built to survive. Which is exactly why watching one in trouble is so hard to forget. . 08 // SIX MYTHS ABOUT WILD CATS AND WATER Since we are here, let's clear up some things. MYTH 1: All cats hate water. FALSE. Tigers swim. Jaguars swim. Fishing cats literally dive for a living. The idea that cats are universally water-averse comes from house cats, and even that is a generalization. Plenty of wild cats are comfortable in water. It is not fear of water. It is that most cats do not choose it unless there is a reason. MYTH 2: If an animal can swim, it is safe in water. FALSE. Being able to swim and being able to survive in water are two different skills. Temperature, distance, current, exhaustion and time all matter. A strong swimmer can lose to cold long before it loses to drowning. MYTH 3: A tough predator does not need help. FALSE. Toughness is not immunity. Predators die of exposure, injury and exhaustion all the time. Being at the top of a food chain does not mean being at the top of every situation. MYTH 4: A calm wild animal is a friendly wild animal. FALSE. We covered this. Calm can mean cold, tired, hurt or in shock. It does not mean safe to touch. MYTH 5: Wild cats attack people constantly. FALSE. It is the opposite. Bobcats avoid people so well that many humans go a lifetime without seeing one. Encounters that end badly are extremely rare, and most involve an animal that is sick, cornered or handled. MYTH 6: Rescue is easy. FALSE. Rescue is the visible five percent. Underneath it are timing, knowledge, restraint, risk and an enormous amount of luck. Six myths. Not one of them survives contact with the footage. . 09 // THE SECOND HALF OF EVERY RESCUE Here is something the clips never show you. Getting the animal out is the first half of the story. The second half is quieter, slower, and matters just as much. When a wild animal ends up in professional hands, the priorities are almost the opposite of what your instincts tell you. Warmth, calm, darkness and silence come first. Then a medical check for injuries, dehydration and hypothermia. Then, if all goes well, recovery in a space where the animal sees as little of humans as possible. Yes, as little as possible. Good rehabilitators deliberately avoid cuddling, talking to, or bonding with wild patients, because an animal that gets comfortable around people is an animal that struggles to survive once it goes back out there. The goal is never a rescued pet. The goal is a released predator. And when it is possible, animals are often returned to the area where they were found, because that is the territory they know: the routes, the hiding places, the food, the neighbors. So the real happy ending of a wildlife rescue is not a hug. It is a door opening, and an animal walking through it without looking back. Hold on to that image. It will matter in a minute. . 10 // PLEASE DO NOT TRY THIS I am going to be blunt, because the comment section will not be. Every time a clip like this goes viral, thousands of people write some version of "I would have grabbed it too" or "I want to keep it." Please do not. A wild bobcat is not a pet. It is a wild predator with claws, teeth, and a nervous system built to treat contact as an attack. Even a small, exhausted, seemingly docile animal can injure a person badly in a fraction of a second. Bites and scratches from wildlife can carry infection. Rabies in bobcats is uncommon, but it is real, and that is not a gamble you take on a hunch. And as we covered, the danger runs both ways. The stress of being handled can hurt or kill a wild animal even when nobody meant it any harm. In many places it is also illegal to keep or transport wild animals without permits, which means the well-intentioned rescuer can end up in a legal mess and the animal can end up worse off. So what should you do if you ever find a wild animal in trouble? Keep your distance. Keep noise and movement low. Do not try to pick it up, feed it, or warm it up yourself. Call your local wildlife agency, animal control, or a licensed wildlife rehabilitator, and follow their instructions. They do this for a living. They know what the animal needs, and what it does not. Love wildlife the right way: at a distance, with respect, and through the phone number of someone qualified. The best rescue stories are the ones where the animal gets to go back to being wild. Which brings me to the ending. . 11 // HOW TO WATCH THIS VIDEO Here is my one request. Do not watch it on autopilot. Before you press play, decide what you think is going to happen. Make a prediction, honestly. Then watch, and see how wrong you were. Keep your eyes on the animal, not on the people. Watch the eyes. Watch the ears. Watch the moment the animal has to decide what it wants to do. Wildlife tells you everything if you know where to look, and it does not lie. Pay attention to the way the whole tone of the clip shifts as it goes on. The first seconds and the last seconds feel like two entirely different films. And carry these five questions with you while it plays: Why is a predator this strong not fighting? What does an animal like this actually feel in a moment like that? How many other animals never get this chance? What would you have done in that spot, honestly? And what is the very last thing the bobcat does? Only one of those has an answer you can see with your own eyes. And remember the door I mentioned, the one that opens and the animal that does not look back? Keep that picture in your head while you watch. See how close reality gets to it. And stay to the last frame. There is a reason I told you the ending matters. A second watch will show you things the first one hides. . 12 // THE THREE RULES EVERY WILDLIFE PROFESSIONAL LIVES BY If you spent a week with people who do this work for a living, you would hear the same three ideas over and over. Rule one: the animal comes before the story. Good professionals never put a camera ahead of the patient. The best footage in the world is worthless if it costs the animal something. Rule two: distance is a form of kindness. The closer you get, the more stress you add. The most respectful thing you can do for a wild animal is usually to do less, from farther away, and let it be what it is. Rule three: success means the animal does not need you anymore. Not gratitude. Not a bond. Not a photo with a cute caption. Success is independence. Notice how that flips the usual story. In most human stories, success is being needed. In wildlife, success is being forgotten. . 13 // IF YOU ONLY REMEMBER FIVE LINES Screenshot this if you want to. I would. 1. Water steals heat 25 times faster than air, and a wet coat stops working. 2. A bobcat is an ambush predator with the strength of an animal twice its size, and none of that helps when the ground disappears. 3. Do not confuse calm with consent. 4. Almost everything in nature happens unwatched. That is why the times someone looks matter so much. 5. The best ending to a wild rescue is an animal that walks away on its own. . 14 // THE REAL REASON I POSTED THIS We spend a lot of time online being told the world is getting worse. Sometimes it is. But there is another truth underneath, one that rarely trends: in a random moment, on an ordinary day, with no cameras and no audience and nothing to gain, someone looked, someone cared, and something wild got another chance. Remember the number you guessed earlier, the seconds or minutes in that water? It turns out it does not matter. What matters is that somebody noticed at all. That is the whole post. Not a miracle. Not a spectacle. Just a small, stubborn piece of evidence that the chain can hold. If it moved you even a little, that is not weakness. That is the part of you that still works. If this landed for you, here is what to do: Reply with one word for how you felt watching it. Just one. I read them. Repost it for the person in your life who says they do not care about animals. Watch what happens to their face. Bookmark this thread-that-is-not-a-thread for the next time your feed makes you tired of everything. And follow me if you want more clips that make you feel something real, plus the stories behind them, without the fluff. One last thing. You made it to the bottom of a very long post. That means something. It means you are the kind of person who stays for the ending. Now go back to the video, press play, and stay for the last frame. P.S. If you scrolled straight to the bottom to see how this ends: the video is attached to this post. The ending is in the video. Nothing I write can replace it, and I would not want it to. P.P.S. Drop your prediction in the replies before you press play: what does the bobcat do in the very last seconds? Then come back after and tell me how wrong, or how right, you were. I will pin my favorite.

Earth Unveiled

67,284 görüntüleme • 16 gün önce

"Tell us this isn't true." "They had a live being out [near Area 51]." "There were human experiments that went on." 👽🛸 Roswell: A Non-Human Craft or a Darker Secret? 🤫😶 (Transcript is shorter than clip. I don't have room to type more in this post so I'll just wait for replies.) ~ Lex Fridman: "In your book on 'Area 51,' you propose an explanation that I think some people have criticized, at the very end. That this might have been a disinformation campaign from, I guess, Stalin, that the Roswell incident was a remotely-piloted plane with a quote 'grotesque, child-sized aviator.' Just looking back at all that now, years later, what's the probability that it's true? What's the probability it's not?" Annie Jacobsen: (AJ): "So, you know, I've never revealed who that source is." Lex: "Yes." AJ: "You know that? Want me to tell you?" Lex: "Okay, who was the source?" AJ: "So, before I say anything on that, let me speak to the question that you asked, right? So, you asked me, 'What's the probability that that is still standing as an idea, 12, 13, 14 years later,' right? So, I continued to work with that source for years, afterwards. We talked about this. Look, I mean, his whole family knew it was him. And I knew his family because I was an integral part of, you know, I was at his house, met all his kids, grandkids." Lex: "And we should say, the source is the main expert advisor behind the story that it was. Maybe you can explain what the story is that your report in the book, that it was a disinformation campaign created by Stalin to cause mass hysteria in the United States. The very kind that we've been speaking about with the CIA and so on." AJ: "Yes! Predicated on the narrative of the 'War of the Worlds,' right? And the 'War of the Worlds,' when it was a radio program in the United States, made people go crazy. 'Oh, my God, we're being invaded by aliens!' Well, the government was always interested in the story and Joseph Stalin was, too. We know that from declassified documents, right? "And so, the source told me that the reason for this program, and that the real Roswell crash remains, were in fact, it was a black-propaganda hoax infiltrated, you know, or rather, predicated at this idea that you were gonna overwhelm America's early-warning, air-defense system, cause mayhem and maybe be able to attack the United States. That was the plan. And Stalin was also messing with the United States, messing with Truman, who sort of, you know, turned his back on him, right? At Potsdam. "And so, this idea, and the reason that the source is important... And unlike, you know, a lot of people, 'I saw this, I saw that, I learned that.' Was, according to the source, once it was determined that this was a hoax and that Stalin was able to get a craft over the United States, and it crashed. And it had, you know, people inside of it, they were people that were sort of deformed and meant...surgically altered to look like aliens. "The United States government decided that it needed to know what on earth that was all about, and if it was possible for us to have the same program. This, according to this source, right? And so, it sounds preposterous, and if it was just someone saying, 'I...,' you might say, 'Well, it's ridiculous, get them onto another subject.' But, the difference was, is this source, who was very well placed, and friends with all of the other 75 people, you know, told me this as a confession, right? A real, tearful confession, because what he said is he was involved in the American program to do the same thing. And people died, because there were human experiments that went on." "And I write about this in the last 12 pages of 'Area 51.' It was an explosive, you know, revelation, and I felt very confident in writing this because the source wanted it written. Why? Because he said, 'I'm dedicated to my country. I know about being committed to national security, and this kind of thing must never happen. And if you give people too much power, they will take advantage of it.' And he wanted it on the record. "And his wife of 60 years did not know until after the book published. Nor did His children, okay? So, after the book published, I was called to his house and sat there with his family. And they said, 'Tell us this isn't true.' And he said, 'It is true,' right? (We need a tape of this confession or...for his family to confirm they heard this from him.) AJ: "Now that source is Al O'Donnell, who is the nuclear-weapons engineer who armed, wired and fired 186 nuclear weapons, okay? So if you wanna talk about someone..." Lex: "Woooooow." AJ: "You're the first person I've told that on the record, but it's kind of about time." Lex: "Woooooow. Well, you received a lot of criticism over this story, and it confused me why, because it's...given the context of everything you've described with the CIA and other intelligence agencies, it is reasonable that such action would be taken. AJ: "And, the source is extraordinarily credible, right? If you wanted to take the position, 'Well, that person isn't very reliable,' then you have to ask yourself, 'Why did they have Top-Secret clearances that are higher than any in the United States whatsoever?' Because he was responsible for arming nuclear bombs. He was called the trigger man. "And by the way, he told me that I could tell the world who he was. There's a lot of details that are really dark, involving that program. And when is it appropriate, right? Well, it feels appropriate now. First of all, because you and I have been talking for several hours. So this is what is truly a long-form conversation and it's the outcome of, you know, a very long time of my reporting, and also being judicious about what, you know, closing the loop on that, right? Because I do think it's important for people to know that sources have revelations." Lex: "And, like you said, the programs, both on the Soviet side, and the American side, conflicting, I think's the term we used previously? Ethically, morally, on all fronts. People have done some horrible things in the name of security. In your book, 'Surprise, Kill Vanish,' you write about the CIA." ~~~ Jeremy Kenyon Lockyer Corbell: "So, today, I want to focus on a really important story that you once told me, that has never been told all the way [from the] beginning, to all the way to the end. And I just think it's just so cool we get to do this today. So, the question I want to ask is: After you got hooked on the UFO thing, with Bob Lazar, and you as a journalist said, 'I'm gonna start getting sources.' Like, 12 people coming at you, people shut down by the government. You can tell that. But you finally, finally got to a credible individual who had direct, firsthand knowledge about UFOs, exploitation, reverse engineering, and beings. And, oh my God, I want the world to hear this story. Tell us the story." George Knapp: "I've shared some of it in very broad strokes over the years- little bits and pieces of it - without ever actually referencing, in my statements, the guy the source. But this will be the first time I've told it in totality. "And it takes me back to when I first started in this. It's 1989 KLAS-TV, we put together, we spent eight months working on this project called 'UFOs: The Best Evidence.' Nine-part series. It airs on television, it's the biggest thing that's ever been produced for local TV, to this date, and still. "And, along the way, as I'm trying to find...telling the story about Bob Lazar, and his allegations about what was out there at S-4, near Area 51 - recovered discs, alien technology being reverse engineered - I'm looking for people who would support that. And I found about two dozen people, witnesses who had worked out there, who had seen bits and pieces, who could corroborate parts of what Bob had said about these kinds of craft being out there in the Nevada desert. But there wasn't anybody big picture who knew as much as Lazar claimed to have known, so I was still looking for them. "In 1990, I started working on a follow-up series to Best Evidence, looking for new witnesses. And I got a hint from an elected official that I had known, I'd covered him in Nevada politics. He says, 'You know, you should talk to my dad one of these days.' 'Your dad?' 'Yeah.' And he told me what the dad's name was and what he had done, what job he had had. And I said, 'Ah.' So I started stalking the guy. I just started showing up at events where I knew he would be. One of those events was a reunion for employees of EG&G." Corbell (JC): "So I'm assuming that this source was working within EG&G in some capacity, which is, by the way, who Bob [Lazar] said, hired him to go out to Site-4, S-4 at Area 51. So you're like, 'Okay, I can now find out if this is bullshit, or if there's an element of truth to it.' Do I have that right?" Knapp (GK): "Pretty much correct, yeah. So, I'm looking for someone whose credentials are impeccable. Unlike Bob, whose credentials were questioned, and people still attack him on where he went to school and where he worked, and was he at Los Alamos? This guy is documentable. There's a paper trail of where he worked, what he did. There's no question that he was in a position to know. He was the first general manager of EG&G in Nevada. His name was Al O'Donnell, and he has a prominent family. "When I heard that EG&G was having a reunion, I went there. We took a camera [and I figured], 'This is a great chance to get him on camera before I start asking him the questions I really want to ask.'" JC: "And when you say he is a general manager, like, does that give him certain roles and responsibilities that would give him insight? Like, he's not a secretary, so what does that mean?" GK: "He's the boss. He was the boss of the Nevada office. And I'll tell you a little bit about EG&G. So, it was a company that was created in Boston, right around the end of World War Two. Al O'Donnell had been in the Navy, serving during the war. He got out of the Navy while the war was still underway and went to work for a company called Raytheon, which became this massive, gigantic defense contractor that's still around today, still in Nevada in fact." JC: Yeah, they've got a big connection to the UFO topic, right? But, when you say Boston, like, where in Boston was it created?" GK: "Well, MIT is where the company was born. Edgerton, Germeshausen and Grier were the three guys, the EG&G in that. They were at MIT. Scientists, engineers, they created this company there. And Al O'Donnell, who had been working for Raytheon, working on the Manhattan Project. He didn't know he was working on the Manhattan Project, but they were building these devices, complex triggers, that allowed them to detonate nuclear weapons. He learned later what he was doing was part of the Manhattan Project. "He goes to MIT, starts working with EG&G. Their company in those days had, I think, 15 employees, Al said. So it was a very small startup. But it suddenly exploded because the American atomic program exploded in those years. In 1950, Harry Truman decides that we need a permanent, nuclear testing site somewhere in the continental U.S., so they looked at a bunch of places, and they settled on Nevada. "Prior to that, Al O'Donnell had been sent out to the Pacific. They had five of these massive, atomic bomb tests out in the Pacific, and they decided to move it into a continental U.S. location and Nevada's Test Site - it was called the Nevada Test Site in those days - was chosen. Al O'Donnell leads the exodus from Boston, out to Nevada. They start hiring engineers and scientists, physicists and other security, spies." JC: "What are they working on at this time when they make that move?" GK: "Atomic bombs. They're building, testing atomic bombs. EG&G was a really precise organization that was created in order to detonate, measure and photograph atomic weapons. If you look in the history of photography, you'll see some of these amazing photos that they took of, you know, water drops dropping in water and...they're pretty famous shots because of these cameras that they developed. And it was perfect for use and testing atomic weapons and documenting what the process was. "So, EG&G comes out to Las Vegas, they are the managers of the Nevada Test Site. They, subsequently, years later, become the managers of Area 51 when it opens in 1955. So Al O'Donnell is the top guy. He oversees the nuclear testing program out there, manages it for EG&G, works with the Atomic Energy Commission. He has a Top-Secret security clearance and he can go anywhere and see anything. There's, basically, no restrictions, nothing that is outside of his ability to find out and see." JC: "So, this is an impeccable resume. This is somebody who was in position to know, and would know if someone like Bob Lazar was telling the truth or not telling the truth. I find it, personally, humorous that EG&G was, its genesis, its seed, came from MIT, right?" GK: "So, late 1990 or early 1991, I'd have to look up the dates. But somewhere in there is this event, this EG&G reunion. I go there, we got a camera, I interview Al O'Donnell, introduce myself, and say, 'Hey, I'm really interested in this, can we continue this conversation?' So he invites me to his home. He says, 'Come on over, we'll arrange to come over on a Saturday or something. We'll sit down, I'll go through my scrapbooks and show you some documents and memorabilia and photos from that era.' I was like, 'Great.' "So I go to his house and meet this wife. And we sit down, he opens up these big scrapbooks, and he starts showing me all the stuff that he had done. Photos that had been taken out in the proximity of these gigantic nuclear tests. They had great stories about the camaraderie that developed among the engineers and scientists. And he's going through all this stuff and showing me all this. And I love it, I loved every bit of it. I've never had a bad day at the Nevada Test Site, by the way. Every time I've gone out there to do a story, it's just a terrific way to spend some time." JC: "Secrets should be kept, secrets are kept, and you are a proponent of keeping secrets when it's that kind of thing." GK: "Sure, absolutely. And I respected the boundaries that they set up for us in doing these kinds of stories. So I did go out to the Nevada Test Site a lot over the next 40 years or so and put together a lot of different stories. And they knew of my interest in that area that's just outside what the Nevada Test Site, a place called Area 51. In 1955, Area 51 was, basically, created and EG&G got the contract to manage Area 51, and had kept it for the next 30, 35 years. So, whatever went on out there, they had an inside knowledge of what was going on." JC: "So, you meet this guy, Al O'Donnell, for the first time when he's at this public thing. You probably say something like, 'Your son told me to talk to you,' or something. Whatever. It ends up, he invites you to his home, and you're going through scrapbooks, and he's showing you all this atomic testing stuff that he was involved in. GK: "Yeah, and I'm telling him, 'Boy, this is really interesting. That's fascinating. I'd love to do a story on it.' And after we're there for maybe two hours, he closes this one big scrapbook and he goes, 'You're not here to talk about this, are ya?' I said, 'Well, not exactly.' He says, 'I know what you're here to talk about. I know what you want to ask about.' And right about that point, his wife walks in and she says, 'Don't start telling them that stuff! Don't even tell him!' And he kind of joked about it.' JC: "What were you there to talk about?" GK: "UFOs, UFOs. Area 51, Bob Lazar, crashed saucers, reverse engineering, to see if he had any knowledge of that, because I'd been led to believe that he did. So he closes that book and he says, 'We'll have we'll get together another time and we'll talk about it in private.' And over the course of the next two years or so, he and I would meet at coffee shops and talk about it. And I would ask him questions, and really, it was like pulling teeth. He wanted to tell me stuff but he made me work at it." (AJ says his family was there for the confession. Knapp has over two years of meetings with him. A bit confusing.) GK: "And the condition was, I couldn't take any notes. I couldn't record it, I couldn't take any notes. So each time I'd meet with him, I'd rush back to my car and start scribbling notes on pieces of paper so I'd remember everything that he said. And the story that he told me, that evolved over those couple of years was pretty fantastic. "He said that they did have a flying saucer that had been recovered from New Mexico. I think he indicated that it had been taken from New Mexico to Wright Patterson Air Force Base, which is... He never said Roswell, but I think it was the Roswell incident is what he [was] talking about. And it confirmed some of the details about what we know, likely, happened with the Roswell craft." JC: "When he's telling you, 'We have recovered a craft,' did he say it like, this is secret, don't tell anybody?" GK: "Yeah, it was just for my knowledge, my background and information. It wasn't a story I could do then. We were negotiating about how, or when, or if I could ever use that information or make it public. He told me the details about this craft. He said that it had been stored at Indian Springs. Indian Springs is an Air Force Base that's been there for a long time. It's now called Creech. Indian Springs existed before Area 51 was made. "But he says it was there, they kept it there. It might have been in an underground facility, I'm not quite sure. But then when Area 51, after it opened in 1955, they moved it to an adjacent facility. He didn't say it was S-4, he didn't say it was Papoose, but I think that's what he's talking about. Papoose Lake is where Bob Lazar said he worked, and where they had built nine hangars underground, disguised to look like the desert, and where they had other recovered craft. "He says they worked on this recovered craft, reverse engineering, trying to figure out how it worked, who built it. Whether or not they could duplicate the technology because, apparently, they thought this was pretty advanced, and they'd like to be able to build more of 'em. "And he says it was a very closed program, very small. It was only, I think, five of them that were aware of it, at least in the early stages, that were working on this project. And it was very hush hush, and they didn't share it with anybody else in the company, or anybody else in the area, or the military. They just kept it to themselves. "So, after we're having these meetings - and I go back and write down all these notes and stuff, details about what he had shared with me - we have another meeting at a coffee shop, and I said, 'Well gosh, you know, aren't you worried that it would get out, that the word would get out?' "And he says to me, 'We were worried It would get out?' That's right. 'I mean, what...it? What do you mean, it?' It. Meaning a live being, they had a live being out there. I go, 'You had a live being, an alien as well?' [O'Donnell said], 'Tell you the truth, we didn't know what it was.' I said, 'You know, maybe it came from millions of miles away, out in space, and you're keeping it in a cage near Area 51?' He said, 'To tell you the truth, we couldn't communicate with it in the beginning. We didn't know what it was, we didn't know where it was from, and we didn't know what to do with it.'" JC: "When Al O'Donnell says to you, 'We had a live alien, a being,' obviously from another world, what was your feeling?" GK: "Well, I was overwhelmed, because it was, in effect, confirmation of things that I had come to believe, because of the reporting we'd already done. And then the evidence of cover ups and lies that had been told to the public. Here's this guy in a high position, with a high security clearance, telling me that it was true. That they really did have a craft and they had a being. "My second feeling was, one of overwhelming sadness for the being, whatever it was, you know, that was kept out there. I asked him, you know, what had happened to it, what became of it? He says, 'I don't know. I don't know whatever happened to it.' But it was out there for a while, alive, and eventually they figured out a way to communicate with it. "And so I asked him, 'Well, what did it look like?' And he made me guess, as he did with all these questions. He made me guess. He said, 'Well, it kinda looks like a certain political candidate.' I said, 'Well, who? A political candidate? Who?' And at the time, Ross Perot was running for president. He said, 'It looks like Ross Perot. A little skinny guy with a big ears and tiny head.' Not a classic Gray-looking alien, but a very odd-looking creature with really big ears, that looked like Ross Perot. And I laughed. "And so we had these conversations for a while, and I was blown away by the information that he shared. I took all these notes. I was hoping that someday, I might be able to get the information out. And I asked him, 'Look, you're getting up there in age. If I can't record something with you, could you record a statement to the effect of telling me the story on camera, and then when you pass on, I can have the tape?' And he said, 'Yeah,' he would do it." JC: "You know, look, I've heard a lot of wild stories that I can't verify. A guy's telling you something, and you get a sense as a journalist, when you go down a road with somebody, and you take your time and you vet it... Did you feel...I mean, is there any world where he's trying to f*ck with ya? Or is there a world where he's trying to, you know, dissuade...kind of put crazy information into your brain? Like, how did you feel when he was telling you this? Was he like, straight with you?" GK: "Yeah, he was very straightforward. And again, this was not information he was giving up, willingly. I mean, I had to really dig and coax and arm twist to get him to cough things up. And it was very slow-going over about a two-year period, maybe a little bit longer. And I know that this...you always have to be wary of people with different agendas and people that just make stuff up. I didn't get that sense from him because of his standing in the community. He had shared this story with members of his own family." JC: "And that's why they came to you, is because they kind of [gave] you a tip. And these members of his family, they're serious people, too." GK: "Yeah. One of his sons is an FBI agent, or was, he's passed on now. One was an elected official in Nevada. That was the one that gave me the tip." JC: So, I just want to nail this [down] so I understand. You were approached because he had shared this with his family, privately, and then you had to kind of coax to get through to him about the story?" GK: "Right." JC: "I think that's important because look, these things don't happen, like, people [don't] just come to us and say, you know, crazy stuff, and we're like, 'Hh, yeah, cool. Sounds good.' Like, the dynamic of that, socially, as a journalist, like getting in there, taking time. You know, we have to verify if what he said is true, and there are some major bombs coming about that. But it's like, that process is so important. "So here you are, you're sitting with him, he tells you now, they have a live alien. And you felt sad because you're an animal-rights activist, you love animals. I know with your cats at home and you've done horse stories and all the stories about like, the inhumane stuff to animals. So it made you personally sad, makes me sad, too now thinking about it." GK: Yeah. Well, we had these series of meetings, and then the last time we met, after he'd agreed to go ahead and record a tape - and give it to me after making an arrangement so I got it after he passed on - he said that he had been told to not talk to me anymore. He said he had been given a warning [and] it was not a good idea for him to talk to me any more about anything. Not just that topic, but anything." JC: "Well, who knows that you're talking? Who would warn him?" GK: "I don't know. I don't know. But you recall, back in those days, there was surveillance. We had our phones tapped at KLAS-TV. There were guys following us around. Me, Bob Lazar, Gene Huff, maybe Robert Bigelow." JC: "People were also coming to your news station, OSI. And they would come in and try to like, get to you and then they'd show you their card...and take it back. And you know your phones are tapped. So it's like, because of this story, all of a sudden you're on high alert. So, anybody could have called him, been watching you, had meetings with the guy. So what you're saying is one day he just said, 'I can't...I'm not allowed to talk to you any more.'" GK: "Yeah, I've been told not to talk to you anymore. I've been told not to."

