Sensitive content

This media may contain sensitive content.

Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Zur Startseite

Tem putinhas que topam qualquer rolê, o que elas querem é transar. Some sluts are down for anything — they just wanna fuck, no questions asked. 😈🍆💦 #slutty #anytimeanywhere #hornyaf #bareback Complete | Full video ⬇️🔥

45,573 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten •via X (Twitter)

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfügbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche Videos

Sabemos que os sentimentos de todos estão à flor da pele — e tá tudo bem sentir.🫶🏼 Por isso, resolvemos abrir a caixinha das lembranças pra aquecer o coração de vocês e relembrar o motivo pelo qual estamos aqui :🤍) #FreenBecky #ฟรีนเบค #srchafreen #beckysangels [For English, scroll down] A leitura daqui pra baixo é opcional, mas é de coração… 🌷🪽 Essa entrevista é uma das nossas favoritas, porque, ao olhar pra essas duas meninas que não faziam ideia de tudo que estava por vir, a gente consegue ver claramente que elas cumpriram exatamente cada palavra que prometeram — e nunca soltaram a mão uma da outra, nem por um minuto sequer. Então, independentemente do que aconteça, ou das incertezas que a saudade pode causar (acreditem, nós também sentimos muitaaa falta delas — somos fãs, assim como todos vocês), acreditem no que elas sempre nos dizem e confiem nesse amor. Deem tempo a elas. Foram muitas mudanças (muitas das quais nós desejamos muito!), muitas coisas novas pra lidar e uma agenda lotada de compromissos. Não deve estar sendo fácil. Sabe aquele momento da vida em que tudo o que a gente precisa é de alguém pra sentar do nosso lado e não dizer absolutamente nada? Só estar ali — nos deixando saber que podemos contar com essa pessoa, mesmo no silêncio? Pois é. Nesse momento, o fandom precisa ser “essa pessoa” pra FreenBecky. Se for necessário, saiam um pouco das redes sociais. Vão ver o mundo lá fora: ler um livro, reencontrar amigos, colocar aquela série atrasada em dia, ver o pôr do sol, tomar um café… ou uns bons drinks, por que não? Vivam a vida de vocês — temos certeza de que é isso que Freen e Becky iam querer pra gente. Essa não é, nem de longe, a pior situação que já enfrentamos nesse fandom. E nós sobrevivemos a todas elas — sempre renascendo como uma fênix. Sejam a Máfia que nos chamam. Sejam o Fandom do Ano. Sejam o Fandom Onde o Sol Nunca Se Põe. Sejam o terror dos concorrentes nas votações — porque é isso que nós somos. E depois que tudo isso passar (porque vai passar), estaremos aqui. Juntos, como sempre estivemos. Imbatíveis, como sempre fomos. Apoiando com o coração aberto, movidos pelo amor que nos trouxe até aqui: o amor por FreenBecky! Com carinho e uma xícara de café quentinha, Angelipa 🤍☕️ ============================== We know everyone’s feelings are running high right now — and it’s okay to feel. 🥹🫶🏼 That’s why we decided to open up our little box of memories to warm your hearts and remind us all why we’re here :🤍) Reading from here on is optional, but it truly comes from the heart… 🌷🪽 This interview is one of our favorites because, when we look at these two girls — who had no idea what was coming — we can clearly see that they fulfilled every single promise they made and never let go of each other’s hands, not even for a minute. So, no matter what happens, or what uncertainties missing them might bring (believe us, we miss them a looooot too — we’re fans just like all of you), believe in what they’ve always told us and trust in their love. Give them time. There have been so many changes (many of which we wished for!), so many new things to deal with, and a packed schedule full of commitments. It can’t be easy. You know those moments in life when all we need is someone to sit by our side and say absolutely nothing? Just be there — letting us know we can count on them, even in silence? Well, right now, that’s exactly what this fandom needs to be for FreenBecky. If you need to, take a little break from social media. Go see the world out there — read a book, catch up with friends, finish that show you’ve been putting off, watch the sunset, have a coffee… or maybe a few good drinks? Live your lives, because we’re sure that’s exactly what Freen and Becky would want for us. This is nowhere near the toughest situation we’ve faced in this fandom — and we’ve survived them all, always rising again like a phoenix. Be the Mafia they call us. Be the Fandom of the Year. Be the Fandom Where the Sun Never Sets. Be the terror of the voting charts — because that’s who we are. And when all this passes — because it will pass — we’ll be here. Together, as we’ve always been. Unstoppable, as we’ve always been. Supporting with open hearts, driven by the love that brought us here: the love for FreenBecky! With affection and a warm cup of coffee, Angelipa 🤍☕️

CENTRAL FREENBECKY BR 🇧🇷

25,066 Aufrufe • vor 9 Monaten

🚨MUST WATCH: Candace Owens just DESTROYED TPUSA for straight-up breaking the CEASEFIRE agreement she made with Erika Kirk!🔥 They agreed: No livestreams, no public statements, no tweets until AFTER their private 4.5-hour meeting yesterday. But what does TPUSA do the very next day? Drop a full segment on The Charlie Kirk Show pushing the "Tyler Robinson lone shooter" narrative HARD—complete with charging docs, family drama, and dismissing conspiracy questions. Candace: "I thought we weren't supposed to livestream until we spoke... It felt like a ceasefire—and then it was violated." She fact-checked them live: TPUSA claims event location public since August 27th? Wrong—courtyard specifics only hit media September 2nd (no rooftop scouting possible before then). Texts sound fake? Even Andrew Kolvet admitted they felt weird at first. No new bombshell evidence—just the same public affidavit we've all seen. Candace isn't backing down: She's still skeptical on Tyler pulling the trigger alone, demands real footage/proof, and says TPUSA finally owned some lies in their meeting—but actions speak louder. Shoutout to Justin Strife for facilitating and Megyn Kelly for pushing fairness. Progress? Yes. Trust restored? Not yet. The gaslighting continues, but Candace is unshaken: "With time, we'll see if I was right." Stay locked in, family—the fight for truth isn't pausing just because they want it to. Whose side are you on: Open questions or rushed closure? 🔥🇺🇸 Follow Candace Owens and go watch her FULL Episode from today. Link in the comments below! Drop a ✊ if you're with Candace demanding real answers.

Project Constitution

146,071 Aufrufe • vor 8 Monaten

AGI before 2030 or after 2030? Sergey Brin: "Before." Demis Hassabis: "Just after." Sergey Brin laughed. "No pressure, Demis." "I can ask for it. He needs to deliver it." They spent 4 minutes answering rapid-fire questions: The first question was about the web. Alex: "What does the web look like in 10 years?" Sergey paused. "10 years, because of the rate of progress in AI, is so far beyond anything we can foresee." "Not just the web. I don't think we really know what the world looks like in 10 years." Demis agreed. "The web is going to change quite a lot if you think about an agent-first web." "It doesn't necessarily need to render things the way we do as humans using the web." "Things will be pretty different in a few years." They were asked about hiring. Alex: "Would you hire someone who used AI in their interview?" Demis: "Depends how they used it. Using today's models and tools, probably not. But it depends how they would use it, actually." Sergey: "I mean, I've never interviewed at all." The room laughed. Demis: "I haven't either, actually." Then they were asked about simulation theory. Demis had tweeted a video of AI generating a natural scene. The caption: "Nature to simulation at the press of a button. Does make you wonder." Headlines said he thinks we're in a simulation. His answer. "Not in the way that Nick Bostrom and people talk about." "I don't think this is some kind of game, even though I wrote a lot of games." "I do think that ultimately underlying physics is information theory. We're in a computational universe. But it's not just a straightforward simulation." "The fact that these systems are able to model real structures in nature is quite interesting and telling." "I've been thinking a lot about our work with AlphaGo and AlphaFold." "Maybe at some point I'll write up a scientific paper about what I think that really means in terms of what's actually going on here in reality." Sergey pushed further. "That argument applies recursively." "If we're in a simulation, then by the same argument, whatever beings are making the simulation are themselves in a simulation. For roughly the same reasons. And so on and so forth." "You're going to have to either accept that we're in an infinite stack of simulations. Or that there's got to be some stopping criteria." Alex: "What's your best guess?" "I think we're taking a very anthropocentric view." "When we say simulation, we mean some kind of conscious being is running a simulation that we are then in. And that they have some kind of semblance of desire and consciousness that's similar to us." "That's where it kind of breaks down for me." "I just don't think that we're really equipped to reason about one level up in the hierarchy."

Jaynit

101,919 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

🚨VIRAL: Watch Candace Owens REACT To What JOE ROGAN Just SAID About Erika Kirk- The NARRATIVE Is Collapsing 😂 Tonight, Candace Owens highlighted a massive shift in the culture: The biggest podcaster in the world just validated what we’ve all been seeing. Joe Rogan went on his show and asked the exact questions the establishment is terrified to answer about Turning Point USA and Erika Kirk. Here is what happens when the truth goes mainstream. 🔥 Rogan didn't hold back. He openly discussed Erika Kirk’s bizarre behavior, her intense demeanor, and most importantly—her highly suspicious appearance in a CIA informational video about EMPs (Electromagnetic Pulses) and cyber threats. Rogan asked the obvious question about her appearance in the government film: "You're doing an acting gig for the CIA... who calls you for that? My agent never hit me with that one." He then directly acknowledged the massive, growing online theory: "There's a lot of people that think she was his [Charlie's] handler." Candace dropped the hammer on the CIA video excuse. The establishment tried to gaslight the public by claiming it was just a random acting role. Candace’s response completely shattered that defense: "You gotta get approved from the CIA to be in a CIA documentary... And no, she's not acting, she's specifically referring to her mother's business model: EMPs. She's not acting, she's involved." ### THE ESTABLISHMENT PANICThe gatekeepers are melting down. Mark Levin and others immediately attacked Rogan on X, calling it a "total disgrace." Why the panic? Because, as Candace points out, they are losing their grip on the narrative. "Everybody can sense that something is not right with Erica," Candace noted. They are losing the battle to convince the public that up is down. Candace ended the segment with a devastating point regarding the ongoing attacks on whistleblowers like Joe Kent. If insiders release texts showing what Charlie Kirk was actually going through, his shifting geopolitical views, and his final days... why would that hurt his wife? It only hurts her if she has been lying to the public this entire time. Candace, Tucker Carlson, Megyn Kelly, and Joe Kent aren't colluding—they are just independently telling the truth. And they are doing it to stop a hostile takeover of Charlie Kirk's legacy by the very people who claim to represent him. The truth is out. The biggest platform in the world is talking about it. And not even the establishment can stop it now. 🇺🇸⚓️ FOLLOW Candace Owens, RT, and watch her FULL episode below. 👇

Project Constitution

618,176 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten

I got asked for my best pieces of career advice. 9 things I wish I knew when I was starting out: 1. "Swallow the Frog" This is one of the greatest "hacks" to get ahead early in your career. Observe your boss, figure out what they hate doing, learn to do it, and take it off their plate. Easy win. 2. Do the old fashioned things well. Look people in the eye, do what you say you'll do, be early, practice good posture, have a confident handshake. It sounds silly, but these things are all free and will never go out of style. 3. Work hard first and smart later. It's trendy to say that working smart is all that matters. Wrong. If you want to accomplish anything significant, you have to work hard. Work hard early—take pride in it. Then you can start to build leverage to work smart. 4. Don't do your best. Do your best is bad advice early in your career. Don't do your best, do what is necessary. Do what it takes to win. 5. Build storytelling skills. World-changing CEOs aren't the smartest in their orgs. They are exceptional at: (1) Aggregating data and (2) Communicating it simply & effectively. Data in, story out. Build that skill and you'll always be valuable. 6. Establish a reputation for figuring it out: Early on, you'll be given a lot of tasks you have no idea how to complete. There's nothing more valuable than someone who can just figure it out. Do some work, ask key questions, get it done. People will fight over you. 7. Dive through every cracked door. If someone cracks open a door that may present an opportunity, dive through it. 8. Build a personal board of advisors. The concept of “mentorship” has become too formal. Asking someone to be your mentor feels like a big commitment. Instead, build a Personal Board of Advisors. A diverse group of 5-10 people you can go to for questions, advice, or feedback. 9. Prioritize people and experience, not salary. A 10x better foundation-building experience compounds much more effectively than that extra $5K in salary. You should be compensated fairly, but not all compensation is monetary. Think long-term. Build the strongest foundation. *** The full video breaks all of these down in more detail. The rules, tips, tricks, and principles that will allow you to get ahead and stay ahead in your career. Whether you're just starting out or looking to reinvigorate your career path, these insights are crafted to help you win! Please watch and share so that more people see it! Full video here:

Sahil Bloom

752,913 Aufrufe • vor 2 Jahren

The #1 Bigfoot Question I Always Get: Where Are the Bones? Once someone discovers you’re into Bigfoot research, how soon before they hit you with the same question Meagan asked Cliff? “So how come no one’s ever found Bigfoot bones… like a Bigfoot skeleton?” I’ve been asked this so many times I often start answering before it’s even asked 😆 It’s the skeptic’s favorite gotcha — and it’s a totally fair question. Cliff Barackman (Finding Bigfoot, museum curator, 30+ years boots-on-the-ground) has one of the best natural, scientific answers out there. He lays it out like this: Sasquatches are apex predators. When they die, they don’t just keel over in the middle of a trail like Bambi. They crawl off into the thickest, most remote brush, caves, or under fallen logs — places they feel safe. Then nature does the rest. Scavengers (bears, coyotes, insects, bacteria) tear the body apart fast. Bones get scattered, dragged off, and digested. In the Pacific Northwest’s acidic, wet forest floor, even big bones break down or sink out of sight in just a few years. Cliff points out we almost never find cougar, grizzly, or even black bear skeletons either — and we know those animals exist and die every year. Using a rough estimate of ~300 Sasquatches in Oregon (based on black bear populations and sighting data) and a ~50-year lifespan like other great apes, that means maybe just 6 Bigfoots die in the state each year. Spread across millions of acres of dense forest, with bodies hidden away and bones rapidly scavenged and recycled by rodents (and even deer and elk chewing them for calcium to grow antlers), it’s a literal needle-in-a-haystack situation. And if someone did stumble on a 3-foot femur? They’d probably just think “big bear” and keep hiking. It’s solid, scientific, no-nonsense reasoning. I love Cliff’s work — his museum, his casts, and his lifetime of serious research are top-tier. He’s also famously anti-woo. In this interview he’s very clear: Sasquatches are flesh-and-blood primates/hominins, period. Anything paranormal, interdimensional, shape-shifting, or UFO-related? He thinks those ideas are ridiculous and hurt the subject. But that’s where I have to respectfully part ways with Cliff. People close to me — longtime friends and folks I trust with zero reason to lie — have shared experiences that don’t fit the “just a big ape” model. High strangeness. Things that echo exactly what you see in Dave Paulides’ documentary American Sasquatch: Man, Myth or Monster. Quantum angles, DNA anomalies, encounters that feel… off-dimension. Stuff that makes the “woo” explanations start looking less crazy and more like the missing piece. I don’t claim to have it all figured out. But after years of hearing those accounts firsthand, I can’t ignore them. Cliff gave us the perfect biological baseline. Now the rest of us get to follow the weirder trails he won’t walk. What do you think — pure animal… or is there more to the mystery? Drop your take below 👇 I read and reply to all respectful comments. Full video link in replies ⬇️ #Bigfoot #CliffBarackman

Bugs Finds Bigfoot 👣🪶

17,445 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

Inadequate work of the Mossos in Catalonia. My wife traditionally decided to conduct a survey at a march of people presenting themselves as patriots of Ukraine. These patriots of Ukraine, among whom there are a huge number of men, prefer to love their country from a distance. At the same time, the shortage in the Armed Forces of Ukraine is already about 70 percent. In Ukraine there are so-called TCCs. These are special brigades that work together with the police. They take passersby off the streets, pull them out of cars, beat them. Several killings have already been recorded. This is how mobilization takes place. The questions Olga asked these patriots were: “Do you support the TCC?” If the answer was “yes, I support it,” the next question: “Do you consider it normal that such a large number of men do not want to join the Armed Forces of Ukraine?” “Do you not want to join the Armed Forces of Ukraine?” Another question: “Why do you think Spain still owes something? Hasn’t Spain already given enough to Ukrainians?” There were no provocations. Very quickly they began attacking Olga, because the question “Do you support the TCC or what are you doing here?” is considered provocative and even pro-Russian. Ukrainian Olga, who has been living in Europe for 10 years, was personally sent by Putin to question Ukrainians about the Ukrainian TCC. Everything is clear here. But what is unclear is how the Mossos began to act. Because these women started shouting, “Police, police, she is provoking us.” The Mossos began calming down not those who were attacking Olga for ordinary calm questions, but they started leading Olga away herself. Moreover, they began threatening her that they would issue her a fine, though it was unclear for what. Olga, who is a member of the European Union of Journalists, was asking questions at a public event without provoking anyone in any way. Nevertheless, the Mossos paid no attention to those attacking her and for some reason were taking her away, not allowing her to work. After that, something even more remarkable happened, because a man physically attacked Olga. After that, a Mossos officer did not even want to identify the attacker. And after that Olga was taken away and threatened that a criminal case would be opened against her. Apparently, a criminal case for the fact that she was attacked. We have, of course, already contacted the competent authorities of Catalonia. We are ready to provide all the evidence that there was not even a hint of provocation. We are ready to provide all the evidence of how the attack occurred. I have a question. The Mossos, who receive salaries from the budget, to which I honestly pay taxes, may already be on the payroll of the organizers of these marches? Maybe there is something I do not know? I think I will find out soon. To behave this way is wrong, it is inadequate. And we will obtain official answers regarding such behavior of the Mossos. We have all the original footage of the survey. It is pleasant to walk with flags and constantly demand something 3,500 kilometers away from Ukraine. And to call any uncomfortable questions “pro-Russian.” --------------------------------------------------- Trabajo inadecuado de los Mossos en Cataluña Mi esposa decidió, como suele hacerlo, realizar una encuesta durante una marcha de personas que se presentan como patriotas de Ucrania. Estos patriotas de Ucrania, entre los cuales hay un gran número de hombres, prefieren amar a su país desde la distancia. Al mismo tiempo, el déficit en las Fuerzas Armadas de Ucrania ya alcanza aproximadamente el 70 %. En Ucrania existen los llamados TCC. Se trata de brigadas especiales que trabajan junto con la policía. Detienen a transeúntes en la calle, los sacan de los coches y los golpean. Ya se han registrado varios asesinatos. Así es como se lleva a cabo la movilización. Las preguntas que Olga hizo a estos patriotas fueron: “¿Apoya usted a los TCC?” Si la respuesta era “sí, los apoyo”, la siguiente pregunta era: “¿Le parece normal que un número tan grande de hombres no quiera incorporarse a las Fuerzas Armadas de Ucrania?” “¿Usted mismo no quiere incorporarse a las Fuerzas Armadas de Ucrania?” Otra pregunta: “¿Por qué cree que España todavía le debe algo? ¿Acaso España no ha hecho ya suficiente por los ucranianos?” No hubo provocaciones. Muy rápidamente comenzaron a atacar a Olga, porque la pregunta “¿Apoya usted a los TCC o qué hace usted aquí?” fue considerada provocadora e incluso prorrusa. Según ellos, Olga, ciudadana ucraniana que lleva 10 años viviendo en Europa, habría sido enviada personalmente por Putin para hacer preguntas a los ucranianos sobre los TCC. Todo está claro en ese sentido. Lo que no está claro es cómo comenzaron a actuar los Mossos. Estas mujeres empezaron a gritar: “¡Policía, policía, nos está provocando!” Los Mossos no intentaron calmar a quienes atacaban a Olga por hacer preguntas normales y tranquilas, sino que comenzaron a apartar precisamente a Olga. Además, empezaron a amenazarla con imponerle una multa, sin explicar por qué motivo. Olga, miembro de la Unión Europea de Periodistas, estaba haciendo preguntas en un evento público sin provocar a nadie de ninguna manera. Sin embargo, los Mossos no prestaron atención a quienes la atacaban y, por alguna razón, la retiraron del lugar, impidiéndole trabajar. Después ocurrió algo aún más sorprendente: un hombre agredió físicamente a Olga. Un agente de los Mossos ni siquiera quiso identificar al agresor. Y posteriormente Olga fue apartada y amenazada con la apertura de un procedimiento penal contra ella. Al parecer, un procedimiento penal por haber sido atacada. Por supuesto, ya nos hemos puesto en contacto con las autoridades competentes de Cataluña. Estamos dispuestos a presentar todas las pruebas de que no hubo ni el más mínimo indicio de provocación. Estamos preparados para aportar todas las pruebas del ataque. Tengo una pregunta. ¿Los Mossos, que reciben salarios del presupuesto al que yo pago impuestos honestamente, están acaso en la nómina de los organizadores de estas marchas? ¿Tal vez hay algo que yo desconozco? Creo que pronto lo sabré. Comportarse de esta manera es incorrecto; es un comportamiento inadecuado. Y obtendremos respuestas oficiales sobre esta actuación de los Mossos. Disponemos de todas las grabaciones originales de la encuesta. Es agradable pasear con banderas y exigir constantemente algo a 3.500 kilómetros de Ucrania, mientras se califican como “prorrusas” todas las preguntas incómodas.

