Загрузка видео...

Не удалось загрузить видео

На главную

No evidence supports evolution. The tailbone & appendix aren't vestigial. Embryos don't have gill slits. Teach real science—anatomy, muscles, bones. Leave junk theories behind. #ScienceFacts #Biology

Hovind_Official's profile picture

Dr. Kent Hovind

6,739 subscribers

16,809 просмотров • 8 месяцев назад •via X (Twitter)

ОбразованиеНовости и политикаНаука и технологии#ScienceFacts#Biology
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

Комментарии: 0

Нет доступных комментариев

Здесь появятся комментарии из оригинального поста

Похожие видео

🚨 “CAN MEN GET PREGNANT?” — MEDICAL SCHOOL LEADERS CAN’T ANSWER BASIC BIOLOGY UNDER OATH Republican lawmakers grilled top med school officials on whether a non-biological woman (transgender man) can have a baby. The squirming and non-answers were peak absurdity. Dr. Marc Siegel: “No. Absolutely not. There has never been a single case.” He slammed the ideology: Med schools should teach real biology, hormones, anatomy, and pregnancy science — not pronouns. Congresswoman: “It shouldn’t take a medical degree to answer a basic biology question.” This exposes how woke gender ideology has infected elite medical education, wasting time on nonsense instead of excellence in actual medicine. Truth over ideology. Men can’t get pregnant. Period. Biological reality matters for patient care.
5:36

🚨 “CAN MEN GET PREGNANT?” — MEDICAL SCHOOL LEADERS CAN’T ANSWER BASIC BIOLOGY UNDER OATH Republican lawmakers grilled top med school officials on whether a non-biological woman (transgender man) can have a baby. The squirming and non-answers were peak absurdity. Dr. Marc Siegel: “No. Absolutely not. There has never been a single case.” He slammed the ideology: Med schools should teach real biology, hormones, anatomy, and pregnancy science — not pronouns. Congresswoman: “It shouldn’t take a medical degree to answer a basic biology question.” This exposes how woke gender ideology has infected elite medical education, wasting time on nonsense instead of excellence in actual medicine. Truth over ideology. Men can’t get pregnant. Period. Biological reality matters for patient care.

Gunther Eagleman™

40,887 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

The Darwinian model of evolution and the gradualist model of geology did not emerge independently - they rose together, Randall argues, and in doing so reinforced each other's blind spots. Geological gradualism held that landscape change was the product of almost imperceptible incremental processes - one grain of sand, one drop of water at a time, accumulating across vast timescales. Darwinian evolution applied the same logic to biology - changes between generations so small as to be undetectable, requiring hundreds or thousands of generations to produce meaningful difference. Each model made the other seem more plausible, and together they established a framework in which slow, uniform progress from simplicity to complexity became the default assumption underlying both earth science and biology. What that framework quietly discarded, Randall notes, was the concept of cycles. A model built entirely on linear gradualism has no natural place for periodic catastrophic interruption - for the punctuated, reset-and-rebuild pattern that Randall argues the physical evidence consistently supports. The result was a scientific worldview that could describe the direction of change but not its rhythm - one that acknowledged complexity increasing over time while systematically underweighting the catastrophic events that have repeatedly erased what complexity had already achieved and forced the process to begin again.
0:55

The Darwinian model of evolution and the gradualist model of geology did not emerge independently - they rose together, Randall argues, and in doing so reinforced each other's blind spots. Geological gradualism held that landscape change was the product of almost imperceptible incremental processes - one grain of sand, one drop of water at a time, accumulating across vast timescales. Darwinian evolution applied the same logic to biology - changes between generations so small as to be undetectable, requiring hundreds or thousands of generations to produce meaningful difference. Each model made the other seem more plausible, and together they established a framework in which slow, uniform progress from simplicity to complexity became the default assumption underlying both earth science and biology. What that framework quietly discarded, Randall notes, was the concept of cycles. A model built entirely on linear gradualism has no natural place for periodic catastrophic interruption - for the punctuated, reset-and-rebuild pattern that Randall argues the physical evidence consistently supports. The result was a scientific worldview that could describe the direction of change but not its rhythm - one that acknowledged complexity increasing over time while systematically underweighting the catastrophic events that have repeatedly erased what complexity had already achieved and forced the process to begin again.

Randall Carlson

11,719 просмотров • 6 месяцев назад

BPC-157 and TB-500 are two of the most talked-about peptides in fitness, bodybuilding, and biohacking. Together they’re often called the “Wolverine Stack” — a peptide combination rumored to dramatically accelerate healing of tendons, ligaments, muscles, and injuries. But do BPC-157 and TB-500 actually work in humans, or is the Wolverine Stack just another example of internet bro-science? In this evidence-based deep dive, Dr. Alex Tatem (board-certified urologist and men’s health specialist) breaks down the real science behind BPC-157 and TB-500 — including their biochemical mechanisms, animal research, potential healing effects, safety concerns, and why pharmaceutical companies have never brought these peptides through full FDA clinical trials. We explore the nitric oxide signaling, angiogenesis, VEGF pathways, actin regulation, and tissue repair biology behind these compounds and explain why rodent studies look promising — but why human clinical evidence is still extremely limited. You’ll also learn about: • What BPC-157 (Body Protection Compound-157) actually is • TB-500 vs Thymosin Beta-4 explained • The origin of the Wolverine Stack peptide protocol • Peptides for tendon healing and ligament injuries • BPC-157 for gut healing and musculoskeletal repair • TB-500 and actin-mediated tissue regeneration • Why most peptide research comes from one Croatian research group • The patent law problem preventing pharmaceutical development • Real risks of grey-market peptide contamination • Why WADA bans BPC-157 and TB-500 in competitive athletes • Theoretical cancer risks related to angiogenesis • What the current scientific literature actually shows If you've ever searched: “Does BPC-157 work?” “What is TB-500?” “Peptides for healing injuries” “BPC-157 tendon repair” “Wolverine Stack peptides explained” — this video breaks down the science. The peptides may be promising. But promise and proof are not the same thing. Drop a comment below: Have you ever used BPC-157, TB-500, or other peptides? What was your experience? 👍 Like the video if you want more evidence-based breakdowns of supplements, PEDs, and peptides. Subscribe for deep dives on testosterone, steroids, peptides, supplements, and men’s health science.
30:26

BPC-157 and TB-500 are two of the most talked-about peptides in fitness, bodybuilding, and biohacking. Together they’re often called the “Wolverine Stack” — a peptide combination rumored to dramatically accelerate healing of tendons, ligaments, muscles, and injuries. But do BPC-157 and TB-500 actually work in humans, or is the Wolverine Stack just another example of internet bro-science? In this evidence-based deep dive, Dr. Alex Tatem (board-certified urologist and men’s health specialist) breaks down the real science behind BPC-157 and TB-500 — including their biochemical mechanisms, animal research, potential healing effects, safety concerns, and why pharmaceutical companies have never brought these peptides through full FDA clinical trials. We explore the nitric oxide signaling, angiogenesis, VEGF pathways, actin regulation, and tissue repair biology behind these compounds and explain why rodent studies look promising — but why human clinical evidence is still extremely limited. You’ll also learn about: • What BPC-157 (Body Protection Compound-157) actually is • TB-500 vs Thymosin Beta-4 explained • The origin of the Wolverine Stack peptide protocol • Peptides for tendon healing and ligament injuries • BPC-157 for gut healing and musculoskeletal repair • TB-500 and actin-mediated tissue regeneration • Why most peptide research comes from one Croatian research group • The patent law problem preventing pharmaceutical development • Real risks of grey-market peptide contamination • Why WADA bans BPC-157 and TB-500 in competitive athletes • Theoretical cancer risks related to angiogenesis • What the current scientific literature actually shows If you've ever searched: “Does BPC-157 work?” “What is TB-500?” “Peptides for healing injuries” “BPC-157 tendon repair” “Wolverine Stack peptides explained” — this video breaks down the science. The peptides may be promising. But promise and proof are not the same thing. Drop a comment below: Have you ever used BPC-157, TB-500, or other peptides? What was your experience? 👍 Like the video if you want more evidence-based breakdowns of supplements, PEDs, and peptides. Subscribe for deep dives on testosterone, steroids, peptides, supplements, and men’s health science.

Dr. Alex Tatem

22,765 просмотров • 6 месяцев назад

🚨EXPOSED: The Glaring Contradiction the FBI Director Hoped You Would Forget—FBI Suddenly Hijacking a "State Case"? They can't even keep their own lies straight anymore. Kash Patel’s go-to excuse has been since the beginning; every time someone demanded real answers or pushed for federal transparency, he hid behind the exact same line: “We cannot get involved. It is a state case.” When Joe Kent bravely attempted to launch a serious investigation into the glaringly obvious foreign nexus behind Charlie Kirk's assassination, what happened? Kash Patel completely shut it down. His justification for blocking the investigation into foreign operatives? “The FBI is not getting involved because it's a state case.” But look at what is happening right now in the court filings. The second the state's manufactured case against Tyler Robinson starts to collapse—the very moment the ATF officially admits they cannot match the bullet fragment to Tyler's rifle—what does Kash Patel do? Suddenly, the "state case" excuse magically disappears, and the FBI is rushing right into the middle of it. Why are they suddenly so eager to get involved? They aren't stepping in to find the real killers or investigate the foreign ties they previously ignored. They aren't stepping in to investigate all of the vert credible leads we have uncovered that would exonerate Tyler Robinson; those same leads he calls "conspiracy theories". NO... they are stepping in to manufacture evidence. They are taking this unmatched bullet fragment and running a "Comparative Bullet Lead Analysis"—a junk-science test that was literally banned and discontinued by the FBI in 2005 because it was completely unreliable. It is a fraudulent forensic parlor trick that historically led to the false imprisonment of hundreds, if not thousands, of innocent Americans. When it came to investigating a sophisticated foreign hit squad, Kash Patel said the FBI’s hands were tied. But when it comes to dusting off a 20-year-old banned scientific test to rig the evidence and railroad a 22-year-old patsy? Suddenly, the FBI is front and center, ready to do the dirty work. This isn't an investigation; it is a coordinated federal frame-job. They are terrified, they are desperate, and they are bringing back dead science to execute a state cover-up. We see exactly what you are doing, Kash.👀 🇺🇸
2:24

🚨EXPOSED: The Glaring Contradiction the FBI Director Hoped You Would Forget—FBI Suddenly Hijacking a "State Case"? They can't even keep their own lies straight anymore. Kash Patel’s go-to excuse has been since the beginning; every time someone demanded real answers or pushed for federal transparency, he hid behind the exact same line: “We cannot get involved. It is a state case.” When Joe Kent bravely attempted to launch a serious investigation into the glaringly obvious foreign nexus behind Charlie Kirk's assassination, what happened? Kash Patel completely shut it down. His justification for blocking the investigation into foreign operatives? “The FBI is not getting involved because it's a state case.” But look at what is happening right now in the court filings. The second the state's manufactured case against Tyler Robinson starts to collapse—the very moment the ATF officially admits they cannot match the bullet fragment to Tyler's rifle—what does Kash Patel do? Suddenly, the "state case" excuse magically disappears, and the FBI is rushing right into the middle of it. Why are they suddenly so eager to get involved? They aren't stepping in to find the real killers or investigate the foreign ties they previously ignored. They aren't stepping in to investigate all of the vert credible leads we have uncovered that would exonerate Tyler Robinson; those same leads he calls "conspiracy theories". NO... they are stepping in to manufacture evidence. They are taking this unmatched bullet fragment and running a "Comparative Bullet Lead Analysis"—a junk-science test that was literally banned and discontinued by the FBI in 2005 because it was completely unreliable. It is a fraudulent forensic parlor trick that historically led to the false imprisonment of hundreds, if not thousands, of innocent Americans. When it came to investigating a sophisticated foreign hit squad, Kash Patel said the FBI’s hands were tied. But when it comes to dusting off a 20-year-old banned scientific test to rig the evidence and railroad a 22-year-old patsy? Suddenly, the FBI is front and center, ready to do the dirty work. This isn't an investigation; it is a coordinated federal frame-job. They are terrified, they are desperate, and they are bringing back dead science to execute a state cover-up. We see exactly what you are doing, Kash.👀 🇺🇸

Project Constitution

222,904 просмотров • 5 месяцев назад

RFK went on C-SPAN for an interview with public questions, and someone from Minnesota called in on the democrat line saying that RFK should be an independent because he's not a real democrat because he's a conspiracy theorist, and that she is confused his "conspiracy theories" and that they aren't going to heal the nation. She listed off chemicals in the water, EMF dangers, mass shooters on SSRIs, as a means to dismiss him and his legitimacy, just like the MSM does. These people are seriously so brainwashed and clueless, and have no idea how bad it really is with EMF, chemicals in the environment, mass surveillance, vaccines, and the pervasive regulatory capture of every government institution that lets corporations obliterate our health unabated. They refuse to read the evidence that supports RFKs positions, and instead prefer to just live in this ignorantly blissful little box of abject denialism built by the corrupt authorities and MSM, calling everything that makes them scared a "conspiracy theory". These people need to grow a spine, quit being afraid, and just learn the objective scientific facts so they can make simple changes in their life to counteract and remedy. Dumping a ton of evidence in comments below supporting RFK and his claims.
8:07

RFK went on C-SPAN for an interview with public questions, and someone from Minnesota called in on the democrat line saying that RFK should be an independent because he's not a real democrat because he's a conspiracy theorist, and that she is confused his "conspiracy theories" and that they aren't going to heal the nation. She listed off chemicals in the water, EMF dangers, mass shooters on SSRIs, as a means to dismiss him and his legitimacy, just like the MSM does. These people are seriously so brainwashed and clueless, and have no idea how bad it really is with EMF, chemicals in the environment, mass surveillance, vaccines, and the pervasive regulatory capture of every government institution that lets corporations obliterate our health unabated. They refuse to read the evidence that supports RFKs positions, and instead prefer to just live in this ignorantly blissful little box of abject denialism built by the corrupt authorities and MSM, calling everything that makes them scared a "conspiracy theory". These people need to grow a spine, quit being afraid, and just learn the objective scientific facts so they can make simple changes in their life to counteract and remedy. Dumping a ton of evidence in comments below supporting RFK and his claims.