"Tell us this isn't true." "They had a live being out [near Area 51]." "There were human experiments that went on." 👽🛸 Roswell: A Non-Human Craft or a Darker Secret? 🤫😶 (Transcript is shorter than clip. I don't have room to type more in this post so I'll just wait for replies.) ~ Lex Fridman: "In your book on 'Area 51,' you propose an explanation that I think some people have criticized, at the very end. That this might have been a disinformation campaign from, I guess, Stalin, that the Roswell incident was a remotely-piloted plane with a quote 'grotesque, child-sized aviator.' Just looking back at all that now, years later, what's the probability that it's true? What's the probability it's not?" Annie Jacobsen: (AJ): "So, you know, I've never revealed who that source is." Lex: "Yes." AJ: "You know that? Want me to tell you?" Lex: "Okay, who was the source?" AJ: "So, before I say anything on that, let me speak to the question that you asked, right? So, you asked me, 'What's the probability that that is still standing as an idea, 12, 13, 14 years later,' right? So, I continued to work with that source for years, afterwards. We talked about this. Look, I mean, his whole family knew it was him. And I knew his family because I was an integral part of, you know, I was at his house, met all his kids, grandkids." Lex: "And we should say, the source is the main expert advisor behind the story that it was. Maybe you can explain what the story is that your report in the book, that it was a disinformation campaign created by Stalin to cause mass hysteria in the United States. The very kind that we've been speaking about with the CIA and so on." AJ: "Yes! Predicated on the narrative of the 'War of the Worlds,' right? And the 'War of the Worlds,' when it was a radio program in the United States, made people go crazy. 'Oh, my God, we're being invaded by aliens!' Well, the government was always interested in the story and Joseph Stalin was, too. We know that from declassified documents, right? "And so, the source told me that the reason for this program, and that the real Roswell crash remains, were in fact, it was a black-propaganda hoax infiltrated, you know, or rather, predicated at this idea that you were gonna overwhelm America's early-warning, air-defense system, cause mayhem and maybe be able to attack the United States. That was the plan. And Stalin was also messing with the United States, messing with Truman, who sort of, you know, turned his back on him, right? At Potsdam. "And so, this idea, and the reason that the source is important... And unlike, you know, a lot of people, 'I saw this, I saw that, I learned that.' Was, according to the source, once it was determined that this was a hoax and that Stalin was able to get a craft over the United States, and it crashed. And it had, you know, people inside of it, they were people that were sort of deformed and meant...surgically altered to look like aliens. "The United States government decided that it needed to know what on earth that was all about, and if it was possible for us to have the same program. This, according to this source, right? And so, it sounds preposterous, and if it was just someone saying, 'I...,' you might say, 'Well, it's ridiculous, get them onto another subject.' But, the difference was, is this source, who was very well placed, and friends with all of the other 75 people, you know, told me this as a confession, right? A real, tearful confession, because what he said is he was involved in the American program to do the same thing. And people died, because there were human experiments that went on." "And I write about this in the last 12 pages of 'Area 51.' It was an explosive, you know, revelation, and I felt very confident in writing this because the source wanted it written. Why? Because he said, 'I'm dedicated to my country. I know about being committed to national security, and this kind of thing must never happen. And if you give people too much power, they will take advantage of it.' And he wanted it on the record. "And his wife of 60 years did not know until after the book published. Nor did His children, okay? So, after the book published, I was called to his house and sat there with his family. And they said, 'Tell us this isn't true.' And he said, 'It is true,' right? (We need a tape of this confession or...for his family to confirm they heard this from him.) AJ: "Now that source is Al O'Donnell, who is the nuclear-weapons engineer who armed, wired and fired 186 nuclear weapons, okay? So if you wanna talk about someone..." Lex: "Woooooow." AJ: "You're the first person I've told that on the record, but it's kind of about time." Lex: "Woooooow. Well, you received a lot of criticism over this story, and it confused me why, because it's...given the context of everything you've described with the CIA and other intelligence agencies, it is reasonable that such action would be taken. AJ: "And, the source is extraordinarily credible, right? If you wanted to take the position, 'Well, that person isn't very reliable,' then you have to ask yourself, 'Why did they have Top-Secret clearances that are higher than any in the United States whatsoever?' Because he was responsible for arming nuclear bombs. He was called the trigger man. "And by the way, he told me that I could tell the world who he was. There's a lot of details that are really dark, involving that program. And when is it appropriate, right? Well, it feels appropriate now. First of all, because you and I have been talking for several hours. So this is what is truly a long-form conversation and it's the outcome of, you know, a very long time of my reporting, and also being judicious about what, you know, closing the loop on that, right? Because I do think it's important for people to know that sources have revelations." Lex: "And, like you said, the programs, both on the Soviet side, and the American side, conflicting, I think's the term we used previously? Ethically, morally, on all fronts. People have done some horrible things in the name of security. In your book, 'Surprise, Kill Vanish,' you write about the CIA." ~~~ Jeremy Kenyon Lockyer Corbell: "So, today, I want to focus on a really important story that you once told me, that has never been told all the way [from the] beginning, to all the way to the end. And I just think it's just so cool we get to do this today. So, the question I want to ask is: After you got hooked on the UFO thing, with Bob Lazar, and you as a journalist said, 'I'm gonna start getting sources.' Like, 12 people coming at you, people shut down by the government. You can tell that. But you finally, finally got to a credible individual who had direct, firsthand knowledge about UFOs, exploitation, reverse engineering, and beings. And, oh my God, I want the world to hear this story. Tell us the story." George Knapp: "I've shared some of it in very broad strokes over the years- little bits and pieces of it - without ever actually referencing, in my statements, the guy the source. But this will be the first time I've told it in totality. "And it takes me back to when I first started in this. It's 1989 KLAS-TV, we put together, we spent eight months working on this project called 'UFOs: The Best Evidence.' Nine-part series. It airs on television, it's the biggest thing that's ever been produced for local TV, to this date, and still. "And, along the way, as I'm trying to find...telling the story about Bob Lazar, and his allegations about what was out there at S-4, near Area 51 - recovered discs, alien technology being reverse engineered - I'm looking for people who would support that. And I found about two dozen people, witnesses who had worked out there, who had seen bits and pieces, who could corroborate parts of what Bob had said about these kinds of craft being out there in the Nevada desert. But there wasn't anybody big picture who knew as much as Lazar claimed to have known, so I was still looking for them. "In 1990, I started working on a follow-up series to Best Evidence, looking for new witnesses. And I got a hint from an elected official that I had known, I'd covered him in Nevada politics. He says, 'You know, you should talk to my dad one of these days.' 'Your dad?' 'Yeah.' And he told me what the dad's name was and what he had done, what job he had had. And I said, 'Ah.' So I started stalking the guy. I just started showing up at events where I knew he would be. One of those events was a reunion for employees of EG&G." Corbell (JC): "So I'm assuming that this source was working within EG&G in some capacity, which is, by the way, who Bob [Lazar] said, hired him to go out to Site-4, S-4 at Area 51. So you're like, 'Okay, I can now find out if this is bullshit, or if there's an element of truth to it.' Do I have that right?" Knapp (GK): "Pretty much correct, yeah. So, I'm looking for someone whose credentials are impeccable. Unlike Bob, whose credentials were questioned, and people still attack him on where he went to school and where he worked, and was he at Los Alamos? This guy is documentable. There's a paper trail of where he worked, what he did. There's no question that he was in a position to know. He was the first general manager of EG&G in Nevada. His name was Al O'Donnell, and he has a prominent family. "When I heard that EG&G was having a reunion, I went there. We took a camera [and I figured], 'This is a great chance to get him on camera before I start asking him the questions I really want to ask.'" JC: "And when you say he is a general manager, like, does that give him certain roles and responsibilities that would give him insight? Like, he's not a secretary, so what does that mean?" GK: "He's the boss. He was the boss of the Nevada office. And I'll tell you a little bit about EG&G. So, it was a company that was created in Boston, right around the end of World War Two. Al O'Donnell had been in the Navy, serving during the war. He got out of the Navy while the war was still underway and went to work for a company called Raytheon, which became this massive, gigantic defense contractor that's still around today, still in Nevada in fact." JC: Yeah, they've got a big connection to the UFO topic, right? But, when you say Boston, like, where in Boston was it created?" GK: "Well, MIT is where the company was born. Edgerton, Germeshausen and Grier were the three guys, the EG&G in that. They were at MIT. Scientists, engineers, they created this company there. And Al O'Donnell, who had been working for Raytheon, working on the Manhattan Project. He didn't know he was working on the Manhattan Project, but they were building these devices, complex triggers, that allowed them to detonate nuclear weapons. He learned later what he was doing was part of the Manhattan Project. "He goes to MIT, starts working with EG&G. Their company in those days had, I think, 15 employees, Al said. So it was a very small startup. But it suddenly exploded because the American atomic program exploded in those years. In 1950, Harry Truman decides that we need a permanent, nuclear testing site somewhere in the continental U.S., so they looked at a bunch of places, and they settled on Nevada. "Prior to that, Al O'Donnell had been sent out to the Pacific. They had five of these massive, atomic bomb tests out in the Pacific, and they decided to move it into a continental U.S. location and Nevada's Test Site - it was called the Nevada Test Site in those days - was chosen. Al O'Donnell leads the exodus from Boston, out to Nevada. They start hiring engineers and scientists, physicists and other security, spies." JC: "What are they working on at this time when they make that move?" GK: "Atomic bombs. They're building, testing atomic bombs. EG&G was a really precise organization that was created in order to detonate, measure and photograph atomic weapons. If you look in the history of photography, you'll see some of these amazing photos that they took of, you know, water drops dropping in water and...they're pretty famous shots because of these cameras that they developed. And it was perfect for use and testing atomic weapons and documenting what the process was. "So, EG&G comes out to Las Vegas, they are the managers of the Nevada Test Site. They, subsequently, years later, become the managers of Area 51 when it opens in 1955. So Al O'Donnell is the top guy. He oversees the nuclear testing program out there, manages it for EG&G, works with the Atomic Energy Commission. He has a Top-Secret security clearance and he can go anywhere and see anything. There's, basically, no restrictions, nothing that is outside of his ability to find out and see." JC: "So, this is an impeccable resume. This is somebody who was in position to know, and would know if someone like Bob Lazar was telling the truth or not telling the truth. I find it, personally, humorous that EG&G was, its genesis, its seed, came from MIT, right?" GK: "So, late 1990 or early 1991, I'd have to look up the dates. But somewhere in there is this event, this EG&G reunion. I go there, we got a camera, I interview Al O'Donnell, introduce myself, and say, 'Hey, I'm really interested in this, can we continue this conversation?' So he invites me to his home. He says, 'Come on over, we'll arrange to come over on a Saturday or something. We'll sit down, I'll go through my scrapbooks and show you some documents and memorabilia and photos from that era.' I was like, 'Great.' "So I go to his house and meet this wife. And we sit down, he opens up these big scrapbooks, and he starts showing me all the stuff that he had done. Photos that had been taken out in the proximity of these gigantic nuclear tests. They had great stories about the camaraderie that developed among the engineers and scientists. And he's going through all this stuff and showing me all this. And I love it, I loved every bit of it. I've never had a bad day at the Nevada Test Site, by the way. Every time I've gone out there to do a story, it's just a terrific way to spend some time." JC: "Secrets should be kept, secrets are kept, and you are a proponent of keeping secrets when it's that kind of thing." GK: "Sure, absolutely. And I respected the boundaries that they set up for us in doing these kinds of stories. So I did go out to the Nevada Test Site a lot over the next 40 years or so and put together a lot of different stories. And they knew of my interest in that area that's just outside what the Nevada Test Site, a place called Area 51. In 1955, Area 51 was, basically, created and EG&G got the contract to manage Area 51, and had kept it for the next 30, 35 years. So, whatever went on out there, they had an inside knowledge of what was going on." JC: "So, you meet this guy, Al O'Donnell, for the first time when he's at this public thing. You probably say something like, 'Your son told me to talk to you,' or something. Whatever. It ends up, he invites you to his home, and you're going through scrapbooks, and he's showing you all this atomic testing stuff that he was involved in. GK: "Yeah, and I'm telling him, 'Boy, this is really interesting. That's fascinating. I'd love to do a story on it.' And after we're there for maybe two hours, he closes this one big scrapbook and he goes, 'You're not here to talk about this, are ya?' I said, 'Well, not exactly.' He says, 'I know what you're here to talk about. I know what you want to ask about.' And right about that point, his wife walks in and she says, 'Don't start telling them that stuff! Don't even tell him!' And he kind of joked about it.' JC: "What were you there to talk about?" GK: "UFOs, UFOs. Area 51, Bob Lazar, crashed saucers, reverse engineering, to see if he had any knowledge of that, because I'd been led to believe that he did. So he closes that book and he says, 'We'll have we'll get together another time and we'll talk about it in private.' And over the course of the next two years or so, he and I would meet at coffee shops and talk about it. And I would ask him questions, and really, it was like pulling teeth. He wanted to tell me stuff but he made me work at it." (AJ says his family was there for the confession. Knapp has over two years of meetings with him. A bit confusing.) GK: "And the condition was, I couldn't take any notes. I couldn't record it, I couldn't take any notes. So each time I'd meet with him, I'd rush back to my car and start scribbling notes on pieces of paper so I'd remember everything that he said. And the story that he told me, that evolved over those couple of years was pretty fantastic. "He said that they did have a flying saucer that had been recovered from New Mexico. I think he indicated that it had been taken from New Mexico to Wright Patterson Air Force Base, which is... He never said Roswell, but I think it was the Roswell incident is what he [was] talking about. And it confirmed some of the details about what we know, likely, happened with the Roswell craft." JC: "When he's telling you, 'We have recovered a craft,' did he say it like, this is secret, don't tell anybody?" GK: "Yeah, it was just for my knowledge, my background and information. It wasn't a story I could do then. We were negotiating about how, or when, or if I could ever use that information or make it public. He told me the details about this craft. He said that it had been stored at Indian Springs. Indian Springs is an Air Force Base that's been there for a long time. It's now called Creech. Indian Springs existed before Area 51 was made. "But he says it was there, they kept it there. It might have been in an underground facility, I'm not quite sure. But then when Area 51, after it opened in 1955, they moved it to an adjacent facility. He didn't say it was S-4, he didn't say it was Papoose, but I think that's what he's talking about. Papoose Lake is where Bob Lazar said he worked, and where they had built nine hangars underground, disguised to look like the desert, and where they had other recovered craft. "He says they worked on this recovered craft, reverse engineering, trying to figure out how it worked, who built it. Whether or not they could duplicate the technology because, apparently, they thought this was pretty advanced, and they'd like to be able to build more of 'em. "And he says it was a very closed program, very small. It was only, I think, five of them that were aware of it, at least in the early stages, that were working on this project. And it was very hush hush, and they didn't share it with anybody else in the company, or anybody else in the area, or the military. They just kept it to themselves. "So, after we're having these meetings - and I go back and write down all these notes and stuff, details about what he had shared with me - we have another meeting at a coffee shop, and I said, 'Well gosh, you know, aren't you worried that it would get out, that the word would get out?' "And he says to me, 'We were worried It would get out?' That's right. 'I mean, what...it? What do you mean, it?' It. Meaning a live being, they had a live being out there. I go, 'You had a live being, an alien as well?' [O'Donnell said], 'Tell you the truth, we didn't know what it was.' I said, 'You know, maybe it came from millions of miles away, out in space, and you're keeping it in a cage near Area 51?' He said, 'To tell you the truth, we couldn't communicate with it in the beginning. We didn't know what it was, we didn't know where it was from, and we didn't know what to do with it.'" JC: "When Al O'Donnell says to you, 'We had a live alien, a being,' obviously from another world, what was your feeling?" GK: "Well, I was overwhelmed, because it was, in effect, confirmation of things that I had come to believe, because of the reporting we'd already done. And then the evidence of cover ups and lies that had been told to the public. Here's this guy in a high position, with a high security clearance, telling me that it was true. That they really did have a craft and they had a being. "My second feeling was, one of overwhelming sadness for the being, whatever it was, you know, that was kept out there. I asked him, you know, what had happened to it, what became of it? He says, 'I don't know. I don't know whatever happened to it.' But it was out there for a while, alive, and eventually they figured out a way to communicate with it. "And so I asked him, 'Well, what did it look like?' And he made me guess, as he did with all these questions. He made me guess. He said, 'Well, it kinda looks like a certain political candidate.' I said, 'Well, who? A political candidate? Who?' And at the time, Ross Perot was running for president. He said, 'It looks like Ross Perot. A little skinny guy with a big ears and tiny head.' Not a classic Gray-looking alien, but a very odd-looking creature with really big ears, that looked like Ross Perot. And I laughed. "And so we had these conversations for a while, and I was blown away by the information that he shared. I took all these notes. I was hoping that someday, I might be able to get the information out. And I asked him, 'Look, you're getting up there in age. If I can't record something with you, could you record a statement to the effect of telling me the story on camera, and then when you pass on, I can have the tape?' And he said, 'Yeah,' he would do it." JC: "You know, look, I've heard a lot of wild stories that I can't verify. A guy's telling you something, and you get a sense as a journalist, when you go down a road with somebody, and you take your time and you vet it... Did you feel...I mean, is there any world where he's trying to f*ck with ya? Or is there a world where he's trying to, you know, dissuade...kind of put crazy information into your brain? Like, how did you feel when he was telling you this? Was he like, straight with you?" GK: "Yeah, he was very straightforward. And again, this was not information he was giving up, willingly. I mean, I had to really dig and coax and arm twist to get him to cough things up. And it was very slow-going over about a two-year period, maybe a little bit longer. And I know that this...you always have to be wary of people with different agendas and people that just make stuff up. I didn't get that sense from him because of his standing in the community. He had shared this story with members of his own family." JC: "And that's why they came to you, is because they kind of [gave] you a tip. And these members of his family, they're serious people, too." GK: "Yeah. One of his sons is an FBI agent, or was, he's passed on now. One was an elected official in Nevada. That was the one that gave me the tip." JC: So, I just want to nail this [down] so I understand. You were approached because he had shared this with his family, privately, and then you had to kind of coax to get through to him about the story?" GK: "Right." JC: "I think that's important because look, these things don't happen, like, people [don't] just come to us and say, you know, crazy stuff, and we're like, 'Hh, yeah, cool. Sounds good.' Like, the dynamic of that, socially, as a journalist, like getting in there, taking time. You know, we have to verify if what he said is true, and there are some major bombs coming about that. But it's like, that process is so important. "So here you are, you're sitting with him, he tells you now, they have a live alien. And you felt sad because you're an animal-rights activist, you love animals. I know with your cats at home and you've done horse stories and all the stories about like, the inhumane stuff to animals. So it made you personally sad, makes me sad, too now thinking about it." GK: Yeah. Well, we had these series of meetings, and then the last time we met, after he'd agreed to go ahead and record a tape - and give it to me after making an arrangement so I got it after he passed on - he said that he had been told to not talk to me anymore. He said he had been given a warning [and] it was not a good idea for him to talk to me any more about anything. Not just that topic, but anything." JC: "Well, who knows that you're talking? Who would warn him?" GK: "I don't know. I don't know. But you recall, back in those days, there was surveillance. We had our phones tapped at KLAS-TV. There were guys following us around. Me, Bob Lazar, Gene Huff, maybe Robert Bigelow." JC: "People were also coming to your news station, OSI. And they would come in and try to like, get to you and then they'd show you their card...and take it back. And you know your phones are tapped. So it's like, because of this story, all of a sudden you're on high alert. So, anybody could have called him, been watching you, had meetings with the guy. So what you're saying is one day he just said, 'I can't...I'm not allowed to talk to you any more.'" GK: "Yeah, I've been told not to talk to you anymore. I've been told not to."