Anatolij Sharij

14,072 Aufrufe • vor 6 Monaten

Oh My God!!! 😱 Corbell Threatened to Release Hundreds of UFO Files, Which Were Also Given to Hundreds of Journalists! And Then He Backed Down! One Problem: It Never Happened I found the Jeremy Kenyon Lockyer Corbell clip I wanted to show you. But First: The claims... "Jeremy Corbell threatened to release hundreds of UFO files." ~Red Panda Koala And... "Jeremy Corbell says hundreds of journalists have been given the secret UFO files that will be released, if..." ~Red Panda Koala Full (inaccurate, IMO) claims, and the actual transcripts, are here: ⬇️⬇️⬇️ The following interview was uploaded several days after Corbell made those early-June comments that are now going viral, and for which he's getting a lot of hate over. This is a more complete explanation of the situation. Andy, forgive me for uploading such a long clip. I know this won't answer every question but it should educate folks on what was said. Or what was meant. And I'm sure it will calm the haters. 🥴 ~ Andy (That UFO Podcast): In 'Sleeping Dog,' you get your laptop out towards the end of the documentary. You know, dramatic, you dig some sh*t up. You've got a pen drive, you open it, and you see these files. And I'm sure, like many folks, I'm pausing frantically, reading all these names of files. I can just see the bottom of and the top. And I'm looking around your laptop screen. "And we begin to see clips of those videos. Now, those came out within the second release from the war dot gov, UFOs. Can you, first of all, clear up for me...we heard you had 46 videos that you were going to release." Jeremy Kenyon Lockyer Corbell: "No, who said that?" Andy: "So, generally, online, there was 46 videos were coming out. I think 52 came out. This is what I want cleared up, though. You know about those 52 videos that came out. How many came from you? Because the feeling online - and this even was for me - was, Jeremy's got his documentary, he showed what's going to come, and then within a couple of weeks we had the second drop, and bang, here's all these videos. Can you just clear up how many videos that were dropped, came from your end, and what's the story there?" Corbell: "Zero came from my end. Zero. Those are government-filmed UAP. They were provoked to release them by a variety of ways. George Knapp and I gave a multitude of lists of UAP filmed by our military, to Congress. They validated, they vetted, they found out where they were. We told them where they are, we had eyes on them, making sure they're not going to be deleted. "This is something we've acquired over decades, George and myself. You know, the newer ones are kind of the the best, I would say. You know, better hardware than, let's say, 15 years ago. But...so none of them came from us. That...it is government-filmed footage. "We identified the file names and file structures and location of holdings, gave that to Congress, and it's not just the 46. It actually surprised me when Rep. Anna Paulina Luna put out, and it was a gangster move. Rep. Luna put out a public letter to Pete Hegseth saying, 'Here are 46 files that we want.' "They didn't mention...it's actually 14 Air Force files that we've identified - even to the Department of Justice - that there's a bottleneck in UAP reporting within our own government. Remember 'Immaculate Constellation,' the idea of like, siphoning off the best footage. Well, George and I were able to identify that in Central Command, that there was a nexus point where there was a bottleneck, and the best UAP footage and evidence was being siphoned off even before it got to AARO. "Even our, you know, who were kind of enemies at a time, we informed AARO that there's this bottleneck, and if you want to find out where the good sh*t's going, we told them where. So, when you say 46 videos, 52 videos. Bro, there are probably hundreds of thousands. Very little ever get to reporters like George and myself, and it takes years for us to vet and verify. "And then, you know, anybody that leaks videos to journalists - if you consider them sources- they're at risk, you know, when journalists publish them. So, I have always been fighting. And then people yell at me, and they're like, 'It's not good enough, and the frame rates aren't right.' And all this weird sh*t. They're just baiting to try to like, dig in and try to investigate sources. It's all a charade. Everything with that online is a charade. They're just trying to entrap people. "So what we do, is we take the heat and we just keep doing the reporting. We gave Congress way more than 46 file structures, file names with locations, with evidence they exist. But we don't possess anything. We can't, legally. We can obtain and release. I'm familiar with, have access from time-to-time, too. "You know, you have to be really smart as a journalist on what your rights are. That's why I have a federal lawyer, which you learned in the movie is Chuck McCullough. Kind of one of the best federal lawyers you could have, now that I've admitted it, right?" (McCullough was the first Intelligence Community Inspector General, represented David Grusch, and is HIGHLY respected. The fact that he's representing Corbell is something that's lost on the Corbell haters.) Corbell: "So, basically, those are the protocols. Our government has hundreds of thousands, in full-motion video, which is like a layered, sensor system from satellite platforms, as an example, which you've never seen, no one's ever seen. With incredible fidelity, showing all-domain UAP coming from space-to-air-to-sea and back out, from sea-to-air-to space. That's fact. I know that for a fact. I have been witness to a lot of that information. "But I did not give anything to Congress except file names, and they verified, vetted, and put out a public letter for 46. They kept the other ones private, which I think was smart. Because sometimes even just the the file names themselves, you know, could be an issue for 100 reasons. Does that clarify what you're asking?" Andy: "100% And even in the Discord, when that drop happened, everyone's Discords and stuff were going crazy. People were asking, 'Are these the videos that Corbell and Knapp have provided?' So there has been this idea, from some, that you guys gave them the videos. But what you've given was the locations, how to get them, where they were." Corbell: "The exact file names and locations, with verifiable proof that they do exist, that they did exist upon delivery, of those titles. You know. I'm not gonna just... You know, and also, what we get, when they ask for them, from Pete Hegseth and Department of War, is when they do release them, which they were provoked to do. That's the thing. "And they're not all out. The 46, just read the file names that were in that list, and then look at what was released. They are not all out. So think about that. They give you the underhanded pitch, the bottom of the barrel. And George Knapp and I, as I have said, we're gonna continue our reporting. "But it's kind of like a warning shot. You're like, here's what is in the hands of over 100 journalists, including podcasters now. Meaning they they can get access if they need. That's a whole process. But, essentially, we're telling them what journalists have. So what you can do is get in front of it and release the full, original files. And then nobody argues about frame rates, nobody goes after sources. "That's the way it should work because the onus is on the United States government because they themselves have said that we are going to be transparent about this, we're gonna be putting out all this information. Good, good. "So you've started, and it was total happenstance that the first release was on the premiere of 'Sleeping Dog' date, In in the sense that, I had no idea they were going to do that. It's kind of hilarious. But, you know, we did inform them before about the movie and that we're gonna, you know, do our journalism. So, you do the math." Andy: "Yeah, no, that's useful. And can we just confirm, I am not one of the podcasters who has those files before I am raided, or the CIA get in touch." Corbell: "Nobody has the files. You know, George and I have been sure to back up our work and provide an ability, if anything goes sideways, that, you know, the American public gets what they need. You know, it's very simple, dude. It's not like cloak and dagger. "You have to make sure that when you're reporting on things of national-security concern, that you don't damage national security, A number one. I'm an American, I live here, I love my country. Like, straight up. But also, you put things in place so that you're not the only one who's been able to see or have access, at time. And that's what we did. "We did that to protect sources, whistleblowers, and the information itself getting out to people. I don't possess anything, Andy. Of course, you don't. You're a foreign journalist to me. I'm sorry, but that that's another aspect to it. Is that, even though we have Five-Eyes Alliance, we've never hung out and had a beer, dude." Andy: "Not yet." Corbell: "[Laughs] I hope to." Andy: "Next year's Contact [in the Desert], maybe. So those 100 journalists... Because so many folks got in touch with me to ask..." Corbell: "100-plus." Andy: "100-plus, journalists and podcasters. It's not like you've sent out a special-edition pen drive and went, 'Here's all the files, if something happens.' But there are ways and means that if something did happen to yourself and/or George (Corbell: "Oh yeah"), these folks can access this material?" Corbell: "Yeah. I said it in Episode 60 of Weaponized, right? So we have, as journalists, we have covered and made sure the American public will never be, you know, the American public will never stay in the dark about what we've reported on or what we have to report on. But, you know, we have to go slow, we have to vet everything. It's just an insurance thing that that people would have instantaneous access. "I don't want that, either. Like, I don't want...you can't tell your friends, somebody, without telling your enemies. You know, and I don't...I would rather that we just continue doing our journalism under First Amendment, in America, without any interruption, in any way, that is illegal. And that's what's been happening. You know, the influence campaigns and the threats and that kind of thing. "So, yeah, man, I don't know how far we wanna go into that, but just base-level, we have made sure to protect the information that George Knapp and I have obtained over the decades. We don't hold in possession of anything, but at the same time, we've democratized the way that information will get out if we're stopped in any way, and that's just how it is." Andy: "And you guys are in full control of that, that no one can go rogue that has the information, or, you know, 'Ah, f**k Jeremy and George. I can access this. I'm gonna go off and find.' No, you guys are in complete control of that?" Corbell: "No, because that's a national-security issue because the nature of any information that comes to us in this realm. But additionally, that's not the right way to go about... I don't wanna go too deep into this, but that's not the right way that journalists operate, right? Is, you don't just haphazardly... So, no. Is that okay? Just end with no?" Andy: "You can end with 'no' on that one. It might come back round in one of these other answers to a different question." Corbell: "Okay, yeah."

Joe Murgia

64,928 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

"I'm telling the administration...that if they don't release those [videos I've seen], then I have the capabilities of getting those videos and releasing them." ~Burlison (Transcript and comments by me on one of my fav segments in a long time.) ~ Will Cain: "Missouri Republican Congressman, Rep. Eric Burlison, joins me now. Congressman, thanks for being with us here today. You and I, Congressman, I think we've had a very candid conversation together. We have both talked about the fact that I am open and curious about this subject of UAPs, but I do feel like we're at a place where evidence needs to start meeting expectations. What we've seen today, what does this tell us? Does this meet any expectation?" Burlison: "I think that there's...we have to take a step back and recognize the historic nature of this. Every president prior to President Trump has really demurred any kind of questions on this. They dismissed them, they would not talk about it. People would, if anything, snicker or sneer anytime this kind of subject came up. So the fact that we have a president who is open and willing and trying to be transparent is something to celebrate. "That being said, I think that this is a teaser, this is a kind of a, you know, something to open up with. This was the low-hanging fruit kind of videos and content for this administration to release. A lot of this has been...some of this has been out there before. It's not been acknowledged, right? So, you're looking at Apollo 17 video..." Cain: "I've seen the same thing said by Rep. Tim Burchett Press Office. That this is sort of the beginning, and there will be other releases that could leave Americans with a holy crap moment. I believe that's a direct quote from Congressman Tim Burchett." (This is what Burchett tweeted today: Burchett: "The 1st drop will be big but in comparison to what is coming they will be a drop in the bucket. I would say 'Holy Crap' is coming." I hope so. Or people are going to be upset that the videos and evidence didn't meet the hype, and you may see a lot of people losing interest in this topic. Last month, he told Elizabeth Vargas: “I’ve seen pictures and video of things that defy any reason that we have." ~Burchett And also last month, he told NEWSMAX: “If they would release the things that I've seen, you would stay up. You'd be up at night worrying about or thinking about this stuff... And for the record, I'm not suicidal and I don't take risks.” ~Burchett (That's some major hype there and, again, I hope future videos live up to it. I'm gonna guess that Burlison is NOT a fan of getting people's expectation up like that.) Cain: "My question for you, or the congressman, would be: Why? Why slow roll this out like it's a season of 'Game of Thrones'? Like, why would Episode 1 be somewhat uninspiring - leave us with more questions than answered - if there's something coming after the teaser? What's the point in staging the release?" Burlison: "So, again, this...just from talking with the White House and this administration, this is not an easy thing to do. There's not one huge repository of all of these documents and videos and photos. Despite what most people believe, they're really...at least we haven't found that one, you know, big repository. So what the Agency is doing is going and finding, first and foremost, the items that are readily available to be released. And they wanna be quick...move quickly and release those." (Okay, so they haven't located the best videos yet? Then what was Burchett shown? And if what he was shown is really THAT amazing, why haven't those videos or photos been released? Drip, drip? The excuse that they haven't been able to locate them yet doesn't hold water IF Burchett's take is accurate and they showed him SOMETHING that blew his mind and will blow our minds. Or, did he just hype it up and whatever he saw is really not that impressive? As I've asked several times in the past: Do these amazing videos actually exist?) Burlison: "I would ask you, would you prefer to have them wait for, you know, years, what would probably take years if they were to do a comprehensive study and then release it all at once, in one big batch? I would prefer that they release it as they find it, and I think that that's...this administration wants to be transparent and do that." (Great! How about releasing what Burchett was referring to in his interviews?) Cain: "My criticism is not for the decisions of the administration." (Well, if the Trump administration isn't releasing the best of the best videos that they already have in their possession because they're afraid of how Americans (and the world) might react (fear and panic), then they DO deserve some criticism, right?) Cain: "My criticism is for the expectation built by many out there that have these conversations, that there will soon be a bomb to drop when it comes to revelations about aliens." (Burchett, and then Rep. Anna Paulina Luna with her repeated comments about interdimensional beings. Luna: "...this is something you can go back and watch with the Congressional hearings - but I was actually able to ask some of the witnesses, 'What are these things?' And they keep saying interdimensional. "I wouldn't call them aliens. I really like what Grusch calls it. He says that they're interdimensional beings and he's very specific about that." Grusch has NEVER said that, nor has any witness who testified in front of Congress, so I have no idea where she's getting that from.) Cain: "And, if that's true, are we trying to prepare the American people with a slow drip, drip, drip tease of this stuff? If not, then Congressman, I would say, if this is all we've got, then I'm not sure that there's anything the American government really has that tells us anything about the existence of aliens? I'm just beginning to feel like this entire story is teased out always just beyond our reach." (That's why we need just ONE (for starters) clear and close-up video of an object performing maneuvers that we thought were impossible. And as of right now, we don't have that. I've said this many times. Does that type of video exist?) Burlison: "I can sense your frustration. I've experienced it personally myself. I've seen videos that I think are in the process of being declassified, so I think that there is more to come. If they're not going to be declassified, I'll probably do an effort to release them myself under Speech and Debate." (In short, the Speech or Debate clause says that a Senator or Representative can speak freely about anything, or share anything, in either house of Congress and have absolute immunity from civil or criminal liability. I'll link to an example in the replies.) Burlison: "But again, a lot of the footage that I've seen is similar to what has been released today. There's some that are pretty interesting, and especially given the environment and the circumstances of the videos. Whether they are videos of UAP that are flying around Russian submarines or a video of our aircraft that are firing on some of these UAPs? I've seen those kind of videos. And so I'm teasing that because I know that...I'm telling the administration, through you (Will Cain) at this moment, that if they don't release those, then I have the capabilities of getting those videos and releasing them." (How much better are those videos than what we've seen today?) Cain: "Can I say one more thing about this, congressman? I expect you and I will have much longer conversations like we have in the past, where we have fewer time constraints. But what I'm seeing here, and we're sharing today, and what's been released, there are probably hundreds, perhaps 1000s, of explanations for what we see on these video screens. They don't lead us directly to extraterrestrial or out-of-this-world explanations. "Is there something else? Is there some other proof that you've seen? Is there a more compelling video that can't be described or explained as a drone or a light refraction or any other thing. Again, I'm not cynically dismissing these things, as I've always mentioned to you. I'm open and curious. I just don't think the evidence is meeting the moment." (I agree with Cain. The government-released or government-acquired footage just doesn't get us over the hump with the masses and skeptics.) Burlison: "I think you and I are at the exact same place. I continue to look for these things and try to follow the narrative that people are saying. Follow the historical narrative that we have a crash retrieval program, and this is the kind of information I keep getting presented. It doesn't mean that we don't stop looking." Cain: "Fair." (If we have recovered craft and bodies of non-humans, and it can be PROVEN, then these videos from today will be forgotten instantly.) Burlison: "And I have...and so the White House and the ODNI is looking for the next places to go investigate. And I think that...and they've actually been open in asking me where those next places should be, and so we're offering..we're gonna be working to offer those locations. A lot of this, Will, is gonna be in the hands of these agencies that are quasi-private or private companies, and that's gonna be a harder dig for this, for this administration to do, but that's where I think we're gonna get to the truth." (Let's start with the "holy crap" videos Burchett hyped and saw and see if they are as good as he's claiming.) Cain: "Well, to his defense, the President hasn't made big promises about what this would reveal. I don't think I can say that about everyone who purports to have seen something that there are big revelations, and so far, the evidence in the videos haven't met the promises. I do hope we continue to see more, congressman. I hope you do fight so we can see more. Obviously, transparency and answers is what we're seeking here on what would be a gigantic issue. Congressman Burlison, thanks, as always, for your time." Burlison: "Anytime."