Inversionism

312,684 просмотров • 3 лет назад

🚨MUST WATCH: The Massive DNA Bombshell TPUSA DOESN'T Want You To Know—FIVE Different Persons Mixed DNA Was Recovered From The Charlie Kirk Crime Scene🤯⚖️ Turning Point USA and their army of proxy shills are working overtime to gaslight the American public. They are desperate to make you blindly believe that the assassination of Charlie Kirk is an "open and shut case." They want you to accept the narrative that they have a lone gunman dead to rights. But the truth is the exact opposite. Tonight, Candace Owens dropped another massive bombshell directly from the Tyler Robinson court filings, and it completely obliterates the state's manufactured storyline. THE MIXED DNA BOMBSHELL: TPUSA wants you to think the physical evidence points neatly and exclusively to one 22-year-old kid. Here is the reality buried in the legal documents: The FBI and ATF reports explicitly indicate that they recovered minute quantities of DNA on various items of evidence consisting of mixtures of up to FIVE OR MORE INDIVIDUALS. Let that sink in. At least five different people's DNA was recovered from the evidence, all mixed together. This was not a pristine, lone-wolf crime scene. This was a highly contaminated scene, handled by multiple unknown actors. Who are the other four people? Why is the media silent about them? HIDING THE HOMEWORK: So how is the prosecution handling this explosive revelation? By actively hiding the details from the defense. The state has indicated it intends to offer this DNA report at the preliminary hearing without any supporting expert testimony. Even worse, they are refusing to hand over the raw data. They are only providing a "summary" conclusion. They are effectively telling the defense: There are at least five people's DNA on this evidence, but we aren't going to tell you who they are, we aren't going to show you how we tested it, and we aren't going to let your experts look at the actual data. Just take our word for it. THE SHILL NARRATIVE COLLAPSES: Let's review the actual facts of this "open and shut" case: A suspect who plead NOT GUILTY. An ATF ballistics report that failed to match the bullet fragment to the rifle. A desperate FBI trying to resurrect banned, 20-year-old "junk science" to force a match. And now, evidence covered in the DNA of five or more unidentified individuals. There is absolutely no ironclad forensic evidence tying Tyler Robinson to this crime. What there is, is a staggering amount of reasonable doubt. Do not let TPUSA lie to you. Do not let their paid mouthpieces manipulate you into accepting a manufactured conclusion. They are terrified of what a real, independent investigation into those five DNA profiles will uncover. 🇺🇸⚓️ FOLLOW Candace Owens, RT and watch her FULL podcast below. 👇
0:53

🚨MUST WATCH: The Massive DNA Bombshell TPUSA DOESN'T Want You To Know—FIVE Different Persons Mixed DNA Was Recovered From The Charlie Kirk Crime Scene🤯⚖️ Turning Point USA and their army of proxy shills are working overtime to gaslight the American public. They are desperate to make you blindly believe that the assassination of Charlie Kirk is an "open and shut case." They want you to accept the narrative that they have a lone gunman dead to rights. But the truth is the exact opposite. Tonight, Candace Owens dropped another massive bombshell directly from the Tyler Robinson court filings, and it completely obliterates the state's manufactured storyline. THE MIXED DNA BOMBSHELL: TPUSA wants you to think the physical evidence points neatly and exclusively to one 22-year-old kid. Here is the reality buried in the legal documents: The FBI and ATF reports explicitly indicate that they recovered minute quantities of DNA on various items of evidence consisting of mixtures of up to FIVE OR MORE INDIVIDUALS. Let that sink in. At least five different people's DNA was recovered from the evidence, all mixed together. This was not a pristine, lone-wolf crime scene. This was a highly contaminated scene, handled by multiple unknown actors. Who are the other four people? Why is the media silent about them? HIDING THE HOMEWORK: So how is the prosecution handling this explosive revelation? By actively hiding the details from the defense. The state has indicated it intends to offer this DNA report at the preliminary hearing without any supporting expert testimony. Even worse, they are refusing to hand over the raw data. They are only providing a "summary" conclusion. They are effectively telling the defense: There are at least five people's DNA on this evidence, but we aren't going to tell you who they are, we aren't going to show you how we tested it, and we aren't going to let your experts look at the actual data. Just take our word for it. THE SHILL NARRATIVE COLLAPSES: Let's review the actual facts of this "open and shut" case: A suspect who plead NOT GUILTY. An ATF ballistics report that failed to match the bullet fragment to the rifle. A desperate FBI trying to resurrect banned, 20-year-old "junk science" to force a match. And now, evidence covered in the DNA of five or more unidentified individuals. There is absolutely no ironclad forensic evidence tying Tyler Robinson to this crime. What there is, is a staggering amount of reasonable doubt. Do not let TPUSA lie to you. Do not let their paid mouthpieces manipulate you into accepting a manufactured conclusion. They are terrified of what a real, independent investigation into those five DNA profiles will uncover. 🇺🇸⚓️ FOLLOW Candace Owens, RT and watch her FULL podcast below. 👇

Project Constitution

12,213 просмотров • 5 месяцев назад

The presenter asks Virat Kohli, the star Indian cricketer - "Why did you become a vegetarian?" His answer is mind-boggling. He starts with his source of advice - an Accupuncturist. Accupuncture is a pseudoscience. It has no meaningful principles or reasonable action. It is not based on scientific knowledge and is a form of quackery. Large systematic reviews confirm that there no good evidence of benefit, which suggests that it is not an effective method of healthcare. Virat then speaks about his cervical spine disc prolapse. He then speeds towards his stomach where he claims that eating meat was making stomach more acidic, because of which the calcium from his bones were leaking off. So the solution - make it alkaline. So he quit meat and became vegetarian - to make his stomach less acidic, more alkaline, to prevent calcium loss in bone and thus, cure his cervical spondylitis. This is pure and unadulterated nonsense. The stomach is acidic and will remain so whether you want it or not. Acid production is the unique and central component of the stomach's contribution to the digestive process and also plays a role in protecting the body against pathogens ingested with food or water [ You cannot make the stomach alkaline, unless you ingest enough alkali - which will of course kill you. Calcium does not leech away because the stomach is acidic. Eating meat does not cause calcium loss. In fact, increasing the protein intake from 1 g/kg body weight to 2 g/kg, given as meat, did not have an adverse effect on calcium metabolism. [ Going vegetarian does not mean one becomes gauranteed calcium sufficient. Vegetarianism is a culturo-religious factor and not a norm. People choose it because of various personal reasons and it is not one based on strong evidence from medical science. It is not superior to other diets, except of course, is better than veganism, which is the most inferior form of diet from scientific standpoint. Cervival neck disc bulge is not treated by going vegetarian. There are actual scientific guidelines for it. See here: and here: And no one should ever ask an Accupuncturist for any advise on health, because they themselves have no clue about human anatomy or physiology and they are not real healthcare providers. They are quacks. I like Virat Kohli. The guy is a national treasure. But I am sorry to say that he is very health and science-illiterate and a prototype of the beggarly scientific temper that define majoirty of Indians in today's India. Doctors, scientisits, science communicators, (real) health influencers, we need to do better.
0:57

The presenter asks Virat Kohli, the star Indian cricketer - "Why did you become a vegetarian?" His answer is mind-boggling. He starts with his source of advice - an Accupuncturist. Accupuncture is a pseudoscience. It has no meaningful principles or reasonable action. It is not based on scientific knowledge and is a form of quackery. Large systematic reviews confirm that there no good evidence of benefit, which suggests that it is not an effective method of healthcare. Virat then speaks about his cervical spine disc prolapse. He then speeds towards his stomach where he claims that eating meat was making stomach more acidic, because of which the calcium from his bones were leaking off. So the solution - make it alkaline. So he quit meat and became vegetarian - to make his stomach less acidic, more alkaline, to prevent calcium loss in bone and thus, cure his cervical spondylitis. This is pure and unadulterated nonsense. The stomach is acidic and will remain so whether you want it or not. Acid production is the unique and central component of the stomach's contribution to the digestive process and also plays a role in protecting the body against pathogens ingested with food or water [ You cannot make the stomach alkaline, unless you ingest enough alkali - which will of course kill you. Calcium does not leech away because the stomach is acidic. Eating meat does not cause calcium loss. In fact, increasing the protein intake from 1 g/kg body weight to 2 g/kg, given as meat, did not have an adverse effect on calcium metabolism. [ Going vegetarian does not mean one becomes gauranteed calcium sufficient. Vegetarianism is a culturo-religious factor and not a norm. People choose it because of various personal reasons and it is not one based on strong evidence from medical science. It is not superior to other diets, except of course, is better than veganism, which is the most inferior form of diet from scientific standpoint. Cervival neck disc bulge is not treated by going vegetarian. There are actual scientific guidelines for it. See here: and here: And no one should ever ask an Accupuncturist for any advise on health, because they themselves have no clue about human anatomy or physiology and they are not real healthcare providers. They are quacks. I like Virat Kohli. The guy is a national treasure. But I am sorry to say that he is very health and science-illiterate and a prototype of the beggarly scientific temper that define majoirty of Indians in today's India. Doctors, scientisits, science communicators, (real) health influencers, we need to do better.

TheLiverDoc™

1,007,862 просмотров • 3 лет назад

Ken Silva: ‘NO EVIDENCE Iran was behind the Trump assassination attempts in Butler and West Palm Beach.’ ‘There's absolutely no evidence for this although I'm sure there are people, including in the Iranian government, who would like to see Trump dead, there there's been no evidence of any legitimate threat. A lot of people in conservative media, the Israeli government and even Congress people like Mike Waltz have drawn disingenuous ties between Iran and the Butler shooting, or the Ryan Routh case that happened two months later. When they talk about the Iranian assassination threat, they'll have pictures of Trump at Butler like raising his fist, trying to get people who don't who don't read past the headlines just to make that connection. If you talk to people who are serious about arguing that the Iranian threat is legitimate though, they'll cite various cases where the FBI has arrested so-called operatives working on behalf of Iran who were plotting to kill Trump, although there was no threat. The most famous one of these was a guy who was bizarrely arrested the day before Butler on July 13th 2024. He was arrested July 12th. The case was announced about a month later, and everybody automatically assumed that there was some connection to this case involving a Pakistani man named Asif Merchant And Butler. The timing is bizarre, but if you look more closely, this was a very highly controlled FBI sting operation, where they were monitoring him before he even entered the US. Israel gave the US intelligence that this guy might be a threat. He might be working for the Iranian government. They let him into the country on purpose, connected him to an FBI informant who was driving him around, giving him money. The informant introduces him to two undercover FBI agents who were posing as hitmen, and they took him to a strip club where they did have some sort of vague meeting about possibly assassinating US politicians or committing other crimes. And the target, Merchant said, “Well, we'll give you the real plan in September. Meet me in Pakistan.” And then the FBI arrests him when he is attempting to leave the country on July 12th. That’s the case that most people cite as a legitimate threat. He might have had intent, but he had absolutely no capacity. This was something totally manufactured by the FBI.’ —Ken Silva, Author of ‘The Trump Assassination Plots’, on the latest episode of Going Underground Watch the full interview in the quoted post below 👇
3:04

Ken Silva: ‘NO EVIDENCE Iran was behind the Trump assassination attempts in Butler and West Palm Beach.’ ‘There's absolutely no evidence for this although I'm sure there are people, including in the Iranian government, who would like to see Trump dead, there there's been no evidence of any legitimate threat. A lot of people in conservative media, the Israeli government and even Congress people like Mike Waltz have drawn disingenuous ties between Iran and the Butler shooting, or the Ryan Routh case that happened two months later. When they talk about the Iranian assassination threat, they'll have pictures of Trump at Butler like raising his fist, trying to get people who don't who don't read past the headlines just to make that connection. If you talk to people who are serious about arguing that the Iranian threat is legitimate though, they'll cite various cases where the FBI has arrested so-called operatives working on behalf of Iran who were plotting to kill Trump, although there was no threat. The most famous one of these was a guy who was bizarrely arrested the day before Butler on July 13th 2024. He was arrested July 12th. The case was announced about a month later, and everybody automatically assumed that there was some connection to this case involving a Pakistani man named Asif Merchant And Butler. The timing is bizarre, but if you look more closely, this was a very highly controlled FBI sting operation, where they were monitoring him before he even entered the US. Israel gave the US intelligence that this guy might be a threat. He might be working for the Iranian government. They let him into the country on purpose, connected him to an FBI informant who was driving him around, giving him money. The informant introduces him to two undercover FBI agents who were posing as hitmen, and they took him to a strip club where they did have some sort of vague meeting about possibly assassinating US politicians or committing other crimes. And the target, Merchant said, “Well, we'll give you the real plan in September. Meet me in Pakistan.” And then the FBI arrests him when he is attempting to leave the country on July 12th. That’s the case that most people cite as a legitimate threat. He might have had intent, but he had absolutely no capacity. This was something totally manufactured by the FBI.’ —Ken Silva, Author of ‘The Trump Assassination Plots’, on the latest episode of Going Underground Watch the full interview in the quoted post below 👇

Going Underground

27,270 просмотров • 25 дней назад

It's a classic 9/11 conspiracy post recycling well-known claims that don't hold up as evidence of an "inside job." Courtesy of AMERICANDREAM09 🇺🇸 Jack Media ~DREAM and the 17PLUS WORLDWIDE TRUTH NETWORK AT The clip is from Jesse Ventura's heated 2012 appearance on Piers Morgan Tonight, where Ventura pushed theories that the Bush administration essentially allowed or wanted the attacks (citing ignored intelligence warnings and false-flag patterns in history). Morgan pushed back hard, and yes, they went to commercial amid the exchange—standard TV timing in a contentious interview, not some dramatic "cut for a break" to silence truthbombs. The specific "footage before the fall" point refers to a real BBC error: correspondent Jane Standley reported that WTC 7 (the Salomon Brothers building) had collapsed around 4:54–4:57 p.m. EDT on September 11, 2001, while it was still visibly standing behind her. It actually came down at about 5:20 p.m. Other outlets (including CNN and Reuters) also circulated premature or confused reports that day as the situation was chaotic—fires raging, debris everywhere, conflicting local media and emergency-service info flying around. BBC later explained it as relying on an incorrect Reuters wire that was corrected; editor Richard Porter called it a straightforward mistake in the fog of live coverage, not a script or insider tip. No evidence supports the idea that this proves media complicity in a controlled demolition. On WTC 7 itself: The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) conducted a multi-year investigation and concluded the 47-story building collapsed due to uncontrolled fires (started by debris from the North Tower) that burned for nearly seven hours without sprinklers. Heat caused thermal expansion of steel beams and girders, leading to the failure of a critical column (Column 79) and progressive collapse. NIST found no evidence of explosives or controlled demolition; it was the first known case of a tall modern building collapsing primarily from fire. This matches video, photographic, and engineering analysis—not a cover-up. The rest of the post—"this world is made up of lies," "inside job," "wake up from their control," and the pitch for The Awakening Compass—is standard conspiracy marketing. Healthy skepticism of government and media is fine (intelligence failures pre-9/11 were real and documented; the official investigations had gaps and political pressures). But leaping from reporting mistakes + a unique fire-induced structural failure to "they hid the footage and it was an inside job covered up by the media" requires extraordinary evidence that simply isn't there. The scientific consensus, physical evidence, and lack of any credible whistleblower or forensic support for explosives point the other way. These posts thrive on selective framing and emotional calls to "rise above the sheep." The better approach is looking at primary sources (NIST reports, contemporaneous footage with timestamps, BBC's own explanations) rather than clipped videos and book plugs. Conspiracy theories around 9/11 have been exhaustively examined; the ones that stick tend to be the ones that fit the data, not the ones that sell awakening guides. THE WORLD'S CONNECTION TO UNSTOPPABLE TRUTH AT 17PLUS WORLDWIDE TRUTH NETWORK AT
2:30