Joe Murgia

101,777 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

CANCEL Your Weekend Plans, and Learn Claude Code Today. $5,000/month. $10,000/month. $20,000/month. People are building entire apps and charging clients thousands using Claude Code. You're still Googling 'how to center a div.' While you're binge-watching a show you won't remember next week, a 19 year old with zero coding experience just built a $5,000 SaaS product in one afternoon using the tool I'm about to break down. Same laptop. Same internet. Same 24 hours. He has Claude Code. You have Netflix. That's the only difference. This YouTube video is a goldmine. Full Claude Code tutorial. Beginner to pro. Every feature. Every setup step. Every best practice. Zero prior knowledge needed. Save it. Watch it tonight. Not tomorrow. Tonight. Save this post. This is your complete Claude Code roadmap. Lose it and you lose the next 12 months of income. Follow Himanshu Kumar so you don't miss the breakdowns for each feature. ↓ 1. Understand What Claude Code Actually Is. You think Claude Code is just another chatbot. It's not. And that misunderstanding is why you're broke. ChatGPT gives you text. Claude Code gives you software. It runs in your terminal. It reads your entire codebase. It writes files directly to your project. It runs commands on your machine. It debugs errors autonomously. It builds features end to end. You're not chatting. You're deploying a developer. One that works 24/7. Never asks for a raise. Never calls in sick. Never pushes broken code at 5 PM on a Friday. People are charging clients $5,000-$10,000 for apps they built with Claude Code in 3 hours. And you didn't even know this tool existed because you're still asking ChatGPT to write you a to-do list. The gap between you and people making money with AI isn't intelligence. It's awareness. Now you're aware. Save this post. Follow Himanshu Kumar for the complete breakdown of every Claude Code feature. ↓ 2. Set Up Claude Code Properly. Most people quit here. "It's too complicated." "I don't know terminal." "I'll set it up later." Later never comes. And "complicated" means "I watched for 30 seconds and gave up." The setup takes 10 minutes. Install Node.js. Install Claude Code via npm. Authenticate your account. Open your terminal. Done. 10 minutes. You spent longer this morning deciding what to have for breakfast. The video walks through every single click. Every command. Every screen. Assuming you know absolutely nothing. If you can download an app on your phone, you can set up Claude Code. It's the same level of difficulty. But you'll still tell yourself it's "too technical" because that excuse is more comfortable than admitting you're just scared to try something new. This is the setup that everything else builds on. Skip it and nothing works. ↓ 3. Use the Desktop App. You don't even need to live in the terminal if you don't want to. Claude Code has a desktop app. Clean interface. Visual feedback. Everything you need without touching command line. But here's the thing most people don't know: The desktop app isn't just a pretty wrapper. It lets you manage projects visually. See file changes in real time. Switch between projects instantly. The people making money with Claude Code use the desktop app for client projects because it's faster to manage multiple builds simultaneously. You're still opening 14 browser tabs to organize one project. They open one app and everything's there. Efficiency isn't a personality trait. It's a tool choice. Save this post. Follow Himanshu Kumar for the desktop app workflow that handles 5 client projects at once. ↓ 4. Install the Right Dependencies. This is where beginners silently fail and blame the tool. Claude Code needs certain dependencies installed to work properly. Miss one and everything breaks. Then you go on Twitter and say "Claude Code doesn't work." It works fine. You just didn't read the setup guide. The video covers every dependency you need. What to install. How to install it. How to verify it's working. No guessing. No Stack Overflow rabbit holes at midnight. No "why isn't this working" for 3 hours. Watch the dependency section once. Follow every step. Never deal with setup issues again. You spent more time last week troubleshooting a printer than this takes. ↓ 5. Work Inside Your Code Editor. Claude Code integrates directly with your code editor. VS Code. Cursor. Whatever you use. It's not a separate window you alt-tab between. It's right there. In your workflow. You type a request. Claude writes the code. The code appears in your editor. You review it. Accept it. Done. No copy pasting between windows. No reformatting code that got mangled in transit. No "which version was the right one." It's like pair programming with someone who never gets distracted, never argues about naming conventions, and actually writes code that works on the first try. Your current coding process is: Google the problem, read 5 answers on Stack Overflow, copy the wrong one, debug for an hour, find the right one, paste it in, break something else, repeat. Claude Code's process is: describe what you want, get working code, move on with your life. Same hour. One method produces working software. The other produces frustration and a browser history full of Stack Overflow tabs. Stop coding the hard way. Save this post. Follow Himanshu Kumar for code editor setup guides and integration tips. ↓ 6. Master Basic Usage. Most people learn 5% of a tool and say they "know" it. You "know" Photoshop because you can crop an image. You "know" Excel because you can sum a column. You "know" Claude Code because you asked it one question. Basic usage means: How to give Claude Code context about your project. How to ask for changes to existing code. How to generate new files and features. How to review what Claude produces. How to iterate when the output isn't perfect. These basics are the foundation of everything. Skip them and every advanced feature feels confusing. Master them and every advanced feature feels obvious. The video breaks down each one with real examples. Not theory. Actual usage on actual projects. You've been using AI tools at 5% capacity and wondering why your results are 5% of what others get. Save this post. Follow Himanshu Kumar for daily Claude Code usage tips. ↓ 7. Learn Every Command. Claude Code has commands that most users never discover. Because most users type one message and expect magic. That's not how professionals use it. Professionals use specific commands that tell Claude Code exactly what to do, how to do it, and what constraints to follow. The difference between a beginner and someone making $10K/month with Claude Code is knowing which command to use and when. The video walks through every single one. Not just what they do. But when to use each one. And why one command is better than another for specific situations. You've been using Claude Code like a hammer. These commands turn it into a full toolbox. Stop treating a power tool like a blunt instrument. Save this post. Follow Himanshu Kumar for the command cheat sheet I use daily. ↓ 8. Understand Modes and Shortcuts. Speed matters. The person who builds an app in 2 hours charges $5,000. The person who builds the same app in 2 days charges $2,000. Same app. Same quality. Different speed. Different income. Claude Code has modes that change how it operates. And shortcuts that cut your workflow time in half. Most people don't know either exists. They use Claude Code in default mode for everything. Like driving a car in first gear on the highway. Technically it works. But everyone is passing you. The video shows you every mode. Every shortcut. Every time-saving trick that separates the people charging $2,000 per project from the people charging $10,000. Speed is money. Literally. Save this post. Follow Himanshu Kumar for the shortcuts that cut my build time by 60%. ↓ 9. Write a Proper Planning Prompt. This is the section that separates amateurs from professionals. And it's the section most people skip. A planning prompt tells Claude Code what you're building before you start building it. Architecture. File structure. Technologies. Features. Constraints. Edge cases. Without a planning prompt, Claude Code guesses. And guessing produces garbage. With a planning prompt, Claude Code executes a clear plan. And clear plans produce working software. The video shows you exactly how to write a planning prompt that makes Claude Code produce professional-grade output on the first try. "But I just want to start coding." That's why your code breaks every time. That's why you restart projects 4 times. That's why nothing you build ever gets finished. Because you refuse to plan. A 5-minute planning prompt saves you 5 hours of debugging. But you'd rather skip the 5 minutes and suffer through the 5 hours because patience isn't your thing. And that's exactly why you're not making money. Planning is the most underpaid skill in coding. And the most overpaid when you master it. Save this post. Follow Himanshu Kumar for the planning prompt templates I use for every client project. ↓ 10. Choose the Right Model. Claude Code lets you select different AI models. Not all models are the same. Not all tasks need the same model. Using the most powerful model for a simple task wastes credits. Using a basic model for a complex task wastes time. The video explains: Which model to use for quick fixes. Which model to use for complex architecture. Which model to use for debugging. Which model to use for code generation. Most people pick one model and use it for everything. That's like using a sledgehammer to hang a picture frame. Model selection is strategy. And strategy is money. The people making $10K/month with Claude Code are strategic about every credit they spend. You're burning through credits because you use the most expensive model to write a hello world. ↓ 11. Use Git and Version Control. If you're not using version control, you're one mistake away from losing everything. Claude Code integrates with Git. Every change tracked. Every version saved. Every mistake reversible. Without Git: Claude makes a change. It breaks something. You can't undo it. You start over. 3 hours wasted. With Git: Claude makes a change. It breaks something. You roll back in 5 seconds. Keep working. Version control isn't optional. It's insurance. And the people not using it are the same people who say "I lost my entire project" like it's something that just happens. It doesn't just happen. It happens because you didn't set up Git. The video walks through the entire Git integration. Save this post. Follow Himanshu Kumar for the Git workflow that's saved every project I've ever built. ↓ 12. Set Up Claude.MD and Memory. This is the feature that makes Claude Code feel like a real team member instead of a stranger you explain everything to every time. ClaudeMD is a memory file. You tell Claude Code about your project once. It remembers forever. Coding style preferences. Project architecture decisions. Technology stack. File naming conventions. Business logic rules. Without ClaudeMD: Every new conversation starts from zero. You explain the same things repeatedly. Output is inconsistent. With ClaudeMD: Claude knows your project. Claude follows your rules. Claude produces consistent, professional code. The difference between a sloppy freelancer and a reliable agency is consistency. Claude. MD gives you consistency without the agency overhead. Most people don't set this up and wonder why Claude Code gives different answers every time. ↓ 13. Automate with Tasks. This is where Claude Code stops being a tool and starts being an employee. Tasks let you define repeating workflows. "Every time I push code, run tests." "Every time I create a new file, add boilerplate." "Every time I start a session, check for errors." Automated. Hands-free. Consistent. You're doing these things manually every single day. The same checks. The same steps. The same routine. Tasks do them automatically. So you can focus on the work that actually makes money. Every manual task you automate is time you get back. And time is the only thing you can never make more of. Save this post. Follow Himanshu Kumar for the task automation templates that run my entire workflow. ↓ 14. Explore Features Most People Never Touch. The video covers features that 95% of Claude Code users don't know exist. Because they watched a 3-minute TikTok about Claude Code and think they're experts now. They're not. They're using 5% of a tool that can do everything. The full tutorial goes deep into features that most tutorials skip because they're "too advanced." They're not too advanced. They're too valuable for lazy creators to bother explaining. This video explains all of them. Clearly. For beginners. The 5% of features you don't know about are the 5% that make people rich. ↓ Let's zoom out. I just broke down 14 sections of Claude Code. Setup and installation. Desktop app. Dependencies. Code editor integration. Basic usage. Commands. Modes and shortcuts. Planning prompts. Model selection. Git and version control. Memory and Claude. MD. Tasks and automation. Advanced features. All in one video. All free. All beginner friendly. The person who masters even half of these in the next 2 weeks will be in the top 1% of Claude Code users. The top 1% of Claude Code users are the ones charging $5,000-$10,000 per project and building them in a single afternoon. Everyone else is asking ChatGPT to fix their resume. Same tools. Same access. Completely different outcomes. Because one person treats AI like a toy. And the other treats it like a business. ↓ Here's the hard truth nobody wants to hear. You don't have a talent problem. You don't have an intelligence problem. You don't have a resources problem. You have an action problem. Everything I just listed has a free tutorial right here in the attached video. 33 minutes. That's it. 33 minutes to learn the tool that people are using to build $5,000-$20,000/month businesses. You spent more time today scrolling Twitter than it takes to watch this video. You spent more time this week watching Netflix than it takes to master Claude Code basics. You spent more time this month doing nothing than it would take to completely change your income. The information is free. The tool is accessible. The opportunity is here. The only thing missing is you caring enough to start. ↓ CANCEL your plans this week. This isn't optional anymore. The people learning Claude Code right now will be building apps for the people who didn't learn it. That's not a prediction. That's already happening. Companies are replacing $150/hour developers with one person and Claude Code. If you code: learn Claude Code or become half as valuable by next year. If you don't code: learn Claude Code or miss the biggest opportunity to start earning from tech without a CS degree. There's no path forward that doesn't include AI coding tools. None. You have one window. Right now. This week. ↓ Here's your action plan for the next 7 days: Day 1: Watch the full video. Install Claude Code. Set up dependencies. Day 2: Learn basic usage. Try 5 different commands. Day 3: Write your first planning prompt. Build a small project. Day 4: Set up Claude. MD. Configure your memory file. Day 5: Master modes and shortcuts. Build a second project faster. Day 6: Set up Git integration. Automate with tasks. Day 7: Build something real. A tool, an app, a website. Ship it. 7 days. One tool. One completely different skill set. One completely different income potential. Or 7 more days of scrolling Twitter watching other people build things while you "plan to start." Your call. ↓ This is the most important video you'll watch this year. 33 minutes. Complete Claude Code mastery. From zero to building real projects. Save this post. Come back to it every single day this week. Check off each section as you complete it. Follow Himanshu Kumar for daily Claude Code breakdowns, advanced tutorials, and the exact workflows that are turning beginners into $10K/month builders. The only thing between you and $10K/month with Claude Code is this video and 7 days. Don't waste them. You Must Follow me Himanshu Kumar, so i can send you DM.

CANCEL Your Weekend Plans, and Learn Claude Code Today. $5,000/month. $10,000/month. $20,000/month. People are building entire apps and charging clients thousands using Claude Code. You're still Googling 'how to center a div.' While you're binge-watching a show you won't remember next week, a 19 year old with zero coding experience just built a $5,000 SaaS product in one afternoon using the tool I'm about to break down. Same laptop. Same internet. Same 24 hours. He has Claude Code. You have Netflix. That's the only difference. This YouTube video is a goldmine. Full Claude Code tutorial. Beginner to pro. Every feature. Every setup step. Every best practice. Zero prior knowledge needed. Save it. Watch it tonight. Not tomorrow. Tonight. Save this post. This is your complete Claude Code roadmap. Lose it and you lose the next 12 months of income. Follow Himanshu Kumar so you don't miss the breakdowns for each feature. ↓ 1. Understand What Claude Code Actually Is. You think Claude Code is just another chatbot. It's not. And that misunderstanding is why you're broke. ChatGPT gives you text. Claude Code gives you software. It runs in your terminal. It reads your entire codebase. It writes files directly to your project. It runs commands on your machine. It debugs errors autonomously. It builds features end to end. You're not chatting. You're deploying a developer. One that works 24/7. Never asks for a raise. Never calls in sick. Never pushes broken code at 5 PM on a Friday. People are charging clients $5,000-$10,000 for apps they built with Claude Code in 3 hours. And you didn't even know this tool existed because you're still asking ChatGPT to write you a to-do list. The gap between you and people making money with AI isn't intelligence. It's awareness. Now you're aware. Save this post. Follow Himanshu Kumar for the complete breakdown of every Claude Code feature. ↓ 2. Set Up Claude Code Properly. Most people quit here. "It's too complicated." "I don't know terminal." "I'll set it up later." Later never comes. And "complicated" means "I watched for 30 seconds and gave up." The setup takes 10 minutes. Install Node.js. Install Claude Code via npm. Authenticate your account. Open your terminal. Done. 10 minutes. You spent longer this morning deciding what to have for breakfast. The video walks through every single click. Every command. Every screen. Assuming you know absolutely nothing. If you can download an app on your phone, you can set up Claude Code. It's the same level of difficulty. But you'll still tell yourself it's "too technical" because that excuse is more comfortable than admitting you're just scared to try something new. This is the setup that everything else builds on. Skip it and nothing works. ↓ 3. Use the Desktop App. You don't even need to live in the terminal if you don't want to. Claude Code has a desktop app. Clean interface. Visual feedback. Everything you need without touching command line. But here's the thing most people don't know: The desktop app isn't just a pretty wrapper. It lets you manage projects visually. See file changes in real time. Switch between projects instantly. The people making money with Claude Code use the desktop app for client projects because it's faster to manage multiple builds simultaneously. You're still opening 14 browser tabs to organize one project. They open one app and everything's there. Efficiency isn't a personality trait. It's a tool choice. Save this post. Follow Himanshu Kumar for the desktop app workflow that handles 5 client projects at once. ↓ 4. Install the Right Dependencies. This is where beginners silently fail and blame the tool. Claude Code needs certain dependencies installed to work properly. Miss one and everything breaks. Then you go on Twitter and say "Claude Code doesn't work." It works fine. You just didn't read the setup guide. The video covers every dependency you need. What to install. How to install it. How to verify it's working. No guessing. No Stack Overflow rabbit holes at midnight. No "why isn't this working" for 3 hours. Watch the dependency section once. Follow every step. Never deal with setup issues again. You spent more time last week troubleshooting a printer than this takes. ↓ 5. Work Inside Your Code Editor. Claude Code integrates directly with your code editor. VS Code. Cursor. Whatever you use. It's not a separate window you alt-tab between. It's right there. In your workflow. You type a request. Claude writes the code. The code appears in your editor. You review it. Accept it. Done. No copy pasting between windows. No reformatting code that got mangled in transit. No "which version was the right one." It's like pair programming with someone who never gets distracted, never argues about naming conventions, and actually writes code that works on the first try. Your current coding process is: Google the problem, read 5 answers on Stack Overflow, copy the wrong one, debug for an hour, find the right one, paste it in, break something else, repeat. Claude Code's process is: describe what you want, get working code, move on with your life. Same hour. One method produces working software. The other produces frustration and a browser history full of Stack Overflow tabs. Stop coding the hard way. Save this post. Follow Himanshu Kumar for code editor setup guides and integration tips. ↓ 6. Master Basic Usage. Most people learn 5% of a tool and say they "know" it. You "know" Photoshop because you can crop an image. You "know" Excel because you can sum a column. You "know" Claude Code because you asked it one question. Basic usage means: How to give Claude Code context about your project. How to ask for changes to existing code. How to generate new files and features. How to review what Claude produces. How to iterate when the output isn't perfect. These basics are the foundation of everything. Skip them and every advanced feature feels confusing. Master them and every advanced feature feels obvious. The video breaks down each one with real examples. Not theory. Actual usage on actual projects. You've been using AI tools at 5% capacity and wondering why your results are 5% of what others get. Save this post. Follow Himanshu Kumar for daily Claude Code usage tips. ↓ 7. Learn Every Command. Claude Code has commands that most users never discover. Because most users type one message and expect magic. That's not how professionals use it. Professionals use specific commands that tell Claude Code exactly what to do, how to do it, and what constraints to follow. The difference between a beginner and someone making $10K/month with Claude Code is knowing which command to use and when. The video walks through every single one. Not just what they do. But when to use each one. And why one command is better than another for specific situations. You've been using Claude Code like a hammer. These commands turn it into a full toolbox. Stop treating a power tool like a blunt instrument. Save this post. Follow Himanshu Kumar for the command cheat sheet I use daily. ↓ 8. Understand Modes and Shortcuts. Speed matters. The person who builds an app in 2 hours charges $5,000. The person who builds the same app in 2 days charges $2,000. Same app. Same quality. Different speed. Different income. Claude Code has modes that change how it operates. And shortcuts that cut your workflow time in half. Most people don't know either exists. They use Claude Code in default mode for everything. Like driving a car in first gear on the highway. Technically it works. But everyone is passing you. The video shows you every mode. Every shortcut. Every time-saving trick that separates the people charging $2,000 per project from the people charging $10,000. Speed is money. Literally. Save this post. Follow Himanshu Kumar for the shortcuts that cut my build time by 60%. ↓ 9. Write a Proper Planning Prompt. This is the section that separates amateurs from professionals. And it's the section most people skip. A planning prompt tells Claude Code what you're building before you start building it. Architecture. File structure. Technologies. Features. Constraints. Edge cases. Without a planning prompt, Claude Code guesses. And guessing produces garbage. With a planning prompt, Claude Code executes a clear plan. And clear plans produce working software. The video shows you exactly how to write a planning prompt that makes Claude Code produce professional-grade output on the first try. "But I just want to start coding." That's why your code breaks every time. That's why you restart projects 4 times. That's why nothing you build ever gets finished. Because you refuse to plan. A 5-minute planning prompt saves you 5 hours of debugging. But you'd rather skip the 5 minutes and suffer through the 5 hours because patience isn't your thing. And that's exactly why you're not making money. Planning is the most underpaid skill in coding. And the most overpaid when you master it. Save this post. Follow Himanshu Kumar for the planning prompt templates I use for every client project. ↓ 10. Choose the Right Model. Claude Code lets you select different AI models. Not all models are the same. Not all tasks need the same model. Using the most powerful model for a simple task wastes credits. Using a basic model for a complex task wastes time. The video explains: Which model to use for quick fixes. Which model to use for complex architecture. Which model to use for debugging. Which model to use for code generation. Most people pick one model and use it for everything. That's like using a sledgehammer to hang a picture frame. Model selection is strategy. And strategy is money. The people making $10K/month with Claude Code are strategic about every credit they spend. You're burning through credits because you use the most expensive model to write a hello world. ↓ 11. Use Git and Version Control. If you're not using version control, you're one mistake away from losing everything. Claude Code integrates with Git. Every change tracked. Every version saved. Every mistake reversible. Without Git: Claude makes a change. It breaks something. You can't undo it. You start over. 3 hours wasted. With Git: Claude makes a change. It breaks something. You roll back in 5 seconds. Keep working. Version control isn't optional. It's insurance. And the people not using it are the same people who say "I lost my entire project" like it's something that just happens. It doesn't just happen. It happens because you didn't set up Git. The video walks through the entire Git integration. Save this post. Follow Himanshu Kumar for the Git workflow that's saved every project I've ever built. ↓ 12. Set Up Claude.MD and Memory. This is the feature that makes Claude Code feel like a real team member instead of a stranger you explain everything to every time. ClaudeMD is a memory file. You tell Claude Code about your project once. It remembers forever. Coding style preferences. Project architecture decisions. Technology stack. File naming conventions. Business logic rules. Without ClaudeMD: Every new conversation starts from zero. You explain the same things repeatedly. Output is inconsistent. With ClaudeMD: Claude knows your project. Claude follows your rules. Claude produces consistent, professional code. The difference between a sloppy freelancer and a reliable agency is consistency. Claude. MD gives you consistency without the agency overhead. Most people don't set this up and wonder why Claude Code gives different answers every time. ↓ 13. Automate with Tasks. This is where Claude Code stops being a tool and starts being an employee. Tasks let you define repeating workflows. "Every time I push code, run tests." "Every time I create a new file, add boilerplate." "Every time I start a session, check for errors." Automated. Hands-free. Consistent. You're doing these things manually every single day. The same checks. The same steps. The same routine. Tasks do them automatically. So you can focus on the work that actually makes money. Every manual task you automate is time you get back. And time is the only thing you can never make more of. Save this post. Follow Himanshu Kumar for the task automation templates that run my entire workflow. ↓ 14. Explore Features Most People Never Touch. The video covers features that 95% of Claude Code users don't know exist. Because they watched a 3-minute TikTok about Claude Code and think they're experts now. They're not. They're using 5% of a tool that can do everything. The full tutorial goes deep into features that most tutorials skip because they're "too advanced." They're not too advanced. They're too valuable for lazy creators to bother explaining. This video explains all of them. Clearly. For beginners. The 5% of features you don't know about are the 5% that make people rich. ↓ Let's zoom out. I just broke down 14 sections of Claude Code. Setup and installation. Desktop app. Dependencies. Code editor integration. Basic usage. Commands. Modes and shortcuts. Planning prompts. Model selection. Git and version control. Memory and Claude. MD. Tasks and automation. Advanced features. All in one video. All free. All beginner friendly. The person who masters even half of these in the next 2 weeks will be in the top 1% of Claude Code users. The top 1% of Claude Code users are the ones charging $5,000-$10,000 per project and building them in a single afternoon. Everyone else is asking ChatGPT to fix their resume. Same tools. Same access. Completely different outcomes. Because one person treats AI like a toy. And the other treats it like a business. ↓ Here's the hard truth nobody wants to hear. You don't have a talent problem. You don't have an intelligence problem. You don't have a resources problem. You have an action problem. Everything I just listed has a free tutorial right here in the attached video. 33 minutes. That's it. 33 minutes to learn the tool that people are using to build $5,000-$20,000/month businesses. You spent more time today scrolling Twitter than it takes to watch this video. You spent more time this week watching Netflix than it takes to master Claude Code basics. You spent more time this month doing nothing than it would take to completely change your income. The information is free. The tool is accessible. The opportunity is here. The only thing missing is you caring enough to start. ↓ CANCEL your plans this week. This isn't optional anymore. The people learning Claude Code right now will be building apps for the people who didn't learn it. That's not a prediction. That's already happening. Companies are replacing $150/hour developers with one person and Claude Code. If you code: learn Claude Code or become half as valuable by next year. If you don't code: learn Claude Code or miss the biggest opportunity to start earning from tech without a CS degree. There's no path forward that doesn't include AI coding tools. None. You have one window. Right now. This week. ↓ Here's your action plan for the next 7 days: Day 1: Watch the full video. Install Claude Code. Set up dependencies. Day 2: Learn basic usage. Try 5 different commands. Day 3: Write your first planning prompt. Build a small project. Day 4: Set up Claude. MD. Configure your memory file. Day 5: Master modes and shortcuts. Build a second project faster. Day 6: Set up Git integration. Automate with tasks. Day 7: Build something real. A tool, an app, a website. Ship it. 7 days. One tool. One completely different skill set. One completely different income potential. Or 7 more days of scrolling Twitter watching other people build things while you "plan to start." Your call. ↓ This is the most important video you'll watch this year. 33 minutes. Complete Claude Code mastery. From zero to building real projects. Save this post. Come back to it every single day this week. Check off each section as you complete it. Follow Himanshu Kumar for daily Claude Code breakdowns, advanced tutorials, and the exact workflows that are turning beginners into $10K/month builders. The only thing between you and $10K/month with Claude Code is this video and 7 days. Don't waste them. You Must Follow me Himanshu Kumar, so i can send you DM.