Joe Murgia

22,530 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

"George Knapp and I provided that list (of 46 videos) to Congress." ~JC What's it Gonna Take to Wake the Masses? Full segment with Biden, Obama and Trump comments. Trump: "They wanna find out about the UFOs, and anything having to do with UFO or related material. And we're gonna be releasing a lot of things from...that we have. And I think some of it's gonna be very interesting to people." ~ Peter Doocy in Studio: "Many historic developments in a story that I've been working on for five years, but our next guest has been working on for much longer. So, let's start here. My interest was piqued when Barack Obama said this in 2021." Obama on The Late Show with James Corden: "When it comes to aliens, there are some things I just can't tell you, on air." ~ Doocy in Studio: "I was so curious about that, so I asked the only man I knew, at the time, who could possibly help." ~ Doocy: "President Obama says that there is footage and records of objects in the skies, these Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon. And he says, we don't know exactly what they are. What do you think that it is?" Biden: "I would ask him again. Thank you." (A pathetic response that I called out at the time. Maybe I have BDS? 😵‍💫 ) ~ Doocy in Studio: "Not very helpful, Joe! I haven't had a chance to ask Barack Obama, and it had been eating at me. And then, he said something else." ~ Brian Tyler Cohen (BTC): "Are aliens real?" Obama: "Uh, they're real, but I haven't seen 'em, and they're not being kept in, uh... What is it?" BTC: "Area 51?" Obama: "Area 51." ~ Doocy in Studio: "If the last President couldn't help us with answers about aliens, maybe this one could. Spoiler alert, he did." ~ Doocy on Air Force One: "Barack Obama said that aliens are real. Have you seen any evidence of non-human visitors to Earth?" Trump: "Well he gave classified information, he's not supposed to be doing that. You know." Doocy: "So aliens are real?" Trump: "Well I don't know if they're real or not, I can tell you he gave classified information." ~ Doocy: "Jeremy Kenyon Lockyer Corbell is an investigative journalist and the co-host of the 'Weaponized' podcast. He knows more about this than anybody. And the new movie about him, 'Sleeping Dog' and UFO disclosure, is excellent, I watched it yesterday. "Jeremy, there are 46 videos that Congress wants the Pentagon to declassify. The Pentagon missed the deadline to do it. But, will these 46 videos be convincing enough to have Americans saying, 'I have no doubts aliens have visited Earth'"? Corbell: "You know, I think that these are data points. I think these 46 videos are really important. I think the American public should be able to see them, and so does Congress. They specifically identified these 46 videos because they know that these videos exist. They are designated UAP by our own military and intelligence services. I have been exposed to a number of these. In fact, George Knapp and I provided that list to Congress. We've actually released some of those videos. So, the American public is ready for this. "Now what it's gonna tell us, what the end result is gonna be? It's another data set of footage the American public can look at. But here is what I know for a fact, Peter: There are machines, there are craft of unknown origin that fly with impunity in our restricted airspace, and our government has been assessing this as a national threat for decades. The jig is up. People now know: UAP are real. "But what are UAP? Who are flying these machines. Who made these machines that can outpace, outmaneuver and outperform our greatest war fighters? That's the question." Doocy: "And so, you were just talking about this. We've got video that we can put up on the screen. One of the videos that your sources helped you guys get out of a government vault." (Important detail: Corbell and Knapp have sources. Their source, or sources, somehow acquired that video (and others), Corbell and Knapp obtained it from said source(s), and then released it.) Doocy: "It is a UAP over Syria in 2021 flying at an impossible speed, demonstrating instantaneous acceleration. This is the video. A lot of people will look at this and say, 'Well, it could be China, it could be Russia, it could be somebody else.' But when you see this and the other videos - some of the 45 other videos that you have seen - what do you think?" Corbell: "Yeah, look, we do not have the capability, unfortunately, for instantaneous motion. The idea of inertial effect and what would happen, this is baffling to the intelligence community." (Here's where I push back. This is from November of 2025 on "Weaponized," where the head of the AAWSAP UFO program (2008-2010), James Lacatski, was interviewed. Corbell: "We hear about all these people on military bases seeing triangles, and you're doing this study, AAWSAP to try to figure out the physics of how to do that. Do you think it's already been achieved by the U.S. government, or it hasn't, and that's why AAWSAP had a lot of value." Lacatski: "It hasn't been achieved to its full extent." (How far did they get? To 80% of the full extent of what alleged NHI craft can do? 90%? Was the ability to accelerate instantaneously achieved? We don't know. Commander Will Miler (Ret.) has said that he had a friend who worked at Area 51 and that friend suggested that we have craft that can do, "Mach 9 and then suddenly make a right-angle turn.") ⬇️⬇️⬇️ ~~~ Corbell: "What George and I put out, it is their analysis that this is demonstrating, this craft, which is not aerodynamic. When you look at this video, it instantaneously shoots off to the right, once the Reaper drone got a weapons-grade lock on it. So its ability to maneuver is far beyond anything that China, Russia or the U.S. has." (When I look at UAP videos, I try to see them through the eyes of an open-minded skeptic. I have several coworkers who fit that bill and I show them videos when they're released to get their take. I think the 2021 video from Syria (I'll link to a more complete version of it in the replies) is important because it appears to be demonstrating instantaneous acceleration. But when I showed that video to those coworkers of mine, they were not impressed. It's not clear or close enough. If the rest of the 46 videos are like that, I don't see it jolting the masses awake (which we really need) about the seriousness of this topic. Then again, maybe so many videos being declassified may do the trick? Also, WHO in our government has labeled those objects in the videos as UAP? That's important to know. Was it just the guys from the UAP Task Force?) Corbell: "Look, this is a known secret on the inside. It's an open secret that UAP are real and that they're able to evade, sometimes detection, but absolutely our weaponry. And it's an issue because they are oftentimes loitering over sensitive, critical infrastructure within the United States. This is not me saying this. This has been admitted by our own administration and government. I think we're closer than ever. The intent is to bring the truth forward to the American public. We are closer than ever, and it's just gotta be done now." Doocy: "And my last question, we have two minutes left in the show: You've reported that some of these UFO files, for generations. have been kept secret even from sitting presidents. Who would have the power in this country to decide, if not the President, that the American people don't have a right to know about something so important, like UFOs?" Corbell: "Right. This is game-changing, and it's nature itself. It's not something that should be held back. And presidents have admitted that they have been held out from that information. Very famously, President Clinton talked about that. Not the first time, he said, a president has been lied to." Related Bill Clinton Clip: "If the U.S. Air Force did recover alien bodies, they didn't tell me about it, either, and I wanna know." ~Clinton ~ Corbell: "Well now the pressure is on. Congress is asking for these 46 videos, and if we've ever had an administration and a president that sees the public interest and would enact upon that for the people, it would be this sitting president. So I'm very encouraged at this moment, we have an opportunity." (I'll be encouraged if Trump actually signs an Executive Order calling for the declassification of UFO videos and records.) Corbell: "None of these have really been announcements. It's an opportunity now for the American public to understand the UFO presence is real and that it's been going on a long time, and it has been of national security concern." Doocy: "And we have less than a minute left in the show, but we asked our audience if they had questions for you, and Lena sent one in. She wants to know, 'Are they" - presumably aliens - "walking around right now and we don't know it?" Corbell: "Yeah, so, if we don't get past the first question, we don't get past the first acknowledgement, we're never gonna know the interaction that whoever these pilots are of these craft of unknown origin, that they believe do not originate here on Earth. If we don't get past that first question, we're never gonna be able to answer that question (laughs)." Doocy: "Well, we've been trying to make this happen for a long time. Jeremy, thank you so much for being here. This is a story that we will keep asking about at the highest levels of government. So thank you." Corbell: "Yeah, I encourage people to watch the film, 'Sleeping Dog' that's coming out, because it does dive into investigative journalism on this, [and] how much progress we've made." Doocy: "And we will watch. That's all we got. I'm Peter Doocy in Washington. See you next time."