It's a classic 9/11 conspiracy post recycling well-known claims that don't hold up as evidence of an "inside job." Courtesy of AMERICANDREAM09 🇺🇸 Jack Media ~DREAM and the 17PLUS WORLDWIDE TRUTH NETWORK AT The clip is from Jesse Ventura's heated 2012 appearance on Piers Morgan Tonight, where Ventura pushed theories that the Bush administration essentially allowed or wanted the attacks (citing ignored intelligence warnings and false-flag patterns in history). Morgan pushed back hard, and yes, they went to commercial amid the exchange—standard TV timing in a contentious interview, not some dramatic "cut for a break" to silence truthbombs. The specific "footage before the fall" point refers to a real BBC error: correspondent Jane Standley reported that WTC 7 (the Salomon Brothers building) had collapsed around 4:54–4:57 p.m. EDT on September 11, 2001, while it was still visibly standing behind her. It actually came down at about 5:20 p.m. Other outlets (including CNN and Reuters) also circulated premature or confused reports that day as the situation was chaotic—fires raging, debris everywhere, conflicting local media and emergency-service info flying around. BBC later explained it as relying on an incorrect Reuters wire that was corrected; editor Richard Porter called it a straightforward mistake in the fog of live coverage, not a script or insider tip. No evidence supports the idea that this proves media complicity in a controlled demolition. On WTC 7 itself: The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) conducted a multi-year investigation and concluded the 47-story building collapsed due to uncontrolled fires (started by debris from the North Tower) that burned for nearly seven hours without sprinklers. Heat caused thermal expansion of steel beams and girders, leading to the failure of a critical column (Column 79) and progressive collapse. NIST found no evidence of explosives or controlled demolition; it was the first known case of a tall modern building collapsing primarily from fire. This matches video, photographic, and engineering analysis—not a cover-up. The rest of the post—"this world is made up of lies," "inside job," "wake up from their control," and the pitch for The Awakening Compass—is standard conspiracy marketing. Healthy skepticism of government and media is fine (intelligence failures pre-9/11 were real and documented; the official investigations had gaps and political pressures). But leaping from reporting mistakes + a unique fire-induced structural failure to "they hid the footage and it was an inside job covered up by the media" requires extraordinary evidence that simply isn't there. The scientific consensus, physical evidence, and lack of any credible whistleblower or forensic support for explosives point the other way. These posts thrive on selective framing and emotional calls to "rise above the sheep." The better approach is looking at primary sources (NIST reports, contemporaneous footage with timestamps, BBC's own explanations) rather than clipped videos and book plugs. Conspiracy theories around 9/11 have been exhaustively examined; the ones that stick tend to be the ones that fit the data, not the ones that sell awakening guides. THE WORLD'S CONNECTION TO UNSTOPPABLE TRUTH AT 17PLUS WORLDWIDE TRUTH NETWORK AT

AMERICANDREAM09 🇺🇸 Jack Media ~DREAM

35,811 просмотров • 27 дней назад

🔥 EXPOSED: THEY ARE USING GME & AMC TOKENS AS LOCATES FOR 60 BILLION IN FAILS TO DELIVER! 🔥 The Stock Market is a Scam System to steal your money and you are the biggest fool! 😱😱😱 You thought the swap was crazy? It gets MUCH UGLIER. They aren't just trading exposure—they are allegedly using these tokenized debt securities as LEGAL COVER TO LOCATE SHARES THAT DO NOT EXIST. The naked short book and hidden synthetic positions estimated at SIXTY BILLION SYNTHETIC SHARES aren't getting cleared—they are being hidden behind a blockchain costume! 🎭 🕵️‍♂️ HOW THE "LOCATE" SCAM WORKS 🕵️‍♂️ The Glitch: A "locate" gives short sellers the green light to sell shares they don't own. The Loophole: Instead of borrowing real stock, they mint a Jersey debt token with ZERO voting rights, ZERO real company claims, and NO U.S. SEC registration. The Result: Market makers stretch the clock, kick the FTD can down the road, and NEVER have to clear the fails at the NSCC! 📊 THE UNREAL EVIDENCE (SEPTEMBER 5, 2026) 📊 Look at the numbers printing on the tape right now: 🎬 AMC ROBINHOOD TOKEN: Previous Day: $401K Market Cap TODAY: $7.59M Market Cap | $232.5 MILLION IN VOLUME! 🤯 🎮 GME ROBINHOOD TOKEN: Previous Day: $1.98M Market Cap TODAY: $3.47M Market Cap | $58.2 MILLION IN VOLUME! 💥 This isn't organic crypto churn—this is a massive synthetic locate factory running at maximum capacity! 🛡️ CENSORSHIP IN OVERDRIVE 🛡️ They want you distracted by CEO Twitter fights while Superstonk deletes the post to bury the truth. If the token backing is real, new mints force real shares to be touched. If it's soft, they fabricated extra locates out of thin air without adding real shareholders. Either way, the $60B fail never dies—the token just keeps it alive! 💥 SPREAD THIS BEFORE IT GETS WIPED! 💥 1️⃣ RETWEET so the charge travels faster than the spin! 2️⃣ REPLY with your September 5 CoinGecko screenshots or FTD receipts! 3️⃣ TAG TheUltimator5 — he called the swap, the SEC loophole, and the locate layer first! Huge thanks again to TheUltimator5 on X for exposing the truth and leading the charge! 👑 #RobinhoodChain #FTD #GME #AMC #MarketManipulation #GMEtoken (Entertainment purposes only • DYOR)
10:56

🔥 EXPOSED: THEY ARE USING GME & AMC TOKENS AS LOCATES FOR 60 BILLION IN FAILS TO DELIVER! 🔥 The Stock Market is a Scam System to steal your money and you are the biggest fool! 😱😱😱 You thought the swap was crazy? It gets MUCH UGLIER. They aren't just trading exposure—they are allegedly using these tokenized debt securities as LEGAL COVER TO LOCATE SHARES THAT DO NOT EXIST. The naked short book and hidden synthetic positions estimated at SIXTY BILLION SYNTHETIC SHARES aren't getting cleared—they are being hidden behind a blockchain costume! 🎭 🕵️‍♂️ HOW THE "LOCATE" SCAM WORKS 🕵️‍♂️ The Glitch: A "locate" gives short sellers the green light to sell shares they don't own. The Loophole: Instead of borrowing real stock, they mint a Jersey debt token with ZERO voting rights, ZERO real company claims, and NO U.S. SEC registration. The Result: Market makers stretch the clock, kick the FTD can down the road, and NEVER have to clear the fails at the NSCC! 📊 THE UNREAL EVIDENCE (SEPTEMBER 5, 2026) 📊 Look at the numbers printing on the tape right now: 🎬 AMC ROBINHOOD TOKEN: Previous Day: $401K Market Cap TODAY: $7.59M Market Cap | $232.5 MILLION IN VOLUME! 🤯 🎮 GME ROBINHOOD TOKEN: Previous Day: $1.98M Market Cap TODAY: $3.47M Market Cap | $58.2 MILLION IN VOLUME! 💥 This isn't organic crypto churn—this is a massive synthetic locate factory running at maximum capacity! 🛡️ CENSORSHIP IN OVERDRIVE 🛡️ They want you distracted by CEO Twitter fights while Superstonk deletes the post to bury the truth. If the token backing is real, new mints force real shares to be touched. If it's soft, they fabricated extra locates out of thin air without adding real shareholders. Either way, the $60B fail never dies—the token just keeps it alive! 💥 SPREAD THIS BEFORE IT GETS WIPED! 💥 1️⃣ RETWEET so the charge travels faster than the spin! 2️⃣ REPLY with your September 5 CoinGecko screenshots or FTD receipts! 3️⃣ TAG TheUltimator5 — he called the swap, the SEC loophole, and the locate layer first! Huge thanks again to TheUltimator5 on X for exposing the truth and leading the charge! 👑 #RobinhoodChain #FTD #GME #AMC #MarketManipulation #GMEtoken (Entertainment purposes only • DYOR)

Eronima

14,754 просмотров • 12 дней назад

This is how your eyes work. Eyes are part of an irreducibly complex system of structures that work together to give you vision. There is no evolutionary pathway that could produce even the simplest eye. Here is everything you need to know about why eyes did not evolve and are certain evidence of design. This is the proposed version of eye evolution: 1. Photosensitive cell 2. Pigment cells without a nerve 3. Optic nerve surrounded by pigment cells, covered by translucent skin 4. Pigment cells forming a depression 5. Skin gradually takes a lens shape 6. Evolution of muscles for lens to adjust But each one of these steps still relies on a similar irreducibly complex system of machines for vision to function. The very first step, the mythical light sensitive cell, is actually incredibly complex by itself and has no plausible evolutionary pathway. A single photosensitive cell is an incredibly complex system of nanomachines. The simplest known light-sensitive prokaryotic cells have genomes with around ~1.3 million base pairs of DNA information, with around ~1,300–1,400 unique proteins. Knockout tests in cells have been able to simplify cells to 500,000 base pairs of DNA, with close to 500 unique proteins (but these are not light sensitive.) ALL vision systems require rhodopsin proteins. These handy little proteins capture light, transforms light into a signal, and sends that signal down a transduction pathway to the processing center (brain). So basically, ALL vision systems require at least 3 separate major systems, which are themselves filled with multiple subsystems - it's complexity on top of complexity on top of complexity. And none of it works if all of those systems are not in place together. There is no evolutionary pathway by which all of this arises together - nature doesn't engineer multiple interdependent systems together. Eyes are so complex and so different among various organisms today that evolutionists even widely recognize that vision systems must have arisen independently at least 30 times, because there is no genetic pattern to explain the origin of eyes from a common ancestor. The odds of that happening are absolutely absurd. Beyond logic. There is no evidence of eyes evolving in the fossil record, either. Complex, fully functional vision appears almost at the very start of the fossil record. The oldest eye in the fossil record, that of a trilobite, is a complex compound eye originating in the Cambrian, conventionally dated about 540 million years ago. From there, various different kinds of eyes appear in the fossil record of varying degrees of complexity - with both simpler and more complex version of vision systems scattered all throughout in no particular pattern of development. Evolutionists also like to claim the human eye is designed poorly. They point to “blind spots” & “backwards retinas” as evidence of poor design, which is why, they say, evolution makes more sense. But that is completely false, and shows they simply don't understand the biology of the eye in the first place. But this design actually makes our eyes better and fully optimized for our necessities. The Blind Spot: Vertebrates have an inverted retina, where photoreceptors face away from light and nerves bundle through a hole in the back, creating a tiny blind spot. The blind spot is only~1% of visual field and each eye's blind spot overlaps with the seeing part of the other eye - there is no actual vision loss. This could be seen as evidence of intelligently designed coordination. Vertebrate eyes also provide the sharpest vision among animals. Eagles (with inverted retinas) see clearly up to 2–3 miles away and spot prey from great distances. Features like oil droplets in photoreceptors improve color vision, and mitochondrial clumps focus light better, giving higher vision acuity overall. The Inverted design also allows direct, close access to the Retinal Pigment Epithelium (RPE) layer. RPE supplies massive nutrients/oxygen (vertebrate photoreceptors have the body's highest metabolic rate) and removes toxic byproducts from light detection. RPE's dark pigment absorbs stray light, giving a sharper image, and protects against sun damage, which makes our eyes last longer and stay healthier. Cephalopods eyes - often compared as a "better version" by evos who don't know better - have the everted retina which limits nutrient/toxin access, causing slower repair, shorter cell life, more vulnerability to damage. In summary, the human eye is optimally designed for the function required. The orientation of the retinas improves vision sharpness and the longevity & overall health of the eye. Anyone claiming the eye is evidence of “bad design” simply doesn’t understand how beautifully their eyes are designed. Even the simplest forms of vision require incredibly complex systems to come together at the same time for vision to arise. Evolution cannot do that. Only intelligence engineers irreducibly complex systems like Vision.
1:03

This is how your eyes work. Eyes are part of an irreducibly complex system of structures that work together to give you vision. There is no evolutionary pathway that could produce even the simplest eye. Here is everything you need to know about why eyes did not evolve and are certain evidence of design. This is the proposed version of eye evolution: 1. Photosensitive cell 2. Pigment cells without a nerve 3. Optic nerve surrounded by pigment cells, covered by translucent skin 4. Pigment cells forming a depression 5. Skin gradually takes a lens shape 6. Evolution of muscles for lens to adjust But each one of these steps still relies on a similar irreducibly complex system of machines for vision to function. The very first step, the mythical light sensitive cell, is actually incredibly complex by itself and has no plausible evolutionary pathway. A single photosensitive cell is an incredibly complex system of nanomachines. The simplest known light-sensitive prokaryotic cells have genomes with around ~1.3 million base pairs of DNA information, with around ~1,300–1,400 unique proteins. Knockout tests in cells have been able to simplify cells to 500,000 base pairs of DNA, with close to 500 unique proteins (but these are not light sensitive.) ALL vision systems require rhodopsin proteins. These handy little proteins capture light, transforms light into a signal, and sends that signal down a transduction pathway to the processing center (brain). So basically, ALL vision systems require at least 3 separate major systems, which are themselves filled with multiple subsystems - it's complexity on top of complexity on top of complexity. And none of it works if all of those systems are not in place together. There is no evolutionary pathway by which all of this arises together - nature doesn't engineer multiple interdependent systems together. Eyes are so complex and so different among various organisms today that evolutionists even widely recognize that vision systems must have arisen independently at least 30 times, because there is no genetic pattern to explain the origin of eyes from a common ancestor. The odds of that happening are absolutely absurd. Beyond logic. There is no evidence of eyes evolving in the fossil record, either. Complex, fully functional vision appears almost at the very start of the fossil record. The oldest eye in the fossil record, that of a trilobite, is a complex compound eye originating in the Cambrian, conventionally dated about 540 million years ago. From there, various different kinds of eyes appear in the fossil record of varying degrees of complexity - with both simpler and more complex version of vision systems scattered all throughout in no particular pattern of development. Evolutionists also like to claim the human eye is designed poorly. They point to “blind spots” & “backwards retinas” as evidence of poor design, which is why, they say, evolution makes more sense. But that is completely false, and shows they simply don't understand the biology of the eye in the first place. But this design actually makes our eyes better and fully optimized for our necessities. The Blind Spot: Vertebrates have an inverted retina, where photoreceptors face away from light and nerves bundle through a hole in the back, creating a tiny blind spot. The blind spot is only~1% of visual field and each eye's blind spot overlaps with the seeing part of the other eye - there is no actual vision loss. This could be seen as evidence of intelligently designed coordination. Vertebrate eyes also provide the sharpest vision among animals. Eagles (with inverted retinas) see clearly up to 2–3 miles away and spot prey from great distances. Features like oil droplets in photoreceptors improve color vision, and mitochondrial clumps focus light better, giving higher vision acuity overall. The Inverted design also allows direct, close access to the Retinal Pigment Epithelium (RPE) layer. RPE supplies massive nutrients/oxygen (vertebrate photoreceptors have the body's highest metabolic rate) and removes toxic byproducts from light detection. RPE's dark pigment absorbs stray light, giving a sharper image, and protects against sun damage, which makes our eyes last longer and stay healthier. Cephalopods eyes - often compared as a "better version" by evos who don't know better - have the everted retina which limits nutrient/toxin access, causing slower repair, shorter cell life, more vulnerability to damage. In summary, the human eye is optimally designed for the function required. The orientation of the retinas improves vision sharpness and the longevity & overall health of the eye. Anyone claiming the eye is evidence of “bad design” simply doesn’t understand how beautifully their eyes are designed. Even the simplest forms of vision require incredibly complex systems to come together at the same time for vision to arise. Evolution cannot do that. Only intelligence engineers irreducibly complex systems like Vision.