Himanshu Kumar

101,793 görüntüleme • 6 ay önce

Dogs and wolves split apart at least 15,000 years ago. Then a golden retriever met a wolf pup, and did something his own owner says terrified him. 97 seconds. Sound on. Watch the video BEFORE you read another word. Then come back. I'll show you why this clip is stranger, and far more important, than it looks. (Long read. Bookmark it now. You'll want it later.) . I'm not going to tell you what happens in that video. Not one spoiler. Not a hint. Because the video does its own work, and it does it better than any caption I could write. What I can do is show you the invisible layer underneath it. The biology. The history. The 15,000 years of evolution that were supposed to make a moment like this impossible. When you press play, you are not watching two animals. You are watching two completely different answers to the same question, standing in the same yard. The question is: what does a creature do when it loves something it was never built to keep? Read on. Then watch again. It will hit differently the second time. I guarantee it. . PART 1. THE SPLIT Let's start with the number that should bother you. Fifteen thousand years. Possibly forty thousand. Scientists still argue about the exact date, and they argue loudly. Somewhere in that window, a population of ancient wolves, one that no longer exists anywhere on Earth, forked into two paths. One path led to the wolf you know from documentaries. Wary. Silent in the trees. Built to survive without us. The other path led to the animal sleeping on your couch. Here's what almost nobody realizes: your dog did not descend from the modern gray wolf. Both descend from a shared ancestor that vanished. Dogs and wolves are less like parent and child, more like cousins who grew up in different countries and stopped speaking the same language. And yet their DNA is almost identical. Different by a sliver. They can even interbreed and produce fertile offspring. Biologically, the gap between them is tiny. Behaviorally, the gap is an ocean. In 2017, a Princeton-led team compared the genomes of dogs and wolves and found something eerie. Dogs carry differences in a region of the genome that, in humans, is linked to Williams-Beuren syndrome. It's a condition famous for one trait above all others: extreme, almost unstoppable friendliness. Researchers are still debating what it means. But the idea is staggering. Dogs may not just be tamer wolves. They may be wolves with a dial turned all the way up on one thing: wanting to be near us. Wolves never got that dial. Hold that thought. It matters more than you think. . PART 2. THE DOG WHO WAS BUILT TO BE GENTLE Now meet the golden retriever. He wasn't found in nature. He was designed. In the mid-1800s, on a vast estate in the Scottish Highlands, a wealthy lord named Dudley Marjoribanks set out to create the perfect gundog. A dog that would swim into cold water, find a fallen bird, and bring it back to the hunter without leaving a single tooth mark on it. Read that again. The defining feature of a golden retriever is what breeders call a soft mouth. A dog that can carry something fragile, something alive or nearly alive, in its jaws, and not crush it. For generations, the goldens who were gentlest got to breed. The ones who were rough didn't. Think about what that does over 150 years. You are not just selecting for a coat color or a size. You are selecting, again and again, for restraint. For an animal that has power in its jaws and chooses not to use it. Today the golden retriever guides the blind. Sits with the dying. Finds people buried under rubble. Walks into hospital rooms and lowers a blood pressure reading just by resting its head on a bed. We took a predator and, over centuries, we bred one question out of it: should I hurt this thing? The golden's answer is almost always no. Now here's the part I can't stop thinking about. That gentleness was never aimed at a wolf. It was bred for birds. For children. For us. So what happens when an animal engineered for tenderness meets an animal that was never engineered for anything, one that is still, in every cell, exactly what the wild made it? That's the video. Go watch it if you haven't. I'll be here. . PART 3. THE ANIMAL THAT WAS NEVER ASKED A wolf pup is born blind and deaf. It weighs about a pound. For its first weeks it knows three things: warmth, milk, and the smell of the pack. Its eyes open at around two weeks, and they are blue. They will change to gold or amber within the first months of life, like a color being poured in slowly. In the wild, that pup is raised by an entire family. Mother, father, older siblings, all of them feeding, guarding, teaching. Forget the "alpha wolf" myth you were taught. The biologist who popularized that term, David Mech, spent decades correcting himself. A wild pack is not a gang with a boss. It's a family. A breeding pair and their kids. Which means a wolf pup's entire universe is built around one idea: the pack is everything. Now think about what it means when that universe collapses. Here's the hard science on why wolves aren't dogs, even when humans raise them from the earliest days. Researchers who want socialized wolves take pups from the den at around ten days old and hand-raise them around the clock. Bottle. Warmth. Constant human contact. It's the closest thing to a perfect human upbringing a wolf can get. In a famous 2003 experiment in Hungary, scientists gave hand-raised wolves and ordinary dogs an impossible puzzle: food locked in a box that couldn't be opened. The dogs did something instantly recognizable. They turned around and looked at the nearest human. Straight at the face. Help me. The wolves, raised by humans since they were days old, looked at people far less. They kept working the problem alone. Let that sink in. Same upbringing. Same people. Same room. And still: one animal looks to us for help by instinct, and the other doesn't think to. That's the dial I mentioned. It isn't something you can install with love and a bottle. It took thousands of years of living beside us. There's a legendary experiment that proves how deep this goes. In 1959, in Siberia, a geneticist named Dmitri Belyaev started breeding silver foxes. He selected for exactly one trait: tameness. Nothing else. No looks, no size, no color. Within a handful of generations, the foxes started wagging their tails. Licking hands. Whining when humans left. Then something nobody asked for started happening. Floppy ears. Curly tails. Piebald coats. Foxes that looked like puppies. Pick for friendliness alone, and a whole different animal surfaces. It took decades of careful selection to make a fox that wants us. Which brings me to the question that makes this video so unsettling. If wanting a human is a trait that takes generations to build, what happens when an animal WITHOUT it forms a bond anyway? And who is that bond really with? . PART 4. THE NOSE THAT READS THE FUTURE Before I say another word about the video, let me tell you about the most underrated superpower in the animal kingdom. You have about six million scent receptors in your nose. A dog has around three hundred million. The part of a dog's brain that processes smell is, proportionally, dozens of times larger than yours. Dogs can detect certain odors at parts per trillion. Picture spotting a teaspoon of sugar dissolved in two Olympic swimming pools. But smell isn't the interesting part. The interesting part is what a dog smells ABOUT YOU. In 2022, researchers at Queen's University Belfast collected breath and sweat samples from people before and after they did stressful math tests. Then they trained dogs to tell the samples apart. The dogs picked out the stressed samples correctly about 94 percent of the time. Your dog can smell your cortisol. Your fear. Your dread. And here's the thing. You don't have to say anything. You don't have to cry. You can hold a perfectly calm face while your body chemistry is screaming. Now add routine. Dogs are pattern-recognition machines. They know what your keys sound like, what a suitcase means, which shoes you wear when you're leaving for an hour and which shoes you wear when you're leaving for good. Neuroscientist Gregory Berns put dogs in brain scanners and found that the reward center of a dog's brain lit up most strongly for the scent of a familiar person. Not a stranger. Not another dog. The person they loved. So when I tell you a dog can KNOW something is coming before anyone speaks, I'm not being poetic. I'm describing chemistry, memory, and pattern, running in parallel, faster than you can think. There's a moment in this video where you'll understand this section in your bones. I won't tell you when it is. You'll feel it. . PART 5. THE EYES Here is a fact that rewires how you see your own dog. In 2015, a Japanese team published a study in Science that stopped a lot of people cold. They found that when a dog and its owner look into each other's eyes, both of them get a surge of oxytocin. The bonding hormone. The same one that floods a new mother when she looks at her baby. A loop. Dog looks at you, your oxytocin rises, you look back, the dog's rises. Two nervous systems tuning to each other through nothing but a stare. And here's the twist that gives me chills. The same team tried it with hand-raised wolves and their human caretakers. The loop didn't form. The wolves didn't hold the gaze the same way. The humans didn't get the same hormone hit. Something that comes naturally between a dog and a person simply wasn't there. It gets stranger. In 2019, researchers published a paper in PNAS showing that dogs have a tiny facial muscle above the inner corner of the eyes that wolves essentially lack. It's the muscle that lifts the inner eyebrow. It's what creates the "puppy eyes" look that makes you feel something you can't argue with. A muscle. Evolved, apparently, for one audience: us. Shelter research backs it up. Dogs that make that expression more often tend to get adopted faster. Dogs learned to speak human with their faces. So eye contact, for a dog, is not a small thing. It's the deepest sentence in the language they invented for us. Which is why, when you watch this video, I want you to pay attention to something most people miss the first time. Watch the eyes. Watch who looks at whom. Watch who doesn't. Because in the dog's language, refusing to look at someone you love is one of the loudest things you can say. . PART 6. THE BOWL Ask any dog behaviorist what the ultimate test of trust between two canines is, and you'll hear the same word. Food. Resource guarding is one of the oldest, most primal instincts a dog has. Food is survival. A dog that doesn't defend its meal was, for most of history, a dog that didn't make it. Growls over a bone are not rudeness. They are ancient math. So the bowl is sacred. In a home with two dogs, watch who eats first, who eats faster, who stands too close, who gets a warning stare. A shared bowl between two animals is a peace treaty signed in kibble. Some dogs will happily share toys, beds, even the couch, and still lock up the moment a bowl hits the floor. Some never share it. Not once. Not with anyone. Now put a wolf pup in that picture. A wolf pup that has known real hunger. Or no mother at all. Or no pack. That's an animal for whom food is not a snack. It's a verdict on whether the world is safe. And put a dog who has never, ever shared his food in that same room. I'm not going to tell you what happens next. But when you get to that moment in the video, and you will know it when you see it, remember this section. Remember what the bowl means. . Pause for a second, because a pattern is forming. Smell tells a dog what's coming. Eyes tell him who matters. The bowl tells him who's safe. Play tells him who's family. Four separate systems, one conclusion, and it's the same conclusion every time. You now know how to read the language. All that's left is to watch someone speak it, with everything on the line. . PART 7. THE GRIEF NOBODY BELIEVED IN For most of the twentieth century, serious scientists were warned not to say that animals feel grief. The word for the sin was anthropomorphism. Projecting human feelings onto beasts. You could lose credibility for even suggesting it. And then the data started rolling in. In 1925, a Tokyo professor named Hidesaburo Ueno died suddenly at work. His Akita, Hachiko, who had walked him to Shibuya Station every morning and met him at the platform every evening, showed up at the station the next day. And the next. For nine years, nine months, and fifteen days. Every single evening. Until his own death in 1935. The Japanese made a statue. The world made movies. But the scientists stayed cautious. One dog. Could be habit. Then in 2022, a team in Italy studied hundreds of multi-dog households where one dog had died. Owners reported that the surviving dogs changed. They sought more attention. They played less. They were less active. Many showed sleep and appetite changes. Not proof of grief exactly as we feel it. Scientists are still honest about that gap. But proof that the loss of a companion reshapes a dog's whole behavior. Here's the honest version, and I'll give you both sides: skeptics say we can't know what a dog feels inside. That's fair. We can't. We can only observe behavior, hormones, brain activity. But if a dog changes when a friend disappears, then that friend was never "just another animal" to him. Which raises the question the video quietly asks: What happens when a dog can see the loss coming? Not after. Before. Does the grief start early? Watch and decide for yourself. . PART 8. PLAY IS A CONTRACT Every canine on Earth speaks one shared language of play, and it's older than domestication itself. It starts with a bow. Front legs down, rear end up, tail high. The famous play bow. Researchers, especially the biologist Marc Bekoff, spent years studying it and found that it works like a punctuation mark. It means: everything I do after this is a game. If I bite, it's not a real bite. If I pounce, it's not an attack. It's a contract. And here's the wild part: wolves use it. Foxes use it. Coyotes use it. Dogs use it. The signal predates the split I told you about in Part 1. Which means a dog and a wolf can meet, with 15,000 years of divergence between them, and still understand each other's opening move. It gets deeper. Play is a negotiation between unequals. A big dog playing with a smaller one will often hold back. Roll over. Let the little one "win." Researchers call it self-handicapping. It's the animal version of a father lifting his daughter onto his shoulders and letting her win the race. And they role-reverse. The chaser becomes the chased. The one on top ends up underneath. That only happens if both animals believe the other is safe. Play, in the animal kingdom, is the most honest test of trust there is. Nobody can fake it. You can't roleplay tenderness with a body that has fangs. You either mean it, or the game collapses in seconds. And it changes as the years go on. Puppies play like puppies. Then they grow. Their size changes. Their strength changes. Their jaws change. The game has to change with them, or it ends. Some friendships don't survive that. Some survive by getting more careful, more precise, more competitive, and somehow more loving at the same time. The end of this video is a masterclass in that. I'll leave it there. . PART 9. THE HARDEST KIND OF LOVE Now the uncomfortable part. The part the internet often skips. Wolves are not pets. Say it out loud and it sounds obvious. But every year, people fall in love with the idea of a wolf, and every year the story ends badly for the animal. A wolf is built to cover up to thirty miles in a day. To live in a family of its own kind. To communicate with howls that carry for miles. Its jaws, its instincts, its stress responses, its needs are those of a wild animal. A house cannot hold that. A backyard cannot hold that. Love, however genuine, is not a substitute for what a wolf actually needs. And here's the tragic loop wildlife rescuers talk about: an orphaned wolf pup that grows up around humans is often too habituated to ever be released. It didn't learn what its mother would have taught it. It doesn't fear what it should fear. So the "rescue" can't end in the forest. It has to end somewhere in between. Somewhere that isn't the wild and isn't a living room. A place built for what this animal is. That's where the real story lives. Not in the rescue. In the decision after. Because the hardest thing in the world isn't loving something. It's loving something enough to hand it to the people who can give it the life it needs, and then living with the hole that leaves. People get torn apart over decisions like that. Not because they didn't love the animal. Because they did. Sometimes the most loving act looks exactly like loss. And here is what stopped me. The human in this story wasn't the only one who understood that. Somebody else in that story understood it too. Somebody with four legs and no ability to speak. I won't say who. I won't say how. Just watch. . PART 10. WHY YOUR CHEST TIGHTENS Have you noticed something strange about videos like this? They don't make you sad exactly. They make you feel something warmer. A tightness in the chest. Goosebumps on your arms. Sometimes a sudden hot wetness at the corners of your eyes, and you don't know why. Psychologists have a name for it now. Kama muta. It's Sanskrit for "moved by love." The researcher who helped define it, Alan Fiske, argues that it's triggered by one specific thing: the sudden intensification of a bond. A reunion. A reconciliation. A loyalty proven under pressure. A stranger becoming family. That moment when two beings who could have stayed apart choose each other anyway. Across cultures and languages, the physical signature keeps showing up: chills, tears, warmth in the chest, a lump in the throat. It isn't sadness. It isn't happiness. It's the feeling of witnessing connection get stronger. Another psychologist, Jonathan Haidt, calls a cousin of it moral elevation. That warm lift you feel when you watch someone do something unexpectedly good. It makes you want to be better. Kinder. It literally makes people more likely to help others afterward. So why do animals trigger it so powerfully? Because animals strip out everything we distrust in human stories. No agenda. No performance. No PR. No "what's in it for me." A dog can't fake loyalty for likes. A wolf can't pretend to love you for status. When two animals from opposite ends of evolution choose each other, we're watching the purest version of the thing we hunger for in our own lives, in a form we can trust. That's why you'll feel it. That's why you'll want to show it to someone right after. And that's why the algorithm will keep showing it to you. . PART 11. SIXTEEN FACTS THAT WILL CHANGE HOW YOU SEE THIS CLIP FACT 1. For every wild wolf on Earth, there are thousands of dogs. One branch of the family tree took over the planet by befriending us. The other stayed wild and stayed rare. FACT 2. Wolf pups are born with blue eyes. Adult wolves usually have gold or amber. Nobody sees the change happen. It just does. FACT 3. Wolves rarely bark. Barking is mostly a dog invention, and one theory says it evolved largely to talk to humans. FACT 4. A dog's tail wag isn't just "happy." Research suggests a wag skewed to the right side tends to signal approach and comfort, and one skewed to the left signals hesitation or stress. A dog is broadcasting its mood in code, and you were never taught to read it. FACT 5. Dogs catch human yawns. Wolves catch yawns from each other, and more so from the ones they're closest to. Contagious yawning tracks emotional closeness, not just habit. FACT 6. A wolf can eat up to twenty pounds of meat in one sitting. Then not eat properly for days. Feast and famine is written into its body. FACT 7. In a dog's brain, praise only lights up the reward center when BOTH the words and the tone are right. Say "good boy" in a flat voice and it doesn't fully land. Dogs process what you say and how you say it separately, then combine them. FACT 8. A wild wolf lives roughly six to eight years. A golden retriever lives ten to twelve. One of them is built for hardship. The other is built for company. FACT 9. Dogs combine faces and voices to read emotion. In one study, dogs shown two human faces while hearing a voice looked longer at the face whose emotion matched the sound. FACT 10. A border collie named Chaser learned the names of more than 1,000 toys, and could pick out a brand-new one by pure elimination. That's reasoning, not tricks. FACT 11. Wolves in a wild pack are a family, not an army. The pups eat, the parents hunt, the older siblings babysit. The word "alpha" mostly belongs to captive wolves forced together, not wild ones. FACT 12. A dog's nose print is as unique as a human fingerprint. So is its bond with you. FACT 13. Dogs hear frequencies far above what you can, up to roughly 45,000 Hz and beyond. The world around you is full of sound they can't stop noticing. FACT 14. A wolf's paw print can be nearly five inches long. Bigger than most dogs' prints. Yet the golden retriever's heart, by any measure that matters, is not smaller. FACT 15. Dogs dream. They go through REM sleep just like you. The twitching, the tiny barks, the running paws: it's a brain replaying its day. FACT 16. The wolf is the ancestor of the dog only in the loosest sense. Both come from a wolf lineage that no longer exists. When you watch these two, you are watching an ancient family reunion between two branches that lost touch before recorded history. . PART 12. HOW TO WATCH IT (WITHOUT ME SPOILING IT) You've made it this far, which tells me one thing about you. You're not a scroller. You're a noticer. So here's how to watch this clip like someone who knows what they're looking at. FIRST WATCH. Just feel it. Don't analyze. Let the story run at its own speed. The clip is under two minutes and it doesn't waste a second. SECOND WATCH. Focus on distance. Notice how close the animals stand. How that changes. How it never quite changes the way you expect. THIRD WATCH. Focus on the dog. Only the dog. Not what he does. What he refuses to do. FOURTH WATCH. Focus on the ears and the tail. Everything a dog can't say, he says with those two things. And he says a lot. And the last five seconds? Do not skip them. Do not scroll early. Watch the final image and ask yourself one question: If this is what the two of them look like now, what did it cost to get here? . CLOSING. WHY THIS MATTERS MORE THAN A "CUTE VIDEO" Let me leave you with the thought that made me write all of this. We live in a world that constantly tells us bonds are transactional. That loyalty is naive. That people, and animals, only love you when you're useful. Then along comes a story like this, and it quietly breaks that theory. A dog engineered for gentleness. A wolf engineered by nothing but the wild. Fifteen thousand years of evolution between them, a wall of biology that says they should be strangers, or worse. And instead: a bond so strong that the humans standing around it were afraid of what it would cost. Not because anyone was in danger. Because one of them understood exactly what was at stake. That's the thing about animals. They don't need the science. They don't need Part 1 through Part 12. They don't know about oxytocin loops or kama muta or play bows. They just know who matters. And they act on it, immediately, with everything they've got. Maybe that's the real reason this kind of video travels the way it does. Not because it's cute. Because it reminds us of a level of loyalty we've quietly stopped expecting from each other. So do these three things. ONE. Go watch the video. All 97 seconds. Sound on. TWO. Come back and reply with the exact moment you felt it. I want the second, the caption, the look. Tell me where it got you. THREE. Send it to one person who needs to see what love looks like when nobody is performing it. You know who. Repost this if the video moved you. Follow me for more stories where science and animals collide. And remember the question from the top of this post, because now you can answer it. What does a creature do when it loves something it was never built to keep? If you watched carefully, you already know. If you didn't, go back. The answer is in the last frame.