Joe Murgia

11,486 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

"I think humanity, to some level, is a resource for them." ~Matthew Brown "I think there is a very small group (of humans) that does have a good degree of fidelity on intention (of the non-humans)." ~Brown "If it's true that there has been genetic interventions on humanity at certain points in our evolution, well, I very much wanna know what is the intent behind those interventions. What is being, you know, added, removed, suppressed, or enhanced in humanity, and for what reasons?" ~Brown (Brown said this to George Knapp and Jeremy Kenyon Lockyer Corbell in May on "Weaponized." ⬇️) "I think I have a good degree of confidence that the reason they're here is us. I think life, especially sentient life, it's a precious thing. And I think, to some, it might be a resource. I think humanity, to some level, is a resource for them." ~Brown ~From Today's Event ⬇️⬇️⬇️~ Matthew Brown - Matthew: "In the short term, and in my immediate environment, I'm more concerned about humans. But yeah, to get to that next part, I think longer term, you know, I definitely am more concerned about the NHI intentions. You know that's a really broad bucket so, you know, more...you narrow it down to specific groups of them. "It seems at least some of them have been present on Earth for a very long time, but they do not maintain an open relationship with humanity, except for very-discreet encounters with leadership and humans through the sort of abduction or experiencer modalities." (I'm gonna assume that "encounters with leadership" is referring to the alleged Holloman landing.) Brown: "And those certainly, you know, while some people claim to have very positive interactions, there's a very large amount that that have the opposite, especially women, who seem to, unfortunately, you know, get the worst of it, and over a very long period of time. So, I'm very concerned about that. "If it's true that there has been genetic interventions on humanity at certain points in our evolution, well, I very much wanna know what is the intent behind those interventions. What is being, you know, added, removed, suppressed, or enhanced in humanity, and for what reasons?" (That's important: Added, removed, suppressed or enhanced. If any of that is true, this goes way beyond, "Well, they haven't blown us up so they must not have bad intentions.") Brown: "You know, I don't have answers, but that's where, you know, you know, this is a journey of discovery, right? And that's kind of where I am at, is again, what are the long term intentions of the NHI present on Earth toward towards humanity?" Leslie Kean: "Do you think there are government officials that know a lot on the classified level and beyond, that have an idea about the intention that they're just not sharing with with anyone? Or, do you think everyone is baffled by that?" Brown: "I think there is a very small group that does have a good degree of fidelity on intention, both in the U.S. government and in, you know, probably the major governments around the world. You know, I have some reason to believe that's true, as well as analysis, so it's a mix of, you know, what we would call evidence and thought. That's where I'm at." Kean: "And just to reiterate, you don't have any idea of what they may have discovered about the intention or any thoughts about what that might be? Is that correct?" Brown: "None that I would say publicly yet. You know, I want to have some degree of certainty before I share something you know serious as that." Kean: "Can you say if you think it might be sort of something that might be quote 'negative' for humanity as we go forward, or something that might be evolutionarily positive for us as a species? You have any sense of that? Of, you know, whether it's a positive or negative kind of intention? Or maybe a mixed one, depending on who we're dealing with. I don't know if you can just can say any more about that." Brown: "it's probably mixed because there seems to be at least more groups involved than just one. So, you know, it's like saying all of humanity's bad news just because you only encountered the worst aspects of humanity. You can't fall into that trap. Yeah, I'd need more data before I would feel comfortable, you know, saying it's definitely this or that." Kean: "Thank you. Yeah, I think that's the big question in everyone's mind, so many people's minds, is the intention. And so far, Jeff (Jeff Nuccetelli) says we're all here. We're still here, except for there are the individuals that have had the frightening encounters. But, you know, nothing on a mass scale has happened to harm us. So, here we are." (Harm can come in many forms. They may not have attacked us with bombs or missiles but, as Brown asked: Have they added, removed, suppressed, or enhanced anything, genetically, or otherwise, from humans? Peter Levenda has written and spoken about this on numerous occasions. Have they done anything to us that's related to consciousness? As far as if there's anybody who knows a lot more about the phenomenon (could be more than one intelligence) and its intentions than we do? I have shared my opinion on that question a few times. IMO, yes. But that's not based on any hard evidence. Does Brown have evidence on that front? Here's something that suggests someone, somewhere, knows more...) Hvbears88: "Interestingly, [Grusch] also mentioned how many people know the full scope of the phenomenon to be no more than 50 people. But it wasn't clear whether this meant 50 people currently alive or 50 people ever in history." (Have these folks read "The Document?") Retired Naval Commander Will Miller: "Through a former NSA contact of mine, I had the chance to meet with a high-level, retired, National Security Agency, senior civilian. And this gentleman, we talked about the subject of UFOs and, again, whether any government agency either had information on the subject or had interest in. And he revealed one tidbit of information I found very interesting. "He said within NSA, there was a document known only as “the document” and it was on the subject of UFOs and extraterrestrial intelligence. And it was so highly classified that only the Director himself and perhaps one or two other people were actually able to view it. Its existence was widely known, but again, very, very close hold information." Source:

Joe Murgia

48,435 Aufrufe • vor 2 Tagen

👽🔥 New Dylan - Biologics🔥👽 "There's things that I knew that these people were aware of, but even they would not say. One of those being biologics." ~DB "The agreement was that, if they died, that I run with it and just blow the whole thing up." ~DB Firsthand witnesses to the Legacy program, "would never come forward in a million years unless they were gonna die." ~DB "When I was still in government...I brought the people who worked on [the biological analysis of non-human bodies] to The Hill." ~Grusch ~ Jeremy Kenyon Lockyer Corbell: "Did you physically see photos? Did you physically see these documents?" Dylan Borland: "No, but because of how much was given to me in relay that the individuals that had relayed it, they were doing so because they were genuinely concerned for their life, because their careers were taken, their houses were broken into. I mean, computers taken, mailboxes gone through. And again, they knew what I was going through at this time. They had given me enough information, and the agreement was that, if they died, that I run with it and just blow the whole thing up." Corbell: "So he's got his firsthand experience of this tech, but then this is something George and I hear a lot. Which is, in the Legacy, when you're kind of put into the bad camp - you know, you're under scrutiny now - that there are these people that are threatening you, and you do feel afraid for your life. And we'll get to it, but there are some things that occurred to you as this gets kind of deeper and deeper with what's happening. "But just to be clear: So you're in a place where there's some sort of purgatory going on. Everybody has clearance, but they're in this sort of purgatory. You're in this sort of purgatory?" Borland: "A few of us, yep." Corbell: "And then, people directly involved in the Legacy program are afraid for their lives, so they're telling you so that at least somebody at their level can take that information if something bad happens to them?" Borland: "I think it was definitely that, but it was also, this is such an isolating, lonely experience, especially for young people to be exposed to the reality of this. If you already don't have the acknowledgement that it's a possibility, like if you're...I don't want to say closed minded. If you're an average Joe Blow going through life, and then all of a sudden this pops up on your radar, and you're seeing physical proof of it, you probably take a step back and go, 'whoa.' So you have that aspect, then these same people have that aspect of it, and they also have the aspect of their government destroying them." (In other words, people like us would be excited to see proof of what we all suspect. But someone new to the topic might freak out a bit.) George Knapp: "So they are going through the same thing you are." Borland "Exactly." Knapp: "Their clearances are in limbo, home break ins, threats..." Borland: "When I come into contact with these people, they had had to resign from their government position and take a contracting job for less money. They were, basically, blacklisted for six months. The only reason they ended up getting a job was because somebody on the Legacy program had hooked them up after six months. And they ended up where I was at, and they heard me talking all this stuff, and they're like, 'Oh, you ended up here too, buddy. So, uh, what the hell is going on here?' Knapp: "It's like the island of bad toys or something like that." Borland: "Yeah." Knapp: "You know, put them all in one basket." Borland: "After I saw what I saw, and I've experienced what I've experienced, I kind of...I think most of us have, taken the delve into all of this material (points toward a bookshelf full of what appear to be UFO books). And you're like, 'I know this is true, I know this is true, I know this is true. Who else is saying these true things? Who else is relaying information I know to be true, to try and make sense of your own life?' "Um, they were aware of what I was talking about. I don't know the capacity in which they were briefed in. There's things that I knew that these people were aware of, but even they would not say. Um, one of those being biologics." ~~~ (This is the best anecdote we have about government officials being briefed on bodies.) Joe Rogan: "When it comes to these...actual entities...do we have an understanding of how many of them we're talking about, and the variety of them?" Grusch: "There is a variety and we have a certain number of (laughs) different things... I talked to people who were familiar with the biological analysis of everything. So we have some idea, not a complete picture because it's like, you know, looking at it, it's like, well I don't even understand the physiology at all. It's like, what the heck? It's like, way different, right? So..." Rogan: "Is there a description of this physiology?" Grusch: "Yeah, no, I was in the room when uhhh... I gotta be careful, I don't wanna... I was in Washington, DC with a very number of senior people that work for members of Congress (Senate staffers seems like a safe bet ~Joe). Put it that way. When I was still in government. And I brought the people who worked on that stuff to The Hill. And this is why the members were so confident to put out the Schumer amendment and stuff. And, I was like, 'Please explain.' And they went into all those details and stuff. And I remember (laughs) some of the professional staff members were like, 'Whoa.' Like they were like, in G-Loc, right? Cause, I mean, and like, a total world bubble got burst right there for a lot of people." Source, with video... ~Back to Dylan~ Knapp: "You think there's a storehouse of that information that anybody would have put something away in case something bad happened to them? And do you know what happened to these people?" Borland: "You know the ones that I know still continue in the government. Um, I think they continue in classified-operations programs." Knapp: "They're not coming forward." Borland: "They would never come forward in a million years unless they were gonna die. And that's...it really sucks for me coming forward, because I only came forward because I sincerely believed they were going to die. Sucks."