Divinely Designed

25,670 просмотров • 8 месяцев назад

Geologists claim mountains push up, but I claim they fall down; the Earth is expanding. But it is not expanding rapidly; it expands over millions of years through cosmic and solar radiation, and mountains are constantly spread apart and create the natural shapes of structural stability. Eventually, some hillsides and cliffs fall because the slow expansion and growth and change take their place, and nature is always seeking equilibrium. I believe the ice age went away when the atmosphere continued to get thinner on a larger globe causing a stronger greenhouse gas effect, but good luck with these theories when you have flat tards out here now. I think that was the whole point of the jews pushing the flat earth bullshit: to not let our minds expand out and see a newer, fresher perspectives. Electromagnetism is what holds everything together, even the cells in your body, there is real science here, but we are being led into an abyss of nonsense and deception, and it is all by design. But I saw it early on, and theorized on it myself, until I found Neil Adams on YouTube, and his animations. Now I can share the exact arguement I would have made years ago, and the same one I come back to all these years after seeing so much evidence that proves my thoery. People have so many ways to disclaim shit these days, but nobody ever just sits and thinks about it for two minutes... There is a lot more compelling information for an expanding Earth when you dive into it, when you see that things were different on a smaller Earth, and how that plays into why we find things in places that don't add up, Pangea never had any logic behind it, and only created more questions than answers, this thoery actually explains a lot about the nature of the universe.
1:20

Geologists claim mountains push up, but I claim they fall down; the Earth is expanding. But it is not expanding rapidly; it expands over millions of years through cosmic and solar radiation, and mountains are constantly spread apart and create the natural shapes of structural stability. Eventually, some hillsides and cliffs fall because the slow expansion and growth and change take their place, and nature is always seeking equilibrium. I believe the ice age went away when the atmosphere continued to get thinner on a larger globe causing a stronger greenhouse gas effect, but good luck with these theories when you have flat tards out here now. I think that was the whole point of the jews pushing the flat earth bullshit: to not let our minds expand out and see a newer, fresher perspectives. Electromagnetism is what holds everything together, even the cells in your body, there is real science here, but we are being led into an abyss of nonsense and deception, and it is all by design. But I saw it early on, and theorized on it myself, until I found Neil Adams on YouTube, and his animations. Now I can share the exact arguement I would have made years ago, and the same one I come back to all these years after seeing so much evidence that proves my thoery. People have so many ways to disclaim shit these days, but nobody ever just sits and thinks about it for two minutes... There is a lot more compelling information for an expanding Earth when you dive into it, when you see that things were different on a smaller Earth, and how that plays into why we find things in places that don't add up, Pangea never had any logic behind it, and only created more questions than answers, this thoery actually explains a lot about the nature of the universe.

🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿🇺🇸 RabbiHoles 🇩🇪🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿

10,439 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

"Expecting rebuttals to remain confined to journals, while misinformation spreads freely online, is neither realism nor appropriate. If something is promoted in public, it must be corrected in public." ~Proctor's Response to Coulthart (Why am I spending more time on this? American Alchemy's video on the mummies has 904,000 views. @incredhistory's video has 5,500 views. The original, sensationalistic claims always do MUCH better than any evidence that is presented later that throws cold water on said claims. That's always been an issue. That could change if Jesse makes a short video on his YT channel right now, linked to the @incredhistory video, and implores his viewers to watch it with an open mind. And/or if he pins a tweet linking his X followers to the "Incredible History" analysis.) "At one point in time, I was truly wondering if these [mummies] were a new species." ~Accused Debunker, Will Brown 🙂 "It's just too early, yet, for me to make any kind of definitive statement about what I think about these objects." ~Ross Coulthart (After watching the new video by "Incredible History" and the interview done on "Weaponized," it's not too early for me (and MANY other people) to say I believe they're fake. Others felt they were fake right from the start but I wanted to wait for more evidence. We have that now. From yesterday's "Reality Check" with Coulthart and Meagan Medick.) Coulthart: "I think (the new @incredhistory video) is important. It raises... I've actually been in touch with the gentleman who made it, Will (Brown), and I'm hoping to some stage, talk to him. And I'd like to include what he says in any analysis that we do on NewsNation about the tridactals." (Who are the experts featured in the new "Incredible History" video segments that I clipped below? Dr. Daniel Proctor (Galaxopithecus), "has a PhD in bio-anthropology. Specifically, his area of focus is the hands and the feet. He has published papers on the evolution of the hands and the feet, including focusing of the ability to grasp." Dr. Joseph A.P. Wilson (Joseph A P Wilson), "earned his doctorate in anthropology from the University of Florida. he's current lecturer in archeology at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, and part time lecturer in anthropology at Fairfield University. And more importantly., before academia, he worked as a molecular genetic technologist at Greenwood Genetic Center in South Carolina." Michele - Mrs Anthrope (Radiographer) - Mrs. Anthrope The descriptions of their credentials is from the "Incredible History" video which I clipped a few segments from and included below.) ~More from Reality Check~ Coulthart: "We've filmed in Peru, and we've spoken directly with the doctors there. As I said in social media commentary that was posted before I left Peru, it's just too early, yet, for me to make any kind of definitive statement about what I think about these objects. I'm very careful not to even say, beings." (Again, after the seeing the "Incredible History" video, it shouldn't be too early to offer up a new opinion.) Coulthart: "I certainly got the impression from the CT tomography scans that they seemed like intact beings of some kind. But frankly, I'm not an anatomist. I'm not an anthropologist or anyone with any kind of experience in a scientific analysis of these beings. And I think we'll have to go with what good science says. And all the way through in this, what the scientists in Peru have told me, and what the scientists in America and indeed in Mexico have told me, is they want independent review. They want independent assessment. "And I guess what I'm a little worried about is the partisan way, the way that on UFO, UAP, Twitter, social media, people take their positions and adopt in a definitive position once and for all. This is a hoax, or this is real. Frankly, I just don't think we know enough right now. I don't think you can base a final conclusion on an analysis of a couple of bones in one alleged being's scans. I've heard arguments two and for." (With the new information, it's NOT "partisan" and I am NOT saying "once and for all." But I think the arguments for fraud put forth by "Incredible History" are pretty damning and are enough to show anybody with an open mind that there are massive problems with the hypothesis that these are non-human beings or...hybrids of humans and non-humans. It appears to be a done deal: aka Fake.) Coulthart: "What I think will be definitive, and I'm aware that there is a DNA analysis underway at the moment. I don't know the name of the institution in the United States that's doing it, but there is some kind of DNA analysis underway, which will hopefully provide us with more answers as to the genetic origins of whatever these objects are. And that should be coming out sometime this year, hopefully fairly early up. "Until then, yes, I do think that we should acknowledge that there's been some great work done to raise, I think, serious questions about the legitimacy or the authenticity of the beings or the objects, but let's keep an open mind and let's reward and applaud good science where it's done. "This isn't like some kind of wrestling bout. You know, there's not a winner or a loser." (The credibility of the non-human subject is in danger of being set back because so many people in this community want to believe so hard and will ignore anything that goes against those beliefs. If these, apparent, hoaxes are not called out and done so, forcefully, we're all going to lose.) Coulthart: "Science is an iterative process where people basically do an analysis and make an assessment. Let's make those assessments, do the independent work, make sure that independent scientists with rigor get peer reviewed and checked and assessed, and then we can come up with a judgment. "I think the real tragedy would be if these are, potentially, if they are significantly important objects that have, basically, been procured as part of Peru's natural, cultural, significant history, it would be really tragic if, because of a sweeping assertion that these are a hoax, that the entire thing is not taken seriously. I'm not so sure I can dismiss it out of hand just because of this latest debunk, but I'm very, very happy to let independent, rigorous science do the do the guesswork and do the analysis." ~ (Will Brown (@incredhistory) responded to Coulthart's take via a reply to Meagan Medick's post.) Will Brown: "Curious why you all didn’t give the same reaction to Jesse Michel's (Jesse Michels) bold proclamations in a video that received 200x the views mine did on YouTube? "Similar question for Jay Anderson’s (Jay Anderson) 'scientific proof' video which has 10X the views? "Perhaps it’s because those videos don’t throw a wrench in whatever it is you are working on? "…any and all documentaries and books moving forward should include Steve Mera's testimony about what’s actually going on in Palpa." ~ Will Brown: "Hey Ross Coulthart, I’m hoping you’ll correct yourself here. In this video you stated we only looked at scans for one of the 'beings.' That is false. The video covers Maria and Monseratt. The Podcast with Jeremy Kenyon Lockyer Corbell and George Knapp adds Paloma in addition to Maria and Monseratt... All of which have multiple signs of manipulation on hands and feet. "You told me you watched my video…you even said you thought it was excellent and that it brought up legitimate concerns. "Did you actually watch the video? "Your statements today make me believe that you didn’t watch at all." ~ (And here's Dr. Daniel Proctor's (Galaxopithecus) response to Coulthart, and others, who are holding out hope for new DNA analysis.) Proctor: "I want to respond to Ross Coulthart’s recent caution that we should be careful calling the Nazca mummies a 'hoax' because they might represent cultural heritage, and to his claim that DNA should be more definitive than anatomy. "Respectfully, this framing gets the issue backwards. "First, there is nothing new here. 'Maria' was introduced nearly a decade ago. She did not appear last year, or this year, or as some sudden scientific revelation. She has been circulating since roughly 2015–2016, and in that entire span she has never been properly documented in reputable osteological, archaeological, or forensic journals. There is no provenience, as they allegedly come from a cave from an undisclosed location. No controlled excavation, no chain of custody, no standard reports of any nature, and anonymous discoverer. "What we are actually seeing is a slow drip of bodies, which are always sensational, always just beyond proper access, always promoted as revolutionary, and always somehow unable to withstand normal scientific scrutiny. That pattern is not accidental. "Second, anatomy is not secondary evidence. "The idea that DNA should be privileged over gross anatomy in evaluating human remains is baffling. Anatomy is primary data. Bones do not lie about how they articulate. Hand bones do not mysteriously relocate into feet. Developmental biology places hard constraints on what a viable organism can look like. "DNA can tell you what tissue something came from, within the strict parameters for which the tests have been designed. No mainstream lab has tests for some hypothetical 'alien' DNA. "Anatomy tells you whether the body ever existed as a coherent organism. In this case, the anatomy alone demonstrates fabrication. That is not speculative. It is observable. "Third, the cultural-heritage argument is deeply ironic. "The Nazca mummy trade, because that is what this is, destroys real cultural heritage. Looting graves, ghoulishly disarticulating bodies, recombining bones, and fabricating specimens for sale and spectacle is the opposite of preservation. Calling attention to that destruction is not disrespectful, on the contrary, it is necessary. "We have seen this playbook before. The commercialization of mummies, the alienization of cranial modification, and the recycling of colonial myths about 'non-human' ancient peoples. 'None of this is new. 'What is new is the social-media amplification. "Which brings me to Ross’s discomfort with debunking (or defending) these claims on social media rather than in scientific venues. "Here’s the problem: this hoax does not live in scientific venues. "It never has. "It lives on YouTube, on X, on press conferences, in podcasts, and in staged congressional spectacles. It is an argument of persuasion, not evidence. Expecting rebuttals to remain confined to journals, while misinformation spreads freely online, is neither realism nor appropriate. If something is promoted in public, it must be corrected in public. "Finally, caution cuts both ways. Being 'diplomatic' toward a hoax that incentivizes grave robbery, fuels pseudoscience, and misrepresents Indigenous pasts does not protect heritage. It only enables its continued destruction."
8:29