Earth Unveiled

50,253 görüntüleme • 17 gün önce

A tree stood in that backyard for probably 40 years. Nobody who walked past it, sat under it, leaned a bike against it, ever knew what was living inside the trunk. Then someone cut into it. And what came out shouldn't be possible. Not sap. Not resin. Water. Gallons of it. Pouring out of solid wood like someone left a hose running inside a living organism. If your first reaction is "that's fake" — I understand. I had the same reaction the first time I saw footage like this. Trees are supposed to be dry on the inside. Bark, wood, rings, maybe some sticky sap if you're unlucky enough to touch a pine. Nobody grows up learning that a tree can be a pressurized tank. But here's the thing nobody tells you in school: some trees are. There's a real, documented, scientifically studied phenomenon behind this, and once you understand it, you will never look at a tree the same way again. I'm going to walk you through exactly what's happening inside these trees, why it happens, which species are famous for it, the wild historical accounts of people discovering it by accident (sometimes violently), and why arborists still get caught off guard by it after decades on the job. Stick with me. This gets stranger the deeper you go. — FIRST: the phenomenon has a name. Arborists and plant pathologists call it "wetwood," and in its more advanced, foul-smelling form, "slime flux." It's not folklore. It's not an urban legend some guy made up on a forum. It's in forestry textbooks, USDA plant pathology bulletins, and arborist training manuals. Here's the mechanism, stripped down to plain English: Trees have a core of heartwood — the dead, structural center of the trunk that no longer transports nutrients. It's basically the tree's skeleton. In most trees, that heartwood is just dry, solid wood. But in certain species, under certain conditions, bacteria colonize that heartwood core. Anaerobic bacteria — the kind that thrive without oxygen — move in and start fermenting the wood tissue from the inside. That fermentation process does two things. First, it draws in and traps enormous amounts of water inside the wood, way beyond what healthy wood would ever hold. Second, it produces gas as a byproduct — methane, carbon dioxide, hydrogen sulfide — and that gas has nowhere to go. It's sealed inside solid wood, inside bark, inside a living, growing tree. So you end up with a chamber, sometimes several feet long, sitting inside the trunk, completely pressurized, completely hidden, holding a mixture of bacteria-laden water and trapped gas — sometimes under enough pressure that when the seal finally breaks, it doesn't drip. It sprays. It gushes. It pours out like the tree itself is bleeding. Now imagine you're an arborist. You've cut down thousands of trees. You know the drill: bark, sapwood, heartwood, done. And then one day your saw breaks through into a hidden pocket you had no way of detecting from the outside, and suddenly you're standing in a puddle that came from inside a tree trunk. That moment is what you're about to see. — Let me give you some numbers, because the scale of this is what makes people stop scrolling. Documented cases of wetwood trees have released water measured in the dozens of gallons from a single cut. Some large elms and cottonwoods have been recorded discharging water continuously for hours after being wounded, with foresters describing "streams" running from the trunk down to the base of the tree and pooling on the ground like a slow leak from a cracked pipe. Certain species are repeat offenders. Elm. Poplar. Cottonwood. Mulberry. Certain oaks. These trees, especially older ones with some history of trunk injury (a old pruning wound, storm damage, a lightning strike, construction damage to the roots), are far more likely to develop internal wetwood pockets, because any breach in the bark is an open door for the bacteria that start this whole process. That's the part that should sit with you for a second. It usually starts with something small. A branch snapped off in a storm. A lawnmower nick at the base. A woodpecker hole. Something that looks like nothing. And over years — sometimes decades — that tiny wound becomes the entry point for a slow-motion transformation happening entirely out of sight, turning part of the tree's interior into a sealed reservoir. You could have one in your own yard right now. You'd have no way of knowing. That's not a scare tactic, that's just how wetwood works — it's invisible from the outside until the tree is cut, cored, drilled, or storm-damaged enough to expose the pocket. — There's an older, uglier cousin of wetwood, and it's called "slime flux," and I promise you the name undersells it. When the pressure inside a wetwood pocket gets high enough, it doesn't wait for someone with a chainsaw. It finds its own way out — through cracks in the bark, through old wounds, through the base of branches. And when that fluid meets open air, the bacteria and yeast in it start reacting with oxygen, and the whole thing turns into a foul, fermenting slurry running down the bark. Old-time foresters called this "flux disease," and some described the smell as somewhere between rotten cabbage and spoiled beer. Insects love it. Certain flies and beetles are specifically drawn to fluxing trees, and some entomologists have documented entire miniature ecosystems living in the wet, fermented bark of a heavily infected wetwood tree. So the version you're about to watch — a clean cut suddenly releasing a rush of water — is actually the tamer version of this phenomenon. It's what happens when the pressure is released fast and deliberately, in a controlled way, instead of slowly seeping and fermenting on the bark for months. It's dramatic, but it's not even the strangest form this condition takes. — Here's where it gets almost unbelievable if you didn't grow up around old-growth forests or work in forestry: this isn't new, and it isn't rare enough to be dismissed as a one-off. Loggers in the 19th and early 20th centuries wrote about "water trees" and "spring trees" — trunks that, when felled or split, would release surprising volumes of water, sometimes described as clean and cold enough that thirsty travelers would drink straight from a freshly cut trunk. Some of these accounts read almost like myth: a felled tree in a dry stretch of forest becoming an impromptu water source for a work crew that had run out of canteens. Indigenous and folk traditions across multiple continents have stories about trees that "cry" or "bleed" water, long before anyone had a bacteriological explanation for it. In parts of the American South, old-timers used to warn newcomers about certain elms and cottonwoods being "wet-hearted," a term passed down generation to generation with no formal science behind it — just observation. They knew, decades before plant pathologists gave it a Latin name, that some trees were different on the inside. There's something almost humbling about that. A phenomenon that sounds like it belongs in a fantasy novel — a tree holding a hidden reservoir inside its trunk — turns out to be something people quietly knew about for centuries, passed down as folk wisdom, and modern science eventually caught up and explained the mechanism. — Let's talk about pressure, because this is the part that turns a "huh, neat" fact into something genuinely dramatic to witness. Wetwood pockets aren't just wet. They're pressurized. Researchers who have studied this by drilling into infected trees and measuring the internal gas pressure have recorded readings significantly above normal atmospheric pressure — high enough that when a probe finally punctures the pocket, gas and liquid don't just seep out, they can audibly hiss, spray, or in some documented cases, forcefully eject material several feet from the trunk. Think about what that means physically. You have a living tree. Roots pulling water up. Leaves doing their thing. Bark looking completely normal, maybe a little bit of old staining near a wound if you know exactly what to look for. And inside, invisible to anyone walking by, there's a sealed chamber behaving less like "wood" and more like a bottle of soda that's been shaken and capped for years. Cut into that with the wrong angle, at the wrong depth, and you are opening something that has been building pressure since before some of you reading this were born. That is not an exaggeration. Some of these wetwood pockets, in old trees with a long history of minor trunk injuries, have been forming and sealing and re-sealing for twenty, thirty, forty years before anyone finally exposes them. — I want to address the skeptics directly, because there's always a version of this that goes semi-viral and the replies fill up with "CGI," "staged," "fake," before anyone bothers to check. This is genuinely, boringly, documented science. Forestry extension offices at multiple universities have publications specifically on wetwood and slime flux — the kind of dry, unglamorous PDF nobody reads unless they're an arborist student cramming for an exam. Plant pathology courses cover it. It's in the same category as things like "trees can produce enough root pressure to push water dozens of feet upward with no pump" — real, measurable, and honestly stranger than most fiction, which is exactly why it keeps going viral every time footage surfaces. The wild part isn't that it's fake. The wild part is that it's real, it's been known for over a century, and most people are hearing about it for the first time through a random video instead of a biology class. — Here's a question worth sitting with: how many trees around you, right now, could be holding something like this? You're not going to know by looking. That's the unsettling part. Wetwood doesn't announce itself from the outside in any reliable way most people would recognize. Sometimes there's a dark wet-looking stain running down the bark from an old wound — that's actually one of the only visible clues, and most people who see it assume it's just water damage or normal bark discoloration, not a sign of a pressurized internal reservoir. Arborists who specialize in tree risk assessment actually have to factor this into their evaluations, because a wetwood pocket can also be a structural weak point — the internal decay associated with it can compromise a tree's strength in ways that aren't visible from a standard visual inspection. So this isn't purely a "huh, cool fact" situation. For professionals, it's something they're trained to watch for, because it changes how a tree behaves, how it should be pruned, and in some cases whether it's even safe to keep standing near a structure. — Let's go species by species for a second, because the "which trees do this" question comes up every single time this kind of footage circulates. Elms are probably the most famous offenders — American elm and Siberian elm both show up repeatedly in wetwood and slime flux case studies. Cottonwoods and poplars are right behind them, especially older specimens with a history of storm damage or pruning wounds. Mulberry trees have a documented tendency toward it as well. Certain oaks can develop it, though it's less common and usually tied to a specific injury history. Willows, with their notoriously soft and moisture-loving wood, are also frequent candidates. What connects almost all of these species isn't some exotic trait — it's actually pretty mundane. They tend to be fast-growing, softer-wooded trees that are more prone to storm damage, cracking, and wound formation over their lifespan, which means more entry points for the bacteria that kick off the entire process. Slower-growing, denser hardwoods are comparatively less prone, though not immune. So if you've got an old elm, cottonwood, poplar, willow, or mulberry anywhere near you — especially one that's taken some damage over the decades, a lost limb, a lightning strike, an old chainsaw wound from a previous trim — there's a real, non-zero chance that tree is sitting on its own hidden reservoir right now, quietly pressurizing, waiting for the day someone finally cuts into the wrong spot. — There's a specific kind of moment that happens on video like this, and if you've watched enough tree-work content you already know it: the split second between the cut going in and the reaction on the face of whoever's holding the saw. That reaction is real. You cannot fake genuine, immediate confusion. Professionals who have done this job for years, who have felled hundreds or thousands of trees, who think they've seen every possible thing a tree trunk can do — and then something happens that their entire career didn't prepare them for. That's the part that makes this kind of footage so different from staged "reaction" content you see everywhere else online. Nobody scripts confusion that specific. Nobody fakes the half-second delay where someone's brain is visibly trying to process what their eyes are showing them. — I'll leave you with this. Every single day, all over the world, people are cutting down trees for completely mundane reasons — storm cleanup, construction, disease removal, firewood, somebody's yard finally getting redone. Thousands of trees. Every day. Most of the time it's exactly as boring as it sounds: cut, drop, haul, done. And then every so often, completely without warning, one of those ordinary trees turns out to be something else entirely. A tree that's been quietly filling itself with water for years, maybe decades, completely undetectable from the outside, sealed shut under bark that looks exactly like every other tree on the block. Nobody plans for that. Nobody sees it coming. That's exactly what makes it worth watching when it happens to be caught on camera. You already scrolled past the video once. Go back and actually watch what happens the second that bar breaks through. You will not believe how much comes out. And once you know why, you'll start looking at every old tree in your neighborhood a little differently. — Let's talk about the pressure numbers again, because I glossed over just how absurd they get in the most extreme documented cases. Standard atmospheric pressure at sea level is about 14.7 pounds per square inch. Some measured wetwood pockets have registered internal gas pressures multiple times higher than that — enough that when researchers insert a hollow probe to sample the gas, it doesn't calmly bubble out, it forces its way through with an audible hiss, sometimes strong enough to make a sound loud enough to hear from several feet away. Now picture that same pressure, except instead of a thin research probe, it's a chainsaw bar plowing straight through the wall of the pocket in one continuous motion. There's no controlled release valve. There's no slow bleed-off. The seal just fails all at once, and whatever's inside — water, gas, fermented bacterial slurry — takes the fastest path out, which is usually straight toward whoever is standing closest. That's not drama for the sake of drama. That's just fluid dynamics doing what fluid dynamics does when a pressurized container gets breached in one violent motion instead of a slow leak. — People love comparing this to other "trees doing things they shouldn't" phenomena, so let's run through a few, because it puts wetwood in context. Root pressure is a real, separately documented thing — some trees, particularly certain maples and grapevines, can generate enough internal pressure through osmosis alone to push water dozens of feet upward through their trunk with zero mechanical pump involved, which is part of why maple syrup tapping works in early spring: cut a hole, and sap doesn't just sit there, it actively flows out under real pressure. Bamboo, meanwhile, has hollow internal chambers between each node that can fill with water and, when punctured, release a surprising rush for something that looks like solid stalk from the outside. Certain cacti and succulents store such enormous internal water reserves that a single barrel cactus can hold multiple gallons, enough that desert survival guides have long described (with real caveats about bitterness and toxicity in some species) cutting into one as an emergency water source. None of those are the exact same mechanism as bacterial wetwood. But they all share the same core surprise: the outside of a plant tells you almost nothing about what's happening on the inside. Trees and plants in general are far better at hiding internal reservoirs, chambers, and pressure systems than most people ever consider, because we're trained from childhood to think of "wood" as uniformly solid and dry. — Here's a question I want you to actually think about instead of just scrolling past: why does this footage hit people so hard emotionally, when it's "just" water? I think it's because it breaks a category we didn't know we had. Somewhere in your brain, without ever being taught it explicitly, you built a rule: solid things don't have hidden liquid interiors. Rocks are solid. Wood is solid. A tree trunk, no matter how big, is filed under "solid object" right next to a brick or a fence post. So when a tree trunk suddenly behaves like a punctured water balloon, it's not just surprising — it's a small, harmless violation of a rule you didn't know you were relying on. That's the exact same psychological mechanism behind why people can't look away from videos of hidden compartments, false walls, geodes cracked open to reveal crystal interiors, or ice cores pulled from glaciers showing air bubbles thousands of years old. The object looked like one thing on the outside and turned out to be something completely different on the inside. Our brains are wired to lock onto that specific kind of surprise and replay it. — I want to walk through what's actually happening at a microscopic level too, because the bacteria part is honestly the wildest piece of this whole story and it usually gets skipped over. The bacteria responsible for wetwood are largely anaerobic — meaning they thrive specifically in environments with no oxygen, which describes the sealed interior of a heartwood pocket perfectly. Species commonly implicated include various strains that also show up in other low-oxygen fermentation processes elsewhere in nature. These bacteria essentially treat the interior of the tree the way yeast treats a sealed fermentation vessel: they break down wood sugars and cellulose components, and as a byproduct of that metabolic process, they release gas. Methane. Carbon dioxide. Sometimes hydrogen sulfide, which is the compound responsible for the "rotten egg" smell associated with some of the worst slime flux cases. Here's the part that should genuinely unsettle you a little: this process can continue, essentially undisturbed, for years. The bacteria don't need light. They don't need a food source refill from outside — the wood itself is the food source. They don't need anything from us at all. They just sit there, fermenting slowly, generation after generation, quietly filling an internal chamber with liquid and gas, completely indifferent to whatever's happening in the world outside the bark. Somebody could mow the lawn around that tree every single week for fifteen years and never once suspect that a private, self-sustaining microbial ecosystem is operating a few inches away, sealed inside solid wood. — Foresters have their own folklore around this too, separate from the old "wet-hearted tree" naming I mentioned earlier, and some of it is genuinely unsettling if you sit with it. There are accounts — some documented in forestry incident reports, some passed around as workplace stories among tree crews — of wetwood pockets releasing enough pressurized gas and liquid on impact to knock a chainsaw sideways out of the operator's hands, or to spray fluid several feet, catching a nearby coworker completely off guard. Tree removal is already one of the more dangerous manual trades that exists — statistically it's consistently ranked among the more hazardous occupations — and wetwood is one of those factors that experienced crews specifically train new hires to be aware of, precisely because it's invisible until the exact moment it isn't. Some crews have a rule: if you see that telltale dark wet staining running down bark from an old wound, you treat the cut differently. Different angle. Different bracing. A moment of hesitation most people watching a video would never think to expect from someone who cuts trees for a living every single day. That hesitation, when you see it, is not caution for no reason. It's caution earned from someone else's story about the day their trunk sprayed back. — Let's zoom out for a second and talk about why nature keeps doing this to us — hiding things in plain sight that overturn assumptions we didn't even know we were making. Geodes look like plain gray rocks from the outside and crack open into crystal cathedrals. Certain seemingly solid ice formations conceal air pockets and liquid water inside glacial ice that's been sealed for centuries. Some seeds remain dormant and viable inside dry-looking husks for years, sometimes decades, before conditions trigger germination. Nature is, on some fundamental level, extremely good at packaging surprising internal states inside boring, unremarkable exteriors, because there's rarely an evolutionary or physical reason for the outside of something to accurately advertise what's happening on the inside. A tree trunk covered in bark has absolutely no obligation to tell you what's going on underneath. And most of the time, honestly, there's nothing dramatic going on under there — it really is just solid wood, rings, sapwood doing its normal job. But every so often, under the right combination of an old wound, the right bacteria finding their way in, and years of undisturbed fermentation, you get this. A tree that's secretly been operating as a sealed, pressurized reservoir the entire time, waiting for someone with a saw to finally find out. — A few quick things people always ask once they learn about this, so let's knock them out here. Is the water safe to drink? Historically, some accounts describe it as drinkable in a pinch, but modern guidance is far more cautious — wetwood fluid is loaded with bacteria and fermentation byproducts, and depending on the tree and how advanced the infection is, it can range from relatively clean-tasting to genuinely foul and bacterially loaded. Not something to treat as a reliable water source by modern standards, whatever old logging stories might say. Does it kill the tree? Not necessarily, and that's part of what makes it so strange. Trees can live with wetwood for years, even decades, functioning normally from the outside — leafing out every spring, growing new rings — while quietly carrying an internal pocket the entire time. It's more of a chronic condition than an acute one in most cases, though severe cases can weaken the tree structurally and contribute to internal decay. Can you tell from the outside before cutting? Sometimes, if you know exactly what to look for — that dark staining running from an old wound is the main visible tell. But plenty of wetwood trees show no obvious external sign at all until the moment someone cuts into the wrong spot. — If you made it this far, you now know something about trees that the overwhelming majority of people who scroll past videos like this never bother to learn. You know the name of the phenomenon. You know the bacterial mechanism behind it. You know which species are most prone to it, why old wounds matter, how much pressure can actually build up inside, and why experienced tree crews still treat certain trunks with real caution. That's a strange amount of knowledge to walk away with from what looks, at first glance, like just another oddly satisfying clip. But that's usually how it goes with the genuinely wild stuff nature does — it looks small on the surface, and then you pull one thread and end up somewhere you didn't expect. Go watch it again with all of that in your head this time. Watch the exact frame where the bar breaks through. Watch what the water does the instant it has somewhere to go. Watch the reaction on the person holding the saw — that's not performance, that's genuine surprise from someone who has almost certainly done this exact job a thousand times before and never seen a tree do this. Some trees really are just wood, top to bottom, nothing hiding inside. And then there are the ones that have been quietly running their own private reservoir for twenty or thirty years, sealed under ordinary-looking bark, waiting for exactly one cut to finally let it out. You just watched what that looks like the moment it happens.