Joe Murgia

61,078 Aufrufe • vor 10 Monaten

"How do you know you can trust what [a non-human intelligence is] saying?" ~Bigelow Bigelow/Knapp 2: If I Was President, I'd Tell the World We Have Non-Human Craft and Bodies "The President that took on the challenge of Disclosure and of confirmation...is gonna go down in history as having really accomplished something." ~Bigelow Do China and Russia also have non-human bodies and craft? "Oh yeah, freaking yes!" ~Bigelow ~ "You've opened up Pandora's box." ~Bigelow ~ 17:44 (I'm using the KLAS YT video for time stamps. As you'll see, I add a lot to these, so they take forever to put together.) George Knapp (GK): "Would you guess - based on what you know about the topic and how it's been handled over the decades - would you guess that [Trump] had been briefed, or that any other presidents have been briefed? You know that Bill Clinton was not, even though he expressed an interest in it. So at some point, the President has to be told, 'No, we can't tell ya.'" Robert Bigelow (RB): "I think Bush Sr. knew quite a bit because he was the head of the CIA." (Dr. Eric Davis says Bush. Sr. told him some interesting things, including that he (Bush) was partially briefed in 1976 about the alleged 1964 Holloman AFB landing and meeting, and more, when he first became the director of the CIA in 1976. Watch Davis explain it, here. ) ~ RB: "I think Nixon did." (We have the Jackie Gleason story, where Nixon allegedly snuck away from his Secret Service detail and took Gleason to see non-human bodies at Homestead Air Force Base. But that was a claim from his ex-wife, and Gleason, who died in 1987, never said anything about it, on the record. The controversial Larry Warren (Rendlesham) claims Gleason told him the same story, but that's it.) Bigelow: "I think Eisenhower did. So, it's kind of hit and miss over historic...over the period of history as to who has and who hasn't." 18:20 Knapp: "Can you tell us what would be in the briefing document that you left behind? Was it cases? Here's a wave of UFOs, here's a case, here was a crash. Anything like that?" Bigelow: "Yeah, I related conversations I have had with General De Brouwer, who was the chief of the Air Force for Belgium. And there was a very interesting flap that was about 18 months long (1989-1990) with triangular craft. And he was in command of all the Air Force, and he really chased the heck out of these. "And he told me, he said, Bob, 'I'm just burning fuel, and it makes no sense.' He said, 'We're gonna stop because we're not getting anywhere. All we're doing is getting closer, you know, photographs and things, but we're not getting anywhere. We're not getting any information that is really valuable for us to understand anything.'" (I wonder if those were OUR triangles? If so, it's still a solid case/flap of anomalous craft. Dick D'Amato was a longtime (18 years) senior staffer for Senate Democratic Leader Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia.) "Dick D'Amato has returned from Belgium where he met with Colonel De Brouwer, a 'very interesting fellow.' Dick’s conclusion, again, is that the triangular objects are very plain human craft. ~Jacques Vallée's Forbidden Science Volume 4 - November 1992 And then we have this... Jeremy Kenyon Lockyer Corbell: "We hear about all these people on military bases seeing triangles, and you're doing this study, AAWSAP, to try to figure out the physics of how to do that. Do you think it's already been achieved by the U.S. government, or it hasn't, and that's why AAWSAP had a lot of value." Lacatski: "[three-second pause] It hasn't been achieved to its full extent." Video... ~~~ RB: "And I gave [Trump] other examples of where large amounts of witnesses were involved, and so that he could read about these particular [incidents]. And, of course, the one with Fife Simington in '97 was so interesting. Because there you had a governor who was an actual witness, and he made a joke of it on and brought a guy in an alien suit on stage because he was scared to death." GK: "It's the Phoenix Lights case." (Great case for Bigelow to show Trump.) RB: "The Phoenix Lights, which weren't just lights, it was actually friggin' craft, and it came from northern Arizona. I think it started, actually, in southern Nevada, is where the craft began. In the Henderson area (not far from me. ~Joe), I think, somewhere in there. And, so you see this huge triangular craft, gigantic craft, going slowly, and [Symington] was scared to death. "But finally, fast forward 10 years later, and he confesses that he was an eyewitness, but he didn't know what to do. So he was there at a point in time when the dynamic of disclosure could have been forced, and actually, confirmation could have been from a governor of the state like that. He was a credible guy. "So we've had many [incidents] like that in the early 50s, flying over the White House and the Capitol building. We've had so many of those. So, in my report, I included a lot of very dramatic, beyond-a-reasonable-doubt kind of witnesses of exhibitions." GK: "Did you share with him anything about your knowledge of a classified program?" RB: "No." GK: "You got a Top-Secret security clearance, right?" RB: "Yeah" GK: "It was for the AAWSAP program for BAASS." RB: "Right." GK: "Operated under the DIA." RB: "Yeah." GK: "You learned a lot during that program. It's the largest accumulation of UFO info. of any government-funded UFO program ever." RB: "Yeah." GK: "You didn't tell him about it." RB: "It wasn't credible enough, I felt, for him." (Someone on here watched this interview and told me that Bigelow said the AAWSAP data wasn't credible. That is NOT what he said. Not credible enough for Trump, is what he said. And if you read "Skinwalkers at the Pentagon" or listen any of Lacatki's interviews where he talks about UFOs being under a paranormal umbrella, I think Bigelow made the right decision for an 11-minute briefing for someone (Trump) who seems to be struggling (at least in public comments) with the reality of the basics.) RB: "[The AAWSAP data is] just something pertaining to me. And whereas, these other examples are historic, and they're in a lot of literature, they're very famous. The amount of witnesses were huge. We operated under a private situation with the Skinwalker Ranch, and he wouldn't relate to...well, we all had hitchhikers, we all took things home with us. You know, we all saw a lot of stuff. Whether it was at the ranch or where we lived, it didn't make any difference where in the United States we lived. We saw a lot of things, but that wouldn't be relevant for him to be able to relate to that, right?" GK: "Well." RB: "So, why talk about it?" GK: "Yeah, I mean, you know, you're kind of jumping into the deep end of the pool when you get into hitchhikers and skinwalkers." RB: "Yeah." GK: "Maybe for your first big conversation on this topic, that might not be the place to go." RB: "No, you know. And I couldn't even...if he said, 'Oh, I need a beer (Knapp laughs),' I couldn't even give him something to drink. You know, maybe stronger than that. So, I didn't wanna do any, you know." 22:15 GK: "You used the term non-human intelligence in the sentence you gave him. Hey, try this as you're climbing aboard Air Force One. Say that to media, and then, you know, close the door." RB: "Right." GK: "You said non-human intelligence, not ET. Are they the same, and did you share anything with him about what you think it is?" RB: "Well, there have been reports of humans on board, right? But the non-human are more interesting. I mean, if a human's on board and he or she has free reign of the craft, that's pretty damn interesting, right? And you don't know where those people are when they're not on board." (I wonder what cases he's talking about? Travis Walton reported seeing humans with non-humans and John Keel wrote about humans being seen onboard craft.) ~ Bigelow: "But the other ones are...some are scary, you know? It's not surprising, that, in the Universe, everything is [not] gonna look like us. Every intelligent organism is [not] going to look like us. But you have to have... It's also a matter of respect for any really intelligent animal or creature, whatever it is, right? And the more advanced, the more respect because you don't know what they know, and you don't know the future. And they may know. They may know more than just the now." (In interviews (which I can't find right now), Bigelow has hinted at an unstoppable, not-so-rosy future for mankind. Have people in the Legacy programs told him that the NHI have warned us about our doomed future or some cataclysmic event? Or, has Bigelow encountered these non-humans (or humans) and had them make claims about our future?) ~ 23:34 GK: "If you were to have a second conversation with him, would you explain that ET is one idea, but it's not necessarily the only option for a non-human intelligence that's out there?" RB: "You have to tell me first how much time do I have with the second conversation?" GK: "[laughs] Let's make it an hour. You have an hour with the President. What would you tell them about who they are, who they might be?" RB: "Umm... So, I would try to get into the complexity of the relationship. That once you've had confirmation, you know, you've given that text of that little sentence I wrote and quoted there, and you start to go down the path of disclosure, where it's more than than just FLIR videos, and you're seeing other things that are much more crystal clear, you know, in video. "Or, legitimate people in places that you recognize these people, and they're around something, or with some thing, or somebody that's a holy cow, that's wow, you know. That's a very dramatic kind of disclosure about something landing on the lawn somewhere, you know." (I have no idea what he's talking about. Anybody else able to decipher that? Is he saying that there's evidence (that he's seen?) of people that we know (a President or head of state?) hanging with a non-human or next to a downed or landed craft?) RB: "So I think what I would have spent time doing is talking about, how do you establish: You've been in 80 years of denial as a nation, and the world. We have countries who are very upfront, and others that are also in denial. Now you wanna pivot 180 degrees. How do you start that relationship? How do you do that? "And it's not as though that we've ever been in control. We haven't been in control of anything, ever, for this 80 years of modern history. Nothing. We have no ability to control anything." GK: "That's a tough thing to tell the President, right? I would think that would be a tough thing for a President to accept." RB: "Well, you're giving me an hour to talk to him, you said." GK: "[laughs] Yeah, okay." RB: "So I'm using my hour." GK: "All right." 25:46 RB:" So, yeah! So, that's a really intriguing thing is: How do you do that, where do you start? And into a relationship? And I would say more like, well, I would wanna start with, the biggest question I would ask, I would say, what I wanna get from them is... My first question is: What are the chances we are gonna survive ourselves? That we are not going to annihilate ourselves. "Because they already are familiar with a whole lot of other species on a lot of other worlds or other planets. So, chances are they have a pretty good idea of percentage." (That assumes a lot, since we have no idea how long they've been around, what they've seen, or where they're from. Unless...Mr. Bigelow has seen evidence that relates to those questions or heard it from folks who work in the Legacy programs?) RB: "And it's not that we're a spiritual species. You talk to people that have near-death experiences; they're changed for the rest of their life. They've become a spiritual person of a caliber that they've never been. "Well, we're a long way, as an average, from that category, from that level. There are monsters among us, as human beings, and they're angelic people among us. So we are a danger to another species, we're potentially the Klingons. We have a technological maturity that is not just going on a line, but it's vertical and it's segmented because it's jumping. "And meanwhile, our spiritual maturity just bumps along the bottom, you know? So, we look at the 20th century; 60 million people were killed. Are we ever gonna get beyond that? So, the thing of it is, we know so little about how to have a relationship. I'm not in any position to really advise, except for the few ideas I have as to where to start, and the how is really super important. 27:49 "It's not gonna be like a 'Close Encounter of the Third, Kind,' which was a really cool movie. And it's not gonna be because of SETI. You know, it's gonna be by some other kinds of means that you're embarking on. And I'm interested in that kind of research." 28:06 GK: "We go back to your meeting with the President. You walk into the Oval Office, they clear off the Resolute Desk, you spread out your seven piles of stuff, and you start making a presentation about each one, in particular about ET, non-human intelligence. You can't say what he said to you. Can you say whether he asked questions? Was he curious?" RB: "He was distracted by other things. So, he also asked me... He did ask questions, but he asked questions about other stuff that wasn't necessarily just on what I was talking about." GK: "He's getting your input on other things going on in the world." RB: "Yeah, yeah." 28:49 GK: "If you had to make a guess, would you guess that you got through to him on this issue? I mean, he hasn't stood in the doorway of Air Force One and made those remarks yet, but he has taken some pretty dramatic steps on this topic since you met with him. Do you think you made a dent?" RB: "Don't know. I advised him on something that I can measure, and he hasn't taken my advice so far on what I suggested to him, on a totally different, unrelated subject. But so far, he has not taken my advice." GK: Well, somebody seems to have got through to him, because he's been taking steps that we're seeing real results. I mean, people are either..." RB: "Well, I'm talking about an unrelated subject altogether. So, yes, there there are a couple of different task forces that are involved. So, there is an initiation of an activity in this subject, [but] it remains to be seen, though, that he gives actual presidential confirmation. I don't, I haven't... Maybe you're more aware than I am. Has that been...has he done that?" GK: "Not, not really. Nothing like what I'd call confirmation. But that's really what you're talking about. I remember us having a conversation in 2008, right after you had signed the contract with DIA for BAASS to run [AAWSAP]. And you made the case then that what we need is not Disclosure; it's confirmation." RB: "Yeah." 30:25 GK: "For somebody like the President, I'm not sure if it could be anyone less than the President that steps forward and says this, and it carries the same kind of weight." RB: "Yeah. It's a big appetizer. You know, you're looking for the entree, and where's the dessert in this whole buffet? But the confirmation is a huge appetizer to start with, and that's why I started with that in my conversation with him. Is, pushing him to try and make a confirmation. And maybe he wants to get personally more comfortable?" (I have said that I want the entire enchilada NOW, but I'm also a realist, and would take a simple confirmation that somebody else is on this planet with us. That SHOULD wake up the mainstream media and masses, but no guarantees since Trump is so controversial and people might just ignore it, IF he ever did it. I've also said that I'd surround him with people like Schumer, Rubio, Rounds and Gillibrand in order to show that it's bipartisan. And a few firsthand whistleblowers who say they worked hands on, IN one of these alleged Legacy UFO/UAP programs.) 30:57 Bigelow: "And, you know, he will go down in history for a lot of things, for better or worse, that people are on both sides of the fence about him and so forth. But he's involved in so many different things and has been, that I don't know what his legacy is gonna be, I really don't. "He has an opportunity, in this serious subject, to build a legacy using this as part of the blocks, part of the brick and the structure...the content of a structure that is very unique. So, you can have all the political programs that you want, and so forth, and nobody is gonna really remember those as time goes by, as the decades fade away. "Nobody can remember Benghazi and Afghanistan and Iraq, different kinds of things, and that's just recent history. You know, the world goes so fast. But the President that took on the challenge of Disclosure and of confirmation, and actually built a satisfactory conclusion of a relationship between human beings and that subject is gonna go down in history as having really accomplished something. And if it's handled right, it can be done successfully." (To me, it's a no brainer. His presidency would go down as one that changed the world and our species. Or course, I'm sure he has people in his ear telling him that confirmation would cause societal disruption that we're not prepared to handle, and that THAT would be his legacy.) (32:21) GK: "A lot of Presidents have made comments, often after they're out of office, on this topic. 'Yeah, gosh, I'm real interested in that.' Or, 'Wouldn't that be something?' Or, 'I think aliens could exist.' Something like that. But nothing like what you're talking about, which amounts to confirmation, saying, 'It's real. They're here. We gotta figure it out,' and stopping it there, not disclosing..." RB: "Well, the dialogue, the ability to learn something from them is huge. What can we do for you? I mean, that's where...one of the first things I would ask is, not just, are we going to survive ourselves? Yeah, that's pretty damn important. That's like, probably number one, you know? "But close behind that is: Okay, we've been aware of you for a long time, and the government's never admitted it. But us as a public, we know it, and we're really curious. Is there anything that we can do for you? Not just what can you do... I loved what John Kennedy, what he said famously: Don't ask what the country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country. That huge. So that's giving them a kind of a respect that they deserve." (Do they deserve respect? I'm not so sure. It all depends on if they're upfront with us and tell us their true intentions. Of course, how do we know they're telling us the truth? Why have you (or some of you) been abducting us against our will, and injuring some of us? See Jim Semivan's abduction story with his wife. "I don't think [the phenomenon] cares whether it does harm. I think it may go out of its way not to do harm, but, if it does harm... "I had a hole in the back of my neck, and my wife...unexplained bleeding for 17 days." ~Former CIA Officer, Jim Semivan to Engaging The Phenomenon ~ 33:33 GK: "If you were President, would you announce that yes, we've got crash retrievals, yes, we have reverse engineering programs, and yes, we've got bodies?" RB: "Yeah, because the rest of the world already knows that. The people that count in Russia and China already know." GK: "Because they've got their own." RB: "Oh yeah, freaking yes! Yeah! They've had their missiles shut down, they've had their missiles activated. You know, depending on which country you're talking about." 33:56 GK: "Have you considered the political fallout for a President? Let's say it's Trump, because he might be the guy that would do it and just cast his fate to the winds. But, he makes an announcement: 'Yeah, they're here. Yeah, we've got programs. Yeah, we've got crashes, we've got bodies. That's as far as I'm able to go right now.' What happens to him, politically? Is he able to get anything else done?" RB: "That's more than I would have said, for him to say. What you just said." GK: "That goes too far." RB: "I wouldn't advise him to say, initially, what you just said." GK: "You just say, non-human intelligence, been here a long time, and leave it at that." RB: "Yeah, that one sentence is a starter because it's a huge canon. You've opened up Pandora's box, in terms of, 'Oh my gosh, what's gonna happen?' Okay. So now, you can categorize and segment into topics. And you need time to do that, and it needs to be digestible." ~ “I have met with people who I know are in the know. One of them told me the truth is indigestible.” ~Jim Semivan to James Iandoli ~ RB: "And it needs to be not packaged in a scary kind of way, and it can't be packaged in a way that you're divulging what you shouldn't be divulging. You know, other countries aren't, so there's reasons to have national secrets. There really are. I mean, that's kind of like common sense, right?" (Well, David Grusch claimed that some other countries aren't divulging for a specific reason." Grusch on Yes Theory: "So there are certainly friendly governments, both across the pond and say, local to where we...our landmass, that are for this. And a lot of them know that they got a raw deal with the U.S. because they were, basically, part of the secrecy, through kind of agreements like, bilateral, unilateral agreements. And they're like, you know, they kind of wanna be, 'Release me!' Like, you know, because they they do realize it was a bad deal. "With the ecosystem secrecy, some people, one of their arguments is like, 'Well how would they keep the secret?' I'm, like dude, I was cleared to some of the most nation's most sensitive programs, I used to handle the PDB (Presidential Daily Briefing). You know, I had full access to most DoD activities. And most of the stuff, BROAD programs that were enduring, have NEVER leaked. "So the U.S. and its allies are very good at keeping secrecies, to include programs that are, let's say, global in nature. And really, it's been leaking like a sieve in some weird way for many decades. Now it's been mixed in with some BS in ufology and stuff, but the general gist of it's actually been out there for a long time. It has been leaking in some sense, so." ~ 35:06 GK: "We don't want the Russians and Chinese and maybe other adversaries to know how far along we are, or are not, in configuring this out." RB: "Absolutely. Especially of that. I think that the relationship (with he phenomenon) thing is a mankind relationship. It's not just for America. When you are embarking as a President on trying to initiate a solemn relationship, you're not doing for U.S. of A. only. "And so, the...and then we probably can do a show on communication (with a non-human intelligence), but it's really complex because, who are you going to have initiate it? Are you going to have politicians initiate? Are you going to have military people? Because everybody has kind of their own mindset. Are you gonna have a bunch of lawyers initiate it? Are you gonna have scientists only, initiate it? (And what if we're dealing with more than one non-human intelligence? Who do we communicate with? And what if it's one intelligence pretended to be multiple? How would we even figure that out?) "[Hynek] cited the 'poltergeist' phenomena experienced by some...after a close encounter; the fact that some witnesses develop psychic abilities after an encounter. 'Do we have two aspects of one phenomenon or two different sets of phenomena?'" ~J. Allen Hynek ~ RB: "And how do you know to whom you're talking? You know, how do you know you can trust what they're saying?" (I'm so glad he said that. We don't, and we don't.) RB: "Because it depends on the form of communication, and what are you asking for in the way of proof or demonstrations to establish trust, both ways, in the communication process?" "Because, we haven't had that happen before. It is totally new ground, and frankly, we need The Others' help. We need the help of The Others to help, to guide us." (Firs off, it MAY have happened within these Legacy programs. And, if we don't know who we're talking to, or if we can trust them, why would we enlist the help of The Others? Doesn't seem to make sense to me.)