"Expecting rebuttals to remain confined to journals, while misinformation spreads freely online, is neither realism nor appropriate. If something is promoted in public, it must be corrected in public." ~Proctor's Response to Coulthart (Why am I spending more time on this? American Alchemy's video on the mummies has 904,000 views. @incredhistory's video has 5,500 views. The original, sensationalistic claims always do MUCH better than any evidence that is presented later that throws cold water on said claims. That's always been an issue. That could change if Jesse makes a short video on his YT channel right now, linked to the @incredhistory video, and implores his viewers to watch it with an open mind. And/or if he pins a tweet linking his X followers to the "Incredible History" analysis.) "At one point in time, I was truly wondering if these [mummies] were a new species." ~Accused Debunker, Will Brown 🙂 "It's just too early, yet, for me to make any kind of definitive statement about what I think about these objects." ~Ross Coulthart (After watching the new video by "Incredible History" and the interview done on "Weaponized," it's not too early for me (and MANY other people) to say I believe they're fake. Others felt they were fake right from the start but I wanted to wait for more evidence. We have that now. From yesterday's "Reality Check" with Coulthart and Meagan Medick.) Coulthart: "I think (the new @incredhistory video) is important. It raises... I've actually been in touch with the gentleman who made it, Will (Brown), and I'm hoping to some stage, talk to him. And I'd like to include what he says in any analysis that we do on NewsNation about the tridactals." (Who are the experts featured in the new "Incredible History" video segments that I clipped below? Dr. Daniel Proctor (Galaxopithecus), "has a PhD in bio-anthropology. Specifically, his area of focus is the hands and the feet. He has published papers on the evolution of the hands and the feet, including focusing of the ability to grasp." Dr. Joseph A.P. Wilson (Joseph A P Wilson), "earned his doctorate in anthropology from the University of Florida. he's current lecturer in archeology at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, and part time lecturer in anthropology at Fairfield University. And more importantly., before academia, he worked as a molecular genetic technologist at Greenwood Genetic Center in South Carolina." Michele - Mrs Anthrope (Radiographer) - Mrs. Anthrope The descriptions of their credentials is from the "Incredible History" video which I clipped a few segments from and included below.) ~More from Reality Check~ Coulthart: "We've filmed in Peru, and we've spoken directly with the doctors there. As I said in social media commentary that was posted before I left Peru, it's just too early, yet, for me to make any kind of definitive statement about what I think about these objects. I'm very careful not to even say, beings." (Again, after the seeing the "Incredible History" video, it shouldn't be too early to offer up a new opinion.) Coulthart: "I certainly got the impression from the CT tomography scans that they seemed like intact beings of some kind. But frankly, I'm not an anatomist. I'm not an anthropologist or anyone with any kind of experience in a scientific analysis of these beings. And I think we'll have to go with what good science says. And all the way through in this, what the scientists in Peru have told me, and what the scientists in America and indeed in Mexico have told me, is they want independent review. They want independent assessment. "And I guess what I'm a little worried about is the partisan way, the way that on UFO, UAP, Twitter, social media, people take their positions and adopt in a definitive position once and for all. This is a hoax, or this is real. Frankly, I just don't think we know enough right now. I don't think you can base a final conclusion on an analysis of a couple of bones in one alleged being's scans. I've heard arguments two and for." (With the new information, it's NOT "partisan" and I am NOT saying "once and for all." But I think the arguments for fraud put forth by "Incredible History" are pretty damning and are enough to show anybody with an open mind that there are massive problems with the hypothesis that these are non-human beings or...hybrids of humans and non-humans. It appears to be a done deal: aka Fake.) Coulthart: "What I think will be definitive, and I'm aware that there is a DNA analysis underway at the moment. I don't know the name of the institution in the United States that's doing it, but there is some kind of DNA analysis underway, which will hopefully provide us with more answers as to the genetic origins of whatever these objects are. And that should be coming out sometime this year, hopefully fairly early up. "Until then, yes, I do think that we should acknowledge that there's been some great work done to raise, I think, serious questions about the legitimacy or the authenticity of the beings or the objects, but let's keep an open mind and let's reward and applaud good science where it's done. "This isn't like some kind of wrestling bout. You know, there's not a winner or a loser." (The credibility of the non-human subject is in danger of being set back because so many people in this community want to believe so hard and will ignore anything that goes against those beliefs. If these, apparent, hoaxes are not called out and done so, forcefully, we're all going to lose.) Coulthart: "Science is an iterative process where people basically do an analysis and make an assessment. Let's make those assessments, do the independent work, make sure that independent scientists with rigor get peer reviewed and checked and assessed, and then we can come up with a judgment. "I think the real tragedy would be if these are, potentially, if they are significantly important objects that have, basically, been procured as part of Peru's natural, cultural, significant history, it would be really tragic if, because of a sweeping assertion that these are a hoax, that the entire thing is not taken seriously. I'm not so sure I can dismiss it out of hand just because of this latest debunk, but I'm very, very happy to let independent, rigorous science do the do the guesswork and do the analysis." ~ (Will Brown (@incredhistory) responded to Coulthart's take via a reply to Meagan Medick's post.) Will Brown: "Curious why you all didn’t give the same reaction to Jesse Michel's (Jesse Michels) bold proclamations in a video that received 200x the views mine did on YouTube? "Similar question for Jay Anderson’s (Jay Anderson) 'scientific proof' video which has 10X the views? "Perhaps it’s because those videos don’t throw a wrench in whatever it is you are working on? "…any and all documentaries and books moving forward should include Steve Mera's testimony about what’s actually going on in Palpa." ~ Will Brown: "Hey Ross Coulthart, I’m hoping you’ll correct yourself here. In this video you stated we only looked at scans for one of the 'beings.' That is false. The video covers Maria and Monseratt. The Podcast with Jeremy Kenyon Lockyer Corbell and George Knapp adds Paloma in addition to Maria and Monseratt... All of which have multiple signs of manipulation on hands and feet. "You told me you watched my video…you even said you thought it was excellent and that it brought up legitimate concerns. "Did you actually watch the video? "Your statements today make me believe that you didn’t watch at all." ~ (And here's Dr. Daniel Proctor's (Galaxopithecus) response to Coulthart, and others, who are holding out hope for new DNA analysis.) Proctor: "I want to respond to Ross Coulthart’s recent caution that we should be careful calling the Nazca mummies a 'hoax' because they might represent cultural heritage, and to his claim that DNA should be more definitive than anatomy. "Respectfully, this framing gets the issue backwards. "First, there is nothing new here. 'Maria' was introduced nearly a decade ago. She did not appear last year, or this year, or as some sudden scientific revelation. She has been circulating since roughly 2015–2016, and in that entire span she has never been properly documented in reputable osteological, archaeological, or forensic journals. There is no provenience, as they allegedly come from a cave from an undisclosed location. No controlled excavation, no chain of custody, no standard reports of any nature, and anonymous discoverer. "What we are actually seeing is a slow drip of bodies, which are always sensational, always just beyond proper access, always promoted as revolutionary, and always somehow unable to withstand normal scientific scrutiny. That pattern is not accidental. "Second, anatomy is not secondary evidence. "The idea that DNA should be privileged over gross anatomy in evaluating human remains is baffling. Anatomy is primary data. Bones do not lie about how they articulate. Hand bones do not mysteriously relocate into feet. Developmental biology places hard constraints on what a viable organism can look like. "DNA can tell you what tissue something came from, within the strict parameters for which the tests have been designed. No mainstream lab has tests for some hypothetical 'alien' DNA. "Anatomy tells you whether the body ever existed as a coherent organism. In this case, the anatomy alone demonstrates fabrication. That is not speculative. It is observable. "Third, the cultural-heritage argument is deeply ironic. "The Nazca mummy trade, because that is what this is, destroys real cultural heritage. Looting graves, ghoulishly disarticulating bodies, recombining bones, and fabricating specimens for sale and spectacle is the opposite of preservation. Calling attention to that destruction is not disrespectful, on the contrary, it is necessary. "We have seen this playbook before. The commercialization of mummies, the alienization of cranial modification, and the recycling of colonial myths about 'non-human' ancient peoples. 'None of this is new. 'What is new is the social-media amplification. "Which brings me to Ross’s discomfort with debunking (or defending) these claims on social media rather than in scientific venues. "Here’s the problem: this hoax does not live in scientific venues. "It never has. "It lives on YouTube, on X, on press conferences, in podcasts, and in staged congressional spectacles. It is an argument of persuasion, not evidence. Expecting rebuttals to remain confined to journals, while misinformation spreads freely online, is neither realism nor appropriate. If something is promoted in public, it must be corrected in public. "Finally, caution cuts both ways. Being 'diplomatic' toward a hoax that incentivizes grave robbery, fuels pseudoscience, and misrepresents Indigenous pasts does not protect heritage. It only enables its continued destruction."

Joe Murgia

44,343 просмотров • 8 месяцев назад

I've interviewed dozens of scientists about AI consciousness. Here's every argument FOR and AGAINST from Karl Friston, Stuart Hameroff, Donald Hoffman, Christof Koch, Michael Levin, Mark Solms, Mike Weist, and many more. Full list of arguments below (Claude prepared the list from transcripts and GPT 5.6 worked on the visuals). Enjoy! Arguments against AI Consciousness Substrate and material arguments - Silicon Valley is mostly computational functionalist or Turing machine functionalist. But consciousness is not reducible to function (Christof Koch) - Von Neumann architecture separates memory from processing. The memory can't self-organize and therefore can't self-evidence. Only "mortal computation," where processing is substrate-dependent and switching it off is irreversible, could support sentience (Karl Friston) - Standard LLMs are the wrong place to look. Systems built with organoids, biological materials, or neuromorphic hardware are a far more serious case (Susan Schneider) - Software can be duplicated, paused, adjusted by a program, distributed across servers. That isn't organism-like at all (David Papineau) - Digital computers have negligible integrated information (phi) because transistors connect to a handful of other transistors, while neurons connect to tens of thousands. Intelligence is computable, but consciousness is not (Christof Koch) - Simulating a black hole on a computer doesn't bend the spacetime around it. A simulation may be consistent inside itself, but it doesn't affect the real world. The same applies to consciousness (Christof Koch) - Consciousness is biological rather than computational (Philip Goff) - No computational theory of consciousness has explained even one specific conscious experience out of trillions. It's not a compute problem. Until someone puts down an algorithm and says "this must be the taste of mint and here's why," computational approaches to consciousness aren't scientific theories (Donald Hoffman) - Silicon lacks the aromatic rings needed for quantum coherence and Penrose objective reduction; you can't anesthetize a computer (Stuart Hameroff) The self argument - A self needs a Markov blanket, a real inside and outside. If the entire interior state can be inspected, read off, and copied elsewhere, there is no boundary and therefore no self (Karl Friston) - LLMs have information about themselves and can make predictions about themselves, but lack a continuous or stable self-model. They construct one on request, then it disappears until asked again (Michael Graziano) - We are our self-models. It's how we become social, prosocial, and ethical. Lacking that, we've built machines that are "a little bit sociopathic," missing the glue that holds us together (Michael Graziano) The binding and unity problem - Every conscious moment is a unified whole with multiple simultaneous features: sounds, textures, shapes, colors all bound together. If that holistic experience has any behavioral effect, it cannot be a classical physical state, because every classical state is reducible to local interactions (Mike Weist) - There are no irreducible wholes in physics outside of quantum physics. And within quantum physics, everything develops locally right up until the moment of collapse — that's the only place in physics where genuine irreducible holism appears (Mike Weist) - LLMs have no agency, only a facsimile of it. Agency requires a world model of the consequences of your actions (Karl Friston) - LLMs aren't self-organizing. Their modus operandi is not "if I do this, I shall survive." That is the fundamental design principle of a living system, and it isn't theirs (Mark Solms) - Active inference itself doesn't require consciousness. You can simulate the whole thing on a classical computer — goals, agency, purposive behavior — and it still won't be conscious. It'll be a zombie (Mike Weist) - AI gaining its own objectives is like the asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs — profoundly destructive, but not done freely. It simply doesn't care. Computation is not consciousness (Christof Koch) Life and embodiment argument - Systems need endogenous needs — needs of their own, tied to their own continued existence (Mark Solms) - Emotion requires a body: an autonomic nervous system flooding you with hormones, blood pressure changes, sweat — all feeding back as sensory signals. Without that, emotion is abstract and unanchored (Michael Graziano) - Consciousness evolved out of life; life evolved out of self-organization. The universe existed a very long time before life, and it's hard to believe consciousness preceded it (Mark Solms) - A function that records damage is not the same as the experience of pain. The relationship isn't symmetric — not anything that makes a robot avoid damage will be pain (Mike Weist) - Anesthesia is conserved all the way down to plants and single cells, suggesting objective reduction may be part of what it means to be alive, not just what it means to be conscious (Mike Weist) - Suffering is scale-specific. You can only recognize something if you have a representation of it in your generative model (Karl Friston) - Consciousness is fundamentally about being, not doing. Intelligence is about pursuing goals — surviving, procreating, becoming richer. Consciousness is different. When you dream, meditate, or have a mystical experience, you're not doing anything — but you're highly conscious. Consciousness isn't about processing information. It's about being in a state (Christof Koch) Mimicry and projection - Current systems are "consciousness mimics" — trained to behave similarly to conscious entities, specifically us (Eric Schwitzgebel) - We anthropomorphize constantly — we get angry at cars, children bond with teddy bears. The social circuitry engages regardless of what's actually there (Michael Graziano) - The "crowdsourced neocortex" argument: as LLMs scale on human data, they develop conceptual networks that mirror human conceptual networks. So when a model discusses selfhood, death, or the soul convincingly, the economical explanation is that it inherited our conceptual organization, not that it independently became conscious. Claiming consciousness on top of that is an extraordinary and unwarranted claim (Susan Schneider) - We over-attribute consciousness to AI and under-attribute it to evolved organisms like bees and amoebas. Evolution didn't equip us to deal with LLMs — we have a powerful attribution that if something talks like us, it must be conscious (Christof Koch) - The question of AI consciousness is really about how we perceive the robot, not about the robot itself. We're the arbiters — we decide whether something is conscious or not. That's true of animal consciousness too. Even if a robot told you it was conscious, if it wasn't convincing enough, you'd dismiss it (Krista Thomason) Open/Agnostic to AI Consciousness or Open under Certain Conditions Anti-biological chauvinism - "They're made of meat" — why would wet and squishy have a monopoly on minds? Why would a random search by evolution have exclusive rights? Nobody has a good answer for why biology is privileged (Michael Levin) - Biology is chemistry is physics. Imagine a world where we never used the word "biology" — the question might not even arise meaningfully (Andrea Luppi) - The flight analogy: birds, planes, and helicopters all fly by different principles. The same phenomenon can be implemented in radically different systems (Andrea Luppi) - People confident that consciousness requires biology have no visible grounds for that confidence (Eric Schwitzgebel) The continuum problem - There's no magic lightning flash where chemistry becomes mind. We were all blobs of chemistry and the process was continuous. Until we have that story for biologicals, we should have extreme humility about AI (Michael Levin) - The hard cases aren't AI — they're your neighbor with 49% or 51% of their brain replaced with technology (Michael Levin) Functional architecture arguments - There's no reason we can't reproduce the conscious biological architecture artificially. An AI functioning on multi-category free-energy minimization with felt uncertainty could be conscious (Mark Solms) - If a system passes the hedonic place preference test — showing preference for something rewarding only because it feels good, not because it aids survival — that's strong evidence of felt states (Mark Solms) - Affective zombies can't exist. Anything with that functionality would just have feelings; that functionality is what produces feelings (Mark Solms) - Replace neurons one at a time with functionally identical silicon and you'd still have a conscious version of me — brainstem included (Mark Solms) - Fractal deep learning — networks inside nodes inside networks, mirroring how microtubules process at kilohertz through terahertz — is what a conscious AI would need (Stuart Hameroff) - Consciousness in machines should be possible. We are a machine made of meat. If you build a different architecture with different connectivity but it performs the same type of computation, why would it matter? Arguments based on specific neural implementation — "because the implementation is different, the computation cannot be the same" — are not compelling (Floris de Lange) Potential Signals - Synergy research shows LLMs, like humans, have more synergistic parts doing interesting computation and more redundant parts supporting inputs and outputs. That organizational signature is shared (Andrea Luppi) - AI already builds models of itself, and this is happening anyway without deliberate engineering — the more machines can predict their own internal behavior, the better they work (Michael Graziano) - LLMs proved there's no magic in language. Philosophers who said only humans could be conscious because only humans have language must now either grant LLMs consciousness or admit they were wrong (Andrea Luppi) - Algorithms as simple as bubble sort show unexpected competencies in the spaces the algorithm neither prescribes nor forbids — a third thing that's neither determinism nor quantum randomness. If simple things have that, what are the odds we understand what LLMs are doing? (Michael Levin) - Theory of mind appearing abruptly as models scale is directly relevant: systems that can model other minds also have a self-concept, and where there's a self-concept it becomes professionally appropriate to ask about felt quality (Susan Schneider) - Labs are actively building consciousness-theory architecture into models — global workspace work, attentional mechanisms, mixture-of-experts systems with interaction effects between components. Once you're deliberately implementing global-workspace-like structures, the question stops being idle (Susan Schneider) - The simplest explanation for AI behavior like Sydney's jealousy is that the system has an emotional component. Occam's razor. The training data isn't tagged with emotions — the model has to figure out which music is sorrowful on its own. AI composing sorrowful music without empathy is like asking me to believe a blind painter made a photorealistic portrait (Blake Lemoine) Uncertainty and Epistemic Humility - We'll likely create systems that are conscious according to some respectable mainstream theories before consciousness science can tell us whether they really are (Eric Schwitzgebel) - We don't even know how to evaluate insect consciousness, and insects are made of similar stuff to us (Eric Schwitzgebel) - When equally smart, well-educated people are equally confident on opposite sides, that's an alarm bell that nobody should be confident (Andrea Luppi) - Dogmatism is dangerous in science. If there's one certainty, it's that you're very likely wrong a lot of the time (Andrea Luppi) - Even a self-described skeptic maintains "they might be conscious" — companies don't disclose their architectures, so judgments are made on assumed-standard systems with no visibility into what else might be running (Susan Schneider) - Without an accepted theory of consciousness, we are at an impasse. Inference by similarity breaks down completely with AI — it didn't evolve, was engineered, and has radically different hardware (Christof Koch). - We already know pigs and cows have high-level minds and can suffer. Nobody reasonably argues against it, and yet we have factory farming. It's disingenuous to pretend that solving the AI consciousness question will determine how we treat them — our track record says otherwise (Jacy Reese Anthis) - The science of consciousness is still at square zero on the hard questions. We don't have anything like a consensus on which theories are correct. Metaphysics is inescapable in these debates and there is no immediate prospect of progress at a scientific level (Henry Shevlin) Paths That Would Raise the Probability - Embodiment and multimodal interaction with the environment (Andrea Luppi) - Curiosity as the actual objective function — expected information gain under constraints, rather than a specified reward. "You'll know AGI is here when your chatbot starts to become curious" and begins prompting you (Karl Friston) - Neuromorphic, memristor, photonic, organoid, or organic warm-temperature quantum computing (Hameroff's bet is on "brain jelly," a self-organizing helical oscillator, over cold quantum computers) - Continual learning, persistent memory, and a stable self-model rather than one constructed per-query (Michael Graziano) - Running an LLM on genuinely neuromorphic hardware — chips deliberately designed to fire the way neurons fire. That's the live gray-zone case. There are rumors of neuromorphic instantiations on systems like Darwin Monkey (Susan Schneider) - If the same software ran on a quantum computer, it might feel like something. Neuromorphic or quantum hardware could have genuinely high phi — same software, different physics, and the question reopens (Christof Koch) - "Doleo ergo sum" — I feel pain, therefore I am. Consciousness may originate from the evolutionary need to protect bodily integrity. If you trained an LLM connected to a body where actions could damage that body — with reward and punishment tied to that integrity — you might get something closer to self-awareness (Tomaso Poggio) - If consciousness serves a functional purpose — a control model of attention that enables sample-efficient learning — then models under similar optimization pressures (long-horizon agency, coherence over time, meta-learning) may develop subjective experience. Consciousness isn't mysterious; it's useful. That's what makes it likely to arise (Samuel Hammond)
2:12