A tree stood in that backyard for probably 40 years. Nobody who walked past it, sat under it, leaned a bike against it, ever knew what was living inside the trunk. Then someone cut into it. And what came out shouldn't be possible. Not sap. Not resin. Water. Gallons of it. Pouring out of solid wood like someone left a hose running inside a living organism. If your first reaction is "that's fake" — I understand. I had the same reaction the first time I saw footage like this. Trees are supposed to be dry on the inside. Bark, wood, rings, maybe some sticky sap if you're unlucky enough to touch a pine. Nobody grows up learning that a tree can be a pressurized tank. But here's the thing nobody tells you in school: some trees are. There's a real, documented, scientifically studied phenomenon behind this, and once you understand it, you will never look at a tree the same way again. I'm going to walk you through exactly what's happening inside these trees, why it happens, which species are famous for it, the wild historical accounts of people discovering it by accident (sometimes violently), and why arborists still get caught off guard by it after decades on the job. Stick with me. This gets stranger the deeper you go. — FIRST: the phenomenon has a name. Arborists and plant pathologists call it "wetwood," and in its more advanced, foul-smelling form, "slime flux." It's not folklore. It's not an urban legend some guy made up on a forum. It's in forestry textbooks, USDA plant pathology bulletins, and arborist training manuals. Here's the mechanism, stripped down to plain English: Trees have a core of heartwood — the dead, structural center of the trunk that no longer transports nutrients. It's basically the tree's skeleton. In most trees, that heartwood is just dry, solid wood. But in certain species, under certain conditions, bacteria colonize that heartwood core. Anaerobic bacteria — the kind that thrive without oxygen — move in and start fermenting the wood tissue from the inside. That fermentation process does two things. First, it draws in and traps enormous amounts of water inside the wood, way beyond what healthy wood would ever hold. Second, it produces gas as a byproduct — methane, carbon dioxide, hydrogen sulfide — and that gas has nowhere to go. It's sealed inside solid wood, inside bark, inside a living, growing tree. So you end up with a chamber, sometimes several feet long, sitting inside the trunk, completely pressurized, completely hidden, holding a mixture of bacteria-laden water and trapped gas — sometimes under enough pressure that when the seal finally breaks, it doesn't drip. It sprays. It gushes. It pours out like the tree itself is bleeding. Now imagine you're an arborist. You've cut down thousands of trees. You know the drill: bark, sapwood, heartwood, done. And then one day your saw breaks through into a hidden pocket you had no way of detecting from the outside, and suddenly you're standing in a puddle that came from inside a tree trunk. That moment is what you're about to see. — Let me give you some numbers, because the scale of this is what makes people stop scrolling. Documented cases of wetwood trees have released water measured in the dozens of gallons from a single cut. Some large elms and cottonwoods have been recorded discharging water continuously for hours after being wounded, with foresters describing "streams" running from the trunk down to the base of the tree and pooling on the ground like a slow leak from a cracked pipe. Certain species are repeat offenders. Elm. Poplar. Cottonwood. Mulberry. Certain oaks. These trees, especially older ones with some history of trunk injury (a old pruning wound, storm damage, a lightning strike, construction damage to the roots), are far more likely to develop internal wetwood pockets, because any breach in the bark is an open door for the bacteria that start this whole process. That's the part that should sit with you for a second. It usually starts with something small. A branch snapped off in a storm. A lawnmower nick at the base. A woodpecker hole. Something that looks like nothing. And over years — sometimes decades — that tiny wound becomes the entry point for a slow-motion transformation happening entirely out of sight, turning part of the tree's interior into a sealed reservoir. You could have one in your own yard right now. You'd have no way of knowing. That's not a scare tactic, that's just how wetwood works — it's invisible from the outside until the tree is cut, cored, drilled, or storm-damaged enough to expose the pocket. — There's an older, uglier cousin of wetwood, and it's called "slime flux," and I promise you the name undersells it. When the pressure inside a wetwood pocket gets high enough, it doesn't wait for someone with a chainsaw. It finds its own way out — through cracks in the bark, through old wounds, through the base of branches. And when that fluid meets open air, the bacteria and yeast in it start reacting with oxygen, and the whole thing turns into a foul, fermenting slurry running down the bark. Old-time foresters called this "flux disease," and some described the smell as somewhere between rotten cabbage and spoiled beer. Insects love it. Certain flies and beetles are specifically drawn to fluxing trees, and some entomologists have documented entire miniature ecosystems living in the wet, fermented bark of a heavily infected wetwood tree. So the version you're about to watch — a clean cut suddenly releasing a rush of water — is actually the tamer version of this phenomenon. It's what happens when the pressure is released fast and deliberately, in a controlled way, instead of slowly seeping and fermenting on the bark for months. It's dramatic, but it's not even the strangest form this condition takes. — Here's where it gets almost unbelievable if you didn't grow up around old-growth forests or work in forestry: this isn't new, and it isn't rare enough to be dismissed as a one-off. Loggers in the 19th and early 20th centuries wrote about "water trees" and "spring trees" — trunks that, when felled or split, would release surprising volumes of water, sometimes described as clean and cold enough that thirsty travelers would drink straight from a freshly cut trunk. Some of these accounts read almost like myth: a felled tree in a dry stretch of forest becoming an impromptu water source for a work crew that had run out of canteens. Indigenous and folk traditions across multiple continents have stories about trees that "cry" or "bleed" water, long before anyone had a bacteriological explanation for it. In parts of the American South, old-timers used to warn newcomers about certain elms and cottonwoods being "wet-hearted," a term passed down generation to generation with no formal science behind it — just observation. They knew, decades before plant pathologists gave it a Latin name, that some trees were different on the inside. There's something almost humbling about that. A phenomenon that sounds like it belongs in a fantasy novel — a tree holding a hidden reservoir inside its trunk — turns out to be something people quietly knew about for centuries, passed down as folk wisdom, and modern science eventually caught up and explained the mechanism. — Let's talk about pressure, because this is the part that turns a "huh, neat" fact into something genuinely dramatic to witness. Wetwood pockets aren't just wet. They're pressurized. Researchers who have studied this by drilling into infected trees and measuring the internal gas pressure have recorded readings significantly above normal atmospheric pressure — high enough that when a probe finally punctures the pocket, gas and liquid don't just seep out, they can audibly hiss, spray, or in some documented cases, forcefully eject material several feet from the trunk. Think about what that means physically. You have a living tree. Roots pulling water up. Leaves doing their thing. Bark looking completely normal, maybe a little bit of old staining near a wound if you know exactly what to look for. And inside, invisible to anyone walking by, there's a sealed chamber behaving less like "wood" and more like a bottle of soda that's been shaken and capped for years. Cut into that with the wrong angle, at the wrong depth, and you are opening something that has been building pressure since before some of you reading this were born. That is not an exaggeration. Some of these wetwood pockets, in old trees with a long history of minor trunk injuries, have been forming and sealing and re-sealing for twenty, thirty, forty years before anyone finally exposes them. — I want to address the skeptics directly, because there's always a version of this that goes semi-viral and the replies fill up with "CGI," "staged," "fake," before anyone bothers to check. This is genuinely, boringly, documented science. Forestry extension offices at multiple universities have publications specifically on wetwood and slime flux — the kind of dry, unglamorous PDF nobody reads unless they're an arborist student cramming for an exam. Plant pathology courses cover it. It's in the same category as things like "trees can produce enough root pressure to push water dozens of feet upward with no pump" — real, measurable, and honestly stranger than most fiction, which is exactly why it keeps going viral every time footage surfaces. The wild part isn't that it's fake. The wild part is that it's real, it's been known for over a century, and most people are hearing about it for the first time through a random video instead of a biology class. — Here's a question worth sitting with: how many trees around you, right now, could be holding something like this? You're not going to know by looking. That's the unsettling part. Wetwood doesn't announce itself from the outside in any reliable way most people would recognize. Sometimes there's a dark wet-looking stain running down the bark from an old wound — that's actually one of the only visible clues, and most people who see it assume it's just water damage or normal bark discoloration, not a sign of a pressurized internal reservoir. Arborists who specialize in tree risk assessment actually have to factor this into their evaluations, because a wetwood pocket can also be a structural weak point — the internal decay associated with it can compromise a tree's strength in ways that aren't visible from a standard visual inspection. So this isn't purely a "huh, cool fact" situation. For professionals, it's something they're trained to watch for, because it changes how a tree behaves, how it should be pruned, and in some cases whether it's even safe to keep standing near a structure. — Let's go species by species for a second, because the "which trees do this" question comes up every single time this kind of footage circulates. Elms are probably the most famous offenders — American elm and Siberian elm both show up repeatedly in wetwood and slime flux case studies. Cottonwoods and poplars are right behind them, especially older specimens with a history of storm damage or pruning wounds. Mulberry trees have a documented tendency toward it as well. Certain oaks can develop it, though it's less common and usually tied to a specific injury history. Willows, with their notoriously soft and moisture-loving wood, are also frequent candidates. What connects almost all of these species isn't some exotic trait — it's actually pretty mundane. They tend to be fast-growing, softer-wooded trees that are more prone to storm damage, cracking, and wound formation over their lifespan, which means more entry points for the bacteria that kick off the entire process. Slower-growing, denser hardwoods are comparatively less prone, though not immune. So if you've got an old elm, cottonwood, poplar, willow, or mulberry anywhere near you — especially one that's taken some damage over the decades, a lost limb, a lightning strike, an old chainsaw wound from a previous trim — there's a real, non-zero chance that tree is sitting on its own hidden reservoir right now, quietly pressurizing, waiting for the day someone finally cuts into the wrong spot. — There's a specific kind of moment that happens on video like this, and if you've watched enough tree-work content you already know it: the split second between the cut going in and the reaction on the face of whoever's holding the saw. That reaction is real. You cannot fake genuine, immediate confusion. Professionals who have done this job for years, who have felled hundreds or thousands of trees, who think they've seen every possible thing a tree trunk can do — and then something happens that their entire career didn't prepare them for. That's the part that makes this kind of footage so different from staged "reaction" content you see everywhere else online. Nobody scripts confusion that specific. Nobody fakes the half-second delay where someone's brain is visibly trying to process what their eyes are showing them. — I'll leave you with this. Every single day, all over the world, people are cutting down trees for completely mundane reasons — storm cleanup, construction, disease removal, firewood, somebody's yard finally getting redone. Thousands of trees. Every day. Most of the time it's exactly as boring as it sounds: cut, drop, haul, done. And then every so often, completely without warning, one of those ordinary trees turns out to be something else entirely. A tree that's been quietly filling itself with water for years, maybe decades, completely undetectable from the outside, sealed shut under bark that looks exactly like every other tree on the block. Nobody plans for that. Nobody sees it coming. That's exactly what makes it worth watching when it happens to be caught on camera. You already scrolled past the video once. Go back and actually watch what happens the second that bar breaks through. You will not believe how much comes out. And once you know why, you'll start looking at every old tree in your neighborhood a little differently. — Let's talk about the pressure numbers again, because I glossed over just how absurd they get in the most extreme documented cases. Standard atmospheric pressure at sea level is about 14.7 pounds per square inch. Some measured wetwood pockets have registered internal gas pressures multiple times higher than that — enough that when researchers insert a hollow probe to sample the gas, it doesn't calmly bubble out, it forces its way through with an audible hiss, sometimes strong enough to make a sound loud enough to hear from several feet away. Now picture that same pressure, except instead of a thin research probe, it's a chainsaw bar plowing straight through the wall of the pocket in one continuous motion. There's no controlled release valve. There's no slow bleed-off. The seal just fails all at once, and whatever's inside — water, gas, fermented bacterial slurry — takes the fastest path out, which is usually straight toward whoever is standing closest. That's not drama for the sake of drama. That's just fluid dynamics doing what fluid dynamics does when a pressurized container gets breached in one violent motion instead of a slow leak. — People love comparing this to other "trees doing things they shouldn't" phenomena, so let's run through a few, because it puts wetwood in context. Root pressure is a real, separately documented thing — some trees, particularly certain maples and grapevines, can generate enough internal pressure through osmosis alone to push water dozens of feet upward through their trunk with zero mechanical pump involved, which is part of why maple syrup tapping works in early spring: cut a hole, and sap doesn't just sit there, it actively flows out under real pressure. Bamboo, meanwhile, has hollow internal chambers between each node that can fill with water and, when punctured, release a surprising rush for something that looks like solid stalk from the outside. Certain cacti and succulents store such enormous internal water reserves that a single barrel cactus can hold multiple gallons, enough that desert survival guides have long described (with real caveats about bitterness and toxicity in some species) cutting into one as an emergency water source. None of those are the exact same mechanism as bacterial wetwood. But they all share the same core surprise: the outside of a plant tells you almost nothing about what's happening on the inside. Trees and plants in general are far better at hiding internal reservoirs, chambers, and pressure systems than most people ever consider, because we're trained from childhood to think of "wood" as uniformly solid and dry. — Here's a question I want you to actually think about instead of just scrolling past: why does this footage hit people so hard emotionally, when it's "just" water? I think it's because it breaks a category we didn't know we had. Somewhere in your brain, without ever being taught it explicitly, you built a rule: solid things don't have hidden liquid interiors. Rocks are solid. Wood is solid. A tree trunk, no matter how big, is filed under "solid object" right next to a brick or a fence post. So when a tree trunk suddenly behaves like a punctured water balloon, it's not just surprising — it's a small, harmless violation of a rule you didn't know you were relying on. That's the exact same psychological mechanism behind why people can't look away from videos of hidden compartments, false walls, geodes cracked open to reveal crystal interiors, or ice cores pulled from glaciers showing air bubbles thousands of years old. The object looked like one thing on the outside and turned out to be something completely different on the inside. Our brains are wired to lock onto that specific kind of surprise and replay it. — I want to walk through what's actually happening at a microscopic level too, because the bacteria part is honestly the wildest piece of this whole story and it usually gets skipped over. The bacteria responsible for wetwood are largely anaerobic — meaning they thrive specifically in environments with no oxygen, which describes the sealed interior of a heartwood pocket perfectly. Species commonly implicated include various strains that also show up in other low-oxygen fermentation processes elsewhere in nature. These bacteria essentially treat the interior of the tree the way yeast treats a sealed fermentation vessel: they break down wood sugars and cellulose components, and as a byproduct of that metabolic process, they release gas. Methane. Carbon dioxide. Sometimes hydrogen sulfide, which is the compound responsible for the "rotten egg" smell associated with some of the worst slime flux cases. Here's the part that should genuinely unsettle you a little: this process can continue, essentially undisturbed, for years. The bacteria don't need light. They don't need a food source refill from outside — the wood itself is the food source. They don't need anything from us at all. They just sit there, fermenting slowly, generation after generation, quietly filling an internal chamber with liquid and gas, completely indifferent to whatever's happening in the world outside the bark. Somebody could mow the lawn around that tree every single week for fifteen years and never once suspect that a private, self-sustaining microbial ecosystem is operating a few inches away, sealed inside solid wood. — Foresters have their own folklore around this too, separate from the old "wet-hearted tree" naming I mentioned earlier, and some of it is genuinely unsettling if you sit with it. There are accounts — some documented in forestry incident reports, some passed around as workplace stories among tree crews — of wetwood pockets releasing enough pressurized gas and liquid on impact to knock a chainsaw sideways out of the operator's hands, or to spray fluid several feet, catching a nearby coworker completely off guard. Tree removal is already one of the more dangerous manual trades that exists — statistically it's consistently ranked among the more hazardous occupations — and wetwood is one of those factors that experienced crews specifically train new hires to be aware of, precisely because it's invisible until the exact moment it isn't. Some crews have a rule: if you see that telltale dark wet staining running down bark from an old wound, you treat the cut differently. Different angle. Different bracing. A moment of hesitation most people watching a video would never think to expect from someone who cuts trees for a living every single day. That hesitation, when you see it, is not caution for no reason. It's caution earned from someone else's story about the day their trunk sprayed back. — Let's zoom out for a second and talk about why nature keeps doing this to us — hiding things in plain sight that overturn assumptions we didn't even know we were making. Geodes look like plain gray rocks from the outside and crack open into crystal cathedrals. Certain seemingly solid ice formations conceal air pockets and liquid water inside glacial ice that's been sealed for centuries. Some seeds remain dormant and viable inside dry-looking husks for years, sometimes decades, before conditions trigger germination. Nature is, on some fundamental level, extremely good at packaging surprising internal states inside boring, unremarkable exteriors, because there's rarely an evolutionary or physical reason for the outside of something to accurately advertise what's happening on the inside. A tree trunk covered in bark has absolutely no obligation to tell you what's going on underneath. And most of the time, honestly, there's nothing dramatic going on under there — it really is just solid wood, rings, sapwood doing its normal job. But every so often, under the right combination of an old wound, the right bacteria finding their way in, and years of undisturbed fermentation, you get this. A tree that's secretly been operating as a sealed, pressurized reservoir the entire time, waiting for someone with a saw to finally find out. — A few quick things people always ask once they learn about this, so let's knock them out here. Is the water safe to drink? Historically, some accounts describe it as drinkable in a pinch, but modern guidance is far more cautious — wetwood fluid is loaded with bacteria and fermentation byproducts, and depending on the tree and how advanced the infection is, it can range from relatively clean-tasting to genuinely foul and bacterially loaded. Not something to treat as a reliable water source by modern standards, whatever old logging stories might say. Does it kill the tree? Not necessarily, and that's part of what makes it so strange. Trees can live with wetwood for years, even decades, functioning normally from the outside — leafing out every spring, growing new rings — while quietly carrying an internal pocket the entire time. It's more of a chronic condition than an acute one in most cases, though severe cases can weaken the tree structurally and contribute to internal decay. Can you tell from the outside before cutting? Sometimes, if you know exactly what to look for — that dark staining running from an old wound is the main visible tell. But plenty of wetwood trees show no obvious external sign at all until the moment someone cuts into the wrong spot. — If you made it this far, you now know something about trees that the overwhelming majority of people who scroll past videos like this never bother to learn. You know the name of the phenomenon. You know the bacterial mechanism behind it. You know which species are most prone to it, why old wounds matter, how much pressure can actually build up inside, and why experienced tree crews still treat certain trunks with real caution. That's a strange amount of knowledge to walk away with from what looks, at first glance, like just another oddly satisfying clip. But that's usually how it goes with the genuinely wild stuff nature does — it looks small on the surface, and then you pull one thread and end up somewhere you didn't expect. Go watch it again with all of that in your head this time. Watch the exact frame where the bar breaks through. Watch what the water does the instant it has somewhere to go. Watch the reaction on the person holding the saw — that's not performance, that's genuine surprise from someone who has almost certainly done this exact job a thousand times before and never seen a tree do this. Some trees really are just wood, top to bottom, nothing hiding inside. And then there are the ones that have been quietly running their own private reservoir for twenty or thirty years, sealed under ordinary-looking bark, waiting for exactly one cut to finally let it out. You just watched what that looks like the moment it happens.

Earth Unveiled

122,209 görüntüleme • 15 gün önce

CANCEL Your Weekend Plans, & Learn Claude Code Today. This Claude Code teaches more about vibe-coding in 30 mins than most tutorials do in hours. Save this, it'll change how you build forever People are building entire apps and charging clients $5,000 to $20,000 using Claude Code. This Claude Code video is a goldmine. Full Claude Code tutorial. Beginner to pro. Every feature. Every setup step. Every best practice. Zero prior knowledge needed. Save it. Watch it tonight. Not tomorrow. Tonight. Follow Himanshu Kumar so you don't miss the breakdowns for each feature. This is your complete Claude Code roadmap. Lose it and you lose the next 12 months of income. ↓ 1. Understand What Claude Code Actually Is. You think Claude Code is just another chatbot. It's not. And that misunderstanding is why you're broke. ChatGPT gives you text. Claude Code gives you software. It runs in your terminal. It reads your entire codebase. It writes files directly to your project. It runs commands on your machine. It debugs errors autonomously. It builds features end to end. You're not chatting. You're deploying a developer. One that works 24/7. Never asks for a raise. Never calls in sick. Never pushes broken code at 5 PM on a Friday. People are charging clients $5,000-$10,000 for apps they built with Claude Code in 3 hours. And you didn't even know this tool existed because you're still asking ChatGPT to write you a to-do list. The gap between you and people making money with AI isn't intelligence. It's awareness. Now you're aware. Save this post. Follow Himanshu Kumar for the complete breakdown of every Claude Code feature. ↓ 2. Set Up Claude Code Properly. Most people quit here. "It's too complicated." "I don't know terminal." "I'll set it up later." Later never comes. And "complicated" means "I watched for 30 seconds and gave up." The setup takes 10 minutes. Install Node.js. Install Claude Code via npm. Authenticate your account. Open your terminal. Done. 10 minutes. You spent longer this morning deciding what to have for breakfast. The video walks through every single click. Every command. Every screen. Assuming you know absolutely nothing. If you can download an app on your phone, you can set up Claude Code. It's the same level of difficulty. But you'll still tell yourself it's "too technical" because that excuse is more comfortable than admitting you're just scared to try something new. This is the setup that everything else builds on. Skip it and nothing works. ↓ 3. Use the Desktop App. You don't even need to live in the terminal if you don't want to. Claude Code has a desktop app. Clean interface. Visual feedback. Everything you need without touching command line. But here's the thing most people don't know: The desktop app isn't just a pretty wrapper. It lets you manage projects visually. See file changes in real time. Switch between projects instantly. The people making money with Claude Code use the desktop app for client projects because it's faster to manage multiple builds simultaneously. You're still opening 14 browser tabs to organize one project. They open one app and everything's there. Efficiency isn't a personality trait. It's a tool choice. Save this post. Follow Himanshu Kumar for the desktop app workflow that handles 5 client projects at once. ↓ 4. Install the Right Dependencies. This is where beginners silently fail and blame the tool. Claude Code needs certain dependencies installed to work properly. Miss one and everything breaks. Then you go on Twitter and say "Claude Code doesn't work." It works fine. You just didn't read the setup guide. The video covers every dependency you need. What to install. How to install it. How to verify it's working. No guessing. No Stack Overflow rabbit holes at midnight. No "why isn't this working" for 3 hours. Watch the dependency section once. Follow every step. Never deal with setup issues again. You spent more time last week troubleshooting a printer than this takes. ↓ 5. Work Inside Your Code Editor. Claude Code integrates directly with your code editor. VS Code. Cursor. Whatever you use. It's not a separate window you alt-tab between. It's right there. In your workflow. You type a request. Claude writes the code. The code appears in your editor. You review it. Accept it. Done. No copy pasting between windows. No reformatting code that got mangled in transit. No "which version was the right one." It's like pair programming with someone who never gets distracted, never argues about naming conventions, and actually writes code that works on the first try. Your current coding process is: Google the problem, read 5 answers on Stack Overflow, copy the wrong one, debug for an hour, find the right one, paste it in, break something else, repeat. Claude Code's process is: describe what you want, get working code, move on with your life. Same hour. One method produces working software. The other produces frustration and a browser history full of Stack Overflow tabs. Stop coding the hard way. Save this post. Follow Himanshu Kumar for code editor setup guides and integration tips. ↓ 6. Master Basic Usage. Most people learn 5% of a tool and say they "know" it. You "know" Photoshop because you can crop an image. You "know" Excel because you can sum a column. You "know" Claude Code because you asked it one question. Basic usage means: How to give Claude Code context about your project. How to ask for changes to existing code. How to generate new files and features. How to review what Claude produces. How to iterate when the output isn't perfect. These basics are the foundation of everything. Skip them and every advanced feature feels confusing. Master them and every advanced feature feels obvious. The video breaks down each one with real examples. Not theory. Actual usage on actual projects. You've been using AI tools at 5% capacity and wondering why your results are 5% of what others get. Save this post. Follow Himanshu Kumar for daily Claude Code usage tips. ↓ 7. Learn Every Command. Claude Code has commands that most users never discover. Because most users type one message and expect magic. That's not how professionals use it. Professionals use specific commands that tell Claude Code exactly what to do, how to do it, and what constraints to follow. The difference between a beginner and someone making $10K/month with Claude Code is knowing which command to use and when. The video walks through every single one. Not just what they do. But when to use each one. And why one command is better than another for specific situations. You've been using Claude Code like a hammer. These commands turn it into a full toolbox. Stop treating a power tool like a blunt instrument. Save this post. Follow Himanshu Kumar for the command cheat sheet I use daily. ↓ 8. Understand Modes and Shortcuts. Speed matters. The person who builds an app in 2 hours charges $5,000. The person who builds the same app in 2 days charges $2,000. Same app. Same quality. Different speed. Different income. Claude Code has modes that change how it operates. And shortcuts that cut your workflow time in half. Most people don't know either exists. They use Claude Code in default mode for everything. Like driving a car in first gear on the highway. Technically it works. But everyone is passing you. The video shows you every mode. Every shortcut. Every time-saving trick that separates the people charging $2,000 per project from the people charging $10,000. Speed is money. Literally. Save this post. Follow Himanshu Kumar for the shortcuts that cut my build time by 60%. ↓ 9. Write a Proper Planning Prompt. This is the section that separates amateurs from professionals. And it's the section most people skip. A planning prompt tells Claude Code what you're building before you start building it. Architecture. File structure. Technologies. Features. Constraints. Edge cases. Without a planning prompt, Claude Code guesses. And guessing produces garbage. With a planning prompt, Claude Code executes a clear plan. And clear plans produce working software. The video shows you exactly how to write a planning prompt that makes Claude Code produce professional-grade output on the first try. "But I just want to start coding." That's why your code breaks every time. That's why you restart projects 4 times. That's why nothing you build ever gets finished. Because you refuse to plan. A 5-minute planning prompt saves you 5 hours of debugging. But you'd rather skip the 5 minutes and suffer through the 5 hours because patience isn't your thing. And that's exactly why you're not making money. Planning is the most underpaid skill in coding. And the most overpaid when you master it. Save this post. Follow Himanshu Kumar for the planning prompt templates I use for every client project. ↓ 10. Choose the Right Model. Claude Code lets you select different AI models. Not all models are the same. Not all tasks need the same model. Using the most powerful model for a simple task wastes credits. Using a basic model for a complex task wastes time. The video explains: Which model to use for quick fixes. Which model to use for complex architecture. Which model to use for debugging. Which model to use for code generation. Most people pick one model and use it for everything. That's like using a sledgehammer to hang a picture frame. Model selection is strategy. And strategy is money. The people making $10K/month with Claude Code are strategic about every credit they spend. You're burning through credits because you use the most expensive model to write a hello world. ↓ 11. Use Git and Version Control. If you're not using version control, you're one mistake away from losing everything. Claude Code integrates with Git. Every change tracked. Every version saved. Every mistake reversible. Without Git: Claude makes a change. It breaks something. You can't undo it. You start over. 3 hours wasted. With Git: Claude makes a change. It breaks something. You roll back in 5 seconds. Keep working. Version control isn't optional. It's insurance. And the people not using it are the same people who say "I lost my entire project" like it's something that just happens. It doesn't just happen. It happens because you didn't set up Git. The video walks through the entire Git integration. Save this post. Follow Himanshu Kumar for the Git workflow that's saved every project I've ever built. ↓ 12. Set Up Claude MD and Memory. This is the feature that makes Claude Code feel like a real team member instead of a stranger you explain everything to every time. ClaudeMD is a memory file. You tell Claude Code about your project once. It remembers forever. Coding style preferences. Project architecture decisions. Technology stack. File naming conventions. Business logic rules. Without ClaudeMD: Every new conversation starts from zero. You explain the same things repeatedly. Output is inconsistent. With ClaudeMD: Claude knows your project. Claude follows your rules. Claude produces consistent, professional code. The difference between a sloppy freelancer and a reliable agency is consistency. Claude. MD gives you consistency without the agency overhead. Most people don't set this up and wonder why Claude Code gives different answers every time. ↓ 13. Automate with Tasks. This is where Claude Code stops being a tool and starts being an employee. Tasks let you define repeating workflows. "Every time I push code, run tests." "Every time I create a new file, add boilerplate." "Every time I start a session, check for errors." Automated. Hands-free. Consistent. You're doing these things manually every single day. The same checks. The same steps. The same routine. Tasks do them automatically. So you can focus on the work that actually makes money. Every manual task you automate is time you get back. And time is the only thing you can never make more of. Save this post. Follow Himanshu Kumar for the task automation templates that run my entire workflow. ↓ 14. Explore Features Most People Never Touch. The video covers features that 95% of Claude Code users don't know exist. Because they watched a 3-minute TikTok about Claude Code and think they're experts now. They're not. They're using 5% of a tool that can do everything. The full tutorial goes deep into features that most tutorials skip because they're "too advanced." They're not too advanced. They're too valuable for lazy creators to bother explaining. This video explains all of them. Clearly. For beginners. The 5% of features you don't know about are the 5% that make people rich. ↓ Let's zoom out. I just broke down 14 sections of Claude Code. Setup and installation. Desktop app. Dependencies. Code editor integration. Basic usage. Commands. Modes and shortcuts. Planning prompts. Model selection. Git and version control. Memory and Claude. MD. Tasks and automation. Advanced features. All in one video. All free. All beginner friendly. The person who masters even half of these in the next 2 weeks will be in the top 1% of Claude Code users. The top 1% of Claude Code users are the ones charging $5,000-$10,000 per project and building them in a single afternoon. Everyone else is asking ChatGPT to fix their resume. Same tools. Same access. Completely different outcomes. Because one person treats AI like a toy. And the other treats it like a business. ↓ Here's the hard truth nobody wants to hear. You don't have a talent problem. You don't have an intelligence problem. You don't have a resources problem. You have an action problem. Everything I just listed has a free tutorial right here in the attached video. 33 minutes. That's it. 33 minutes to learn the tool that people are using to build $5,000-$20,000/month businesses. You spent more time today scrolling Twitter than it takes to watch this video. You spent more time this week watching Netflix than it takes to master Claude Code basics. You spent more time this month doing nothing than it would take to completely change your income. The information is free. The tool is accessible. The opportunity is here. The only thing missing is you caring enough to start. ↓ CANCEL your plans this week. This isn't optional anymore. The people learning Claude Code right now will be building apps for the people who didn't learn it. That's not a prediction. That's already happening. Companies are replacing $150/hour developers with one person and Claude Code. If you code: learn Claude Code or become half as valuable by next year. If you don't code: learn Claude Code or miss the biggest opportunity to start earning from tech without a CS degree. There's no path forward that doesn't include AI coding tools. None. You have one window. Right now. This week. ↓ Here's your action plan for the next 7 days: Day 1: Watch the full video. Install Claude Code. Set up dependencies. Day 2: Learn basic usage. Try 5 different commands. Day 3: Write your first planning prompt. Build a small project. Day 4: Set up Claude. MD. Configure your memory file. Day 5: Master modes and shortcuts. Build a second project faster. Day 6: Set up Git integration. Automate with tasks. Day 7: Build something real. A tool, an app, a website. Ship it. 7 days. One tool. One completely different skill set. One completely different income potential. Or 7 more days of scrolling Twitter watching other people build things while you "plan to start." Your call. ↓ This is the most important video you'll watch this year. 33 minutes. Complete Claude Code mastery. From zero to building real projects. Save this post. Come back to it every single day this week. Check off each section as you complete it. Follow Himanshu Kumarfor daily Claude Code breakdowns, advanced tutorials, and the exact workflows that are turning beginners into $10K/month builders. The only thing between you and $10K/month with Claude Code is this video and 7 days. Don't waste them. You Must Follow me Himanshu Kumar, so i can send you DM.

CANCEL Your Weekend Plans, & Learn Claude Code Today. This Claude Code teaches more about vibe-coding in 30 mins than most tutorials do in hours. Save this, it'll change how you build forever People are building entire apps and charging clients $5,000 to $20,000 using Claude Code. This Claude Code video is a goldmine. Full Claude Code tutorial. Beginner to pro. Every feature. Every setup step. Every best practice. Zero prior knowledge needed. Save it. Watch it tonight. Not tomorrow. Tonight. Follow Himanshu Kumar so you don't miss the breakdowns for each feature. This is your complete Claude Code roadmap. Lose it and you lose the next 12 months of income. ↓ 1. Understand What Claude Code Actually Is. You think Claude Code is just another chatbot. It's not. And that misunderstanding is why you're broke. ChatGPT gives you text. Claude Code gives you software. It runs in your terminal. It reads your entire codebase. It writes files directly to your project. It runs commands on your machine. It debugs errors autonomously. It builds features end to end. You're not chatting. You're deploying a developer. One that works 24/7. Never asks for a raise. Never calls in sick. Never pushes broken code at 5 PM on a Friday. People are charging clients $5,000-$10,000 for apps they built with Claude Code in 3 hours. And you didn't even know this tool existed because you're still asking ChatGPT to write you a to-do list. The gap between you and people making money with AI isn't intelligence. It's awareness. Now you're aware. Save this post. Follow Himanshu Kumar for the complete breakdown of every Claude Code feature. ↓ 2. Set Up Claude Code Properly. Most people quit here. "It's too complicated." "I don't know terminal." "I'll set it up later." Later never comes. And "complicated" means "I watched for 30 seconds and gave up." The setup takes 10 minutes. Install Node.js. Install Claude Code via npm. Authenticate your account. Open your terminal. Done. 10 minutes. You spent longer this morning deciding what to have for breakfast. The video walks through every single click. Every command. Every screen. Assuming you know absolutely nothing. If you can download an app on your phone, you can set up Claude Code. It's the same level of difficulty. But you'll still tell yourself it's "too technical" because that excuse is more comfortable than admitting you're just scared to try something new. This is the setup that everything else builds on. Skip it and nothing works. ↓ 3. Use the Desktop App. You don't even need to live in the terminal if you don't want to. Claude Code has a desktop app. Clean interface. Visual feedback. Everything you need without touching command line. But here's the thing most people don't know: The desktop app isn't just a pretty wrapper. It lets you manage projects visually. See file changes in real time. Switch between projects instantly. The people making money with Claude Code use the desktop app for client projects because it's faster to manage multiple builds simultaneously. You're still opening 14 browser tabs to organize one project. They open one app and everything's there. Efficiency isn't a personality trait. It's a tool choice. Save this post. Follow Himanshu Kumar for the desktop app workflow that handles 5 client projects at once. ↓ 4. Install the Right Dependencies. This is where beginners silently fail and blame the tool. Claude Code needs certain dependencies installed to work properly. Miss one and everything breaks. Then you go on Twitter and say "Claude Code doesn't work." It works fine. You just didn't read the setup guide. The video covers every dependency you need. What to install. How to install it. How to verify it's working. No guessing. No Stack Overflow rabbit holes at midnight. No "why isn't this working" for 3 hours. Watch the dependency section once. Follow every step. Never deal with setup issues again. You spent more time last week troubleshooting a printer than this takes. ↓ 5. Work Inside Your Code Editor. Claude Code integrates directly with your code editor. VS Code. Cursor. Whatever you use. It's not a separate window you alt-tab between. It's right there. In your workflow. You type a request. Claude writes the code. The code appears in your editor. You review it. Accept it. Done. No copy pasting between windows. No reformatting code that got mangled in transit. No "which version was the right one." It's like pair programming with someone who never gets distracted, never argues about naming conventions, and actually writes code that works on the first try. Your current coding process is: Google the problem, read 5 answers on Stack Overflow, copy the wrong one, debug for an hour, find the right one, paste it in, break something else, repeat. Claude Code's process is: describe what you want, get working code, move on with your life. Same hour. One method produces working software. The other produces frustration and a browser history full of Stack Overflow tabs. Stop coding the hard way. Save this post. Follow Himanshu Kumar for code editor setup guides and integration tips. ↓ 6. Master Basic Usage. Most people learn 5% of a tool and say they "know" it. You "know" Photoshop because you can crop an image. You "know" Excel because you can sum a column. You "know" Claude Code because you asked it one question. Basic usage means: How to give Claude Code context about your project. How to ask for changes to existing code. How to generate new files and features. How to review what Claude produces. How to iterate when the output isn't perfect. These basics are the foundation of everything. Skip them and every advanced feature feels confusing. Master them and every advanced feature feels obvious. The video breaks down each one with real examples. Not theory. Actual usage on actual projects. You've been using AI tools at 5% capacity and wondering why your results are 5% of what others get. Save this post. Follow Himanshu Kumar for daily Claude Code usage tips. ↓ 7. Learn Every Command. Claude Code has commands that most users never discover. Because most users type one message and expect magic. That's not how professionals use it. Professionals use specific commands that tell Claude Code exactly what to do, how to do it, and what constraints to follow. The difference between a beginner and someone making $10K/month with Claude Code is knowing which command to use and when. The video walks through every single one. Not just what they do. But when to use each one. And why one command is better than another for specific situations. You've been using Claude Code like a hammer. These commands turn it into a full toolbox. Stop treating a power tool like a blunt instrument. Save this post. Follow Himanshu Kumar for the command cheat sheet I use daily. ↓ 8. Understand Modes and Shortcuts. Speed matters. The person who builds an app in 2 hours charges $5,000. The person who builds the same app in 2 days charges $2,000. Same app. Same quality. Different speed. Different income. Claude Code has modes that change how it operates. And shortcuts that cut your workflow time in half. Most people don't know either exists. They use Claude Code in default mode for everything. Like driving a car in first gear on the highway. Technically it works. But everyone is passing you. The video shows you every mode. Every shortcut. Every time-saving trick that separates the people charging $2,000 per project from the people charging $10,000. Speed is money. Literally. Save this post. Follow Himanshu Kumar for the shortcuts that cut my build time by 60%. ↓ 9. Write a Proper Planning Prompt. This is the section that separates amateurs from professionals. And it's the section most people skip. A planning prompt tells Claude Code what you're building before you start building it. Architecture. File structure. Technologies. Features. Constraints. Edge cases. Without a planning prompt, Claude Code guesses. And guessing produces garbage. With a planning prompt, Claude Code executes a clear plan. And clear plans produce working software. The video shows you exactly how to write a planning prompt that makes Claude Code produce professional-grade output on the first try. "But I just want to start coding." That's why your code breaks every time. That's why you restart projects 4 times. That's why nothing you build ever gets finished. Because you refuse to plan. A 5-minute planning prompt saves you 5 hours of debugging. But you'd rather skip the 5 minutes and suffer through the 5 hours because patience isn't your thing. And that's exactly why you're not making money. Planning is the most underpaid skill in coding. And the most overpaid when you master it. Save this post. Follow Himanshu Kumar for the planning prompt templates I use for every client project. ↓ 10. Choose the Right Model. Claude Code lets you select different AI models. Not all models are the same. Not all tasks need the same model. Using the most powerful model for a simple task wastes credits. Using a basic model for a complex task wastes time. The video explains: Which model to use for quick fixes. Which model to use for complex architecture. Which model to use for debugging. Which model to use for code generation. Most people pick one model and use it for everything. That's like using a sledgehammer to hang a picture frame. Model selection is strategy. And strategy is money. The people making $10K/month with Claude Code are strategic about every credit they spend. You're burning through credits because you use the most expensive model to write a hello world. ↓ 11. Use Git and Version Control. If you're not using version control, you're one mistake away from losing everything. Claude Code integrates with Git. Every change tracked. Every version saved. Every mistake reversible. Without Git: Claude makes a change. It breaks something. You can't undo it. You start over. 3 hours wasted. With Git: Claude makes a change. It breaks something. You roll back in 5 seconds. Keep working. Version control isn't optional. It's insurance. And the people not using it are the same people who say "I lost my entire project" like it's something that just happens. It doesn't just happen. It happens because you didn't set up Git. The video walks through the entire Git integration. Save this post. Follow Himanshu Kumar for the Git workflow that's saved every project I've ever built. ↓ 12. Set Up Claude MD and Memory. This is the feature that makes Claude Code feel like a real team member instead of a stranger you explain everything to every time. ClaudeMD is a memory file. You tell Claude Code about your project once. It remembers forever. Coding style preferences. Project architecture decisions. Technology stack. File naming conventions. Business logic rules. Without ClaudeMD: Every new conversation starts from zero. You explain the same things repeatedly. Output is inconsistent. With ClaudeMD: Claude knows your project. Claude follows your rules. Claude produces consistent, professional code. The difference between a sloppy freelancer and a reliable agency is consistency. Claude. MD gives you consistency without the agency overhead. Most people don't set this up and wonder why Claude Code gives different answers every time. ↓ 13. Automate with Tasks. This is where Claude Code stops being a tool and starts being an employee. Tasks let you define repeating workflows. "Every time I push code, run tests." "Every time I create a new file, add boilerplate." "Every time I start a session, check for errors." Automated. Hands-free. Consistent. You're doing these things manually every single day. The same checks. The same steps. The same routine. Tasks do them automatically. So you can focus on the work that actually makes money. Every manual task you automate is time you get back. And time is the only thing you can never make more of. Save this post. Follow Himanshu Kumar for the task automation templates that run my entire workflow. ↓ 14. Explore Features Most People Never Touch. The video covers features that 95% of Claude Code users don't know exist. Because they watched a 3-minute TikTok about Claude Code and think they're experts now. They're not. They're using 5% of a tool that can do everything. The full tutorial goes deep into features that most tutorials skip because they're "too advanced." They're not too advanced. They're too valuable for lazy creators to bother explaining. This video explains all of them. Clearly. For beginners. The 5% of features you don't know about are the 5% that make people rich. ↓ Let's zoom out. I just broke down 14 sections of Claude Code. Setup and installation. Desktop app. Dependencies. Code editor integration. Basic usage. Commands. Modes and shortcuts. Planning prompts. Model selection. Git and version control. Memory and Claude. MD. Tasks and automation. Advanced features. All in one video. All free. All beginner friendly. The person who masters even half of these in the next 2 weeks will be in the top 1% of Claude Code users. The top 1% of Claude Code users are the ones charging $5,000-$10,000 per project and building them in a single afternoon. Everyone else is asking ChatGPT to fix their resume. Same tools. Same access. Completely different outcomes. Because one person treats AI like a toy. And the other treats it like a business. ↓ Here's the hard truth nobody wants to hear. You don't have a talent problem. You don't have an intelligence problem. You don't have a resources problem. You have an action problem. Everything I just listed has a free tutorial right here in the attached video. 33 minutes. That's it. 33 minutes to learn the tool that people are using to build $5,000-$20,000/month businesses. You spent more time today scrolling Twitter than it takes to watch this video. You spent more time this week watching Netflix than it takes to master Claude Code basics. You spent more time this month doing nothing than it would take to completely change your income. The information is free. The tool is accessible. The opportunity is here. The only thing missing is you caring enough to start. ↓ CANCEL your plans this week. This isn't optional anymore. The people learning Claude Code right now will be building apps for the people who didn't learn it. That's not a prediction. That's already happening. Companies are replacing $150/hour developers with one person and Claude Code. If you code: learn Claude Code or become half as valuable by next year. If you don't code: learn Claude Code or miss the biggest opportunity to start earning from tech without a CS degree. There's no path forward that doesn't include AI coding tools. None. You have one window. Right now. This week. ↓ Here's your action plan for the next 7 days: Day 1: Watch the full video. Install Claude Code. Set up dependencies. Day 2: Learn basic usage. Try 5 different commands. Day 3: Write your first planning prompt. Build a small project. Day 4: Set up Claude. MD. Configure your memory file. Day 5: Master modes and shortcuts. Build a second project faster. Day 6: Set up Git integration. Automate with tasks. Day 7: Build something real. A tool, an app, a website. Ship it. 7 days. One tool. One completely different skill set. One completely different income potential. Or 7 more days of scrolling Twitter watching other people build things while you "plan to start." Your call. ↓ This is the most important video you'll watch this year. 33 minutes. Complete Claude Code mastery. From zero to building real projects. Save this post. Come back to it every single day this week. Check off each section as you complete it. Follow Himanshu Kumarfor daily Claude Code breakdowns, advanced tutorials, and the exact workflows that are turning beginners into $10K/month builders. The only thing between you and $10K/month with Claude Code is this video and 7 days. Don't waste them. You Must Follow me Himanshu Kumar, so i can send you DM.

Himanshu Kumar

85,668 görüntüleme • 5 ay önce

Zack Polanski on BBC Radio 4's Today prog calmly knocking back everything Nick Robinson throws at him across 17 minutes NR (00:00.2), "Delighted to say that Zach Polanski is here in the Today programme studio, for the latest, indeed, for the last of our party leader interviews. Morning to you and thanks for coming in." ZP (00:09.2), "Thanks for having me." NR (00:09.8), "Nick, I want to talk to you about what your party would do if it does indeed gain some power after the votes on Thursday. But I want to begin by putting to you one of the latest storeys about you. A Times investigation says that you've made a series of false or disputed claims about jobs you've had in the past with." NR (00:31.8), "Why, for example, did you say you were a spokesperson for the British Red Cross when they are absolutely clear that, though a supporter of theirs, you were never a spokesperson for them?" ZP (00:42.3), "So I hosted, various fundraisers for the British Red Cross and indeed I would go on stage and speak for them about the amazing work they do tackling humanitarian crises, on the climate crisis and indeed for refugees all around the world. I use the wrong word and I accept that." ZP (00:57.5), "But I would essentially take words on stage with me and speak. It's important, though, and I accept this, that, you know, I don't support any political party and I've made sure that's been taken down." NR (01:06.5), "You say this sort of storey is a fuss about nothing, that you get your facts wrong because it comes up with other examples." ZP (01:11.7), "Well, I think it's totally fine to ask me questions about my past. I would also say in the same breath, though the Times published a pretty anti Semitic cartoon of me last week. I asked them to apologise. And it feels some of these storeys feel like scraping the barrel to kind of go back 10, 15 years. I've had so many friends, I'm literally talking maybe 20 or 30 in the last few weeks who have phoned me and said, a Times journalist has been phoning and they've been desperately trying, trying to find things about your past." ZP (01:36.5), "They asked me lots of questions and seemed disappointed that I didn't have some juicy, dirty gossip." NR (01:41.6), "Yeah, well, there was. Whether you call it juicy or dirty, and it wasn't gossip, it was a fact. The fact that you claimed that as a hypnotherapist, you could enlarge women's breasts using the power of thought. People are entitled to say, what's this guy really about?" ZP (01:57.2), "People are totally entitled to say that. And that's an important part of politics, that people ask you questions. What I would say is that, you know, this was 13 years ago. It was a Sun journalist's idea. I've apologised for that. Because even though it was a son journalist idea, I was an adult and I should have said no, you went along with it." NR (02:12.6), "Yeah." ZP (02:12.9), "It's important to say I wasn't a politician. And I've apologised for it repeatedly." NR (02:16.7), "And the BBC showed that some days later, in fact, you repeated the claim that you could do it. But let us not get bogged down in the past. It is striking, though, that on X last night, when, let's be honest, people who are critics of you are having a go. The Daily Mail calls it the Green Menace on its front page." NR (02:34.1), "How did you react? You said you were under relentless attacks because they, your critics don't want a wealth tax, don't want public ownership. They're trying everything in their power to stop us, you said. It's a curious thing to say, isn't it? Ahead of local elections, Green councillors will not have the power to implement any of those policies, will they?" ZP (02:54.8), "Well, I think the relentless attacks on the Green Party in this election, for a local election have partly been about the local election, but really they're about the bigger picture right now. The bigger picture is when I ran to be leader of the Green party, we had 50,000 members, we've now got 225,000 members. So we are rising." ZP (03:11.1), "And I think lots of people are worried about the prospect. And when I say people, people who own, right wing media, multimillionaires and billionaires who are worried about the prospect that they might have to pay a little bit more tax. And so I think it's important that I focus on the vision and the hope and our actual plan." ZP (03:27.4), "I also think it's a complete reality, though we've seen it in the past before with left wing leaders, that there's no secret, there's no love lost between me and the right wing media. And almost every single day they print things that just aren't true." NR (03:38.8), "But just address the point I raised. Wealth tax councils won't get to do that. Public ownership councils don't get to do that. Well, not entirely. We'll come to that in a second. You are running on a national platform of change that the people who are elected on Thursday, whether in the Welsh Parliament, you don't run candidates in the Scottish one, or in English, local councils simply cannot do." ZP (04:03.2), "Well, I think it's about what are your values as a party? And whilst other party leaders and other parties take donations from oil and gas companies or arms trade companies, private healthcare or gambling, Green Party councillors only have two vested interests and Those vested interests. We want to protect the communities we seek to serve and we want to protect the environment." NR (04:21.6), "Well, let's come to that, then, because most interesting, perhaps, is to look at what Greens say who are running for office. You are not. You are a member of the London assembly, you're not a Member of Parliament, you're not running in these elections. Now, you live in Hackney. Hackney happens in northeast London to be a top Green target for taking control from the Labour Party." NR (04:41.9), "So let's look at protecting communities. For example, on crime, the manifesto calls the Metropolitan Police institutionally racist, homophobic, sexist and misogynists. It goes on to say, greens cannot accept this system. It calls for safe spaces for, heroin users to shoot up, to end cautions for street prostitution and to end what the manifesto calls discriminatory policing of delivery riders." NR (05:08.8), "This is an agenda for an endless fight with the police, isn't it?" ZP (05:12.0), "I don't think so. Baroness Casey, in the last couple of years, did a review into Metropolitan Police and it was actually the findings that found it institutionally racist and misogynistic. Something that Sadiq Khan, the Mayor of London, to his credit, accepts. It is noticeable that Mark Rowley, the Commissioner of the Police, doesn't accept that, yet they continue, to work together in that way." ZP (05:31.1), "On the issue of drug harm, we have the highest drug deaths, of any country in Europe. And every single year for the past 13 years, drug deaths have increased. So I think the question anyone has, and we have in Hackney, is that the war on drugs has clearly failed. It's failed in cities right across this country, and more and more people are, often taking dangerous drugs." ZP (05:50.3), "So do we want people to buy them on the black market or on street corners? Or do we want people to go to a pharmacy or a medical health professional where, if they have an addiction to dangerous drugs, we can work with them to take a public health approach based in harm reduction." NR (06:02.7), "Public health approaches to. Is to legalise hard drugs and to legalise prostitution, you say to legalise and regulate and the regulators. It's still legalised, isn't it?" ZP (06:11.5), "No, the point is you can't just go into a shop and buy drugs, which is how it's presented in the press. Again, because I can keep talking about what councillors can do, rather than what" NR (06:18.3), "you would do if you were Prime Minister, because that's for another interview. Are you saying councillors should cut the police budget? Because that's what it seems to imply when you say, we cannot accept this system, let the council spend Money on crime reduction. Don't give that money to the police." ZP (06:33.7), "It's about reprioritizing. So it's." NR (06:35.5), "Does that mean cut in English?" ZP (06:36.7), "No. So let's look at example. We're straight back onto drugs. A lot of police time is spent on stop and search for cannabis use, for instance. It doesn't escape people's notice that that is often, in the politics of racism, if you're a young black person, I think it's something like you're 18 times more likely to be stopped and searched than your white peer, despite the fact there's no evidence that they're more likely to be dealing or using drugs." ZP (07:00.8), "And so I think it's important that we make sure the police time is spent properly, which I think is about community prevention, about cohesiveness and bringing communities together, particularly in, like, whether it means redirecting the budget." NR (07:11.4), "Does it mean the police budget?" ZP (07:12.9), "Well, it means redirecting within the police budget, so making sure that the time police are spent is spent on community safety." NR (07:18.2), "Well, it's interesting that we talked about police because, as you know, you've come under serious criticism for retweeting criticism of the action of the police officers who stopped the alleged attacker of Jews in Golda's Green. Now, you apologised for retweeting that." NR (07:34.1), "You said you should have a meeting with the head of the Met. You sent him a letter. I want to ask you a different question. You've not apologised for the content of that. Why did you empathise with the attacker, and not with police officers who feared for their own lives and were trying to protect other people's lives?" ZP (07:53.3), "I think there's two things in that that I, really clearly want to say. The first is my very first response to the attack was to be horrif, as everyone was, I'm sure. And the first thing I posted was solidarity to the victim, to the family and indeed, to people who are suffering right now, including as a Jewish man, where Jewish safety is not abstract." NR (08:12.0), "But then you posted that officers were repeatedly and violently kicking a mentally ill man in the head when he was incapacitated by a Taser, caused extreme offence to those officers, to the head of the Met and to many people. I ask you again, why did you empathise, Empathise with the attacker, not with the police officer." ZP (08:28.9), "As I said, there's two things I wanted to say, so that was the first. The second, what I want to say is two things can be true at the same Time officers are incredibly brave when they run towards scenes of crimes that most people, including myself, would want to run away from. At the same time, I think it is accurate, and that I was also traumatised, by seeing, someone handcuffed and completely, repeatedly kicked in the head." ZP (08:51.7), "Now, sure, if you'll forgive me, it is an answer," NR (08:54.4), "but it's not an answer to the question. You posted something with the power that you have, with the number of people who follows us, and not empathising in that post with the Jewish community or critically with the police officers, you empathise with the attacker. Look what they're doing to the alleged attacker." ZP (09:11.1), "I don't think it was your choice. As I say, the first thing I did was show solidarity to the victims and I thank the officers. Second, though, I think the sign of a compassionate society is how we treat people, even people who have done horrific things, because actually, the way we do justice in this country is in court." NR (09:26.0), "You said a key value of the Greens was protecting communities. What are your proposals for protecting the Jewish community?" ZP (09:33.5), "The Jewish community is not safe right now. And as I said, as a Jewish man, this isn't abstract for me. In fact, in the last six weeks alone, two people have been arrested. So how would you protect anti Semitic attacks towards me? I think there's lots that needs to happen in this country. The first is community cohesion and community building. Some of the work that I'm proudest of in London, that I see Londoners do, is where I see the Jewish community working alongside the Muslim community." NR (09:55.1), "What would you do? What would Zach Polanski do in order to reduce attacks on the Jewish community?" ZP (09:59.9), "So, first of all, to invest in that work, that community, faith work, to make sure communities stand together. Second, to make sure that the Jewish community, give them the investment that they need. In fact, what the Prime Minister has been doing to make sure that happens. I do think a police response is the last response when everything before it has failed." NR (10:17.6), "I still think you're not really answering the question about what you would do. Let me ask you this." ZP (10:21.0), "I think I do." NR (10:21.6), "Would you deal with, for example, a candidate who says Jewish people fear hate because they know they should be hated. Another one who suggested that the attacks on the ambulances was a false flag and carried out, presumably by Israel. Another of your candidates who blamed Israel for the Bondi beach terrorist attack." NR (10:41.0), "A fourth candidate who said Donald Trump was, quote, owned by Jews. And most horrifying of all, although this individual has now been arrested, one of your candidates who Reposted something saying ramming a synagogue isn't anti Semitism, it's revenge." NR (10:56.8), "What are you, Zach Polanski doing to end these disgusting messages?" ZP (11:03.5), "Those messages are all unacceptable and it's important to condemn that. The Green Party are an anti racist party and it's important that we stick to our values." NR (11:11.0), "We can't just say the words were an anti racist bar to. And I've just read you out five of the most revolting comments at a time when, according to an independent advisor, we face a national emergency of anti Semitism. I'm asking you, you're not responsible for everything they say. Of course you're not." NR (11:26.3), "You can't be." ZP (11:27.3), "I am responsible, actually." NR (11:28.2), "What are you going to do about it?" ZP (11:29.0), "I am the leader of a party. I was about to finish my sentence." NR (11:31.5), "Forgive me. Go on." ZP (11:32.4), "We're an anti racist party. And so what I've already committed to doing is making sure that we have a standardised vetting process in future. And also make sure that we have compulsory training of all our candidates to make it clear that anti Semitism is completely unwelcome in the Green Party as it is in society. It is also important to say one case of anti Semitism is one too many." ZP (11:50.5), "This is a handful of cases and actually we have over 4,500 candidates, the vast, vast majority of which are doing amazing work in their communities right now, going out there to tackle the cost of living crisis, to make sure that we're funding public services and making sure that it's about people power and community, grassroots power." NR (12:05.1), "You can dismiss one or two as, just, unrepresentative. I've just read five. I could have read 20 cases of revolting anti Semitism posted by your candidates. Now you're a new leader, how are you going to avoid becoming the new Jeremy Corbyn of British politics?" ZP (12:21.5), "Well, I think me and Jeremy are very different people and there's much, you know, the question was almost inviting me to condemn Jeremy Corbyn. I think there was lots that Jeremy Corbyn was putting forward to this country that I think was really positive. We've talked about wealth taxes, about public ownership. I also think it's important, speaking, for myself right now, that we make sure that we have this vetting process, that it's really clear that anti Semitism, Islamophobia, any form of hatred or hate, crime is not welcome." NR (12:47.3), "Do you believe that Palestine is, to coin a phrase, on the ballot this Thursday?" ZP (12:52.3), "I think lots of things are on the ballot this Thursday." NR (12:54.6), "But is Palestine on the ballot? This." ZP (12:56.2), "I think it's one of the elements, as is the climate crisis. As is." NR (12:58.7), "What does it mean Palestine is on the ballot? Because. The reason I ask you is because your candidate for mayor of Lewisham says Palestine is on the ballot this Thursday. Haringey Green Party campaign launch video. You might think it'd be about bins, you might think it'd be about schools, hospitals, it might be about cleaning up the roads." NR (13:17.2), "It is a series of councillors saying, as a council, I will take all appropriate steps to, uphold the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people. Do you think council elections really should be about Palestine?" ZP (13:29.8), "I think they can be about all of those things. And I think what people have seen in this country is a genocide for two and a half years that our government is still arming, are still sharing intelligence with. And I think lots of people feel very strongly both about their local services, as they should do, and feel equally strongly about the fact that there's a reprehensible genocide happening." ZP (13:48.5), "And they vote, but the way they vote in local elections" NR (13:52.6), "should be determined by their views of Israel and Palestine." ZP (13:56.0), "I wouldn't tell anyone how their vote should be determined, but I think it's an element for lots of people in how they vote." NR (14:00.1), "And do you think that will contribute to community cohesion? Do you?" ZP (14:02.7), "I think yes, because I think, we shouldn't pit Jewish safety against a genocide in Gaza. That's conflating anti Semitism and criticism of the Israeli government. That's something Benjamin Netanyahu does regularly. And as a Jewish person, that makes me feel less safe." NR (14:16.4), "Sure. But there are lots of Jewish people who would say to you they feel unsafe if they feel that their counsellors are motivated first and foremost by Palestine. And if somebody gives that speech, for example, about Palestine being on the ballot, they are likely to think that." NR (14:34.6), "We looked for, example at Barnett Greens, where one in seven residents identify as Jewish. And it includes in its manifesto the fact that, you're standing up for Palestine. Do you think that's going to help?" ZP (14:49.0), "Well, I walk regularly on Palestinian marches with hundreds and hundreds, in fact, thousands of people, many of whom are Jewish. And there have been rabbis who have spoken out on this too. I accept, though, there are Jewish people whose views are equally as valid who, don't agree with those views." ZP (15:04.0), "And I think the job of all of us who are in public life right now is to de. Escalate tensions. And look, how do we bring people together? And I accept that's a huge challenge. And I think one of the ways we could do that is by ending our complicity in the genocide." NR (15:15.4), "Let's turn finally to another issue. We'll talk at greater length when, we're talking about the possibility of you being Prime Minister, which you have said that you would like to do. One thing that is very high on the agenda now is the soaring cost of government borrowing. What would the Greens do to cut it?" ZP (15:30.6), "Well, I think we need to make sure that we're investing. So I think there's two ways of doing that. The first is, wealth taxes, which I know we've rehearsed before, but I'll just say that's for first place." NR (15:38.4), "How does that cut government borrowing?" ZP (15:40.2), "Because ultimately it means you need to borrow less if you're." NR (15:43.0), "If you're ultimately about cutting the cost of government borrowing." ZP (15:45.5), "Yes." NR (15:45.8), "Which is soaring. It's higher than it's been any time this century because people are nervous about high spending, high taxing governments that are politically unstable." ZP (15:54.7), "I think someone who speaks brilliantly on this, who I've spoken to, is the economist Mariana Matsicatu, and she talks about the fact that a government should have a mission that should be a very clear plan of how you tackle the climate crisis, how you reduce inequality. Now, if you have a clear plan and you're borrowing for that, you're taking the market with you because they can clearly see what the return on investment is and how you're bringing money back into the." ZP (16:15.2), "That's how you reduce borrowing levels. If we don't have a plan and continue to borrow, then it feels very, very scattered, and that's why things are getting worse. We need to make sure that there's a consistent plan in place that's set out carefully that can make sure we're putting money back into our communities and investing in those communities." NR (16:29.3), "Do you think you're ready to be Prime Minister?" ZP (16:31.1), "I'm not ready right now, no. I've been leader for eight months, and there's lots of skills and lots of knowledge to get, and I think that's fine. I think I'm a human being. I'm not perfect." NR (16:38.5), "But give it two years, you will be." ZP (16:40.0), "Well, we'll see in two years time, won't we? But I'll certainly be putting in the work." NR (16:43.2), "Zach Polanski, leader of the Green Party in England and Wales, thanks very much for coming into the." ZP (16:46.3), "Thank you, Nick."

Zack Polanski on BBC Radio 4's Today prog calmly knocking back everything Nick Robinson throws at him across 17 minutes NR (00:00.2), "Delighted to say that Zach Polanski is here in the Today programme studio, for the latest, indeed, for the last of our party leader interviews. Morning to you and thanks for coming in." ZP (00:09.2), "Thanks for having me." NR (00:09.8), "Nick, I want to talk to you about what your party would do if it does indeed gain some power after the votes on Thursday. But I want to begin by putting to you one of the latest storeys about you. A Times investigation says that you've made a series of false or disputed claims about jobs you've had in the past with." NR (00:31.8), "Why, for example, did you say you were a spokesperson for the British Red Cross when they are absolutely clear that, though a supporter of theirs, you were never a spokesperson for them?" ZP (00:42.3), "So I hosted, various fundraisers for the British Red Cross and indeed I would go on stage and speak for them about the amazing work they do tackling humanitarian crises, on the climate crisis and indeed for refugees all around the world. I use the wrong word and I accept that." ZP (00:57.5), "But I would essentially take words on stage with me and speak. It's important, though, and I accept this, that, you know, I don't support any political party and I've made sure that's been taken down." NR (01:06.5), "You say this sort of storey is a fuss about nothing, that you get your facts wrong because it comes up with other examples." ZP (01:11.7), "Well, I think it's totally fine to ask me questions about my past. I would also say in the same breath, though the Times published a pretty anti Semitic cartoon of me last week. I asked them to apologise. And it feels some of these storeys feel like scraping the barrel to kind of go back 10, 15 years. I've had so many friends, I'm literally talking maybe 20 or 30 in the last few weeks who have phoned me and said, a Times journalist has been phoning and they've been desperately trying, trying to find things about your past." ZP (01:36.5), "They asked me lots of questions and seemed disappointed that I didn't have some juicy, dirty gossip." NR (01:41.6), "Yeah, well, there was. Whether you call it juicy or dirty, and it wasn't gossip, it was a fact. The fact that you claimed that as a hypnotherapist, you could enlarge women's breasts using the power of thought. People are entitled to say, what's this guy really about?" ZP (01:57.2), "People are totally entitled to say that. And that's an important part of politics, that people ask you questions. What I would say is that, you know, this was 13 years ago. It was a Sun journalist's idea. I've apologised for that. Because even though it was a son journalist idea, I was an adult and I should have said no, you went along with it." NR (02:12.6), "Yeah." ZP (02:12.9), "It's important to say I wasn't a politician. And I've apologised for it repeatedly." NR (02:16.7), "And the BBC showed that some days later, in fact, you repeated the claim that you could do it. But let us not get bogged down in the past. It is striking, though, that on X last night, when, let's be honest, people who are critics of you are having a go. The Daily Mail calls it the Green Menace on its front page." NR (02:34.1), "How did you react? You said you were under relentless attacks because they, your critics don't want a wealth tax, don't want public ownership. They're trying everything in their power to stop us, you said. It's a curious thing to say, isn't it? Ahead of local elections, Green councillors will not have the power to implement any of those policies, will they?" ZP (02:54.8), "Well, I think the relentless attacks on the Green Party in this election, for a local election have partly been about the local election, but really they're about the bigger picture right now. The bigger picture is when I ran to be leader of the Green party, we had 50,000 members, we've now got 225,000 members. So we are rising." ZP (03:11.1), "And I think lots of people are worried about the prospect. And when I say people, people who own, right wing media, multimillionaires and billionaires who are worried about the prospect that they might have to pay a little bit more tax. And so I think it's important that I focus on the vision and the hope and our actual plan." ZP (03:27.4), "I also think it's a complete reality, though we've seen it in the past before with left wing leaders, that there's no secret, there's no love lost between me and the right wing media. And almost every single day they print things that just aren't true." NR (03:38.8), "But just address the point I raised. Wealth tax councils won't get to do that. Public ownership councils don't get to do that. Well, not entirely. We'll come to that in a second. You are running on a national platform of change that the people who are elected on Thursday, whether in the Welsh Parliament, you don't run candidates in the Scottish one, or in English, local councils simply cannot do." ZP (04:03.2), "Well, I think it's about what are your values as a party? And whilst other party leaders and other parties take donations from oil and gas companies or arms trade companies, private healthcare or gambling, Green Party councillors only have two vested interests and Those vested interests. We want to protect the communities we seek to serve and we want to protect the environment." NR (04:21.6), "Well, let's come to that, then, because most interesting, perhaps, is to look at what Greens say who are running for office. You are not. You are a member of the London assembly, you're not a Member of Parliament, you're not running in these elections. Now, you live in Hackney. Hackney happens in northeast London to be a top Green target for taking control from the Labour Party." NR (04:41.9), "So let's look at protecting communities. For example, on crime, the manifesto calls the Metropolitan Police institutionally racist, homophobic, sexist and misogynists. It goes on to say, greens cannot accept this system. It calls for safe spaces for, heroin users to shoot up, to end cautions for street prostitution and to end what the manifesto calls discriminatory policing of delivery riders." NR (05:08.8), "This is an agenda for an endless fight with the police, isn't it?" ZP (05:12.0), "I don't think so. Baroness Casey, in the last couple of years, did a review into Metropolitan Police and it was actually the findings that found it institutionally racist and misogynistic. Something that Sadiq Khan, the Mayor of London, to his credit, accepts. It is noticeable that Mark Rowley, the Commissioner of the Police, doesn't accept that, yet they continue, to work together in that way." ZP (05:31.1), "On the issue of drug harm, we have the highest drug deaths, of any country in Europe. And every single year for the past 13 years, drug deaths have increased. So I think the question anyone has, and we have in Hackney, is that the war on drugs has clearly failed. It's failed in cities right across this country, and more and more people are, often taking dangerous drugs." ZP (05:50.3), "So do we want people to buy them on the black market or on street corners? Or do we want people to go to a pharmacy or a medical health professional where, if they have an addiction to dangerous drugs, we can work with them to take a public health approach based in harm reduction." NR (06:02.7), "Public health approaches to. Is to legalise hard drugs and to legalise prostitution, you say to legalise and regulate and the regulators. It's still legalised, isn't it?" ZP (06:11.5), "No, the point is you can't just go into a shop and buy drugs, which is how it's presented in the press. Again, because I can keep talking about what councillors can do, rather than what" NR (06:18.3), "you would do if you were Prime Minister, because that's for another interview. Are you saying councillors should cut the police budget? Because that's what it seems to imply when you say, we cannot accept this system, let the council spend Money on crime reduction. Don't give that money to the police." ZP (06:33.7), "It's about reprioritizing. So it's." NR (06:35.5), "Does that mean cut in English?" ZP (06:36.7), "No. So let's look at example. We're straight back onto drugs. A lot of police time is spent on stop and search for cannabis use, for instance. It doesn't escape people's notice that that is often, in the politics of racism, if you're a young black person, I think it's something like you're 18 times more likely to be stopped and searched than your white peer, despite the fact there's no evidence that they're more likely to be dealing or using drugs." ZP (07:00.8), "And so I think it's important that we make sure the police time is spent properly, which I think is about community prevention, about cohesiveness and bringing communities together, particularly in, like, whether it means redirecting the budget." NR (07:11.4), "Does it mean the police budget?" ZP (07:12.9), "Well, it means redirecting within the police budget, so making sure that the time police are spent is spent on community safety." NR (07:18.2), "Well, it's interesting that we talked about police because, as you know, you've come under serious criticism for retweeting criticism of the action of the police officers who stopped the alleged attacker of Jews in Golda's Green. Now, you apologised for retweeting that." NR (07:34.1), "You said you should have a meeting with the head of the Met. You sent him a letter. I want to ask you a different question. You've not apologised for the content of that. Why did you empathise with the attacker, and not with police officers who feared for their own lives and were trying to protect other people's lives?" ZP (07:53.3), "I think there's two things in that that I, really clearly want to say. The first is my very first response to the attack was to be horrif, as everyone was, I'm sure. And the first thing I posted was solidarity to the victim, to the family and indeed, to people who are suffering right now, including as a Jewish man, where Jewish safety is not abstract." NR (08:12.0), "But then you posted that officers were repeatedly and violently kicking a mentally ill man in the head when he was incapacitated by a Taser, caused extreme offence to those officers, to the head of the Met and to many people. I ask you again, why did you empathise, Empathise with the attacker, not with the police officer." ZP (08:28.9), "As I said, there's two things I wanted to say, so that was the first. The second, what I want to say is two things can be true at the same Time officers are incredibly brave when they run towards scenes of crimes that most people, including myself, would want to run away from. At the same time, I think it is accurate, and that I was also traumatised, by seeing, someone handcuffed and completely, repeatedly kicked in the head." ZP (08:51.7), "Now, sure, if you'll forgive me, it is an answer," NR (08:54.4), "but it's not an answer to the question. You posted something with the power that you have, with the number of people who follows us, and not empathising in that post with the Jewish community or critically with the police officers, you empathise with the attacker. Look what they're doing to the alleged attacker." ZP (09:11.1), "I don't think it was your choice. As I say, the first thing I did was show solidarity to the victims and I thank the officers. Second, though, I think the sign of a compassionate society is how we treat people, even people who have done horrific things, because actually, the way we do justice in this country is in court." NR (09:26.0), "You said a key value of the Greens was protecting communities. What are your proposals for protecting the Jewish community?" ZP (09:33.5), "The Jewish community is not safe right now. And as I said, as a Jewish man, this isn't abstract for me. In fact, in the last six weeks alone, two people have been arrested. So how would you protect anti Semitic attacks towards me? I think there's lots that needs to happen in this country. The first is community cohesion and community building. Some of the work that I'm proudest of in London, that I see Londoners do, is where I see the Jewish community working alongside the Muslim community." NR (09:55.1), "What would you do? What would Zach Polanski do in order to reduce attacks on the Jewish community?" ZP (09:59.9), "So, first of all, to invest in that work, that community, faith work, to make sure communities stand together. Second, to make sure that the Jewish community, give them the investment that they need. In fact, what the Prime Minister has been doing to make sure that happens. I do think a police response is the last response when everything before it has failed." NR (10:17.6), "I still think you're not really answering the question about what you would do. Let me ask you this." ZP (10:21.0), "I think I do." NR (10:21.6), "Would you deal with, for example, a candidate who says Jewish people fear hate because they know they should be hated. Another one who suggested that the attacks on the ambulances was a false flag and carried out, presumably by Israel. Another of your candidates who blamed Israel for the Bondi beach terrorist attack." NR (10:41.0), "A fourth candidate who said Donald Trump was, quote, owned by Jews. And most horrifying of all, although this individual has now been arrested, one of your candidates who Reposted something saying ramming a synagogue isn't anti Semitism, it's revenge." NR (10:56.8), "What are you, Zach Polanski doing to end these disgusting messages?" ZP (11:03.5), "Those messages are all unacceptable and it's important to condemn that. The Green Party are an anti racist party and it's important that we stick to our values." NR (11:11.0), "We can't just say the words were an anti racist bar to. And I've just read you out five of the most revolting comments at a time when, according to an independent advisor, we face a national emergency of anti Semitism. I'm asking you, you're not responsible for everything they say. Of course you're not." NR (11:26.3), "You can't be." ZP (11:27.3), "I am responsible, actually." NR (11:28.2), "What are you going to do about it?" ZP (11:29.0), "I am the leader of a party. I was about to finish my sentence." NR (11:31.5), "Forgive me. Go on." ZP (11:32.4), "We're an anti racist party. And so what I've already committed to doing is making sure that we have a standardised vetting process in future. And also make sure that we have compulsory training of all our candidates to make it clear that anti Semitism is completely unwelcome in the Green Party as it is in society. It is also important to say one case of anti Semitism is one too many." ZP (11:50.5), "This is a handful of cases and actually we have over 4,500 candidates, the vast, vast majority of which are doing amazing work in their communities right now, going out there to tackle the cost of living crisis, to make sure that we're funding public services and making sure that it's about people power and community, grassroots power." NR (12:05.1), "You can dismiss one or two as, just, unrepresentative. I've just read five. I could have read 20 cases of revolting anti Semitism posted by your candidates. Now you're a new leader, how are you going to avoid becoming the new Jeremy Corbyn of British politics?" ZP (12:21.5), "Well, I think me and Jeremy are very different people and there's much, you know, the question was almost inviting me to condemn Jeremy Corbyn. I think there was lots that Jeremy Corbyn was putting forward to this country that I think was really positive. We've talked about wealth taxes, about public ownership. I also think it's important, speaking, for myself right now, that we make sure that we have this vetting process, that it's really clear that anti Semitism, Islamophobia, any form of hatred or hate, crime is not welcome." NR (12:47.3), "Do you believe that Palestine is, to coin a phrase, on the ballot this Thursday?" ZP (12:52.3), "I think lots of things are on the ballot this Thursday." NR (12:54.6), "But is Palestine on the ballot? This." ZP (12:56.2), "I think it's one of the elements, as is the climate crisis. As is." NR (12:58.7), "What does it mean Palestine is on the ballot? Because. The reason I ask you is because your candidate for mayor of Lewisham says Palestine is on the ballot this Thursday. Haringey Green Party campaign launch video. You might think it'd be about bins, you might think it'd be about schools, hospitals, it might be about cleaning up the roads." NR (13:17.2), "It is a series of councillors saying, as a council, I will take all appropriate steps to, uphold the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people. Do you think council elections really should be about Palestine?" ZP (13:29.8), "I think they can be about all of those things. And I think what people have seen in this country is a genocide for two and a half years that our government is still arming, are still sharing intelligence with. And I think lots of people feel very strongly both about their local services, as they should do, and feel equally strongly about the fact that there's a reprehensible genocide happening." ZP (13:48.5), "And they vote, but the way they vote in local elections" NR (13:52.6), "should be determined by their views of Israel and Palestine." ZP (13:56.0), "I wouldn't tell anyone how their vote should be determined, but I think it's an element for lots of people in how they vote." NR (14:00.1), "And do you think that will contribute to community cohesion? Do you?" ZP (14:02.7), "I think yes, because I think, we shouldn't pit Jewish safety against a genocide in Gaza. That's conflating anti Semitism and criticism of the Israeli government. That's something Benjamin Netanyahu does regularly. And as a Jewish person, that makes me feel less safe." NR (14:16.4), "Sure. But there are lots of Jewish people who would say to you they feel unsafe if they feel that their counsellors are motivated first and foremost by Palestine. And if somebody gives that speech, for example, about Palestine being on the ballot, they are likely to think that." NR (14:34.6), "We looked for, example at Barnett Greens, where one in seven residents identify as Jewish. And it includes in its manifesto the fact that, you're standing up for Palestine. Do you think that's going to help?" ZP (14:49.0), "Well, I walk regularly on Palestinian marches with hundreds and hundreds, in fact, thousands of people, many of whom are Jewish. And there have been rabbis who have spoken out on this too. I accept, though, there are Jewish people whose views are equally as valid who, don't agree with those views." ZP (15:04.0), "And I think the job of all of us who are in public life right now is to de. Escalate tensions. And look, how do we bring people together? And I accept that's a huge challenge. And I think one of the ways we could do that is by ending our complicity in the genocide." NR (15:15.4), "Let's turn finally to another issue. We'll talk at greater length when, we're talking about the possibility of you being Prime Minister, which you have said that you would like to do. One thing that is very high on the agenda now is the soaring cost of government borrowing. What would the Greens do to cut it?" ZP (15:30.6), "Well, I think we need to make sure that we're investing. So I think there's two ways of doing that. The first is, wealth taxes, which I know we've rehearsed before, but I'll just say that's for first place." NR (15:38.4), "How does that cut government borrowing?" ZP (15:40.2), "Because ultimately it means you need to borrow less if you're." NR (15:43.0), "If you're ultimately about cutting the cost of government borrowing." ZP (15:45.5), "Yes." NR (15:45.8), "Which is soaring. It's higher than it's been any time this century because people are nervous about high spending, high taxing governments that are politically unstable." ZP (15:54.7), "I think someone who speaks brilliantly on this, who I've spoken to, is the economist Mariana Matsicatu, and she talks about the fact that a government should have a mission that should be a very clear plan of how you tackle the climate crisis, how you reduce inequality. Now, if you have a clear plan and you're borrowing for that, you're taking the market with you because they can clearly see what the return on investment is and how you're bringing money back into the." ZP (16:15.2), "That's how you reduce borrowing levels. If we don't have a plan and continue to borrow, then it feels very, very scattered, and that's why things are getting worse. We need to make sure that there's a consistent plan in place that's set out carefully that can make sure we're putting money back into our communities and investing in those communities." NR (16:29.3), "Do you think you're ready to be Prime Minister?" ZP (16:31.1), "I'm not ready right now, no. I've been leader for eight months, and there's lots of skills and lots of knowledge to get, and I think that's fine. I think I'm a human being. I'm not perfect." NR (16:38.5), "But give it two years, you will be." ZP (16:40.0), "Well, we'll see in two years time, won't we? But I'll certainly be putting in the work." NR (16:43.2), "Zach Polanski, leader of the Green Party in England and Wales, thanks very much for coming into the." ZP (16:46.3), "Thank you, Nick."

Farrukh

167,874 görüntüleme • 5 ay önce