Joe Murgia

52,068 Aufrufe • vor 13 Tagen

Technically is dead; long live Technically Some bittersweet news for you all today: after 5 years writing Technically and more than 100 posts about everything from APIs to data warehouses to Facebook DNS hacks, today I am (for the most part) shutting the Technically Substack down… …and replacing it with Technically 2.0, an amazing software product I’ve been working with David Krevitt on for the past 6 months. But first… For a newsletter that started with an innocent tweet while I was bored in Haneda airport, this thing has come pretty far. 70K+ subscribers, yada yada. But you’re here for the story so here it is. It was December 2019, I was traveling before moving to SF to start at Retool, and like I said, I was bored. Late 2019 – what an amazing time to start a newsletter! There weren’t that many of them out there. And then came 2020. Everyone was stuck at home with nothing to do but sign up for more and more Substacks, and talk about them on the internet. Every day, another one of your friends was announcing a newsletter on Twitter. It was the golden era, no doubt, and many people like me combined hard work, a good idea, and the old fashioned “right place right time” streak of luck to build a really nice Substack business. I’ll never forget the day Ben Thompson referenced Technically in Stratechery. I must have gotten 50 texts from friends. Everyone was reading Stratechery at the time…it was like becoming a made man. There was this almost communal vibe in the air with these newsletters. Everyone was reading the same stuff, talking about the same stuff. It was a scene is what it was. But by 2022 things were changing. People were outside again, and had less free time to read newsletters. Interest rates were going up, and people were working more (even in offices). In the paid Substack group chats, most of us were reporting stalling or negative growth, even though we hadn’t changed anything on our end. And with 50% churn rates on these subscriptions, if you weren’t growing you were dying. I’m listening to Neil Young’s “After the Gold Rush” as I write this and it couldn’t be more fitting. Although I imagine Mr. Young himself would disapprove of the whole paid newsletter endeavor. What happened to newsletters? David and I call what’s going on “Substack Fatigue” – people are just tired of reading yet another newsletter, let alone paying for one. Newsletters are just not the thing anymore. There are some fast growing news ones focused on AI, but the same story is going to play out in a few years when everything cools down. Political newsletters are fully investing in video and podcasts. Newsletters are not the thing anymore. We rode a cultural wave and the wave is over. You don’t have to die, but you have to adjust. The wrench in this whole story is that Technically was only (very) part time for me. I’m pretty sure at one point I was generating the most revenue on Substack for someone who wasn’t focusing on their newsletter full time. Which is a sick flex no doubt, but was also a huge problem, because I just didn’t have the time or mental capacity to make the big moves required to reverse the trend. Technically started to slowly lose paid subscribers every month, but I was at peace with that. I was entering a new phase in my life, settling down a bit, enjoying spending time on cooking, cocktails, and music. Approaching 30 and feeling really good about everything. It’s OK for some things to be temporary, and I was content with Technically to continue to be useful to people…just not make as much money. But in the back of my head, I always knew that Technically had a lot more potential, and deserved more than I could give it. That there’s no reason this thing couldn’t be a $1M+/year business. I continue to believe that technical literacy is going to be one of the defining social problems of our era, and the progress in AI only makes this even more critical. It should be way more than a newsletter, it should be how everyone learns what the fuck is going on in this digital world. I needed some help. But I had a bad track record of getting people to work on Technically with me. It’s hard to share custody of your child. And I am extremely particular. I’m not always the easiest to work with. Worked with some contractors here and there, but never found a more long term partner. I’m extremely grateful that David Krevitt reached out to me when he did or this paragraph would end here. Instead, after regaling you with my boring tale for many paragraphs now, I can finally share what we’ve been working on since last year. It’s called Technically 2.0. It’s all of the content you know and love, but built as a piece of software specifically aimed at helping people get more technical. No more newsletter – it’s a learning platform now, complete with reading lists, bookmarks, a dictionary, and guided learning tracks. Our goal was to make a Wikipedia kind of experience: click around to follow your curiosity on whatever software you’re learning about. You can sign up on the Technically site ( You’re going to have to pay for it, but if your experience is anything like that of the other thousands of people who already have, you won’t regret it. Enjoy the soothing sounds of David's voice as he walks you through it in the video below. It’s hard to say goodbye completely to something you’ve been doing every week for 5 years. Any readers with their own long running newsletters will understand the odd, para-social relationship you develop with your audience. So I’m going to keep publishing on Substack a little – monthly roundups of the new stuff we’re publishing on Technically 2.0, plus some good sponsored posts. So while the newsletter might be dead, it is also only just beginning (or something). Hope to see you on the other side, ~ ❤️ Justin