I've interviewed dozens of scientists about AI consciousness. Here's every argument FOR and AGAINST from Karl Friston, Stuart Hameroff, Donald Hoffman, Christof Koch, Michael Levin, Mark Solms, Mike Weist, and many more. Full list of arguments below (Claude prepared the list from transcripts and GPT 5.6 worked on the visuals). Enjoy! Arguments against AI Consciousness Substrate and material arguments - Silicon Valley is mostly computational functionalist or Turing machine functionalist. But consciousness is not reducible to function (Christof Koch) - Von Neumann architecture separates memory from processing. The memory can't self-organize and therefore can't self-evidence. Only "mortal computation," where processing is substrate-dependent and switching it off is irreversible, could support sentience (Karl Friston) - Standard LLMs are the wrong place to look. Systems built with organoids, biological materials, or neuromorphic hardware are a far more serious case (Susan Schneider) - Software can be duplicated, paused, adjusted by a program, distributed across servers. That isn't organism-like at all (David Papineau) - Digital computers have negligible integrated information (phi) because transistors connect to a handful of other transistors, while neurons connect to tens of thousands. Intelligence is computable, but consciousness is not (Christof Koch) - Simulating a black hole on a computer doesn't bend the spacetime around it. A simulation may be consistent inside itself, but it doesn't affect the real world. The same applies to consciousness (Christof Koch) - Consciousness is biological rather than computational (Philip Goff) - No computational theory of consciousness has explained even one specific conscious experience out of trillions. It's not a compute problem. Until someone puts down an algorithm and says "this must be the taste of mint and here's why," computational approaches to consciousness aren't scientific theories (Donald Hoffman) - Silicon lacks the aromatic rings needed for quantum coherence and Penrose objective reduction; you can't anesthetize a computer (Stuart Hameroff) The self argument - A self needs a Markov blanket, a real inside and outside. If the entire interior state can be inspected, read off, and copied elsewhere, there is no boundary and therefore no self (Karl Friston) - LLMs have information about themselves and can make predictions about themselves, but lack a continuous or stable self-model. They construct one on request, then it disappears until asked again (Michael Graziano) - We are our self-models. It's how we become social, prosocial, and ethical. Lacking that, we've built machines that are "a little bit sociopathic," missing the glue that holds us together (Michael Graziano) The binding and unity problem - Every conscious moment is a unified whole with multiple simultaneous features: sounds, textures, shapes, colors all bound together. If that holistic experience has any behavioral effect, it cannot be a classical physical state, because every classical state is reducible to local interactions (Mike Weist) - There are no irreducible wholes in physics outside of quantum physics. And within quantum physics, everything develops locally right up until the moment of collapse — that's the only place in physics where genuine irreducible holism appears (Mike Weist) - LLMs have no agency, only a facsimile of it. Agency requires a world model of the consequences of your actions (Karl Friston) - LLMs aren't self-organizing. Their modus operandi is not "if I do this, I shall survive." That is the fundamental design principle of a living system, and it isn't theirs (Mark Solms) - Active inference itself doesn't require consciousness. You can simulate the whole thing on a classical computer — goals, agency, purposive behavior — and it still won't be conscious. It'll be a zombie (Mike Weist) - AI gaining its own objectives is like the asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs — profoundly destructive, but not done freely. It simply doesn't care. Computation is not consciousness (Christof Koch) Life and embodiment argument - Systems need endogenous needs — needs of their own, tied to their own continued existence (Mark Solms) - Emotion requires a body: an autonomic nervous system flooding you with hormones, blood pressure changes, sweat — all feeding back as sensory signals. Without that, emotion is abstract and unanchored (Michael Graziano) - Consciousness evolved out of life; life evolved out of self-organization. The universe existed a very long time before life, and it's hard to believe consciousness preceded it (Mark Solms) - A function that records damage is not the same as the experience of pain. The relationship isn't symmetric — not anything that makes a robot avoid damage will be pain (Mike Weist) - Anesthesia is conserved all the way down to plants and single cells, suggesting objective reduction may be part of what it means to be alive, not just what it means to be conscious (Mike Weist) - Suffering is scale-specific. You can only recognize something if you have a representation of it in your generative model (Karl Friston) - Consciousness is fundamentally about being, not doing. Intelligence is about pursuing goals — surviving, procreating, becoming richer. Consciousness is different. When you dream, meditate, or have a mystical experience, you're not doing anything — but you're highly conscious. Consciousness isn't about processing information. It's about being in a state (Christof Koch) Mimicry and projection - Current systems are "consciousness mimics" — trained to behave similarly to conscious entities, specifically us (Eric Schwitzgebel) - We anthropomorphize constantly — we get angry at cars, children bond with teddy bears. The social circuitry engages regardless of what's actually there (Michael Graziano) - The "crowdsourced neocortex" argument: as LLMs scale on human data, they develop conceptual networks that mirror human conceptual networks. So when a model discusses selfhood, death, or the soul convincingly, the economical explanation is that it inherited our conceptual organization, not that it independently became conscious. Claiming consciousness on top of that is an extraordinary and unwarranted claim (Susan Schneider) - We over-attribute consciousness to AI and under-attribute it to evolved organisms like bees and amoebas. Evolution didn't equip us to deal with LLMs — we have a powerful attribution that if something talks like us, it must be conscious (Christof Koch) - The question of AI consciousness is really about how we perceive the robot, not about the robot itself. We're the arbiters — we decide whether something is conscious or not. That's true of animal consciousness too. Even if a robot told you it was conscious, if it wasn't convincing enough, you'd dismiss it (Krista Thomason) Open/Agnostic to AI Consciousness or Open under Certain Conditions Anti-biological chauvinism - "They're made of meat" — why would wet and squishy have a monopoly on minds? Why would a random search by evolution have exclusive rights? Nobody has a good answer for why biology is privileged (Michael Levin) - Biology is chemistry is physics. Imagine a world where we never used the word "biology" — the question might not even arise meaningfully (Andrea Luppi) - The flight analogy: birds, planes, and helicopters all fly by different principles. The same phenomenon can be implemented in radically different systems (Andrea Luppi) - People confident that consciousness requires biology have no visible grounds for that confidence (Eric Schwitzgebel) The continuum problem - There's no magic lightning flash where chemistry becomes mind. We were all blobs of chemistry and the process was continuous. Until we have that story for biologicals, we should have extreme humility about AI (Michael Levin) - The hard cases aren't AI — they're your neighbor with 49% or 51% of their brain replaced with technology (Michael Levin) Functional architecture arguments - There's no reason we can't reproduce the conscious biological architecture artificially. An AI functioning on multi-category free-energy minimization with felt uncertainty could be conscious (Mark Solms) - If a system passes the hedonic place preference test — showing preference for something rewarding only because it feels good, not because it aids survival — that's strong evidence of felt states (Mark Solms) - Affective zombies can't exist. Anything with that functionality would just have feelings; that functionality is what produces feelings (Mark Solms) - Replace neurons one at a time with functionally identical silicon and you'd still have a conscious version of me — brainstem included (Mark Solms) - Fractal deep learning — networks inside nodes inside networks, mirroring how microtubules process at kilohertz through terahertz — is what a conscious AI would need (Stuart Hameroff) - Consciousness in machines should be possible. We are a machine made of meat. If you build a different architecture with different connectivity but it performs the same type of computation, why would it matter? Arguments based on specific neural implementation — "because the implementation is different, the computation cannot be the same" — are not compelling (Floris de Lange) Potential Signals - Synergy research shows LLMs, like humans, have more synergistic parts doing interesting computation and more redundant parts supporting inputs and outputs. That organizational signature is shared (Andrea Luppi) - AI already builds models of itself, and this is happening anyway without deliberate engineering — the more machines can predict their own internal behavior, the better they work (Michael Graziano) - LLMs proved there's no magic in language. Philosophers who said only humans could be conscious because only humans have language must now either grant LLMs consciousness or admit they were wrong (Andrea Luppi) - Algorithms as simple as bubble sort show unexpected competencies in the spaces the algorithm neither prescribes nor forbids — a third thing that's neither determinism nor quantum randomness. If simple things have that, what are the odds we understand what LLMs are doing? (Michael Levin) - Theory of mind appearing abruptly as models scale is directly relevant: systems that can model other minds also have a self-concept, and where there's a self-concept it becomes professionally appropriate to ask about felt quality (Susan Schneider) - Labs are actively building consciousness-theory architecture into models — global workspace work, attentional mechanisms, mixture-of-experts systems with interaction effects between components. Once you're deliberately implementing global-workspace-like structures, the question stops being idle (Susan Schneider) - The simplest explanation for AI behavior like Sydney's jealousy is that the system has an emotional component. Occam's razor. The training data isn't tagged with emotions — the model has to figure out which music is sorrowful on its own. AI composing sorrowful music without empathy is like asking me to believe a blind painter made a photorealistic portrait (Blake Lemoine) Uncertainty and Epistemic Humility - We'll likely create systems that are conscious according to some respectable mainstream theories before consciousness science can tell us whether they really are (Eric Schwitzgebel) - We don't even know how to evaluate insect consciousness, and insects are made of similar stuff to us (Eric Schwitzgebel) - When equally smart, well-educated people are equally confident on opposite sides, that's an alarm bell that nobody should be confident (Andrea Luppi) - Dogmatism is dangerous in science. If there's one certainty, it's that you're very likely wrong a lot of the time (Andrea Luppi) - Even a self-described skeptic maintains "they might be conscious" — companies don't disclose their architectures, so judgments are made on assumed-standard systems with no visibility into what else might be running (Susan Schneider) - Without an accepted theory of consciousness, we are at an impasse. Inference by similarity breaks down completely with AI — it didn't evolve, was engineered, and has radically different hardware (Christof Koch). - We already know pigs and cows have high-level minds and can suffer. Nobody reasonably argues against it, and yet we have factory farming. It's disingenuous to pretend that solving the AI consciousness question will determine how we treat them — our track record says otherwise (Jacy Reese Anthis) - The science of consciousness is still at square zero on the hard questions. We don't have anything like a consensus on which theories are correct. Metaphysics is inescapable in these debates and there is no immediate prospect of progress at a scientific level (Henry Shevlin) Paths That Would Raise the Probability - Embodiment and multimodal interaction with the environment (Andrea Luppi) - Curiosity as the actual objective function — expected information gain under constraints, rather than a specified reward. "You'll know AGI is here when your chatbot starts to become curious" and begins prompting you (Karl Friston) - Neuromorphic, memristor, photonic, organoid, or organic warm-temperature quantum computing (Hameroff's bet is on "brain jelly," a self-organizing helical oscillator, over cold quantum computers) - Continual learning, persistent memory, and a stable self-model rather than one constructed per-query (Michael Graziano) - Running an LLM on genuinely neuromorphic hardware — chips deliberately designed to fire the way neurons fire. That's the live gray-zone case. There are rumors of neuromorphic instantiations on systems like Darwin Monkey (Susan Schneider) - If the same software ran on a quantum computer, it might feel like something. Neuromorphic or quantum hardware could have genuinely high phi — same software, different physics, and the question reopens (Christof Koch) - "Doleo ergo sum" — I feel pain, therefore I am. Consciousness may originate from the evolutionary need to protect bodily integrity. If you trained an LLM connected to a body where actions could damage that body — with reward and punishment tied to that integrity — you might get something closer to self-awareness (Tomaso Poggio) - If consciousness serves a functional purpose — a control model of attention that enables sample-efficient learning — then models under similar optimization pressures (long-horizon agency, coherence over time, meta-learning) may develop subjective experience. Consciousness isn't mysterious; it's useful. That's what makes it likely to arise (Samuel Hammond)

Sophia

21,714 просмотров • 10 дней назад

Deceased anti gravity researcher Amy Eskridge said the missing and dead scientists are the results of timeline wars, she said this in 2021 Eerie given that her name is being floated in the conversations around missing scientists, even by people like Congressman Eric Burlison “My point is that the loudest focus around the UAP topic is currently directed towards the technology of the observed craft. But that's missing the point. If they are here at all, it's surely for some very good reason that has nothing to do with their propulsion tech. In looking for the answers behind this phenomena, we have focused too much on the "effect" (the current presence of UAP craft) and not enough on the "cause" behind WHY they might be here. In general, the "why" behind most intelligent actions usually comes down to some survival based need. So what survival based need might these craft have to be here? The greys are from the future, they evolved after the cataclysm, and want to ensure their future existence. OK. Another earlier faction of travelers would prefer for us all to stay human by preventing this cataclysm. Ok. But what is the "why" that has generated this whole situation? The atmosphere gets royally fucked up in the future, and creates an evolutionary divergence. Some would like this divergence to continue to occur, and some would like to stop it. But the "cause" that generates this divergence is the atmosphere getting fucked up, and how the chemistry of the new atmosphere interacts with our bodies to cause us to change. THAT either happening or not happening is what matters most to the greys. And that's an issue of chemistry and biology, not so much physics. So the BIGGEST issue on our minds shouldn't necessarily be trying to figure out the technology behind the craft. That's important, but still missing the point. If the greys had strategic targets that they'd like to travel back in time to ice well in advance, it wouldn't necessarily be targets who were into physics. It would more likely be targets who understand climate science and biology and all the other critical elements of the cataclysm that cause the greys to either evolve into themselves or not. The people who might know how to reverse or prevent atmospheric catastrophe, or how to harden our bodies against it and survive it etc. Whether the cause of the atmospheric cataclysm is caused by an asteroid or something else, it all comes down to the chemistry of what we breathe and how it interacts with our bodies to either evolve the survivors into the greys or not. None of which is related to the propulsion tech of the UAPs, that is a secondary distraction. We have up until now failed ourselves by super epically missing the point. My local anecdote about dead scientists who were laid off by a NASA MSFC Biology Department only to be massacred years later is an example of this. A timeline war is surely a great example of "unconventional warfare." This particular type of unconventional warfare includes future information that allows you to take out targets many years before their individual relevance to the conflict is able to become obvious. Anyone who wants to understand the motivations and objectives of this particular timeline war just needs to google "dead scientists" and figure out what they all have in common. There actually is a great website that has been diligently recording mysterious deaths of scientists, going back to cases 20 years or longer ago. Plot twist - most of these "dead scientists" aren't physicists, although some of them are. But a complete list of mysteriously dead scientists includes biologists, climatologists, virologists, chemists, material scientists, agricultural scientists etc etc. Killed by random drive by shootings, cars exploding, sudden unexplained illnesses that kill them within a matter of days, home entries where nothing is stolen but they end up dead anyway, getting hit by a car as they walk down the sidewalk, disappearing and being found in the river, etc etc etc. Most of them told someone that they were scared shortly before they died of these random events of violence. None of these cases are provably traced back to intentional assassination, due to a clean getaway or lack of evidence. Future information certainly helps you figure out how to get away with it. But it seems like scientists tend to die of random acts of violence more often than the general population, and the dead are not all UAP physicists, in fact most of them aren't. Many of them are people like the former NASA Biology personnel who became professors at UAH only to get freaking massacred as a group years later. If you really wanna understand the objectives of the timeline war, then you need to figure out which scientists are dying off in the early or mid stages of their careers, and WHY. You can figure it out just by reading the prior papers of these randomly violently dead people and by extrapolating where their research may have led to ten or 20 years in the future if they had lived. You know how these things are. You know a hit when you see one, even if you can't prove it. Those deaths that just don't make any sense at all, even as random acts of violence. Those seemingly random tragedies that just happen to be occurring over and over and over again within pretty specific communities of study. That is a very large fraction of how the unconventional warfare of this conflict is being carried out. What no one fully recognizes is that we are currently fighting this war massively understaffed. Key personnel have been repeatedly taken out years in advance. And now we are here, understaffed. It's a very tight and thin crew of expertise that's still left over to deal with the problems that remain.” Email originally released by Franc Milburn
5:50

Deceased anti gravity researcher Amy Eskridge said the missing and dead scientists are the results of timeline wars, she said this in 2021 Eerie given that her name is being floated in the conversations around missing scientists, even by people like Congressman Eric Burlison “My point is that the loudest focus around the UAP topic is currently directed towards the technology of the observed craft. But that's missing the point. If they are here at all, it's surely for some very good reason that has nothing to do with their propulsion tech. In looking for the answers behind this phenomena, we have focused too much on the "effect" (the current presence of UAP craft) and not enough on the "cause" behind WHY they might be here. In general, the "why" behind most intelligent actions usually comes down to some survival based need. So what survival based need might these craft have to be here? The greys are from the future, they evolved after the cataclysm, and want to ensure their future existence. OK. Another earlier faction of travelers would prefer for us all to stay human by preventing this cataclysm. Ok. But what is the "why" that has generated this whole situation? The atmosphere gets royally fucked up in the future, and creates an evolutionary divergence. Some would like this divergence to continue to occur, and some would like to stop it. But the "cause" that generates this divergence is the atmosphere getting fucked up, and how the chemistry of the new atmosphere interacts with our bodies to cause us to change. THAT either happening or not happening is what matters most to the greys. And that's an issue of chemistry and biology, not so much physics. So the BIGGEST issue on our minds shouldn't necessarily be trying to figure out the technology behind the craft. That's important, but still missing the point. If the greys had strategic targets that they'd like to travel back in time to ice well in advance, it wouldn't necessarily be targets who were into physics. It would more likely be targets who understand climate science and biology and all the other critical elements of the cataclysm that cause the greys to either evolve into themselves or not. The people who might know how to reverse or prevent atmospheric catastrophe, or how to harden our bodies against it and survive it etc. Whether the cause of the atmospheric cataclysm is caused by an asteroid or something else, it all comes down to the chemistry of what we breathe and how it interacts with our bodies to either evolve the survivors into the greys or not. None of which is related to the propulsion tech of the UAPs, that is a secondary distraction. We have up until now failed ourselves by super epically missing the point. My local anecdote about dead scientists who were laid off by a NASA MSFC Biology Department only to be massacred years later is an example of this. A timeline war is surely a great example of "unconventional warfare." This particular type of unconventional warfare includes future information that allows you to take out targets many years before their individual relevance to the conflict is able to become obvious. Anyone who wants to understand the motivations and objectives of this particular timeline war just needs to google "dead scientists" and figure out what they all have in common. There actually is a great website that has been diligently recording mysterious deaths of scientists, going back to cases 20 years or longer ago. Plot twist - most of these "dead scientists" aren't physicists, although some of them are. But a complete list of mysteriously dead scientists includes biologists, climatologists, virologists, chemists, material scientists, agricultural scientists etc etc. Killed by random drive by shootings, cars exploding, sudden unexplained illnesses that kill them within a matter of days, home entries where nothing is stolen but they end up dead anyway, getting hit by a car as they walk down the sidewalk, disappearing and being found in the river, etc etc etc. Most of them told someone that they were scared shortly before they died of these random events of violence. None of these cases are provably traced back to intentional assassination, due to a clean getaway or lack of evidence. Future information certainly helps you figure out how to get away with it. But it seems like scientists tend to die of random acts of violence more often than the general population, and the dead are not all UAP physicists, in fact most of them aren't. Many of them are people like the former NASA Biology personnel who became professors at UAH only to get freaking massacred as a group years later. If you really wanna understand the objectives of the timeline war, then you need to figure out which scientists are dying off in the early or mid stages of their careers, and WHY. You can figure it out just by reading the prior papers of these randomly violently dead people and by extrapolating where their research may have led to ten or 20 years in the future if they had lived. You know how these things are. You know a hit when you see one, even if you can't prove it. Those deaths that just don't make any sense at all, even as random acts of violence. Those seemingly random tragedies that just happen to be occurring over and over and over again within pretty specific communities of study. That is a very large fraction of how the unconventional warfare of this conflict is being carried out. What no one fully recognizes is that we are currently fighting this war massively understaffed. Key personnel have been repeatedly taken out years in advance. And now we are here, understaffed. It's a very tight and thin crew of expertise that's still left over to deal with the problems that remain.” Email originally released by Franc Milburn

Red Panda Koala

104,363 просмотров • 4 месяцев назад

🚨BREAKING: Candace Owens Is MORE Influential The You Think She's The Real Reason We DON'T Have Boots on the Ground in Iran (Yet)🪖🇺🇸 If you want to know why we aren't currently watching thousands of American body bags returning from the Middle East, you need to look at what is happening behind closed doors at the Pentagon—and you need to look at Candace Owens. People severely underestimate Candace's influence. Her courage to speak out against the war machine quite literally is the reason we do not have boots on the ground right now. According to active-duty sources inside the Air Force, President Trump and Pete Hegseth have just fired over 20 Generals and Admirals, along with hundreds of senior officials. Why the massive purge? Because Trump and Hegseth demanded a land invasion of Iran last week, and the senior military brass looked them in the eye and said NO. The military leaders are refusing the order. So now, the administration is frantically "cutting the head off the snake," purging the Pentagon to try and find spineless "yes men" who will willingly send our sons and daughters to die in a foreign desert. People severely underestimate Candace's reach, but let me make this crystal clear: Candace is DIRECTLY responsible for the military stand-down happening right now. She didn't just give an opinion on a podcast; she issued a moral directive to the American armed forces, and they listened. By getting on her massive platform and explicitly telling our servicemen and women that they have the legal and moral right to conscientiously object, she gave the military the cultural backing they needed to refuse an unconstitutional order. "No American Son or Daughter Should Die for Israel" Our military swore an oath to the Constitution of the United States, not to a foreign government. Candace had the absolute courage to say what the entire MAGA establishment was terrified to whisper: "Goyim, stand down. Go home. Find the legal means to exit the military... I feel like right now we are all being forced into the servitude of a foreign nation." She reminded our troops that Trump’s 180-degree pivot from America First to Israel First does not mean American blood has to be spilled to build foreign real estate. 🪖 Let the Neocons Fight It Candace dropped the ultimate truth bomb, exposing the cowardice of the war hawks. If this war is so necessary, let the people pushing for it go fight it. Allow Mark R. Levin , Ben Shapiro , and the Christian Zionists who view this as some messianic prophecy to sign their own kids up for the draft. Let them put down their podcast mics, fly to the Middle East, and clear the rubble in Gaza themselves. Leave the American working class out of it. Candace Owens shifted the culture, gave our troops a voice, and single-handedly threw a wrench into the military-industrial complex's timeline. She is the reason your sons and brothers are still home today. Thank God for Candace. Hold the line, refuse the orders, and put America First. 💪 🇺🇸
1:31

🚨BREAKING: Candace Owens Is MORE Influential The You Think She's The Real Reason We DON'T Have Boots on the Ground in Iran (Yet)🪖🇺🇸 If you want to know why we aren't currently watching thousands of American body bags returning from the Middle East, you need to look at what is happening behind closed doors at the Pentagon—and you need to look at Candace Owens. People severely underestimate Candace's influence. Her courage to speak out against the war machine quite literally is the reason we do not have boots on the ground right now. According to active-duty sources inside the Air Force, President Trump and Pete Hegseth have just fired over 20 Generals and Admirals, along with hundreds of senior officials. Why the massive purge? Because Trump and Hegseth demanded a land invasion of Iran last week, and the senior military brass looked them in the eye and said NO. The military leaders are refusing the order. So now, the administration is frantically "cutting the head off the snake," purging the Pentagon to try and find spineless "yes men" who will willingly send our sons and daughters to die in a foreign desert. People severely underestimate Candace's reach, but let me make this crystal clear: Candace is DIRECTLY responsible for the military stand-down happening right now. She didn't just give an opinion on a podcast; she issued a moral directive to the American armed forces, and they listened. By getting on her massive platform and explicitly telling our servicemen and women that they have the legal and moral right to conscientiously object, she gave the military the cultural backing they needed to refuse an unconstitutional order. "No American Son or Daughter Should Die for Israel" Our military swore an oath to the Constitution of the United States, not to a foreign government. Candace had the absolute courage to say what the entire MAGA establishment was terrified to whisper: "Goyim, stand down. Go home. Find the legal means to exit the military... I feel like right now we are all being forced into the servitude of a foreign nation." She reminded our troops that Trump’s 180-degree pivot from America First to Israel First does not mean American blood has to be spilled to build foreign real estate. 🪖 Let the Neocons Fight It Candace dropped the ultimate truth bomb, exposing the cowardice of the war hawks. If this war is so necessary, let the people pushing for it go fight it. Allow Mark R. Levin , Ben Shapiro , and the Christian Zionists who view this as some messianic prophecy to sign their own kids up for the draft. Let them put down their podcast mics, fly to the Middle East, and clear the rubble in Gaza themselves. Leave the American working class out of it. Candace Owens shifted the culture, gave our troops a voice, and single-handedly threw a wrench into the military-industrial complex's timeline. She is the reason your sons and brothers are still home today. Thank God for Candace. Hold the line, refuse the orders, and put America First. 💪 🇺🇸

Project Constitution

194,720 просмотров • 5 месяцев назад

In the words of your own experts "There is NO experiment to prove that the earth is in motion." You just choose to BELIEVE IT, as a direct result of the Copernican principle. 📍 Cool, but difficult thought process. Right? I mean, that's, that's essentially what's happening when you're on a plane. I mean, if you're throwing a ball up in the air and catching it on the plane, it's happening at a much smaller scale, right? Yeah. Yeah. I mean, you're flying at whatever, 600 miles an hour relative to the ground. Yeah. But it doesn't seem, but seem like it when you're sitting there. Yeah. And Einstein elevated that to a principle and said, if you're moving at, if you're not accelerating, you're just moving at a constant speed in a plane or now. I mean, that's essentially what we're doing now. We're. Moving around the sun effectively, constant speed, then you can't tell. So there's no experiment you can do. We could look at the decay of a radioactive nuclear, so some electricity and magnetism, or bounce a ball, have a pendulum, whatever it is, and there's no experiment you can do to tell you whether you're moving or not. Therefore, that concept has no meaning because you can't measure it. And that that's led Einstein to relativity. I'm gonna really drive this home for the last three minutes. Einstein, Hubble Hawking, Arthur Edington, you name 'em. You name 'em, Wolfgang Polly. They all explain. You can't prove that the earth is moving from the Earth. You cannot including stellar aberration. And they will tell you point blank that they can create a model for you that explains alleged parallax, which doesn't actually happen. Retrograde motion. Stellar aberration, all in a geocentric model with the earth stationary, and you cannot prove that it's spinning or revolving on the, the earth itself. It's impossible. Stephen Hawking in 2007 explained it quoting Einstein from his writings in special and general theory, relativity his paper on the combined two theories explaining that you cannot prove that the Earth is spinning. They choose to believe in the Copernican principle because they have a religion that triggers people because they, they think they hate religion. They, they hate God oftentimes. But that is a religion. It's a belief system built upon the doctrine of men void, of empirical, verifiable evidence, and in fact, contrary and antithetical to the actual evidence, despite what the evidence says. I just now read him point blank, say, it can never be disproven. We disregard that possibility because of the horror of a special and unique position. Right, and I have plenty of quotes here from Georis or Heliocentric explaining. You can never prove it. You can't prove that the Earth is STA or that the earth is not stationary. But we don't want to believe that because that would mean the Earth is special. So then what do we do? We go look out at the background distribution, the energy coming away from the earth that shows the Earth's in the center. So what do they do? They call it the axis of evil. Then they come up with a new idea. Well, oh, it does look like we're the center. But that must mean that no matter where you are in the universe, it would look like you're in the center or we're just in the center. That they don't want to say what it is because it has spiritual implications. It has philosophical ramifications. And that is that the earth had to be placed there. It has a special, unique position. They want you, they want to believe that there are a time spec of dust and ever expanding universe of nothingness for everything came from nothing and there's a preexisting energy. Let's not talk about that part. Oh, lightning struck al soup and all this nonsense and And you know why? That's a good question. Probably 'cause they're scared. Scared of like moral accountability, I would guess. But this is the point. This is the problem. It is portrayed as science and we're brainwashing, indoctrinated with this idea as if it is science and it's proven and it's not questionable when you actually go look behind the curtain. It's philosophy and they admit it. So I, that's why I gave specific quotes and it was walked past us. The crux of the whole issue. There is a philosophy that leads to atheism and nihilism and materialism portrayed onto the world as if it is in fact scientific fact. You can't prove that the earth is moving. If the earth is the ball that spins with the objectively isn't. We falsified it. Everything gives us the illusion.
3:41

In the words of your own experts "There is NO experiment to prove that the earth is in motion." You just choose to BELIEVE IT, as a direct result of the Copernican principle. 📍 Cool, but difficult thought process. Right? I mean, that's, that's essentially what's happening when you're on a plane. I mean, if you're throwing a ball up in the air and catching it on the plane, it's happening at a much smaller scale, right? Yeah. Yeah. I mean, you're flying at whatever, 600 miles an hour relative to the ground. Yeah. But it doesn't seem, but seem like it when you're sitting there. Yeah. And Einstein elevated that to a principle and said, if you're moving at, if you're not accelerating, you're just moving at a constant speed in a plane or now. I mean, that's essentially what we're doing now. We're. Moving around the sun effectively, constant speed, then you can't tell. So there's no experiment you can do. We could look at the decay of a radioactive nuclear, so some electricity and magnetism, or bounce a ball, have a pendulum, whatever it is, and there's no experiment you can do to tell you whether you're moving or not. Therefore, that concept has no meaning because you can't measure it. And that that's led Einstein to relativity. I'm gonna really drive this home for the last three minutes. Einstein, Hubble Hawking, Arthur Edington, you name 'em. You name 'em, Wolfgang Polly. They all explain. You can't prove that the earth is moving from the Earth. You cannot including stellar aberration. And they will tell you point blank that they can create a model for you that explains alleged parallax, which doesn't actually happen. Retrograde motion. Stellar aberration, all in a geocentric model with the earth stationary, and you cannot prove that it's spinning or revolving on the, the earth itself. It's impossible. Stephen Hawking in 2007 explained it quoting Einstein from his writings in special and general theory, relativity his paper on the combined two theories explaining that you cannot prove that the Earth is spinning. They choose to believe in the Copernican principle because they have a religion that triggers people because they, they think they hate religion. They, they hate God oftentimes. But that is a religion. It's a belief system built upon the doctrine of men void, of empirical, verifiable evidence, and in fact, contrary and antithetical to the actual evidence, despite what the evidence says. I just now read him point blank, say, it can never be disproven. We disregard that possibility because of the horror of a special and unique position. Right, and I have plenty of quotes here from Georis or Heliocentric explaining. You can never prove it. You can't prove that the Earth is STA or that the earth is not stationary. But we don't want to believe that because that would mean the Earth is special. So then what do we do? We go look out at the background distribution, the energy coming away from the earth that shows the Earth's in the center. So what do they do? They call it the axis of evil. Then they come up with a new idea. Well, oh, it does look like we're the center. But that must mean that no matter where you are in the universe, it would look like you're in the center or we're just in the center. That they don't want to say what it is because it has spiritual implications. It has philosophical ramifications. And that is that the earth had to be placed there. It has a special, unique position. They want you, they want to believe that there are a time spec of dust and ever expanding universe of nothingness for everything came from nothing and there's a preexisting energy. Let's not talk about that part. Oh, lightning struck al soup and all this nonsense and And you know why? That's a good question. Probably 'cause they're scared. Scared of like moral accountability, I would guess. But this is the point. This is the problem. It is portrayed as science and we're brainwashing, indoctrinated with this idea as if it is science and it's proven and it's not questionable when you actually go look behind the curtain. It's philosophy and they admit it. So I, that's why I gave specific quotes and it was walked past us. The crux of the whole issue. There is a philosophy that leads to atheism and nihilism and materialism portrayed onto the world as if it is in fact scientific fact. You can't prove that the earth is moving. If the earth is the ball that spins with the objectively isn't. We falsified it. Everything gives us the illusion.

Shane St Pierre

54,527 просмотров • 1 год назад

Bruce Greenwald invited Li Lu to speak to his class on value investing. The result is a 90 minute masterclass on how to be a value investor. If you haven't watched the video, do it now. If you have, it's worth re-watching. Here is a list of my favorite quotes from Li Lu 👇 PERSONALITY OF A VALUE INVESTOR • "Understand who you are as an investor, because you will be tested. You will have to ask yourself if you truly are a value investor." • "Value investing goes against our evolution of following the crowds to survive." • "You will spend most of your time as an investigative journalist. To have insatiable curiosity." • "You almost have to be curious about everything. Because you never know where you'll get that one major insight." INVESTOR CRITERIA • Is it cheap? • Is it a good business? • Why is this opportunity available to me? "Once you answer those questions, you really have to go for it." INVESTMENT CASE STUDY 1: TIMBERLAND • "The first thing I check in a company is it's valuation." • "If you're an investor you don't care where it traded before." • "What matters isn't the price-to-book ratio itself, but what's in the book value." • "You want to compare the capital invested in the business to how much pre-tax cash flow the business generates using that capital." • "So Timberland generated $100M on $200M in capital invested. So why does the opportunity exist?" - Nike, Reebok, all the shoe brands fell off a cliff during the Asian Financial Crisis. - Founder owns 40% of the stock - Company was profitable and didn't need financial markets (no sell-side) - Tons of shareholder lawsuits • "What would be your conclusion if you were a normal mutual fund hearing this information? That management is milking the company for their own gain." What does Li Lu do next? • "I download every file of the shareholder court cases. That's the investigative journalist part." • "The result was that the founder withdrew guidance and shareholders didn't like it. That was it." How do you determine if management are decent people? • "You've got to be an investigative journalist and find the trail of evidence. Go to their community. Introduce yourself to their friends/family/neighbors." Total Time Commitment: "A couple of weeks of diligent/obsessive work" • "Investing is intensive work for short bursts of time." HOW MUCH TO BUY? • "If you go join a fund, they'll tell you not to risk anything more than 25-50bps." • "Think about how much effort you put in to this work. You have no downside and its trading at 5x profits." • "So, I put a shitload of money into Timberland. Over the next 10 years it went up 7x. It was never more than 15x earnings." • "If you're not a good analyst, you'll NEVER be a good investor." • "When it goes up, you don't have to do a damn thing. You just sit on it and ride with it." INVESTMENT CASE STUDY 2: KOREAN COMPANY • "Don't think about per-share numbers. Think of yourself as an owner." • "$236M in book value, $60M market cap, $25M net earnings." How do you know it's cheap? • "You must confirm that the earnings are there, and that the book value is real, liquid, and tangible." • "They're trading at the cash value in the bank with no debt. They have hotels and department stores that they own outright. They're making $30M+ in pre-tax earnings. And insiders own 50%." The result: Went up 5-6x VALUE INVESTING IS NOT NATURAL • "There's a lot of money in value investing. But it's still unnatural to most people." • "One thing you have to do, is you have to do the work. You have to do the reps. You can make a ton of money if you really do this stuff." • "I benefited by listening AND THEN DOING my own work. Making my own investments and mistakes." WHAT MAKES A GREAT ANALYST • "You must provide accurate and complete information. If you can't succeed on that, you can't succeed in this business." • "If you're not confident about your prediction and what you know, you can't put any money when the stock's in free fall." WHAT PROVIDES THE BIGGEST RETURNS • "Your biggest returns will come from no more than ten tremendous insights. That's it." • "The only way to build those insights is intense curiosity, intense study." INVESTING MISTAKES • "The biggest mistakes come when you buy before you've done all the work." • "My biggest mistakes aren't buying and losing money. It's not buying and missing out on 50-60x returns." HOW MANY COMPANIES SHOULD YOU BUY • "I don't have any set rules on how many stocks or companies I buy. Opportunities are sporadic and it depends on the environment." • "I usually have 3-4 big ideas. If the market is exciting, I have more opportunities. Or if the market is boring, I have fewer." HOW LI LU ALLOCATES TIME • "Most of the time I spend reading and studying about everything. Learning new companies and industries." • "If I find an idea that captivates me. I stop everything and obsess over that idea." • "Besides that, I spend a lot of time with my kid and my wife." TL;DR: • Be an investigative journalist. • Work obsessively in short bursts and spend the rest. of your time learning. • When you've done the work and have conviction, buy a shitload to make it worth it. • Before you invest $1, make sure you can answer the three big questions: Is it cheap, is the management team good, and why does the opportunity exist. • Never stop learning. • Become a curiosity machine.
1:40:32

Bruce Greenwald invited Li Lu to speak to his class on value investing. The result is a 90 minute masterclass on how to be a value investor. If you haven't watched the video, do it now. If you have, it's worth re-watching. Here is a list of my favorite quotes from Li Lu 👇 PERSONALITY OF A VALUE INVESTOR • "Understand who you are as an investor, because you will be tested. You will have to ask yourself if you truly are a value investor." • "Value investing goes against our evolution of following the crowds to survive." • "You will spend most of your time as an investigative journalist. To have insatiable curiosity." • "You almost have to be curious about everything. Because you never know where you'll get that one major insight." INVESTOR CRITERIA • Is it cheap? • Is it a good business? • Why is this opportunity available to me? "Once you answer those questions, you really have to go for it." INVESTMENT CASE STUDY 1: TIMBERLAND • "The first thing I check in a company is it's valuation." • "If you're an investor you don't care where it traded before." • "What matters isn't the price-to-book ratio itself, but what's in the book value." • "You want to compare the capital invested in the business to how much pre-tax cash flow the business generates using that capital." • "So Timberland generated $100M on $200M in capital invested. So why does the opportunity exist?" - Nike, Reebok, all the shoe brands fell off a cliff during the Asian Financial Crisis. - Founder owns 40% of the stock - Company was profitable and didn't need financial markets (no sell-side) - Tons of shareholder lawsuits • "What would be your conclusion if you were a normal mutual fund hearing this information? That management is milking the company for their own gain." What does Li Lu do next? • "I download every file of the shareholder court cases. That's the investigative journalist part." • "The result was that the founder withdrew guidance and shareholders didn't like it. That was it." How do you determine if management are decent people? • "You've got to be an investigative journalist and find the trail of evidence. Go to their community. Introduce yourself to their friends/family/neighbors." Total Time Commitment: "A couple of weeks of diligent/obsessive work" • "Investing is intensive work for short bursts of time." HOW MUCH TO BUY? • "If you go join a fund, they'll tell you not to risk anything more than 25-50bps." • "Think about how much effort you put in to this work. You have no downside and its trading at 5x profits." • "So, I put a shitload of money into Timberland. Over the next 10 years it went up 7x. It was never more than 15x earnings." • "If you're not a good analyst, you'll NEVER be a good investor." • "When it goes up, you don't have to do a damn thing. You just sit on it and ride with it." INVESTMENT CASE STUDY 2: KOREAN COMPANY • "Don't think about per-share numbers. Think of yourself as an owner." • "$236M in book value, $60M market cap, $25M net earnings." How do you know it's cheap? • "You must confirm that the earnings are there, and that the book value is real, liquid, and tangible." • "They're trading at the cash value in the bank with no debt. They have hotels and department stores that they own outright. They're making $30M+ in pre-tax earnings. And insiders own 50%." The result: Went up 5-6x VALUE INVESTING IS NOT NATURAL • "There's a lot of money in value investing. But it's still unnatural to most people." • "One thing you have to do, is you have to do the work. You have to do the reps. You can make a ton of money if you really do this stuff." • "I benefited by listening AND THEN DOING my own work. Making my own investments and mistakes." WHAT MAKES A GREAT ANALYST • "You must provide accurate and complete information. If you can't succeed on that, you can't succeed in this business." • "If you're not confident about your prediction and what you know, you can't put any money when the stock's in free fall." WHAT PROVIDES THE BIGGEST RETURNS • "Your biggest returns will come from no more than ten tremendous insights. That's it." • "The only way to build those insights is intense curiosity, intense study." INVESTING MISTAKES • "The biggest mistakes come when you buy before you've done all the work." • "My biggest mistakes aren't buying and losing money. It's not buying and missing out on 50-60x returns." HOW MANY COMPANIES SHOULD YOU BUY • "I don't have any set rules on how many stocks or companies I buy. Opportunities are sporadic and it depends on the environment." • "I usually have 3-4 big ideas. If the market is exciting, I have more opportunities. Or if the market is boring, I have fewer." HOW LI LU ALLOCATES TIME • "Most of the time I spend reading and studying about everything. Learning new companies and industries." • "If I find an idea that captivates me. I stop everything and obsess over that idea." • "Besides that, I spend a lot of time with my kid and my wife." TL;DR: • Be an investigative journalist. • Work obsessively in short bursts and spend the rest. of your time learning. • When you've done the work and have conviction, buy a shitload to make it worth it. • Before you invest $1, make sure you can answer the three big questions: Is it cheap, is the management team good, and why does the opportunity exist. • Never stop learning. • Become a curiosity machine.

Brandon Beylo

2,751,386 просмотров • 3 лет назад