sisyphus bar and grill

29,390 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

👽🛸 Stratton: "It's Not from Here" and We Don't Know If It's Hostile - Plus: A PSYOP to Protect Us? And...God 🛸👽 (I'm behind on this but my posts take time, and I think many will find this interesting.) Sean Hannity 🇺🇸: "Has the government been hiding the existence of UFOs from the people of this country? Here with more, the director and producer of this new documentary, Dan Farah, and the former director of the U.S. government's UAP Task Force, Jay Stratton. "Let me just tell you where I am: I am really curious about it. I've asked a lot of questions about it. I've been told...I've been given both sides in terms of the answer to the question. Some people swear it's true. Other people say, 'Nah, it's not true.' You know, like, Area 51, et cetera, et cetera." (Would be nice to know who's telling him it's true vs. not true.) Hannity: "I'm somewhat agnostic. I believe with God, all things are possible. If God created universes, within universes, within universes. Are we that arrogant to believe that there couldn't be life elsewhere that might be even more intelligent than we are? And we're not that intelligent sometimes." (I think it's interesting to see Hannity say he's agnostic about UAP/NHI, and has heard different things about about the validity of related claims - which feature a ton of anecdotal evidence, government reports, some photos, videos and radar, and current-day, high-level folks telling him they've seen classified data - but he doesn't question the existence of God? Where's the evidence for God and Jesus? Double standard. There's much more evidence for the existence of true-unknown, UFOs, than there is for God.) Hannity: "But what makes you think...why are you so certain?" Farah: "Well, look, I made this film in pursuit of the truth, to find the answers to those big questions. I interviewed 34 very-high-level government, military and intelligence officials, ranging from Marco Rubio to sitting senators to intelligence officials, admirals, generals. And collectively, they all broke their silence to reveal an 80-year cover-up of the existence of non-human intelligent life." (I really enjoyed "The Age of Disclosure" but the amount of people in it who we had never heard from before, on camera, and who "broke their silence" for this film, is just a handful of folks.) Farah: "And a high-stakes, secret Cold War race that the United States is in with adversarial nations to reverse engineer technology of non-human origin. And this has all been kept from the public, from Congress..." Hannity: "Can I interrupt you, Dan, one second?" Farah: "Yeah, yeah." Hannity: "Are you saying to me that Secretary of State Marco Rubio confirmed to you that not only do UFOs exist and life from some other location exists, but we are fully aware of it, and we are...there's almost a cold war going on that has never been revealed to the American people? Marco Rubio said that to you?" (That's what people may come away thinking if they just watch the film, so I'm glad Hannity asked that and Farah clarified.) Farah: "Rubio confirms on camera that UFOs, UAP, which they're now called, are in fact real. That's not a debate anymore. The only question now is: Who's controlling them? Where are they from? What is their intention? He says, on camera, that UAP are penetrating our most secure airspace, like our nuclear-weapons sites, military bases, and it's a major concern." (100% true, and it's nice to see a new, wider audience see and hear Rubio say that. But, he's been saying that, on camera, for over four years now.) Hannity: "Okay. Jay, where do you think this is coming from? Do we have any suspicion at all?" Stratton: "Well, the best way I can say, Sean, is it's not from here. You know, I spent 20 years researching this topic, working this topic directly on behalf of the American people, and I did everything I could, and did confirm that some of the things that are seen are obviously, you know, completely terrestrial, whatever word you want to use there. You know, from potential-adversary nations, from, you know, defense contractors and companies here, you know, commercial sources. However, there were still cases that we could not attribute to any nation on Earth, and that says a lot." (The follow-up should have been: "Jay, you claim some of this is, "not from here." In the movie, you say that you have seen non-human craft and beings with your own eyes. Can you explain that and share some details?) Hannity: "Do you both believe that they're hostile? Dan? Hostile forces, entities, if you will?" Farah: "I think that's to be determined." (Stratton nods his head up and down in agreement.) Hannity: "So we don't know for sure?" Stratton: "No." Farah: "We don't know what their intentions are." Hannity: "Jay?" (I REALLY wanted to hear Stratton answer the question about intent because his family, reportedly, went through a rough time with the phenomenon (Read "Skinwalkers at the Pentagon." Axelrod = Stratton) and, again, he says in the movie that he has seen non-human craft and beings with his own eyes. He helped start AAWSAP (2008-2010), created AATIP (in 2015) and was the director of the UAPTF (which began in 2020 and was replaced by AARO). Unfortunately, Farah had already started answering so we never heard about intent from Stratton. Big-time, missed opportunity.) Farah: "Look, I interviewed 34 military [and] government intelligence officials, Sean. They couldn't tell us any better than you could what the intention of non-human, intelligent life is, right?" (Stratton nods his head up and down in agreement. The question we all want to know: Do any of the people in The (alleged) UAP Legacy Program who have had access to ALL of the data have educated opinions about intent? If so, what are they?) Farah: "All we know is that this is a real situation, it exists. There are UAP penetrating our most sensitive airspace. It is a problem. And even if you can't wrap your head around the idea of it being non-human, intelligent life, what are the choices you're left with?" (Stratton nodded his head in agreement for all of that. ⬆️) Farah: "An adversarial nation like China or Russia that leapfrogged us, technologically, and is invading our most classified and protected airspace? That's not great, either. So, you know, no matter how you have to look at it to get your head wrapped around it, it's gotta become a serious conversation, a serious national conversation, a serious global conversation." (Stratton nods in agreement, again. He should have been the one doing most of the talking here because, besides the Q&A at the premiere during the SXSW festival, this is the only interview we have with Stratton since the movie came out. I'll link to the SXSW transcript in the replies.) Farah: "And, you know, the film reveals there has been a deeply-hidden, crash retrieval and reverse engineering program in the United States. China has one, Russia has one." (I would argue: Claims are made in the film but nothing is "revealed.") Farah: "There is, in fact, a high-stakes secret Cold War race. Rubio talks about this race, on camera, on the record, in the film. And makes it clear that if we don't get our act together as a nation, we're gonna wake up one day - to quote him - he literally says, 'We will wake up one day, and China will have beat us. And we won't know how they got there or when they got there, but we will be screwed.'" (Just to be clear: Nowhere does Rubio (or Rounds) say that they believe the U.S., Russia or China have a UAP crash retrieval program or that we're in a race to back engineer non-human technology. But what IS said...) Lue Elizondo: "Some of this UAP activity we are seeing here in the United States may actually be a result of a Chinese UAP reverse engineering program." Senator Rounds: "If Xi Jinping had access to this, if Putin had access to this, and they thought that we did not have access to similar capabilities than what they did, do you think for a second that they wouldn’t consider using it to achieve their ends of domination?" SoS Marco Rubio: "And if their approach to it is driven by science, and a desire to match what they think is ours, we’ll wake up one day and realize, I don’t know how they got there, but they got there ahead of us, and now we’re screwed." (To keep it simple: In other words, if China or Russia acquire advanced technology, no matter the origin, they will do everything in their power to reverse engineer it in an attempt to surpass us, technologically. Meanwhile, in the U.S., these alleged programs are hidden away with no congressional oversight and are so stove-piped that our top scientists and brightest minds, apparently, aren't able to be brought on board in an attempt to reverse engineer whatever we have in said programs. So, we've kind of handcuffed ourselves and slowed down any progress. Then again, we have have mixed messages on how much progress HAS or HAS NOT been made. Dr. Eric Davis in 2019: "The crash retrieval program is [a] very small program. It is not a massive, huge government infrastructure. It’s a very poorly-funded program and it hasn’t actually, probably hasn’t had any money for a while. I do know that the program was terminated in 1989 for lack of progress in reverse engineering, anything that they had, any of the hardware that they had. And they’ll resurrect it every, maybe so often, so many years go by and they’ll try it again. And they just don’t succeed because compartmentalization is a killer. Scientists cannot communicate with other scientists to get help." Dr. James Lacaski has said (on WEAPONIZED in 2025) progress has been made but, "it hasn't been achieved to its full extent." And Retired Naval Commander Will Miller told me in 2020: "It’s my firm belief that yes, we – the Russians, probably the Germans, and perhaps the Chinese have at least partial technologies (pieces), and most likely for the U.S. – entire operational craft. I believe we have our own trans-luminal velocity craft that can take us anywhere in space and time. Did we develop this technology independently? Probably not!" Which one is accurate? We also have Dylan Borland (2012 at Langley AFB), Daniel Gockerell (2006 at Eglin AFB), and others, saying they saw triangular (and other) craft with unique properties of flight. Did we back engineer those from UAP craft we acquired? Remember what Rounds said? "If Xi Jinping had access to this, if Putin had access to this, and they thought that we did not have access to similar capabilities than what they did, do you think for a second that they wouldn’t consider using it to achieve their ends of domination?" ~Senator Mike Rounds in AoD The PSYOP Angle: If the U.S. has not achieved any progress in reverse engineering this advanced tech (assuming we've acquired it) and China and/or Russia HAVE? And Russia and/or China suspect this? Wouldn't it make sense to pretend like we HAVE made progress? That would keep Russia and China from attacking us and achieving, "their ends of domination." So are the comments by Davis (lack of progress) accurate, and Lacatski and Miller (notable, but not full progress, and full progress) just doing their best to make China and Russia believe that we HAVE made progress, when, in reality, we have not? A PSYOP to protect our country and citizens? Or maybe we actually HAVE made progress? It's VERY confusing.)

Joe Murgia

16,247 Aufrufe • vor 8 Monaten

I cut Fable 5 token usage 2.5x with just one change! - Before: 5.5 M tokens · 7 errors · $8.94 - After: 2.3 M tokens · 0 errors · $4.17 The final build was the same for both, but the path the agent took wildly differed. In both runs, the agent started with the same thing, i.e., it understood the backend before building anything, like: - Permission policies - Available storage buckets - Auth providers configured - How edge functions are deployed The first run used Firebase, which was built for a human dev using a dashboard. While the dev can read the above state by clicking through tabs, an agent has no dashboard. So it gathered the same info through API calls. And there's no single Firebase call that returned this info. The agent required to query multiple times, and each query over-returned. For instance, when the agent asked how sign-in is configured, Firebase also returned the entire auth surface and every method it supported. This was far more context than what it needed. And it repeated across every part of the backend it inspected. Some states (like which auth providers are active) weren't queryable at all. I provided it myself. Otherwise, the agent would have guessed. Errors further compounded the token usage. When a dev sees "permission denied," they can look at the console and figure out whether it's a rule, a path, or an unauthenticated request. Firebase returned the same string to the agent as well, and it had none of that surrounding context to debug. So it guessed again, picked the most likely cause, and rewrote code, utilizing more tokens. This Firebase setup cost me 5.5M tokens and 7 manual interventions during errors on a full-stack RAG app. But I brought that down to 2.3M tokens and 0 manual interventions by using InsForge as the backend context engineering layer (open-source and self-hostable via Docker). It provides the same primitives as Supabase/Firebase, but structures the entire information layer for agents, instead of dashboards. In one CLI call that consumed ~500 tokens, the agent saw the full backend topology before writing a single line of code. This included auth, database, storage, edge functions, model gateway, micro VMs, and deployment. Also, instead of loading the entire product surface into context on every task, four narrowly scoped skills activated only when relevant to keep cognitive load minimal. And to ensure efficient retries if needed, every CLI operation returned structured JSON with meaningful exit codes, so the agent never guessed what to do next. Here's the InsForge GitHub Repo: (don't forget to star it ⭐) The video below depicts the final build, comparing Firebase and InsForge. To dive deeper, I recently published a full walkthrough building the same RAG app on both backends and inspected them end-to-end. Read it below.

Avi Chawla

113,219 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

I just play it on repeat since yesterday: "Hello Pope Leo XIV, I'm Renzo, I'm six years old. I'd like to ask you a few questions." Renzo, a little a boy from the poor neighborhood of Barcelona, stole the show yesterday at St. Augustine's parish, a place where Pope Leo admitted he "feels at home." Renzo in the sweetest way ever asked those questions to the pope: Do you like soccer? When you were little, did you want to be Pope? Why are my mom and dad worried? Why does my dad have so many jobs? Why do bad things happen to some people and not to others? Whose fault is it? Why are there so many people living on the streets? Does no one see them? Does no one help them? How can we help if the world is so big? Does God want there to be poor and rich? Why are there so many lonely grandparents, if they are so important? And one last question ... Must we always forgive? What pope Leo answered the boy was really moving. "Regarding whether I like football, I confess that I play tennis and I enjoy it very much, but I also appreciate football; in fact, during my years as bishop in Peru, I liked to follow how some local teams were doing; and now, as Pope, I have also received football clubs and sports groups," the pope said, adding that "sport is important because it helps us grow up healthy in body and mind." He said that as World Cup unfolds, "many will be watching the matches. Football reminds us of something we must not forget: life is not a race to show off alone, but a path we learn to travel together." "Whoever doesn't know how to pass the ball, even if they have talent, hasn't yet understood the game. And whoever doesn't know how to live with others and for others hasn't yet understood life." Answering whether he wanted to be Pope when he was little, the pope said: "Well, Renzo, I don't think so. I don't think I ever thought about it." "But I can tell you something: from a young age, I felt the desire to dedicate my life to God. I didn't yet know exactly how or where the Lord would lead me. Over time, I discovered that Jesus was calling me to follow him as a priest, and that this path led through the Order of Saint Augustine." "But this isn't just true for me," he said. "Every child is a dream of God. You are too. God desires the happiness of all and wants us, from childhood and throughout our lives, to have a heart like that of children (cf. Mt 18:3): capable of trusting, full of kindness; he wants us to be his friends and not turn away from him. Therefore, more important than asking oneself whether one will be a priest, doctor, teacher, parent, or anything else, is asking oneself whether one wants to be a friend of Jesus. Because friendship with Jesus gives us joy, sets us free, and helps us to see, step by step, the vocation and the path that God has planned for each of us." Answering the point on injustices in the world, Pope Leo told the boy that "through the life of Jesus Christ, God shows us that, although there is suffering, he never abandons any of his children, because he has prepared for us an eternal joy where there will be no more sadness or pain. Let us have confidence, Jesus is with us, he helps us and accompanies us, and gives us strength to go through the difficult moments we may encounter in life." Stressing that grandparents play a crucial role in families, the pope said: "Let us not allow loneliness and abandonment to become normalized in the lives of older adults. That is a very sad thing. Let's have our hearts open to all of them." On forgiveness, he told Renzo and those gathered: "It does not mean forgetting by force, as if nothing had happened. Forgiveness means not letting hatred become the master of our hearts ... our willingness to forgive is a condition for the forgiveness we receive from God." Video: Vatican Media

Paulina Guzik

245,107 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten