Sensitive content

This media may contain sensitive content.

Загрузка видео...

Не удалось загрузить видео

На главную

Textbook example of a bottom in heat. he needs dick stat! #bottom #sub #twerking #twerk #bubblebutt #verbal #verbalbro #dirtytalk #goon #gooner #goonfuel #bate #bator #batefuel #boybutt #buttbator

gaybatestash's profile picture

BateBro

113,542 subscribers

97,418 просмотров • 1 месяц назад •via X (Twitter)

NSFW#bottom#sub#twerking#twerk#bubblebutt#verbal#verbalbro#dirtytalk#goon#gooner#goonfuel#bate#bator#batefuel#boybutt#buttbator
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

Комментарии: 0

Нет доступных комментариев

Здесь появятся комментарии из оригинального поста

Похожие видео

In Heat, when Vincent Hanna arrives at the crime scene of the teenage girl murdered by Waingro, if you look at the bottom of the first shot you can see a dead bird floating in the swimming pool. According to Michael Mann, they found a dead bird just like that in the pool when they first scouted that location, and he liked the detail so much he wanted to use it in the scene. However, when they returned to shoot, the bird was gone. So Mann had someone from the production find another dead bird and put it back in the pool. This is just one example of the attention to detail Michael Mann is known for. The dead bird is subtle, but it evokes a sense of urban decay and contamination that perfectly sets the tone for what is one of the more harrowing moments of the film.
2:20

In Heat, when Vincent Hanna arrives at the crime scene of the teenage girl murdered by Waingro, if you look at the bottom of the first shot you can see a dead bird floating in the swimming pool. According to Michael Mann, they found a dead bird just like that in the pool when they first scouted that location, and he liked the detail so much he wanted to use it in the scene. However, when they returned to shoot, the bird was gone. So Mann had someone from the production find another dead bird and put it back in the pool. This is just one example of the attention to detail Michael Mann is known for. The dead bird is subtle, but it evokes a sense of urban decay and contamination that perfectly sets the tone for what is one of the more harrowing moments of the film.

Gangster Cinema Central

46,012 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

‼️New MASSIVE Charlie Kirk Assassination Cover-Up Information Just Broke!‼️ ➤Respected Green Beret Veteran, Nate Cornacchia / Valhalla VFT, Dismantles The Official Charlie Kirk Assassination Narrative As He Breaks Down The Raw Footage Released By Candace Owens! ➤Bottom Line— The Official Narrative Has Been 100% Dismantled, And It's Now Been Confirmed That Trump Himself Shut Down The Investigations Into Foreign & Domestic Groups Who Were Involved! ➤In This Report, Jones & Cornacchia Review Slowed Down & Enhanced Rooftop Shooter Video With Shocking Results! ➤Also Examined Is The Fact That The Shooter / Patsy Tyler Robinson Behaves Like A Textbook Example Of A MKUltra / Manchurian Candidate! MUST-WATCH/SHARE FULL INTERVIEW! Alex Jones Network 🔴WATCH/SHARE THE LIVE X STREAM NOW:
59:18

‼️New MASSIVE Charlie Kirk Assassination Cover-Up Information Just Broke!‼️ ➤Respected Green Beret Veteran, Nate Cornacchia / Valhalla VFT, Dismantles The Official Charlie Kirk Assassination Narrative As He Breaks Down The Raw Footage Released By Candace Owens! ➤Bottom Line— The Official Narrative Has Been 100% Dismantled, And It's Now Been Confirmed That Trump Himself Shut Down The Investigations Into Foreign & Domestic Groups Who Were Involved! ➤In This Report, Jones & Cornacchia Review Slowed Down & Enhanced Rooftop Shooter Video With Shocking Results! ➤Also Examined Is The Fact That The Shooter / Patsy Tyler Robinson Behaves Like A Textbook Example Of A MKUltra / Manchurian Candidate! MUST-WATCH/SHARE FULL INTERVIEW! Alex Jones Network 🔴WATCH/SHARE THE LIVE X STREAM NOW:

Alex Jones

450,536 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

FT Frankfurt 0 - 2 Spurs This was an extremely competent, controlled performance by the team. Was it ever in doubt? 🤣 We are in the top 4 in the Champions League unbelievable you just cannot criticise our European performances. Look at the calibre of the clubs below us. We now have home advantage in the last 16 & 1/4 finals. The club has earned big money finishing this high in the league and with it automatic qualification for the last 16. Now go and spend it. In the last 3 games, we’ve moved the ball much quicker and been better in transitions than we have all season. It was good to see Muani finally turning up tonight with the goal and his approach play. If he’s staying, let’s see more of this. Odobert has played very well and was unlucky not to be on the score sheet. Simons grew stronger and stronger as the game went on he had a big influence in the 2nd half it was Just his final ball that let him down ,He really should have scored in the 1st half . I thought Gray gave a mature performance with Sarr in the middle. Udogie, Palhinha, Danso, & Spence did well defensively. Despite Cuti making a mistake for Hugo Larsen’s effort, he led by example often in attack. Solanke came on as a sub and ran onto a through ball, beat the defender, and finished beautifully into the bottom right was yet another #UCL clean sheet Which meant that Vicario has got the Golden Glove of the qualifiers. Happy days at last for us long-suffering fans. Just enjoy the moment. #COYS 🤍💙
2:52

FT Frankfurt 0 - 2 Spurs This was an extremely competent, controlled performance by the team. Was it ever in doubt? 🤣 We are in the top 4 in the Champions League unbelievable you just cannot criticise our European performances. Look at the calibre of the clubs below us. We now have home advantage in the last 16 & 1/4 finals. The club has earned big money finishing this high in the league and with it automatic qualification for the last 16. Now go and spend it. In the last 3 games, we’ve moved the ball much quicker and been better in transitions than we have all season. It was good to see Muani finally turning up tonight with the goal and his approach play. If he’s staying, let’s see more of this. Odobert has played very well and was unlucky not to be on the score sheet. Simons grew stronger and stronger as the game went on he had a big influence in the 2nd half it was Just his final ball that let him down ,He really should have scored in the 1st half . I thought Gray gave a mature performance with Sarr in the middle. Udogie, Palhinha, Danso, & Spence did well defensively. Despite Cuti making a mistake for Hugo Larsen’s effort, he led by example often in attack. Solanke came on as a sub and ran onto a through ball, beat the defender, and finished beautifully into the bottom right was yet another #UCL clean sheet Which meant that Vicario has got the Golden Glove of the qualifiers. Happy days at last for us long-suffering fans. Just enjoy the moment. #COYS 🤍💙

Jonny H

26,663 просмотров • 8 месяцев назад

We have a serious global problem “The population collapse of high IQ individuals is probably the scariest part of the fertility crisis because high IQ people are disproportionately the ones innovating and progressing society forward” If you look at high IQ countries, the population is collapsing. But low IQ countries are breeding like crazy and they are being flooded into high IQ countries He goes over IQ distribution chart by country In the low IQ country example “you would need 2 billion people to come up with the same 2 million geniuses, if we're qualifying 1 in 20 as genius. You need 2 billion people to get to that number, whereas with the high IQ kind of distribution, you only needed a population of a 100 million.” “So when you have this fertility collapse going on in these high IQ nations, you are going to get a collapse in even the absolute number of geniuses that exist in the world, and that paints a bleak picture for the future” Top counties for IQ are Asian, China, Japan and western nations like the United States The bottom 5 countries for IQ in the entire world are Somalia and African countries We are importing our own demise. We should be incentivizing high IQ countries to have more babies not mass importing from low IQ countries. This is a common sense concept that needs to be openly discussed
4:06

We have a serious global problem “The population collapse of high IQ individuals is probably the scariest part of the fertility crisis because high IQ people are disproportionately the ones innovating and progressing society forward” If you look at high IQ countries, the population is collapsing. But low IQ countries are breeding like crazy and they are being flooded into high IQ countries He goes over IQ distribution chart by country In the low IQ country example “you would need 2 billion people to come up with the same 2 million geniuses, if we're qualifying 1 in 20 as genius. You need 2 billion people to get to that number, whereas with the high IQ kind of distribution, you only needed a population of a 100 million.” “So when you have this fertility collapse going on in these high IQ nations, you are going to get a collapse in even the absolute number of geniuses that exist in the world, and that paints a bleak picture for the future” Top counties for IQ are Asian, China, Japan and western nations like the United States The bottom 5 countries for IQ in the entire world are Somalia and African countries We are importing our own demise. We should be incentivizing high IQ countries to have more babies not mass importing from low IQ countries. This is a common sense concept that needs to be openly discussed

Wall Street Apes

49,166 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

Merit is a ‘myth’ used to ‘justify inequality,’ Yale professor says | Gabrielle Temaat, The College Fix ASU event asked students to ‘imagine more just and equitable alternatives to earning success’ Meritocracy is a modern “myth” that perpetuates inequality, blocks opportunity, and harms the common good, a professor argued during an Arizona State University event this month. “Any idea that merit makes inequality deserved is a circle… merit isn’t a real virtue. It’s just an ideological conceit constructed to launder otherwise offensive inequalities,” Yale Law Professor Daniel Markovits said during the “Myth of Meritocracy” event. Markovits defined meritocracy as reward based on talent and effort, rather than race, class, or gender. He said the original promise of the concept was that “no group … has a monopoly on merit” and “anyone can get ahead.” He acknowledged that meritocracy is the reason there are black elites and women in power today. However, it has become self-defeating. Now, he said, it “starves the middle class” and “justifies inequality with the myth of ‘merit.'” He called meritocracy “the single greatest obstacle to equality of opportunity.” He said it promises that anyone can rise through their own achievements, but success actually depends on three factors: raw talent, personal effort, and investment in training and education. Wealthy families pour vastly more resources into developing their children’s skills than anyone else does, turning what looks like a fair race into one that’s heavily rigged from the start, he said. Offering an example, he said, “At elite colleges there are more kids from the top 1 percent than the entire bottom 50 percent.” Further, the same ten universities that dominated in 1920 remain on top today. According to Markovits, this is because the new meritocratic elite developed an “effectively unlimited appetite for education.” He said rich families now spend $60,000 more per year on schooling than middle-class ones, and the rich–poor achievement gap has surpassed the 1954 white–black gap. “Rich parents use exceptionally intensive investments in education as a technology to pass privilege down,” Markovits said. “We have recreated an aristocracy … only now it’s based on training and school,” he said. He also said that this “meritocratic elite … no longer serves the common good.” Top earners claim their massive paychecks are justified by their productivity, “but the only reason they’re so productive is that the labor market has changed to suit their needs,” he said. The economy has been reshaped to make their specific skills hyper-valuable while devaluing everyone else’s work. The top one percent of earners work as much as 12 hours more per week than the bottom 60 percent, not because others are lazy, but because the economy no longer offers dignified work to those without elite credentials, he said. Finally, the professor refuted criticisms of “diversity, equity, and inclusion” initiatives. With all the discussion around DEI, the assumption is that we’re not admitting qualified people of color, he said. Markovits argued universities are actually admitting “hyper-qualified people of color.” “Now, here’s something that’s also true, though. Our students of color are in general pretty rich. We’ve had an enormous success in the past five years in by a multiple factor, admitting more and more and more students who come from real economic disadvantage,” he said. According to the description of the event on ASU’s website, attendees were invited to discover how meritocracy obscures “structural inequalities” and “collaboratively imagine more just and equitable alternatives to ‘earning’ success.” “Through critique, dialogue, and collective visioning, the event invites attendees to move beyond individual achievement narratives toward systemic understanding and action,” the description states.
2:36

Merit is a ‘myth’ used to ‘justify inequality,’ Yale professor says | Gabrielle Temaat, The College Fix ASU event asked students to ‘imagine more just and equitable alternatives to earning success’ Meritocracy is a modern “myth” that perpetuates inequality, blocks opportunity, and harms the common good, a professor argued during an Arizona State University event this month. “Any idea that merit makes inequality deserved is a circle… merit isn’t a real virtue. It’s just an ideological conceit constructed to launder otherwise offensive inequalities,” Yale Law Professor Daniel Markovits said during the “Myth of Meritocracy” event. Markovits defined meritocracy as reward based on talent and effort, rather than race, class, or gender. He said the original promise of the concept was that “no group … has a monopoly on merit” and “anyone can get ahead.” He acknowledged that meritocracy is the reason there are black elites and women in power today. However, it has become self-defeating. Now, he said, it “starves the middle class” and “justifies inequality with the myth of ‘merit.'” He called meritocracy “the single greatest obstacle to equality of opportunity.” He said it promises that anyone can rise through their own achievements, but success actually depends on three factors: raw talent, personal effort, and investment in training and education. Wealthy families pour vastly more resources into developing their children’s skills than anyone else does, turning what looks like a fair race into one that’s heavily rigged from the start, he said. Offering an example, he said, “At elite colleges there are more kids from the top 1 percent than the entire bottom 50 percent.” Further, the same ten universities that dominated in 1920 remain on top today. According to Markovits, this is because the new meritocratic elite developed an “effectively unlimited appetite for education.” He said rich families now spend $60,000 more per year on schooling than middle-class ones, and the rich–poor achievement gap has surpassed the 1954 white–black gap. “Rich parents use exceptionally intensive investments in education as a technology to pass privilege down,” Markovits said. “We have recreated an aristocracy … only now it’s based on training and school,” he said. He also said that this “meritocratic elite … no longer serves the common good.” Top earners claim their massive paychecks are justified by their productivity, “but the only reason they’re so productive is that the labor market has changed to suit their needs,” he said. The economy has been reshaped to make their specific skills hyper-valuable while devaluing everyone else’s work. The top one percent of earners work as much as 12 hours more per week than the bottom 60 percent, not because others are lazy, but because the economy no longer offers dignified work to those without elite credentials, he said. Finally, the professor refuted criticisms of “diversity, equity, and inclusion” initiatives. With all the discussion around DEI, the assumption is that we’re not admitting qualified people of color, he said. Markovits argued universities are actually admitting “hyper-qualified people of color.” “Now, here’s something that’s also true, though. Our students of color are in general pretty rich. We’ve had an enormous success in the past five years in by a multiple factor, admitting more and more and more students who come from real economic disadvantage,” he said. According to the description of the event on ASU’s website, attendees were invited to discover how meritocracy obscures “structural inequalities” and “collaboratively imagine more just and equitable alternatives to ‘earning’ success.” “Through critique, dialogue, and collective visioning, the event invites attendees to move beyond individual achievement narratives toward systemic understanding and action,” the description states.

Owen Gregorian

116,181 просмотров • 10 месяцев назад

Bitch, I do not play about eighth grade star aka opinions based girl….. yeah everybody’s laughing now, but it literally does not take away the fact that you are so fucking ugly like I had his ass blocked on my old account before I even saw this because every time he pops up on my for you page I just have to scroll because he’s so fucking ugly that it pisses me off he looks like he could be casted on Netflix and not in a good way. He seriously needs to find a new haircut because what the fuck is that middle part? and of course he’s a Nepo baby, and the best part is I just found out that he used to be fat, I bet he’s an anorexic asf lowkey all shade and that’s the only way his pathetic ass could lose weight and I know he didn’t use laxatives cause he’s definitely a bottom, the type that one bitch from White Lotus would say as a fem and NOT a butch. You can tell he wants to be Matthew from big mouth but he’s more of a Charlie from heartstopper, you can also tell that he’s never got his ass beat, well maybe once in middle school and then his white ass republican parents freaked the fuck out and got the kid suspended or some shit. Of course he’s obsessed with Diet Coke, he’s so obviously wants to be a white woman that it is embarrassing. Middle schoolers definitely go up to him and be like “oh my God you’re famous on TikTok” and he thinks he’s the shit but the rest of the population don’t give a fuck and the way his mom is a teacher…… I know that she probably yells at the fucking class for everything but really she’s just taking it out on these kids because she knows deep down that she wishes her son was like them instead of a fucking loser who makes strawberry bagels on TikTok not to mention everybody praised him for doing angel tree, bitch that’s nothing he probably just used some of his allowance money to look like a good person so y’all bitches would suck his dick. Omg in all of his fucking videos he tries to sound cute with that feminine ass voice and it gives me a secondhand embarrassment down. he thinks he’s Troye Sivan, but he will never admit that he probably listens to fucking country music and Taylor Swift so he can fit in with all of his Christian girl friends and that’s it. You can tell he peaked in high school. He was definitely the “token gay” and the homophobic straight boys loved him because he was “funny“ but it was all surface level, TikTok humor that seems funny to them. of course he reposted something about drinking on antidepressants. Just because you had a white claw and some lexapro(which explains why he used to be fat as fuck) doesn’t make you whatever a fucking vibe you’re trying to go for. He looks like he jerks off to the Lululemon maternity catalog while pretending he’s Harry Styles. I saw on TikTok that he has a girlfriend and I can’t tell if it’s just for attention or if he’s actually still dl so that his parents don’t freak the fuck out on him and he has to get a real job. This one girl posted him on TikTok, shaking his hips and drinking wine…… like who do you think you fucking are bro? like genuinely who the fuck do you think you are?🔑 he also reposted a TikTok about Lorde “looking a mess” I really don’t give a fuck if it was a joke. You have no place to be talking about somebody’s looks when he looks like that……. and y’all know what I mean, the type of guy who fucks all the dl in the room because he has zero confidence. The type of guy who has all the latest Apple products for no reason. I mean seriously he looks like he eats fucking rocks. Apparently he caused a lot of drama on TikTok (of course) and blamed his OCD like what kind of dumb ass excuse is that but then again he probably asked his mom what to say and then she sent him a script and he went with it. Somebody keeps on copying his videos and it’s pissing him off. I think it’s so hilarious…… you realize you’re just another copy and paste of every other wanna be “ influencer”. Don’t ever try coming for eighth grade start again.🔑🔑
0:25

Sensitive content

Bitch, I do not play about eighth grade star aka opinions based girl….. yeah everybody’s laughing now, but it literally does not take away the fact that you are so fucking ugly like I had his ass blocked on my old account before I even saw this because every time he pops up on my for you page I just have to scroll because he’s so fucking ugly that it pisses me off he looks like he could be casted on Netflix and not in a good way. He seriously needs to find a new haircut because what the fuck is that middle part? and of course he’s a Nepo baby, and the best part is I just found out that he used to be fat, I bet he’s an anorexic asf lowkey all shade and that’s the only way his pathetic ass could lose weight and I know he didn’t use laxatives cause he’s definitely a bottom, the type that one bitch from White Lotus would say as a fem and NOT a butch. You can tell he wants to be Matthew from big mouth but he’s more of a Charlie from heartstopper, you can also tell that he’s never got his ass beat, well maybe once in middle school and then his white ass republican parents freaked the fuck out and got the kid suspended or some shit. Of course he’s obsessed with Diet Coke, he’s so obviously wants to be a white woman that it is embarrassing. Middle schoolers definitely go up to him and be like “oh my God you’re famous on TikTok” and he thinks he’s the shit but the rest of the population don’t give a fuck and the way his mom is a teacher…… I know that she probably yells at the fucking class for everything but really she’s just taking it out on these kids because she knows deep down that she wishes her son was like them instead of a fucking loser who makes strawberry bagels on TikTok not to mention everybody praised him for doing angel tree, bitch that’s nothing he probably just used some of his allowance money to look like a good person so y’all bitches would suck his dick. Omg in all of his fucking videos he tries to sound cute with that feminine ass voice and it gives me a secondhand embarrassment down. he thinks he’s Troye Sivan, but he will never admit that he probably listens to fucking country music and Taylor Swift so he can fit in with all of his Christian girl friends and that’s it. You can tell he peaked in high school. He was definitely the “token gay” and the homophobic straight boys loved him because he was “funny“ but it was all surface level, TikTok humor that seems funny to them. of course he reposted something about drinking on antidepressants. Just because you had a white claw and some lexapro(which explains why he used to be fat as fuck) doesn’t make you whatever a fucking vibe you’re trying to go for. He looks like he jerks off to the Lululemon maternity catalog while pretending he’s Harry Styles. I saw on TikTok that he has a girlfriend and I can’t tell if it’s just for attention or if he’s actually still dl so that his parents don’t freak the fuck out on him and he has to get a real job. This one girl posted him on TikTok, shaking his hips and drinking wine…… like who do you think you fucking are bro? like genuinely who the fuck do you think you are?🔑 he also reposted a TikTok about Lorde “looking a mess” I really don’t give a fuck if it was a joke. You have no place to be talking about somebody’s looks when he looks like that……. and y’all know what I mean, the type of guy who fucks all the dl in the room because he has zero confidence. The type of guy who has all the latest Apple products for no reason. I mean seriously he looks like he eats fucking rocks. Apparently he caused a lot of drama on TikTok (of course) and blamed his OCD like what kind of dumb ass excuse is that but then again he probably asked his mom what to say and then she sent him a script and he went with it. Somebody keeps on copying his videos and it’s pissing him off. I think it’s so hilarious…… you realize you’re just another copy and paste of every other wanna be “ influencer”. Don’t ever try coming for eighth grade start again.🔑🔑

Travis🦋

93,592 просмотров • 6 месяцев назад

The Deep State’s Blood Sacrifice: Rudy Giuliani Battles For Life While Parasitic Leftist Ghouls Celebrate Their Lethal Lawfare The radical left has blood on its hands. They tried to break the man who broke the mafia. Now he fights for his life in a Florida hospital. The deep state witch hunts have finally taken their physical toll on a true American lion. Rudy Giuliani is in critical but stable condition and every patriot in this country needs to stop what they are doing and pray for this warrior. The communist filth in the media are already celebrating. They are ghouls who hate greatness. Before the democrat bottom-feeders tried to jail him, Rudy was the gold standard of American justice. As U.S. attorney in the 1980s he racked up 4,152 convictions with only 25 reversals. He took down the five families. He crushed the mafia bosses who ran New York with an iron fist. You pathetic liberals worship criminals today but Rudy put them in cages where they belonged. His record is an unsurpassed monument to law and order. Remember what New York was before Rudy. It was a crime-ridden hellhole until he took the reins. As mayor from 1994 to 2001 he cut overall crime by 56% and murders by 66%. He turned the crime capital of America into the safest large city in the nation. He appointed Bill Bratton and utilized broken-windows policing to clean up the filth you democrats love to protect. FBI stats prove he was the most effective mayor in modern history. Rudy Giuliani fixed crime and destroyed the parasitic welfare state. He slashed welfare rolls by 640,000 people. That is a 60% reduction. He turned stagnant welfare offices into dynamic job centers. This was the largest and most successful welfare-to-work program in u.s. history. He gave people dignity through work while you leftist lunatics prefer to keep people chained to the government dole for votes. When the towers fell on 9/11, the entire world saw the strength of a real leader. While you cowardly democrats hid in bunkers, Rudy walked the ash-covered streets of lower Manhattan. He gave calm press conferences while the world burned. He led the recovery at ground zero. He became the face of American resilience. Time magazine person of the year. Knighted by the queen. Reagan freedom award winner. He is "Rudy the Rock" and you cannot erase his legacy. The left’s reward for his service was total persecution. Because he stood by President Trump and exposed the 2020 election steal, they unleashed every weapon in their arsenal. They stripped his law license. They hit him with a sham $148 million judgment in Georgia. They forced an American hero into bankruptcy. This is pure communist lawfare designed to kill the opposition. You radical leftists are domestic enemies of the constitution. Even under this massive pressure, Rudy never stopped fighting. He was on the air hosting "America’s Mayor Live" just Friday night from Palm Beach. He worked until his body gave out. He sacrificed everything to expose the corruption of the Biden crime family and the rigged system. He was right about the laptop. He was right about the election interference. He was right about everything and that is why you hate him. President Trump has issued the command: “Our fabulous Rudy Giuliani, a True Warrior, and the Best Mayor in the History of New York City, BY FAR, has been hospitalized, and is in critical condition.” Trump knows loyalty. Trump knows a fighter. The bond between these two giants is what scares the deep state to their rotten cores. They want Rudy silenced because he is the man who knows where all the bodies are buried in the corrupt swamp. To the liberal trash mocking his condition, you are sub-human scum. Your ideology is a cancer that destroys everything it touches. You hate Rudy because he represents an America that worked. An America where criminals went to jail and workers were rewarded. You prefer the chaos and decay of the current regime. You are intellectual midgets who could not accomplish in ten lifetimes what Rudy did in one afternoon in 1985. This is a call to action for every MAGA patriot. Repost this thread to every corner of the internet. Tag every Trump ally. Flood the airwaves with his accomplishments. We will not let the media rewrite history while he lies in that hospital bed. Stand with the man who stood for us. We are fighting for the soul of this nation and Rudy Giuliani is the ultimate casualty of this political war. Raise your voices. We demand justice for Rudy. We demand an end to the lawfare. We demand recognition for the man who saved New York and inspired the world. The left wants you to be afraid but we are only getting louder. The spirit of 9/11 is still alive in every heart that bleeds red white and blue. We are the silent majority no longer. We are the army of truth. Pray for Rudy Giuliani. Pray for his family. Pray for President Trump. Repost this now if you still believe in America First. We will never back down. We will never forget. God bless the greatest mayor in history. Stay strong warrior. The entire nation is behind you.
2:54

The Deep State’s Blood Sacrifice: Rudy Giuliani Battles For Life While Parasitic Leftist Ghouls Celebrate Their Lethal Lawfare The radical left has blood on its hands. They tried to break the man who broke the mafia. Now he fights for his life in a Florida hospital. The deep state witch hunts have finally taken their physical toll on a true American lion. Rudy Giuliani is in critical but stable condition and every patriot in this country needs to stop what they are doing and pray for this warrior. The communist filth in the media are already celebrating. They are ghouls who hate greatness. Before the democrat bottom-feeders tried to jail him, Rudy was the gold standard of American justice. As U.S. attorney in the 1980s he racked up 4,152 convictions with only 25 reversals. He took down the five families. He crushed the mafia bosses who ran New York with an iron fist. You pathetic liberals worship criminals today but Rudy put them in cages where they belonged. His record is an unsurpassed monument to law and order. Remember what New York was before Rudy. It was a crime-ridden hellhole until he took the reins. As mayor from 1994 to 2001 he cut overall crime by 56% and murders by 66%. He turned the crime capital of America into the safest large city in the nation. He appointed Bill Bratton and utilized broken-windows policing to clean up the filth you democrats love to protect. FBI stats prove he was the most effective mayor in modern history. Rudy Giuliani fixed crime and destroyed the parasitic welfare state. He slashed welfare rolls by 640,000 people. That is a 60% reduction. He turned stagnant welfare offices into dynamic job centers. This was the largest and most successful welfare-to-work program in u.s. history. He gave people dignity through work while you leftist lunatics prefer to keep people chained to the government dole for votes. When the towers fell on 9/11, the entire world saw the strength of a real leader. While you cowardly democrats hid in bunkers, Rudy walked the ash-covered streets of lower Manhattan. He gave calm press conferences while the world burned. He led the recovery at ground zero. He became the face of American resilience. Time magazine person of the year. Knighted by the queen. Reagan freedom award winner. He is "Rudy the Rock" and you cannot erase his legacy. The left’s reward for his service was total persecution. Because he stood by President Trump and exposed the 2020 election steal, they unleashed every weapon in their arsenal. They stripped his law license. They hit him with a sham $148 million judgment in Georgia. They forced an American hero into bankruptcy. This is pure communist lawfare designed to kill the opposition. You radical leftists are domestic enemies of the constitution. Even under this massive pressure, Rudy never stopped fighting. He was on the air hosting "America’s Mayor Live" just Friday night from Palm Beach. He worked until his body gave out. He sacrificed everything to expose the corruption of the Biden crime family and the rigged system. He was right about the laptop. He was right about the election interference. He was right about everything and that is why you hate him. President Trump has issued the command: “Our fabulous Rudy Giuliani, a True Warrior, and the Best Mayor in the History of New York City, BY FAR, has been hospitalized, and is in critical condition.” Trump knows loyalty. Trump knows a fighter. The bond between these two giants is what scares the deep state to their rotten cores. They want Rudy silenced because he is the man who knows where all the bodies are buried in the corrupt swamp. To the liberal trash mocking his condition, you are sub-human scum. Your ideology is a cancer that destroys everything it touches. You hate Rudy because he represents an America that worked. An America where criminals went to jail and workers were rewarded. You prefer the chaos and decay of the current regime. You are intellectual midgets who could not accomplish in ten lifetimes what Rudy did in one afternoon in 1985. This is a call to action for every MAGA patriot. Repost this thread to every corner of the internet. Tag every Trump ally. Flood the airwaves with his accomplishments. We will not let the media rewrite history while he lies in that hospital bed. Stand with the man who stood for us. We are fighting for the soul of this nation and Rudy Giuliani is the ultimate casualty of this political war. Raise your voices. We demand justice for Rudy. We demand an end to the lawfare. We demand recognition for the man who saved New York and inspired the world. The left wants you to be afraid but we are only getting louder. The spirit of 9/11 is still alive in every heart that bleeds red white and blue. We are the silent majority no longer. We are the army of truth. Pray for Rudy Giuliani. Pray for his family. Pray for President Trump. Repost this now if you still believe in America First. We will never back down. We will never forget. God bless the greatest mayor in history. Stay strong warrior. The entire nation is behind you.

Saggezza Eterna

21,019 просмотров • 5 месяцев назад

How to build chemistry in seconds: This is a great example of challenging, What challenging does is maintain the tension, it’s “fighting for position” Which really, what you’re avoiding is collapsing into her frame. She is trying to prize frame herself. “You wish you had this number” A lot of guys either collapse into her frame “Yeah I do, what’s your number” Or they just outright deny “No I don’t” Both suboptimal. You want to deny without qualifying yourself. Tease her back - “You’re mumbling I can’t even understand you” “Numbah?” “What’s a numbah?” Misinterpret “What you said you want my number? You can’t have it yet” Reframing the interaction knocks her off the pedestal without triggering her, or coming across try hard. What he did was perfect. Next, “Why are you getting so close to me” He’s challenging her prize frame, starting shit for more tension. “I didn’t give you permission. Stop touching my titties” Guys are gonna be like wtf is wrong with his voice But the intent and frame of your words matter more than the base. (Though a good voice still helps) “You like me already” Prize framing himself. But it’s also just him expressing his observation. “Yeah you wish I liked you” The girl now challenging the prize frame. And instead of going back and forth, another thing you can do is just call her bluff. He moved in closer to her and she broke instantly, wanting to kiss him. “I can’t kiss you right now” The only reason she didn’t was most likely a logistics issue. (Notice her looking over, checking who’s still around) He continues the challenging “Get out of here” “No you get out of here” Again - it’s more bluffing and calling out the frame He wants to stamp the fact that she likes him although it’s bit of an overextension. She’s starting to get tired of it and needs the interaction to move forward. “You want this or not because if not we’re gonna go home” The thing is he keeps playing around the “do you like me” frame Which is good to keep up the tension (which this girl likes) but it also keeps the interaction at a standstill. And eventually it will stall out and break. At this point - the opposition frame hurts your outcome more than it benefits. A better path forward is either to lead - pull her, help her with her logistics, move her away from friends, etc Or at the very least, instead of fighting for position, provoke escalation. “You can’t handle me ;)” “No you can’t handle me” Get her to challenge you and you can call her bluff to escalate like what happened earlier when he walked towards her. “Stop looking at me like I won’t do something to you right now ;)” Provoke, challenge her to set up the escalation window and it breaks the dancing around of who likes who while still maintaining tension. But bottom line, this interaction is a great example. Challenging = chemistry.
0:43

How to build chemistry in seconds: This is a great example of challenging, What challenging does is maintain the tension, it’s “fighting for position” Which really, what you’re avoiding is collapsing into her frame. She is trying to prize frame herself. “You wish you had this number” A lot of guys either collapse into her frame “Yeah I do, what’s your number” Or they just outright deny “No I don’t” Both suboptimal. You want to deny without qualifying yourself. Tease her back - “You’re mumbling I can’t even understand you” “Numbah?” “What’s a numbah?” Misinterpret “What you said you want my number? You can’t have it yet” Reframing the interaction knocks her off the pedestal without triggering her, or coming across try hard. What he did was perfect. Next, “Why are you getting so close to me” He’s challenging her prize frame, starting shit for more tension. “I didn’t give you permission. Stop touching my titties” Guys are gonna be like wtf is wrong with his voice But the intent and frame of your words matter more than the base. (Though a good voice still helps) “You like me already” Prize framing himself. But it’s also just him expressing his observation. “Yeah you wish I liked you” The girl now challenging the prize frame. And instead of going back and forth, another thing you can do is just call her bluff. He moved in closer to her and she broke instantly, wanting to kiss him. “I can’t kiss you right now” The only reason she didn’t was most likely a logistics issue. (Notice her looking over, checking who’s still around) He continues the challenging “Get out of here” “No you get out of here” Again - it’s more bluffing and calling out the frame He wants to stamp the fact that she likes him although it’s bit of an overextension. She’s starting to get tired of it and needs the interaction to move forward. “You want this or not because if not we’re gonna go home” The thing is he keeps playing around the “do you like me” frame Which is good to keep up the tension (which this girl likes) but it also keeps the interaction at a standstill. And eventually it will stall out and break. At this point - the opposition frame hurts your outcome more than it benefits. A better path forward is either to lead - pull her, help her with her logistics, move her away from friends, etc Or at the very least, instead of fighting for position, provoke escalation. “You can’t handle me ;)” “No you can’t handle me” Get her to challenge you and you can call her bluff to escalate like what happened earlier when he walked towards her. “Stop looking at me like I won’t do something to you right now ;)” Provoke, challenge her to set up the escalation window and it breaks the dancing around of who likes who while still maintaining tension. But bottom line, this interaction is a great example. Challenging = chemistry.

The Rizz Report

49,001 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

ONE BARREL OF OIL = 5 YEARS OF HUMAN LABOR - THE TRUTH THEY NEVER TAUGHT YOU Nate Hagens just delivered a mind-expanding breakdown on oil. As the Strait of Hormuz crisis dominates headlines, his clear analysis reveals the shocking reality that our entire modern civilization runs on an ancient solar battery most people never truly see. What he explains will instantly change how you view daily life and the world events unfolding right now. THE ORIGIN STORY MOST PEOPLE GET WRONG ➡️ Oil didn't come from dinosaurs. It formed from ancient marine phytoplankton that captured solar energy tens of millions of years ago. ➡️ Heat and pressure turned it into an incredibly dense liquid solar battery. ➡️ We're draining in just a few centuries what took nature millions of years to create. THE ASTONISHING POWER OF ONE BARREL ➡️ A single barrel of oil contains 1700 kilowatt hours of work potential. ➡️ It replaces approximately five years of hard human physical labor. ➡️ Combined with machines, that number can range from one to twenty years of human effort. ➡️ For around a hundred dollars you get the equivalent of five years of human sweat. THE INVISIBLE GHOST WORKFORCE ➡️ Globally we burn around 100 billion barrels of oil equivalent per year. ➡️ This equals roughly 500 billion human labor years. ➡️ That's 100 fossil-powered ghost workers for every living human on Earth. ➡️ This massive subsidy has supercharged wealth, agriculture, transportation, and consumption worldwide. LIVING BETTER THAN ANCIENT KINGS ➡️ The average American consumes energy equivalent to about 40 barrels per year. ➡️ This gives us hot water on demand, refrigeration, cars, planes, and year-round fresh food. ➡️ Most of us live with more energy services than royalty had centuries ago. ➡️ Every product, every service, every bit of GDP first requires an energy conversion. WHY YOU'VE NEVER NOTICED ➡️ We are energy blind because abundant energy has surrounded us our entire lives. ➡️ Even Nobel Prize-winning economists often overlooked energy's true contribution. ➡️ Your body needs 2000 kilocalories a day. The average American uses roughly 200,000 kilocalories daily through all the hidden systems. THE BOTTOM LINE This ancient sunlight has created the deepest subsidy in human history and enabled an explosion of wealth and population like nothing before it. But it won't be available forever at today's prices and scale. This changes how you see the current world events unfolding. HT: YouTube Nate Hagens Nate Hagens #Oil101 #Reality101 #AncientSunlight #EnergyBlindness #FossilFuels #StraitOfHormuz #CivilizationFundamentals
1:56

ONE BARREL OF OIL = 5 YEARS OF HUMAN LABOR - THE TRUTH THEY NEVER TAUGHT YOU Nate Hagens just delivered a mind-expanding breakdown on oil. As the Strait of Hormuz crisis dominates headlines, his clear analysis reveals the shocking reality that our entire modern civilization runs on an ancient solar battery most people never truly see. What he explains will instantly change how you view daily life and the world events unfolding right now. THE ORIGIN STORY MOST PEOPLE GET WRONG ➡️ Oil didn't come from dinosaurs. It formed from ancient marine phytoplankton that captured solar energy tens of millions of years ago. ➡️ Heat and pressure turned it into an incredibly dense liquid solar battery. ➡️ We're draining in just a few centuries what took nature millions of years to create. THE ASTONISHING POWER OF ONE BARREL ➡️ A single barrel of oil contains 1700 kilowatt hours of work potential. ➡️ It replaces approximately five years of hard human physical labor. ➡️ Combined with machines, that number can range from one to twenty years of human effort. ➡️ For around a hundred dollars you get the equivalent of five years of human sweat. THE INVISIBLE GHOST WORKFORCE ➡️ Globally we burn around 100 billion barrels of oil equivalent per year. ➡️ This equals roughly 500 billion human labor years. ➡️ That's 100 fossil-powered ghost workers for every living human on Earth. ➡️ This massive subsidy has supercharged wealth, agriculture, transportation, and consumption worldwide. LIVING BETTER THAN ANCIENT KINGS ➡️ The average American consumes energy equivalent to about 40 barrels per year. ➡️ This gives us hot water on demand, refrigeration, cars, planes, and year-round fresh food. ➡️ Most of us live with more energy services than royalty had centuries ago. ➡️ Every product, every service, every bit of GDP first requires an energy conversion. WHY YOU'VE NEVER NOTICED ➡️ We are energy blind because abundant energy has surrounded us our entire lives. ➡️ Even Nobel Prize-winning economists often overlooked energy's true contribution. ➡️ Your body needs 2000 kilocalories a day. The average American uses roughly 200,000 kilocalories daily through all the hidden systems. THE BOTTOM LINE This ancient sunlight has created the deepest subsidy in human history and enabled an explosion of wealth and population like nothing before it. But it won't be available forever at today's prices and scale. This changes how you see the current world events unfolding. HT: YouTube Nate Hagens Nate Hagens #Oil101 #Reality101 #AncientSunlight #EnergyBlindness #FossilFuels #StraitOfHormuz #CivilizationFundamentals

Mark

13,902 просмотров • 5 месяцев назад

🚨 BREAKING: Italian radar scientist detected what appears to be a massive grid of eight cylindrical structures, each 20 meters in diameter, descending over a kilometer beneath the Giza pyramids using Synthetic Aperture Radar Doppler Tomography. The cylindrical columns have coils wrapping around them resulting in a megastructure that looks like an ancient energy grid 🚨 So I brought in Geoffrey Drumm, one of the most technically rigorous pyramid researchers alive, to stress test every claim in real time. What followed was a four hour technical interrogation that revealed both stunning validations and unresolved questions about what may be the most significant archaeological discovery of the century. Biondi holds a PhD in radar science, 30 years in the field, and invented a proprietary method called the Biondi Protocol that reads surface micro-vibrations detected by Italian COSMO-SkyMed satellites to reconstruct what lies inside and beneath solid structures. His first peer-reviewed paper scanned the Great Pyramid in 2020. His second project scanned the Khafre Pyramid and the wider Giza Plateau, producing the 3D model that broke the internet: eight tubular columns with coils wrapping around them, sitting on a foundation of enormous cube-shaped structures, extending beneath all three pyramids and the Sphinx. Drumm is the author of The Land of Chem YouTube channel, lives in Egypt, and has developed a comprehensive hypothesis that the pyramids functioned as industrial-scale chemical reactors powered by lightning during the Saharan Humid Period. He knows the Giza Plateau like the back of his hand and has previously stress tested and poked holes in Biondi’s findings. This conversation is an unfiltered exchange between two heavyweights: 1. Biondi's Best Scan Is Jaw-Dropping As validation, Biondi presented a proof-of-concept scan of Italy's Gran Sasso National Laboratory, buried 1.4 kilometers inside a mountain. The image is stunning. You can see the tunnel cutting through the mountain, the interior of the facility, and even the interferometer inside it using the same technique Biondi used to scan beneath the pyramids. Drumm called it the single most convincing piece of evidence that this technology works. The Gotthard Tunnel in Switzerland produced a similarly clear image at two kilometers depth through solid rock. These are not theoretical demonstrations. They are working scans of known structures at extreme depth, and they validate that the Biondi Protocol can see through kilometers of stone. 2. He Found a Hidden Corridor Before Anyone Else In his 2020 paper, Biondi identified a feature on the northern face of the Great Pyramid labeled Tag 17. A dead-end corridor behind the chevron stones that nobody knew existed. Years later, the ScanPyramids muon team confirmed it and drilled in with a microscopic camera. Biondi's measurements of the corridor's length and the positions of its floor and ceiling matched what was found. This is a confirmed prediction from satellite radar, made years before physical verification. 3. He Detected a Sealed Shaft Beneath the Queen's Chamber One of the most compelling findings from the 2020 paper is a shaft and chamber system descending from the bottom of the Queen's Chamber. This structure was actually reported in 19th century excavation documents. Explorers found a pit in the Queen's Chamber floor, excavated down, and discovered a tunnel system below it. The Egyptian authorities then permanently sealed it with modern blocks. Biondi's scans picked it up independently, with no prior knowledge of those historical records. Drumm, who had already proposed this exact extraction shaft in his own chemical reactor model, called this the most promising result in the entire dataset. 4. The Substructures Are Enormous The tubular columns beneath the Khafre Pyramid measure approximately 20 meters in diameter each, spaced about 5 meters apart. That is 65 feet across per column. Eight of them. For context, the Queen's Chamber sometimes fails to register in certain scan slices because it is too small relative to the tomographic line. Biondi's argument is that megastructures at this scale are exactly what the technology is built to detect. Small chambers can be missed depending on the angle of the satellite pass. Repeating cylindrical structures 20 meters wide, appearing consistently across multiple scan geometries and multiple satellite sensors, are a different category of detection entirely. 5. Drumm's Challenge: The Processing Gap Here is where the debate gets sharp. The Gran Sasso and Gotthard scans used an advanced processing technique that averages noise across adjacent tomographic slices, requiring months of computation on borrowed hardware. The pyramid scans used a faster but noisier method on Biondi's own limited computers. Drumm pointed out that the quality difference is massive. The proof-of-concept images are transparent like a crystal. The pyramid images require expert interpretation to read. Biondi's response: he needs an array of GPUs he cannot afford. With that hardware, he says he could produce Gran Sasso-quality scans of the Giza substructures in near real-time. Estimated cost: millions. This is the bottleneck standing between a controversial claim and a potentially world-changing confirmation. 6. Other issues: Known Chambers Sometimes Do Not Appear Drumm walked through the 2020 dataset scan by scan. The Queen's Chamber shows a strong, consistent signature and serves as a reliable benchmark. But in several tomographic slices, the King's Chamber does not appear. The Grand Gallery does not appear. The subterranean chamber does not appear. Biondi attributes this to single-slice geometry. Each scan captures one vertical curtain through the structure in 15 seconds. If that curtain does not intersect a chamber precisely, it will not register. He says the real-time GPU system would allow him to sweep through hundreds of adjacent slices and reconstruct a full 3D volume. That system does not yet exist. 7. Biondi Challenged the Muon Team's Interpretation The ScanPyramids muon team claims the Big Void inside the Great Pyramid runs north to south, parallel to and above the Grand Gallery. Biondi's scans show it running east to west, connected to structures wrapping around the King's Chamber. Looking at the muon data during the conversation, Biondi argued they may have confused the floor and roof of the Grand Gallery for two separate features. The Egyptian Ministry of Antiquities is using the muon team's interpretation to justify drilling into the Great Pyramid in 2026. If Biondi is right about the orientation, that excavation could validate SAR Doppler tomography over the established method in one stroke. 8. The Signal Fades at 600 Meters and Nobody Knows Why The model shows structures extending over a kilometer deep. But in the raw data, the signal tapers around 600 meters. Drumm pressed Biondi on this. The initial explanation was the water table, but both agreed the actual water table sits only about 50 meters below the plateau. When pushed further, Biondi said he cannot yet explain the change but hinted at something he is not authorized to disclose. The structures do continue in the model below that line, detected across multiple satellite sensors showing the same cutoff pattern. What changes at 600 meters remains an open question. 9. Drumm's Model Says the Substructures Could Make Functional Sense Drumm's hypothesis is that each pyramid produced a specific chemical in sequence, from methane extraction at the Step Pyramid to ammonia synthesis in the Red Pyramid to sulfuric acid production in the Great Pyramid. He places the operational period during the Saharan Humid Period, roughly 8500 to 5300 BC, when massive thunderstorms provided the electrical input. The Big Void sits exactly where a heat exchanger would need to be to manage exothermic reactions in the Grand Gallery. The sealed shaft beneath the Queen's Chamber aligns with his proposed product extraction system. He confirmed that he has already integrated Biondi's substructure findings into a working functional model. If the deep structures are real, they connect to known hydrothermal mineral deposits, iron ore veins, and rare earth elements embedded in the Giza bedrock. Drumm and Biondi both agree: whoever built these structures chose the Giza Plateau for a very specific reason tied to what lies beneath it. 10. Validation & What Comes Next Biondi wants to establish a foundation in Malta with a dedicated data center and GPU array to reprocess the Giza data using his superior technique. Drumm wants to go to the Giza Plateau with Biondi's team to physically investigate anomalies he has already identified near the Osiris Shaft and along the Khafre causeway. Both say the SAR method and the muon method should be combined rather than treated as competitors. Both state that the conventional dating and tomb explanation for the pyramids is wrong. And both Drumm and Biondi agree that what lies beneath the Giza Plateau is more important than what sits on top of it. They also agree on the need for further validation and stress-testing. Why This Matters A satellite technique that can see through 1.4 kilometers of mountain and accurately image the Gran Sasso Laboratory. A confirmed prediction of a hidden corridor inside the Great Pyramid years before physical verification. A detection of a sealed shaft that matches 19th century excavation records. And now, scans showing a repeating grid of massive cylindrical structures beneath the entire Giza Plateau that no conventional archaeological framework can account for. The technology has demonstrated real capability. The substructure claims remain extraordinary. The 2026 Big Void excavation and GPU-powered rescans could settle this within months. If even a fraction of what Biondi is detecting turns out to be real, we are looking at the largest undiscovered structure on Earth, hidden in plain sight beneath the most studied archaeological site in human history. Full conversation covers all of this and much more. One of the most important technical examinations of the pyramid mystery ever recorded. Live now👇
1:28

🚨 BREAKING: Italian radar scientist detected what appears to be a massive grid of eight cylindrical structures, each 20 meters in diameter, descending over a kilometer beneath the Giza pyramids using Synthetic Aperture Radar Doppler Tomography. The cylindrical columns have coils wrapping around them resulting in a megastructure that looks like an ancient energy grid 🚨 So I brought in Geoffrey Drumm, one of the most technically rigorous pyramid researchers alive, to stress test every claim in real time. What followed was a four hour technical interrogation that revealed both stunning validations and unresolved questions about what may be the most significant archaeological discovery of the century. Biondi holds a PhD in radar science, 30 years in the field, and invented a proprietary method called the Biondi Protocol that reads surface micro-vibrations detected by Italian COSMO-SkyMed satellites to reconstruct what lies inside and beneath solid structures. His first peer-reviewed paper scanned the Great Pyramid in 2020. His second project scanned the Khafre Pyramid and the wider Giza Plateau, producing the 3D model that broke the internet: eight tubular columns with coils wrapping around them, sitting on a foundation of enormous cube-shaped structures, extending beneath all three pyramids and the Sphinx. Drumm is the author of The Land of Chem YouTube channel, lives in Egypt, and has developed a comprehensive hypothesis that the pyramids functioned as industrial-scale chemical reactors powered by lightning during the Saharan Humid Period. He knows the Giza Plateau like the back of his hand and has previously stress tested and poked holes in Biondi’s findings. This conversation is an unfiltered exchange between two heavyweights: 1. Biondi's Best Scan Is Jaw-Dropping As validation, Biondi presented a proof-of-concept scan of Italy's Gran Sasso National Laboratory, buried 1.4 kilometers inside a mountain. The image is stunning. You can see the tunnel cutting through the mountain, the interior of the facility, and even the interferometer inside it using the same technique Biondi used to scan beneath the pyramids. Drumm called it the single most convincing piece of evidence that this technology works. The Gotthard Tunnel in Switzerland produced a similarly clear image at two kilometers depth through solid rock. These are not theoretical demonstrations. They are working scans of known structures at extreme depth, and they validate that the Biondi Protocol can see through kilometers of stone. 2. He Found a Hidden Corridor Before Anyone Else In his 2020 paper, Biondi identified a feature on the northern face of the Great Pyramid labeled Tag 17. A dead-end corridor behind the chevron stones that nobody knew existed. Years later, the ScanPyramids muon team confirmed it and drilled in with a microscopic camera. Biondi's measurements of the corridor's length and the positions of its floor and ceiling matched what was found. This is a confirmed prediction from satellite radar, made years before physical verification. 3. He Detected a Sealed Shaft Beneath the Queen's Chamber One of the most compelling findings from the 2020 paper is a shaft and chamber system descending from the bottom of the Queen's Chamber. This structure was actually reported in 19th century excavation documents. Explorers found a pit in the Queen's Chamber floor, excavated down, and discovered a tunnel system below it. The Egyptian authorities then permanently sealed it with modern blocks. Biondi's scans picked it up independently, with no prior knowledge of those historical records. Drumm, who had already proposed this exact extraction shaft in his own chemical reactor model, called this the most promising result in the entire dataset. 4. The Substructures Are Enormous The tubular columns beneath the Khafre Pyramid measure approximately 20 meters in diameter each, spaced about 5 meters apart. That is 65 feet across per column. Eight of them. For context, the Queen's Chamber sometimes fails to register in certain scan slices because it is too small relative to the tomographic line. Biondi's argument is that megastructures at this scale are exactly what the technology is built to detect. Small chambers can be missed depending on the angle of the satellite pass. Repeating cylindrical structures 20 meters wide, appearing consistently across multiple scan geometries and multiple satellite sensors, are a different category of detection entirely. 5. Drumm's Challenge: The Processing Gap Here is where the debate gets sharp. The Gran Sasso and Gotthard scans used an advanced processing technique that averages noise across adjacent tomographic slices, requiring months of computation on borrowed hardware. The pyramid scans used a faster but noisier method on Biondi's own limited computers. Drumm pointed out that the quality difference is massive. The proof-of-concept images are transparent like a crystal. The pyramid images require expert interpretation to read. Biondi's response: he needs an array of GPUs he cannot afford. With that hardware, he says he could produce Gran Sasso-quality scans of the Giza substructures in near real-time. Estimated cost: millions. This is the bottleneck standing between a controversial claim and a potentially world-changing confirmation. 6. Other issues: Known Chambers Sometimes Do Not Appear Drumm walked through the 2020 dataset scan by scan. The Queen's Chamber shows a strong, consistent signature and serves as a reliable benchmark. But in several tomographic slices, the King's Chamber does not appear. The Grand Gallery does not appear. The subterranean chamber does not appear. Biondi attributes this to single-slice geometry. Each scan captures one vertical curtain through the structure in 15 seconds. If that curtain does not intersect a chamber precisely, it will not register. He says the real-time GPU system would allow him to sweep through hundreds of adjacent slices and reconstruct a full 3D volume. That system does not yet exist. 7. Biondi Challenged the Muon Team's Interpretation The ScanPyramids muon team claims the Big Void inside the Great Pyramid runs north to south, parallel to and above the Grand Gallery. Biondi's scans show it running east to west, connected to structures wrapping around the King's Chamber. Looking at the muon data during the conversation, Biondi argued they may have confused the floor and roof of the Grand Gallery for two separate features. The Egyptian Ministry of Antiquities is using the muon team's interpretation to justify drilling into the Great Pyramid in 2026. If Biondi is right about the orientation, that excavation could validate SAR Doppler tomography over the established method in one stroke. 8. The Signal Fades at 600 Meters and Nobody Knows Why The model shows structures extending over a kilometer deep. But in the raw data, the signal tapers around 600 meters. Drumm pressed Biondi on this. The initial explanation was the water table, but both agreed the actual water table sits only about 50 meters below the plateau. When pushed further, Biondi said he cannot yet explain the change but hinted at something he is not authorized to disclose. The structures do continue in the model below that line, detected across multiple satellite sensors showing the same cutoff pattern. What changes at 600 meters remains an open question. 9. Drumm's Model Says the Substructures Could Make Functional Sense Drumm's hypothesis is that each pyramid produced a specific chemical in sequence, from methane extraction at the Step Pyramid to ammonia synthesis in the Red Pyramid to sulfuric acid production in the Great Pyramid. He places the operational period during the Saharan Humid Period, roughly 8500 to 5300 BC, when massive thunderstorms provided the electrical input. The Big Void sits exactly where a heat exchanger would need to be to manage exothermic reactions in the Grand Gallery. The sealed shaft beneath the Queen's Chamber aligns with his proposed product extraction system. He confirmed that he has already integrated Biondi's substructure findings into a working functional model. If the deep structures are real, they connect to known hydrothermal mineral deposits, iron ore veins, and rare earth elements embedded in the Giza bedrock. Drumm and Biondi both agree: whoever built these structures chose the Giza Plateau for a very specific reason tied to what lies beneath it. 10. Validation & What Comes Next Biondi wants to establish a foundation in Malta with a dedicated data center and GPU array to reprocess the Giza data using his superior technique. Drumm wants to go to the Giza Plateau with Biondi's team to physically investigate anomalies he has already identified near the Osiris Shaft and along the Khafre causeway. Both say the SAR method and the muon method should be combined rather than treated as competitors. Both state that the conventional dating and tomb explanation for the pyramids is wrong. And both Drumm and Biondi agree that what lies beneath the Giza Plateau is more important than what sits on top of it. They also agree on the need for further validation and stress-testing. Why This Matters A satellite technique that can see through 1.4 kilometers of mountain and accurately image the Gran Sasso Laboratory. A confirmed prediction of a hidden corridor inside the Great Pyramid years before physical verification. A detection of a sealed shaft that matches 19th century excavation records. And now, scans showing a repeating grid of massive cylindrical structures beneath the entire Giza Plateau that no conventional archaeological framework can account for. The technology has demonstrated real capability. The substructure claims remain extraordinary. The 2026 Big Void excavation and GPU-powered rescans could settle this within months. If even a fraction of what Biondi is detecting turns out to be real, we are looking at the largest undiscovered structure on Earth, hidden in plain sight beneath the most studied archaeological site in human history. Full conversation covers all of this and much more. One of the most important technical examinations of the pyramid mystery ever recorded. Live now👇

Jesse Michels

1,073,336 просмотров • 6 месяцев назад

Ottawa— Folks, buckle up, because what we witnessed in INDU Meeting No. 137 last Thursday was a textbook example of the Liberal government dodging accountability while taxpayer money is thrown around like confetti at a parade. At the center of this debacle is François-Philippe Champagne, Canada's Minister of Innovation, Science, and Industry, who got absolutely grilled by the Conservative opposition—and rightly so. Let’s break down the highlights. Champagne Touts Corporate Investments While Canadians Foot the Bill—and Trump Could Blow It All Up Minister François-Philippe Champagne, in his opening remarks at INDU Meeting No. 137, tried to sell Canadians on his so-called economic "success story" by boasting about massive corporate investments like Honda's $19 billion in Canada's electric vehicle (EV) sector. He made it sound like international companies were flocking to Canada because of our leadership in green energy and innovation. But what he conveniently left out is that taxpayers are footing the bill for these investments with up to $5 billion in subsidies to Honda alone. Champagne is spinning this as if these corporations just came knocking at our door out of love for Canada. Reality check: they were bought off with your money. And then there’s Telesat, the satellite company Champagne hyped up, claiming it’s vital for rural connectivity and national security. What he didn’t mention? $1.4 billion in taxpayer money was handed over to Telesat with zero interest for five years, and not a single satellite has been deployed yet! That's right, a company that’s supposed to be launching satellites to connect rural areas hasn’t even gotten anything into orbit—and meanwhile, 63% of the company is foreign-owned. Canadians are essentially funding a foreign venture that hasn’t delivered on its promises. But here’s the kicker—all of these investments are at serious risk if Donald Trump wins the 2024 U.S. election. Trump has vowed to roll back green energy policies and bring back fossil fuel dominance, which would completely undercut the EV market and leave Canada’s taxpayer-funded green investments in serious jeopardy. If the U.S. shifts back to oil and gas, the EV and green tech industries in Canada will lose their biggest market, leaving Canadians holding the bag for billions in wasted investments. And that’s when Conservative MP Rick Perkins stepped in to call out Champagne on his BS. Rick Perkins Comes in Hot Right out of the gate, Conservative MP Rick Perkins wasn't there to play nice. He dug deep into the $1.4 billion taxpayer-funded loan to Telesat, demanding specifics about how much money had been repaid. Sounds like a straightforward question, right? Well, not for Champagne, who responded with a word salad about national security and rural connectivity instead of giving a straight answer. Perkins wasn’t having any of it. He interrupted Champagne's well-rehearsed talking points, demanding the facts: “I didn’t ask for a speech on Telesat, I asked how much of the loan has been repaid!” Boom! That right there was pure gold. Perkins exposed Champagne’s slippery evasions and highlighted what this is really about: $1.4 billion of your money with no clear accountability on where it's going or when it’ll be repaid. Champagne, flustered, had nothing. No numbers, no concrete answers. Just more smoke. Michelle Rempel Garner: The No-Nonsense Conservative Then came Michelle Rempel Garner, another Conservative MP who took Champagne to the woodshed. She cut right through the fluff and zeroed in on the core issue—how can Canadian taxpayers benefit when foreign-owned companies like Telesat are getting the lion’s share of the pie? She asked point-blank: “How is this helping Canadian workers when the company isn’t even fully Canadian-owned?” Champagne had no choice but to admit what we already know—63% of Telesat is owned by foreign investors, mostly Americans. So, let’s get this straight: Canadian taxpayers are subsidizing a company that isn't even Canadian? It’s a globalist's dream and a taxpayer's nightmare. Garner’s relentless grilling forced Champagne to reveal there are no clear safeguards in place to ensure that Canada reaps the long-term rewards from these massive investments. This wasn’t just a good moment for Rempel Garner, it was a reality check for all Canadians. The Trudeau government loves to talk about “green jobs” and “innovation,” but when you pull back the curtain, it's the foreign investors who are laughing all the way to the bank. Rick Perkins: The Sequel In the later part of the hearing, Rick Perkins came back for another round and, boy, did he keep the pressure on. This time, he focused on the financial oversight of these projects, pointing out that the Trudeau government was taking enormous risks with taxpayer money, especially when foreign-owned companies are involved. Perkins didn’t let Champagne dodge the tough questions. He demanded guarantees—actual, concrete protections for Canadian taxpayers—in case these projects fail to deliver. Of course, Champagne, doing what he does best, gave more vague promises about future benefits but nothing solid about how the government plans to protect taxpayers if these green ventures flop. This exchange was critical because it highlighted just how reckless the Liberals are with public money. Perkins showed that this isn’t just about “leading the world” in innovation—it’s about fiscal irresponsibility. Ryan Turnbull’s Fluffy Defense of Liberal Policies Then we had Liberal MP Ryan Turnbull swooping in with the expected protectionist puff-piece. Turnbull’s questions were more like soft lobs for Champagne to knock out of the park. He spent his time talking about how green energy and EV supply chains will secure Canada’s place as a global leader. But let’s cut through the BS, folks. This was nothing more than an attempt to distract from the massive financial risks Canadians are being forced to bear. Turnbull went on about “innovation” and “sustainability,” sprinkling in the usual Liberal buzzwords that make it sound like everything’s going great. But here's the truth he conveniently ignored: these investments are a gamble. They rely heavily on the U.S. market, and if Donald Trump wins in 2024 and rolls back green energy policies, Canada's taxpayer-funded projects are in serious trouble. Trump has vowed to dismantle Biden's green energy incentives and go all-in on fossil fuels. If that happens, demand for green tech and EVs in the U.S. will plummet, leaving Canada holding the bag on investments that might not pan out. While Turnbull painted a rosy picture, he didn’t acknowledge the geopolitical risks. Trump’s election could leave Canada’s green investments in serious jeopardy. And Champagne? He didn’t offer any solutions either—just more vague reassurances. But without the U.S. as a stable market, these taxpayer-funded projects are at risk of becoming costly failures. Honorable Mentions: Bloc and NDP Bring Their Own Fire Let's not forget the solid moments from both Bloc MP Jean-Denis Garon and NDP MP Brian Masse. Garon focused on transparency and the question of foreign ownership, once again hammering home the fact that Canadian taxpayers are footing the bill for projects that benefit foreign entities. Meanwhile, Masse brought up a crucial point: affordability. He grilled Champagne on whether these green projects would actually lower costs for rural Canadians or just create more monopolization in the telecom sector. The Bottom Line Folks, this is exactly what’s wrong with the Liberal government—they are more interested in looking good on the world stage than actually delivering for Canadians. Champagne was grilled for dodging accountability, and for good reason. Billions of taxpayer dollars are being handed over to foreign corporations with no clear benefit to the Canadian people. If you’re wondering where your hard-earned money is going, just look at Telesat—a foreign-controlled company that hasn’t paid a dime back on a $1.4 billion loan. And with the possibility of Donald Trump winning in 2024 and rolling back green energy subsidies in the U.S., these investments are looking shakier by the day. If the U.S. abandons green energy, where does that leave Canada? I’ll tell you where—holding the bag for investments that might never pay off. Once again, folks, we’re seeing the Liberal government in action—reckless, unaccountable, and leaving Canadians behind. Stay tuned. It’s going to be a bumpy ride.
20:17

Ottawa— Folks, buckle up, because what we witnessed in INDU Meeting No. 137 last Thursday was a textbook example of the Liberal government dodging accountability while taxpayer money is thrown around like confetti at a parade. At the center of this debacle is François-Philippe Champagne, Canada's Minister of Innovation, Science, and Industry, who got absolutely grilled by the Conservative opposition—and rightly so. Let’s break down the highlights. Champagne Touts Corporate Investments While Canadians Foot the Bill—and Trump Could Blow It All Up Minister François-Philippe Champagne, in his opening remarks at INDU Meeting No. 137, tried to sell Canadians on his so-called economic "success story" by boasting about massive corporate investments like Honda's $19 billion in Canada's electric vehicle (EV) sector. He made it sound like international companies were flocking to Canada because of our leadership in green energy and innovation. But what he conveniently left out is that taxpayers are footing the bill for these investments with up to $5 billion in subsidies to Honda alone. Champagne is spinning this as if these corporations just came knocking at our door out of love for Canada. Reality check: they were bought off with your money. And then there’s Telesat, the satellite company Champagne hyped up, claiming it’s vital for rural connectivity and national security. What he didn’t mention? $1.4 billion in taxpayer money was handed over to Telesat with zero interest for five years, and not a single satellite has been deployed yet! That's right, a company that’s supposed to be launching satellites to connect rural areas hasn’t even gotten anything into orbit—and meanwhile, 63% of the company is foreign-owned. Canadians are essentially funding a foreign venture that hasn’t delivered on its promises. But here’s the kicker—all of these investments are at serious risk if Donald Trump wins the 2024 U.S. election. Trump has vowed to roll back green energy policies and bring back fossil fuel dominance, which would completely undercut the EV market and leave Canada’s taxpayer-funded green investments in serious jeopardy. If the U.S. shifts back to oil and gas, the EV and green tech industries in Canada will lose their biggest market, leaving Canadians holding the bag for billions in wasted investments. And that’s when Conservative MP Rick Perkins stepped in to call out Champagne on his BS. Rick Perkins Comes in Hot Right out of the gate, Conservative MP Rick Perkins wasn't there to play nice. He dug deep into the $1.4 billion taxpayer-funded loan to Telesat, demanding specifics about how much money had been repaid. Sounds like a straightforward question, right? Well, not for Champagne, who responded with a word salad about national security and rural connectivity instead of giving a straight answer. Perkins wasn’t having any of it. He interrupted Champagne's well-rehearsed talking points, demanding the facts: “I didn’t ask for a speech on Telesat, I asked how much of the loan has been repaid!” Boom! That right there was pure gold. Perkins exposed Champagne’s slippery evasions and highlighted what this is really about: $1.4 billion of your money with no clear accountability on where it's going or when it’ll be repaid. Champagne, flustered, had nothing. No numbers, no concrete answers. Just more smoke. Michelle Rempel Garner: The No-Nonsense Conservative Then came Michelle Rempel Garner, another Conservative MP who took Champagne to the woodshed. She cut right through the fluff and zeroed in on the core issue—how can Canadian taxpayers benefit when foreign-owned companies like Telesat are getting the lion’s share of the pie? She asked point-blank: “How is this helping Canadian workers when the company isn’t even fully Canadian-owned?” Champagne had no choice but to admit what we already know—63% of Telesat is owned by foreign investors, mostly Americans. So, let’s get this straight: Canadian taxpayers are subsidizing a company that isn't even Canadian? It’s a globalist's dream and a taxpayer's nightmare. Garner’s relentless grilling forced Champagne to reveal there are no clear safeguards in place to ensure that Canada reaps the long-term rewards from these massive investments. This wasn’t just a good moment for Rempel Garner, it was a reality check for all Canadians. The Trudeau government loves to talk about “green jobs” and “innovation,” but when you pull back the curtain, it's the foreign investors who are laughing all the way to the bank. Rick Perkins: The Sequel In the later part of the hearing, Rick Perkins came back for another round and, boy, did he keep the pressure on. This time, he focused on the financial oversight of these projects, pointing out that the Trudeau government was taking enormous risks with taxpayer money, especially when foreign-owned companies are involved. Perkins didn’t let Champagne dodge the tough questions. He demanded guarantees—actual, concrete protections for Canadian taxpayers—in case these projects fail to deliver. Of course, Champagne, doing what he does best, gave more vague promises about future benefits but nothing solid about how the government plans to protect taxpayers if these green ventures flop. This exchange was critical because it highlighted just how reckless the Liberals are with public money. Perkins showed that this isn’t just about “leading the world” in innovation—it’s about fiscal irresponsibility. Ryan Turnbull’s Fluffy Defense of Liberal Policies Then we had Liberal MP Ryan Turnbull swooping in with the expected protectionist puff-piece. Turnbull’s questions were more like soft lobs for Champagne to knock out of the park. He spent his time talking about how green energy and EV supply chains will secure Canada’s place as a global leader. But let’s cut through the BS, folks. This was nothing more than an attempt to distract from the massive financial risks Canadians are being forced to bear. Turnbull went on about “innovation” and “sustainability,” sprinkling in the usual Liberal buzzwords that make it sound like everything’s going great. But here's the truth he conveniently ignored: these investments are a gamble. They rely heavily on the U.S. market, and if Donald Trump wins in 2024 and rolls back green energy policies, Canada's taxpayer-funded projects are in serious trouble. Trump has vowed to dismantle Biden's green energy incentives and go all-in on fossil fuels. If that happens, demand for green tech and EVs in the U.S. will plummet, leaving Canada holding the bag on investments that might not pan out. While Turnbull painted a rosy picture, he didn’t acknowledge the geopolitical risks. Trump’s election could leave Canada’s green investments in serious jeopardy. And Champagne? He didn’t offer any solutions either—just more vague reassurances. But without the U.S. as a stable market, these taxpayer-funded projects are at risk of becoming costly failures. Honorable Mentions: Bloc and NDP Bring Their Own Fire Let's not forget the solid moments from both Bloc MP Jean-Denis Garon and NDP MP Brian Masse. Garon focused on transparency and the question of foreign ownership, once again hammering home the fact that Canadian taxpayers are footing the bill for projects that benefit foreign entities. Meanwhile, Masse brought up a crucial point: affordability. He grilled Champagne on whether these green projects would actually lower costs for rural Canadians or just create more monopolization in the telecom sector. The Bottom Line Folks, this is exactly what’s wrong with the Liberal government—they are more interested in looking good on the world stage than actually delivering for Canadians. Champagne was grilled for dodging accountability, and for good reason. Billions of taxpayer dollars are being handed over to foreign corporations with no clear benefit to the Canadian people. If you’re wondering where your hard-earned money is going, just look at Telesat—a foreign-controlled company that hasn’t paid a dime back on a $1.4 billion loan. And with the possibility of Donald Trump winning in 2024 and rolling back green energy subsidies in the U.S., these investments are looking shakier by the day. If the U.S. abandons green energy, where does that leave Canada? I’ll tell you where—holding the bag for investments that might never pay off. Once again, folks, we’re seeing the Liberal government in action—reckless, unaccountable, and leaving Canadians behind. Stay tuned. It’s going to be a bumpy ride.

Dan Knight

27,447 просмотров • 2 лет назад

President Donald Trump is causing a constitutional crisis by eliminating the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and giving Elon Musk access to confidential Treasury records, say the media and Democrats. The American people didn’t elect Musk, said Democrats in a rally on Friday, where some House members were disallowed from entering the Department of Education. A judge on Friday restricted Musk’s team’s access to Treasury records. Trump yesterday, in an interview with Bret Baier of Fox, said that Musk would soon begin seeking efficiencies in the Departments of Defense and Education. As such, what’s happening is a “constitutional crisis,” said Rep. Jamie Raskin on Meet the Press, where he threatened a class action lawsuit on behalf of the American people. But there is no constitutional crisis. The American people elected Trump as president, and he, not Congress, exercises authority over all executive branch agencies, including USAID, the Department of Education, the Department of Defense, and the Treasury Department. Trump has clear Constitutional authority to audit the finances overseen by the Treasury and every other agency, and that includes assigning that audit to whoever he chooses. The Constitution grants Congress oversight duties but those powers do not include members being allowed to enter any executive branch building whenever they please. None of that means that the administration should ignore Congress, court orders, or the potential public health problems that could be created by the closure of USAID and freezing of its funds. Said the surgeon, New Yorker author, and former USAID official, Atul Gawande, on X, “20M people with HIV, including 500,000 children, have been cut off from access to medicines keeping them alive. Global HIV transmission, resistance, and deaths will now increase, endangering all.” Gawande added that, as a result of the loss of USAID, the US has lost critical bird flu surveillance, sacrificed humanitarian aid in Gaza, and halted the resettlement of former Islamic State combatants. USAID may have been doing and funding projects that were worthwhile. And it may be that Congress will need to pass legislation to continue those projects through the State Department. But it’s emotional blackmail to suggest the USAID closure and freeze on aid will kill African children. The Trump administration already created a waiver for HIV treatment and resumed aid for tuberculosis, malaria, and newborn health. And USAID’s health programs should be subject to scrutiny, given the agency’s history of using such programs as cover for other activities, including regime change and biodefense research. For example, under President Barack Obama’s administration, USAID was caught using an HIV program to foment rebellion in Cuba. USAID used EcoHealth Alliance as a passthrough organization to funnel $1.1 million to the Wuhan Institute of Virology, which was conducting risky gain-of-function experiments that may have caused the Covid pandemic. As such, anyone who truly believes in public health for poor people in poor nations must agree that USAID needs to be reined in and cleaned up. That starts first with precisely the kind of audit the Democrats are trying to stop. After that, USAID — and other government agencies eventually — must justify what they are spending money on. The public’s interest is ensuring that every dollar of taxpayer money is accounted for and justified. A major reason that the American people elected Trump was precisely because they believed he would reform the government, and that meant rooting out abuse, fraud, and waste. There is a large body of evidence of all three in USAID, the DOD, and the Department of Education. And, as for complying with the law on the closure of USAID, support for just such a law is growing in Congress. The media and others in Washington, D.C., have known for decades that USAID was a hub of fraud and abuse. The Washington Post cited two individuals with the Center for Global Development, a center-left think tank funded by Bill Gates that has been defending USAID, who told the Washington Post that a claim by Musk that just 10% of USAID money reached people on the ground was “wildly incorrect and misleading.” But their clarification — that just “10 percent of USAID payments are made directly to organizations in the developing world” and the “remaining 90 percent” is delivered by organizations in the US and developed world — underscored that USAID fundamentally isn’t working. Think about it. If USAID were so effective in achieving its ostensible goal of “development,” why are the countries it works in still so poor and underdeveloped? In truth, Democrats and Republicans alike have recognized for decades that USAID needed reform. In 2015, even the Center for Global Development urged a “top-to-bottom review of USAID’s sector- and country-based activities based upon program effectiveness, allocation of USAID resources, alignment with partner priorities, and national security implications” followed by “comprehensive reform.” As recently as 2021, the media acknowledged the obvious. That year, the New York Times published an article headlined, “U.S. Aid to Central America Hasn’t Slowed Migration. Can Kamala Harris?” In it the Times acknowledged that “experts say the reasons that years of aid have not curbed migration” is in part because “much of the money is handed over to American companies, which swallow a lot of it for salaries, expenses and profits, often before any services are delivered” — precisely the reason President Trump shut down USAID. Wrote the Times, “From 2016 to 2020, 80 percent of the American-financed development projects in Central America were entrusted to American contractors, according to data provided by the U.S. Agency for International Development.” It’s the same story for education. Just 10 days ago, the National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP) released the latest test scores showing yet another decline in reading and continued flat-lining in math for eighth graders. The media described the test results as a “new low” and “even worse” than in the past and “disheartening.” Democrats and the media thus know perfectly well that the Department of Education’s work is either insufficient to counteract the decline or is actively contributing to it, and thus reform of the Department of Education is highly reasonable. And yet Democrats demanded they be allowed to enter the Department of Education headquarters in Washington as though to defend it. From what? Improvement? The position of the Democrats is even more ridiculous when one considers the example of the Defense Department. Will Democrats now, after decades of attacking military spending as wasteful, defend it? If they do, they will alienate their own partisans. But if they don’t, then they will find it difficult to answer the question of why reform is necessary in the military but not in the Department of Education or USAID? Making the situation even more surreal is that it was Democrats, not Republicans, who made the biggest push for government efficiency and reform in the last thirty years. In 1993, shortly after taking office, President Bill Clinton empowered Vice President Al Gore to oversee a “Reinventing Government” initiative. The aim was to streamline bureaucracy, cut costs, and improve government efficiency. It emphasized customer service, performance-based management, and innovation — all things that Musk is famous for implementing at his companies. It’s not obvious why Democrats are opposing Trump’s actions. Doing so reinforces that they are the party of waste, fraud, and abuse. Polling shows that public support for Trump is at an all-time high of 53%, according to a new CBS poll. By contrast, 57% of registered voters have an unfavorable opinion of the Democratic Party, the worst numbers in 17 years. Nor is it obvious why the media has maintained its anti-Trump bias. The Washington Post’s daily traffic declined by nearly 90% from 23 million daily active users in January 2021 to 2.5 to 3 million in the middle of last year. In the week ending November 24, CNN and MSNBC lost 47% and 53% of their primetime viewership. Last month, CNN announced it was laying off 200 employees while MSNBC saw its president step down. Politico’s cofounder said last week that “The left right now, liberal media, has probably never been weaker in my lifetime than right now.” The public desperately wants reform, and 60% of the public has long supported cutting foreign aid, which has long been popular with the public. Why can’t Democrats and the media just embrace Trump’s government efficiency effort? Why are they engaging in such seemingly self-destructive behavior? Please subscribe now to support Public's award winning journalism, watch the rest of the video, and read the rest of the article by alex gutentag and Michael Shellenberger !
9:55

President Donald Trump is causing a constitutional crisis by eliminating the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and giving Elon Musk access to confidential Treasury records, say the media and Democrats. The American people didn’t elect Musk, said Democrats in a rally on Friday, where some House members were disallowed from entering the Department of Education. A judge on Friday restricted Musk’s team’s access to Treasury records. Trump yesterday, in an interview with Bret Baier of Fox, said that Musk would soon begin seeking efficiencies in the Departments of Defense and Education. As such, what’s happening is a “constitutional crisis,” said Rep. Jamie Raskin on Meet the Press, where he threatened a class action lawsuit on behalf of the American people. But there is no constitutional crisis. The American people elected Trump as president, and he, not Congress, exercises authority over all executive branch agencies, including USAID, the Department of Education, the Department of Defense, and the Treasury Department. Trump has clear Constitutional authority to audit the finances overseen by the Treasury and every other agency, and that includes assigning that audit to whoever he chooses. The Constitution grants Congress oversight duties but those powers do not include members being allowed to enter any executive branch building whenever they please. None of that means that the administration should ignore Congress, court orders, or the potential public health problems that could be created by the closure of USAID and freezing of its funds. Said the surgeon, New Yorker author, and former USAID official, Atul Gawande, on X, “20M people with HIV, including 500,000 children, have been cut off from access to medicines keeping them alive. Global HIV transmission, resistance, and deaths will now increase, endangering all.” Gawande added that, as a result of the loss of USAID, the US has lost critical bird flu surveillance, sacrificed humanitarian aid in Gaza, and halted the resettlement of former Islamic State combatants. USAID may have been doing and funding projects that were worthwhile. And it may be that Congress will need to pass legislation to continue those projects through the State Department. But it’s emotional blackmail to suggest the USAID closure and freeze on aid will kill African children. The Trump administration already created a waiver for HIV treatment and resumed aid for tuberculosis, malaria, and newborn health. And USAID’s health programs should be subject to scrutiny, given the agency’s history of using such programs as cover for other activities, including regime change and biodefense research. For example, under President Barack Obama’s administration, USAID was caught using an HIV program to foment rebellion in Cuba. USAID used EcoHealth Alliance as a passthrough organization to funnel $1.1 million to the Wuhan Institute of Virology, which was conducting risky gain-of-function experiments that may have caused the Covid pandemic. As such, anyone who truly believes in public health for poor people in poor nations must agree that USAID needs to be reined in and cleaned up. That starts first with precisely the kind of audit the Democrats are trying to stop. After that, USAID — and other government agencies eventually — must justify what they are spending money on. The public’s interest is ensuring that every dollar of taxpayer money is accounted for and justified. A major reason that the American people elected Trump was precisely because they believed he would reform the government, and that meant rooting out abuse, fraud, and waste. There is a large body of evidence of all three in USAID, the DOD, and the Department of Education. And, as for complying with the law on the closure of USAID, support for just such a law is growing in Congress. The media and others in Washington, D.C., have known for decades that USAID was a hub of fraud and abuse. The Washington Post cited two individuals with the Center for Global Development, a center-left think tank funded by Bill Gates that has been defending USAID, who told the Washington Post that a claim by Musk that just 10% of USAID money reached people on the ground was “wildly incorrect and misleading.” But their clarification — that just “10 percent of USAID payments are made directly to organizations in the developing world” and the “remaining 90 percent” is delivered by organizations in the US and developed world — underscored that USAID fundamentally isn’t working. Think about it. If USAID were so effective in achieving its ostensible goal of “development,” why are the countries it works in still so poor and underdeveloped? In truth, Democrats and Republicans alike have recognized for decades that USAID needed reform. In 2015, even the Center for Global Development urged a “top-to-bottom review of USAID’s sector- and country-based activities based upon program effectiveness, allocation of USAID resources, alignment with partner priorities, and national security implications” followed by “comprehensive reform.” As recently as 2021, the media acknowledged the obvious. That year, the New York Times published an article headlined, “U.S. Aid to Central America Hasn’t Slowed Migration. Can Kamala Harris?” In it the Times acknowledged that “experts say the reasons that years of aid have not curbed migration” is in part because “much of the money is handed over to American companies, which swallow a lot of it for salaries, expenses and profits, often before any services are delivered” — precisely the reason President Trump shut down USAID. Wrote the Times, “From 2016 to 2020, 80 percent of the American-financed development projects in Central America were entrusted to American contractors, according to data provided by the U.S. Agency for International Development.” It’s the same story for education. Just 10 days ago, the National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP) released the latest test scores showing yet another decline in reading and continued flat-lining in math for eighth graders. The media described the test results as a “new low” and “even worse” than in the past and “disheartening.” Democrats and the media thus know perfectly well that the Department of Education’s work is either insufficient to counteract the decline or is actively contributing to it, and thus reform of the Department of Education is highly reasonable. And yet Democrats demanded they be allowed to enter the Department of Education headquarters in Washington as though to defend it. From what? Improvement? The position of the Democrats is even more ridiculous when one considers the example of the Defense Department. Will Democrats now, after decades of attacking military spending as wasteful, defend it? If they do, they will alienate their own partisans. But if they don’t, then they will find it difficult to answer the question of why reform is necessary in the military but not in the Department of Education or USAID? Making the situation even more surreal is that it was Democrats, not Republicans, who made the biggest push for government efficiency and reform in the last thirty years. In 1993, shortly after taking office, President Bill Clinton empowered Vice President Al Gore to oversee a “Reinventing Government” initiative. The aim was to streamline bureaucracy, cut costs, and improve government efficiency. It emphasized customer service, performance-based management, and innovation — all things that Musk is famous for implementing at his companies. It’s not obvious why Democrats are opposing Trump’s actions. Doing so reinforces that they are the party of waste, fraud, and abuse. Polling shows that public support for Trump is at an all-time high of 53%, according to a new CBS poll. By contrast, 57% of registered voters have an unfavorable opinion of the Democratic Party, the worst numbers in 17 years. Nor is it obvious why the media has maintained its anti-Trump bias. The Washington Post’s daily traffic declined by nearly 90% from 23 million daily active users in January 2021 to 2.5 to 3 million in the middle of last year. In the week ending November 24, CNN and MSNBC lost 47% and 53% of their primetime viewership. Last month, CNN announced it was laying off 200 employees while MSNBC saw its president step down. Politico’s cofounder said last week that “The left right now, liberal media, has probably never been weaker in my lifetime than right now.” The public desperately wants reform, and 60% of the public has long supported cutting foreign aid, which has long been popular with the public. Why can’t Democrats and the media just embrace Trump’s government efficiency effort? Why are they engaging in such seemingly self-destructive behavior? Please subscribe now to support Public's award winning journalism, watch the rest of the video, and read the rest of the article by alex gutentag and Michael Shellenberger !

Michael Shellenberger

123,199 просмотров • 1 год назад

Tim Ferriss just revealed his exact system for learning ANYTHING faster than 99.9% of people on Diary of a CEO. After mastering languages in weeks and advising Uber, he broke down the DSSS framework. Here's how it works + 8 other principles for superhuman performance he revealed: The DSSS Framework: Deconstruction - Break goals into parts Selection - Pick the 20% that gives 80% Sequencing - Right order matters Stakes - Create incentives "If more information were the answer, we'd all be billionaires with six pack abs." His language hack is wild: Spanish has hundreds of thousands of words. Tim reached fluency in 8-12 weeks using just the 500 most frequently used words. Stop learning random vocabulary. Learn frequency lists. Tim's career planning rule: He's NEVER had a 5-10 year plan. "If you have a reliable 5-10 year plan, you're playing so safely you're selling yourself short." Instead? 6-12 month projects with 2-4 week experiments inside. How he picks projects: Two criteria ONLY: 1. Relationships (new or deepening) 2. Skills that transcend the project Example: StumbleUpon advisor → friends with founder → years later founder texts about "taxi problem" → becomes Uber advisor. The "mini retirement" rule: Once a year, disappear for 4 weeks. No laptop. No phone (except Maps/Uber). Forces you to: - Build systems that run without you - Test if your business needs you constantly "If you panic, that's your wakeup call." His relationship rule from annual reviews: "Did I spend enough time with my top 5-10 people last year?" If NO → Reinvest in them FIRST Only overflow goes to new relationships. He's had the same annual reunion for 25+ years. Why most quit before winning: "People expect linear progress. It doesn't work that way." There WILL be plateaus. There WILL be dips. If you know they're coming, you weather them. If you don't, you quit right before the breakthrough. Tim's ONE optimization rule: Energy over passion. "Passion is imprecise." Energy is simple: - More awake or sleepy? - Can you do this 5 more hours? - Want to stop in 15 minutes? Optimize for biological energy, not philosophy. His sequencing secret: Learning swimming? Forget breathing first. Learn gliding. Kicking. Get comfortable underwater. THEN add breathing. Most try everything at once. Tim asks: What's the FIRST domino that unlocks everything else? My key takeaway? Stop treating subjects as silos. Swimming, Spanish, startups—same principles. Master the FRAMEWORK once. Apply it to anything. "Develop ONE framework you apply to ANY subject." Bottom line: Pick the right 20%. Sequence properly. Create forcing functions. Compound over 6-12 month projects for YEARS. That's how you go from suicidal college dropout to world-class performer.
2:34

Tim Ferriss just revealed his exact system for learning ANYTHING faster than 99.9% of people on Diary of a CEO. After mastering languages in weeks and advising Uber, he broke down the DSSS framework. Here's how it works + 8 other principles for superhuman performance he revealed: The DSSS Framework: Deconstruction - Break goals into parts Selection - Pick the 20% that gives 80% Sequencing - Right order matters Stakes - Create incentives "If more information were the answer, we'd all be billionaires with six pack abs." His language hack is wild: Spanish has hundreds of thousands of words. Tim reached fluency in 8-12 weeks using just the 500 most frequently used words. Stop learning random vocabulary. Learn frequency lists. Tim's career planning rule: He's NEVER had a 5-10 year plan. "If you have a reliable 5-10 year plan, you're playing so safely you're selling yourself short." Instead? 6-12 month projects with 2-4 week experiments inside. How he picks projects: Two criteria ONLY: 1. Relationships (new or deepening) 2. Skills that transcend the project Example: StumbleUpon advisor → friends with founder → years later founder texts about "taxi problem" → becomes Uber advisor. The "mini retirement" rule: Once a year, disappear for 4 weeks. No laptop. No phone (except Maps/Uber). Forces you to: - Build systems that run without you - Test if your business needs you constantly "If you panic, that's your wakeup call." His relationship rule from annual reviews: "Did I spend enough time with my top 5-10 people last year?" If NO → Reinvest in them FIRST Only overflow goes to new relationships. He's had the same annual reunion for 25+ years. Why most quit before winning: "People expect linear progress. It doesn't work that way." There WILL be plateaus. There WILL be dips. If you know they're coming, you weather them. If you don't, you quit right before the breakthrough. Tim's ONE optimization rule: Energy over passion. "Passion is imprecise." Energy is simple: - More awake or sleepy? - Can you do this 5 more hours? - Want to stop in 15 minutes? Optimize for biological energy, not philosophy. His sequencing secret: Learning swimming? Forget breathing first. Learn gliding. Kicking. Get comfortable underwater. THEN add breathing. Most try everything at once. Tim asks: What's the FIRST domino that unlocks everything else? My key takeaway? Stop treating subjects as silos. Swimming, Spanish, startups—same principles. Master the FRAMEWORK once. Apply it to anything. "Develop ONE framework you apply to ANY subject." Bottom line: Pick the right 20%. Sequence properly. Create forcing functions. Compound over 6-12 month projects for YEARS. That's how you go from suicidal college dropout to world-class performer.

Ricardo

386,337 просмотров • 10 месяцев назад

"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.)
10:24

"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

53,256 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

A wild bobcat. Cold, open water. A body that was never built for this. This is an animal that can kill a deer. The water was about to beat it anyway. Watch the video first. Then read on. What happens in the final seconds is the reason I can't stop thinking about it. . Some clips you watch. Some clips you feel in your chest for an hour afterward. This is the second kind, and I want to explain exactly why, because once you understand what you are actually looking at, you will never watch it the same way again. This is a long one. Every section ends with something that makes the next one worth it. Stay with me. . 01 // THE COLDEST MATH IN THE WILD Let's start with something nobody tells you about water. Water is a thief. It pulls heat out of a living body up to 25 times faster than air at the same temperature. Not a little faster. Twenty-five times. It is the reason a cold day is uncomfortable and a cold swim is an emergency. Now put that math on an animal wearing a fur coat. Fur works because of what is trapped inside it: air. Thousands of tiny pockets of warm air held against the skin. The air is the insulation. The hair is just the scaffolding that holds it in place. Soak that coat and the air is gone. What was a winter jacket becomes a wet towel wrapped around the body. It is heavy. It drags. It bleeds heat at the exact moment the animal can least afford to lose it. And swimming is not free. A cat does not swim the way an otter swims. Otters are engineered for it: dense waterproof fur, webbed feet, a body shaped like a torpedo. A bobcat is engineered for something completely different. Every stroke burns fuel it does not have, while every second in the water drains the fuel it already has. That is the trap. Heat goes out. Energy goes out. Nothing comes in. In humans, the first minute in cold water triggers what physiologists call the cold shock response: a gasp reflex, a spike in heart rate, panicked breathing. Then comes the slow part, where muscles and nerves cool down and stop doing what you tell them. Animals do not get an exemption from physics. Bodies are bodies. Survival experts who study cold water use a simple frame for humans, the 1-10-1 rule. One minute to get your breathing under control after the initial shock. Ten minutes of meaningful muscle function before your limbs start refusing orders. About an hour before hypothermia becomes the real threat to life. Now shrink the body. A smaller body has more surface area for its mass, which means it sheds heat faster. Those human numbers are a generous best case. For a 20-pound animal, the clock runs quicker. So when you see a wild animal in water it did not choose, you are not looking at a swimmer. You are looking at a countdown. Here is the part that should bother you: the animal does not know it is a countdown. It only knows that it has to keep moving, and that stopping is not an option, and that there is nothing solid anywhere. Hold that thought. Because the next thing I am going to tell you is why this particular animal is the last one you would expect to be in that position. . 02 // THE "BIG HOUSE CAT" LIE Somewhere along the way, someone decided a bobcat is basically a large housecat with attitude. Somebody was wrong. Let's do the numbers. A typical house cat weighs 8 to 10 pounds. Most adult bobcats land somewhere between 15 and 30 pounds, with big males pushing past that. That is two to three times the mass, and none of it is soft. It is wire and spring: long hind legs built to launch, shoulders built to hold, claws that retract and reset like a trap. By widely cited estimates, a bobcat can cover roughly 10 feet in a single leap. That is not a pounce. That is a projectile. It hunts the way the best hunters do: by being patient past the point where patience seems reasonable. It picks a spot. It goes still. It waits, sometimes for a very long time, until the world arranges itself into a single clean opportunity. Then it ends the situation in a second. Rabbits and hares are the staple. Mice, voles, squirrels, birds. But here is the detail that changes how people talk about them: bobcats have been documented taking down deer, animals much larger than themselves, particularly in harsh winters when deer are weakened. Think about what that means. This is a creature that routinely wins fights against animals that outweigh it. It has ear tufts that scientists still argue about. It has a ruff of fur around the face like a lion in miniature. It has a stubby tail, four to seven inches long, that gave the animal its name. It has a spotted coat that is essentially camouflage for dappled light, and, useful fact, the spot pattern is different from one animal to the next, which is how researchers identify individuals on trail cameras. And it has a voice. Purrs, hisses, growls, and a night scream that has been mistaken for a human in distress by people who did not know what they were hearing. So this is who we are talking about. Not a pet. Not a pushover. One of the most efficient small predators on the continent. Which is what makes the situation in this video so strange. Because everything I just told you about strength, speed and pride goes quiet when the ground disappears. . 03 // THE ANIMAL YOU HAVE PROBABLY WALKED PAST Here is a fact that should feel a little unsettling. Bobcats are one of the most widespread wild cats in North America. Their range stretches across the lower 48 states, into southern Canada, and down into Mexico. Forests, swamps, deserts, mountains, the ragged edges of suburbs. They are adaptable in a way that very few predators are. And yet most people, including people who have lived their entire lives near them, have never seen one. That is not an accident. Bobcats are solitary, shy, and mostly active around dawn and dusk. They live in the margins. They move through your world at times you are not looking, and they have made avoiding you into an art form. A bobcat's entire survival strategy is to see you first and never be seen. Which means any video of one, let alone a close, unhurried, unguarded look at one, is rare. Wildlife photographers wait years for angles like this. Researchers set up cameras and come back to empty memory cards. Now think about what it takes for a wild bobcat and a human being to end up in the same small space, with the animal not running. The animal has to be in a situation where running is no longer possible. That should give you chills. Because it is not a heartwarming meeting. It is what happens when a very proud animal has run out of options. And what happens next is the part that does not add up, which is exactly where the next section starts. . 04 // THE PART THAT DOES NOT ADD UP Predators do not do calm. A wild animal's nervous system is a hair trigger. When something big and unfamiliar closes in, the body floods with adrenaline and cortisol, and the decision tree is short: fight, flee, or freeze. Every instinct it has been born with says a large, upright, two-legged creature is the most dangerous thing in the environment. So when a wild animal is calm around humans, there are only a few explanations, and none of them is "it decided to trust us." Sometimes the animal is habituated, meaning it has lived near people so long it has stopped treating them as a threat. Sometimes the animal is so depleted, cold, hurt or exhausted that its body has quietly shut down the option to fight. Biologists have a name for one version of this: tonic immobility, a kind of involuntary freeze in which an animal goes still and unresponsive when escape seems impossible. And sometimes it is a mix of all of it, in ways science is still working out. Here is the line I want you to remember, because it will save you from a lot of bad internet takes: Do not confuse calm with consent. Stillness is not friendship. A quiet animal is not a tame animal. And some of the most dramatic moments in wildlife rescue come not from the fight, but from the moment the body stops fighting and everyone has to figure out what that actually means. There is even a documented condition, capture myopathy, in which the sheer stress of being restrained can damage a wild animal's muscles and organs badly enough to kill it, sometimes hours or days after the event, with no visible wound at all. Handling stress is a real cause of death in wildlife work. That is why professionals move slowly, keep things dark and quiet, and treat every second of contact like it costs something. Which means that in a situation like this, the difference between a good outcome and a tragic one can be invisible to the naked eye. That is what makes the footage so tense to watch if you know what to look for. And I am going to tell you exactly what to look for. But not yet. First I need you to understand how unlikely it was that anyone was there at all. . 05 // NATURE HAS NO AUDIENCE Almost everything that happens in the wild happens unwatched. Think about that for a second. Billions of small emergencies, every single day. Animals slipping, trapped, lost, starving, stranded. A fawn separated from its mother. A bird with a broken wing. A predator that misjudged a jump by an inch. Almost none of it is ever witnessed by anyone. No camera. No rescuer. No witness. It simply happens, and then it stops, and the world continues as if nothing occurred. For a rescue to happen, a chain of things has to line up. Somebody has to be in the right place. Somebody has to be looking in the right direction. Somebody has to notice a small, wet, dark shape in a huge moving surface, and understand what it is. Somebody has to decide to act rather than say "huh" and keep going. And somebody has to actually know how to help without making it worse. Break any single link and the story ends before it starts. Every viral rescue video you have ever seen is a chain like that, where all the links happened to hold. I think that is why these clips hit differently than almost anything else online. They are not just proof that an animal survived. They are proof that the chain can hold. That in a world that mostly does not look, sometimes someone does. The cold math says this animal had little time. The odds say nobody should have been there. And yet. I keep circling that "and yet." . QUICK PAUSE Before we go deeper, a small experiment. Without scrolling back up, answer this in your head: how long was the animal in that water before anyone noticed? Got a number? Now hold it loosely. The truth about time in a moment like this is that it never feels like what it is. Seconds stretch. Minutes vanish. Nobody in a crisis has an accurate clock. Keep your number. We will come back to it. . 06 // WHY YOUR BRAIN CANNOT SCROLL PAST THIS Let's zoom out, because this is the part that fascinates me professionally. In 2012, two Wharton researchers, Jonah Berger and Katherine Milkman, studied thousands of New York Times articles to figure out what makes online content spread. Their finding was not what most people expected. Positivity helped, but what mattered even more was how much physical arousal a piece of content produced. Awe, anger and anxiety, all high-arousal emotions, made people share. Sadness, which is low-arousal, made people stop. Now look at a clip like this through that lens. It has anxiety: will the animal make it? It has awe: this is a wild predator, close enough to see the texture of its fur. It has relief, and something bigger than relief. Psychologist Jonathan Haidt has a word for that bigger thing: elevation. It is the warm, expanding feeling you get when you witness someone behaving with unexpected goodness. It is the emotion that makes people want to be better, to call their mother, to do something kind. It is exactly the kind of emotion that makes people hit share before they have even finished watching. And then there is the mechanism behind the hook itself. In 1994, the behavioral economist George Loewenstein described what he called the information gap theory of curiosity: curiosity is the discomfort of noticing a gap between what you know and what you want to know. The bigger the gap, and the closer you feel to closing it, the harder it is to look away. That is what I did in the first three lines of this post. I gave you a wild animal, a disaster, and an unanswered question. Your brain has been carrying that open loop ever since. You cannot un-notice it. You can only close it. That is not a trick. It is how attention has worked since the first campfire story. The only difference now is that the campfire fits in your pocket and never goes out. There is one more thing, and it may be the most important one. Animals do not perform. They cannot posture for a camera, hide their fear behind a joke, or spin the story afterward. Their reactions are uncut. In an internet made mostly of people curating themselves, a wild animal reacting honestly to a moment is about as authentic as content gets. And in a feed that is ninety percent outrage, ten percent ads, and the occasional argument about sandwiches, a clip that is about competence and kindness feels like finding cold water in a desert. So no, it is not weird that you cannot look away. It would be weirder if you could. . 07 // 15 BOBCAT FACTS THAT CHANGE HOW YOU SEE THE CLIP You now know what the water does and what the animal is. Here is the rest of the file, fast. 1. The scientific name is Lynx rufus. "Rufus" means reddish. The animal has been carrying a color-coded label for centuries. 2. It is the most common wild cat in North America, which makes how rarely people see one even more remarkable. 3. Bobcats are ambush hunters, not chasers. They win by patience, not by endurance. Long chases are not their thing, and long swims are definitely not their thing. 4. Yes, bobcats can swim, and they do it when they have to: crossing rivers, fleeing danger, following prey. But it is a tool of last resort, not a hobby. 5. Kittens are born in spring, usually in litters of two to four, and the mother raises them alone. Dad is not part of the picture. 6. A kitten's eyes open at around a week and a half old. It will stay with its mother for most of its first year before heading off to find a territory of its own. 7. Young bobcats leaving home can travel dozens of miles looking for a place to settle. That means young animals are the ones most likely to end up somewhere unfamiliar, in situations nothing in their short lives prepared them for. 8. Bobcats mark territory with scent, scrapes and scratched trees. Their world is written in a language we mostly cannot read. 9. When they cannot finish a meal, they often cover the leftovers with leaves, snow or debris and come back for it later. Forward planning, from a cat. 10. They climb trees and use them for escape and lookout. If a bobcat ever wanted to get out of a situation, vertical was its first idea. 11. Their ear tufts are still debated. Camouflage? Hearing? Communication? Nobody has a definitive answer, and I love that. 12. Bobcat and Canada lynx are cousins, not twins. Lynx have longer ear tufts, bigger paws for snow, and a fully black-tipped tail. A bobcat's tail is black only on top of the tip, like someone dipped a paintbrush and stopped halfway. 13. Coat color changes by region. Desert animals run pale and sandy. Northern animals run darker and grayer. Same species, different wardrobe. 14. A bobcat is not closely related to a cougar. It belongs to the Lynx genus. The cougar belongs to another. When people call it a "baby mountain lion," a biologist somewhere loses a year of their life. 15. In the wild, life is often short and hard. Many bobcats do not make it to ten years old. In captivity, they can live far longer. Which tells you what the wild costs, every single day, on top of everything else. Fifteen facts. One conclusion. Every one of these facts describes an animal built to survive. Which is exactly why watching one in trouble is so hard to forget. . 08 // SIX MYTHS ABOUT WILD CATS AND WATER Since we are here, let's clear up some things. MYTH 1: All cats hate water. FALSE. Tigers swim. Jaguars swim. Fishing cats literally dive for a living. The idea that cats are universally water-averse comes from house cats, and even that is a generalization. Plenty of wild cats are comfortable in water. It is not fear of water. It is that most cats do not choose it unless there is a reason. MYTH 2: If an animal can swim, it is safe in water. FALSE. Being able to swim and being able to survive in water are two different skills. Temperature, distance, current, exhaustion and time all matter. A strong swimmer can lose to cold long before it loses to drowning. MYTH 3: A tough predator does not need help. FALSE. Toughness is not immunity. Predators die of exposure, injury and exhaustion all the time. Being at the top of a food chain does not mean being at the top of every situation. MYTH 4: A calm wild animal is a friendly wild animal. FALSE. We covered this. Calm can mean cold, tired, hurt or in shock. It does not mean safe to touch. MYTH 5: Wild cats attack people constantly. FALSE. It is the opposite. Bobcats avoid people so well that many humans go a lifetime without seeing one. Encounters that end badly are extremely rare, and most involve an animal that is sick, cornered or handled. MYTH 6: Rescue is easy. FALSE. Rescue is the visible five percent. Underneath it are timing, knowledge, restraint, risk and an enormous amount of luck. Six myths. Not one of them survives contact with the footage. . 09 // THE SECOND HALF OF EVERY RESCUE Here is something the clips never show you. Getting the animal out is the first half of the story. The second half is quieter, slower, and matters just as much. When a wild animal ends up in professional hands, the priorities are almost the opposite of what your instincts tell you. Warmth, calm, darkness and silence come first. Then a medical check for injuries, dehydration and hypothermia. Then, if all goes well, recovery in a space where the animal sees as little of humans as possible. Yes, as little as possible. Good rehabilitators deliberately avoid cuddling, talking to, or bonding with wild patients, because an animal that gets comfortable around people is an animal that struggles to survive once it goes back out there. The goal is never a rescued pet. The goal is a released predator. And when it is possible, animals are often returned to the area where they were found, because that is the territory they know: the routes, the hiding places, the food, the neighbors. So the real happy ending of a wildlife rescue is not a hug. It is a door opening, and an animal walking through it without looking back. Hold on to that image. It will matter in a minute. . 10 // PLEASE DO NOT TRY THIS I am going to be blunt, because the comment section will not be. Every time a clip like this goes viral, thousands of people write some version of "I would have grabbed it too" or "I want to keep it." Please do not. A wild bobcat is not a pet. It is a wild predator with claws, teeth, and a nervous system built to treat contact as an attack. Even a small, exhausted, seemingly docile animal can injure a person badly in a fraction of a second. Bites and scratches from wildlife can carry infection. Rabies in bobcats is uncommon, but it is real, and that is not a gamble you take on a hunch. And as we covered, the danger runs both ways. The stress of being handled can hurt or kill a wild animal even when nobody meant it any harm. In many places it is also illegal to keep or transport wild animals without permits, which means the well-intentioned rescuer can end up in a legal mess and the animal can end up worse off. So what should you do if you ever find a wild animal in trouble? Keep your distance. Keep noise and movement low. Do not try to pick it up, feed it, or warm it up yourself. Call your local wildlife agency, animal control, or a licensed wildlife rehabilitator, and follow their instructions. They do this for a living. They know what the animal needs, and what it does not. Love wildlife the right way: at a distance, with respect, and through the phone number of someone qualified. The best rescue stories are the ones where the animal gets to go back to being wild. Which brings me to the ending. . 11 // HOW TO WATCH THIS VIDEO Here is my one request. Do not watch it on autopilot. Before you press play, decide what you think is going to happen. Make a prediction, honestly. Then watch, and see how wrong you were. Keep your eyes on the animal, not on the people. Watch the eyes. Watch the ears. Watch the moment the animal has to decide what it wants to do. Wildlife tells you everything if you know where to look, and it does not lie. Pay attention to the way the whole tone of the clip shifts as it goes on. The first seconds and the last seconds feel like two entirely different films. And carry these five questions with you while it plays: Why is a predator this strong not fighting? What does an animal like this actually feel in a moment like that? How many other animals never get this chance? What would you have done in that spot, honestly? And what is the very last thing the bobcat does? Only one of those has an answer you can see with your own eyes. And remember the door I mentioned, the one that opens and the animal that does not look back? Keep that picture in your head while you watch. See how close reality gets to it. And stay to the last frame. There is a reason I told you the ending matters. A second watch will show you things the first one hides. . 12 // THE THREE RULES EVERY WILDLIFE PROFESSIONAL LIVES BY If you spent a week with people who do this work for a living, you would hear the same three ideas over and over. Rule one: the animal comes before the story. Good professionals never put a camera ahead of the patient. The best footage in the world is worthless if it costs the animal something. Rule two: distance is a form of kindness. The closer you get, the more stress you add. The most respectful thing you can do for a wild animal is usually to do less, from farther away, and let it be what it is. Rule three: success means the animal does not need you anymore. Not gratitude. Not a bond. Not a photo with a cute caption. Success is independence. Notice how that flips the usual story. In most human stories, success is being needed. In wildlife, success is being forgotten. . 13 // IF YOU ONLY REMEMBER FIVE LINES Screenshot this if you want to. I would. 1. Water steals heat 25 times faster than air, and a wet coat stops working. 2. A bobcat is an ambush predator with the strength of an animal twice its size, and none of that helps when the ground disappears. 3. Do not confuse calm with consent. 4. Almost everything in nature happens unwatched. That is why the times someone looks matter so much. 5. The best ending to a wild rescue is an animal that walks away on its own. . 14 // THE REAL REASON I POSTED THIS We spend a lot of time online being told the world is getting worse. Sometimes it is. But there is another truth underneath, one that rarely trends: in a random moment, on an ordinary day, with no cameras and no audience and nothing to gain, someone looked, someone cared, and something wild got another chance. Remember the number you guessed earlier, the seconds or minutes in that water? It turns out it does not matter. What matters is that somebody noticed at all. That is the whole post. Not a miracle. Not a spectacle. Just a small, stubborn piece of evidence that the chain can hold. If it moved you even a little, that is not weakness. That is the part of you that still works. If this landed for you, here is what to do: Reply with one word for how you felt watching it. Just one. I read them. Repost it for the person in your life who says they do not care about animals. Watch what happens to their face. Bookmark this thread-that-is-not-a-thread for the next time your feed makes you tired of everything. And follow me if you want more clips that make you feel something real, plus the stories behind them, without the fluff. One last thing. You made it to the bottom of a very long post. That means something. It means you are the kind of person who stays for the ending. Now go back to the video, press play, and stay for the last frame. P.S. If you scrolled straight to the bottom to see how this ends: the video is attached to this post. The ending is in the video. Nothing I write can replace it, and I would not want it to. P.P.S. Drop your prediction in the replies before you press play: what does the bobcat do in the very last seconds? Then come back after and tell me how wrong, or how right, you were. I will pin my favorite.
2:34

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

Earth Unveiled

67,284 просмотров • 15 дней назад

First off you don't deserve any of the threats especially death related. Its probably a mixture of wow players & your hate watchers coming out to take advantage of this scene. Which is Pathetic, However some things need to be said. I'd like to give you some insight. Maybe you already know, maybe you dont. As a WoW Creator I'd like to point out that MOST people aren't really mad about you roaching out. That's a behavior we see often and meme on. The deaths suck.. It happens. Was it possible for everyone to be saved? Yes 100000% BUT thats not the point. People are upset because of the way you closed things out, as well as being a complete asshole. I'm not speaking about what happened way before or after. I'm talking about when you guys were in the heat of moment. Some might laugh at this but in a death situation, lots of players PANIC HARD and some even show their hidden sides. I really mean this.. and that day, we all saw some odd behaviors. Its no secret. It's truly not about the roaching, its the cynical intent you had to push yourself to lie, such a Dishonest move. (and you tripled down on this LIVE) you kept mentioning the "shot caller" called run, so you ran. That doesnt add up to me.. Why didnt you go back then? When they called "come back" (shot caller btw) Instead of going back you took offense to these words "come back" and replied "look at my mana" "what do you want me to do?" While quickly hovering your mouse over the mana gem & Rob of the Archmage (for ppl that need context these two items restore mana instantly, which he purposely didnt use FULLY knowing) You knew what you were doing, you wanted to play the smartass and not look like a coward so instead you lied to us all. "look at my mana" then you press Ice barrier into a blink again.. trying prove yourself to stream that you really have no mana.. (he's squeezing every last bit he can, its such a poor attitude, Rather do this then save the team. Wanting to be sooo right in that moment) you're not fooling any Classic WoW players with that move. Saying there is nothing I can do. You kept digging to save your ego, instead of simply using those items to help out OR tell the truth. Such an evil act.. and for what? Look smart on stream for a few hrs?? Trick a bit of viewers that dont play wow? Like show some decency. Its okay to be wrong, say the right things man. Now comes the sad part where you guys are in a argument after 2 players just died.. Instead of showing some empathy, you make it about yourself and leave the call.. (I made zero mistakes, you guys pulled, I left ??????? wth is this mentality?? Where does it come from? You were lying and being mean for no reasons, insecurity? ) Anyone that tried to explain to you or make you come to your sense (in twitch chat) you call them all a dumbass and ban them. Not to forget you mentioning professions 300/300 ???????? how does that even matter? Are you really that more important than others? This is the vibe you kept giving off. It was just all about you. All you needed to say was Damn.. sry for the death, maybe I couldve done something. Thats What ppl are upset about. A mage that explains blizzard talents... speaks highly about Surviving Deaths as a group, saying its the best experience.. teamwork?? All the stuff you talked about in the clips were FALSE. You couldn't deliver as you spoke and thats fine, just own up to it!! Stop LYING. Lastly the call with Tyler1 (2nd discord call happens with current GM) Everything should've been hashed out THERE, NONE of this wouldve happened then. Yet you leave the call again when it comes to Yamatos turn to speak. SUPER disrespectful especially after they heard your part of the explanation. Yamato says a sentence and you leave immediately??? Thats not how you handle things. This isnt a group of randoms.. You dont get to walk away from your problems, its a guild. Treat each other fairly and show some respect. Its also a HUGE disrespect towards Soda, this guy put in so much time for this to work and you cant say a simple "My bad"?? like cmon. Now ppl think hes running a terrible guild yet its the complete opposite, this has been an amazing run. So here I am typing this long msg so you or any of the viewers can understand the roots and cause. Most of the guild members are confused too, they dont even know what to say. Its such a awkward situation you put us all in. You should've never lied and walked away from this thing. Maybe now you'll get an idea why ppl are upset. For anyone that wants to make excuses, saying its just a game? It doesnt matter whether it be gaming, sports, school, or at work. You dont do this type of stuff. Its fkin toxic. Continue gaslighting and feeding your lies to your community?? Like own up to some things. It was never about blaming everything on you for the deaths. Almost EVERY streamer agreed to that. Its the way you behaved, stop playing a fool. Yes I think its laughable that something so small became this big because you kept double downing. Hope you speak with yamato soon and clear things up! Sry If I came across harshly, except you needed to hear this from someone. Your ego needs a check 100% That behavior was odd man.. I'd also like to tell everyone reading, ITS FINE TO Apologize or own up to your mistakes. This doesnt show weakness, It actually takes more strength & courage to own up to things. Bottom clip for a mini context.
2:09

First off you don't deserve any of the threats especially death related. Its probably a mixture of wow players & your hate watchers coming out to take advantage of this scene. Which is Pathetic, However some things need to be said. I'd like to give you some insight. Maybe you already know, maybe you dont. As a WoW Creator I'd like to point out that MOST people aren't really mad about you roaching out. That's a behavior we see often and meme on. The deaths suck.. It happens. Was it possible for everyone to be saved? Yes 100000% BUT thats not the point. People are upset because of the way you closed things out, as well as being a complete asshole. I'm not speaking about what happened way before or after. I'm talking about when you guys were in the heat of moment. Some might laugh at this but in a death situation, lots of players PANIC HARD and some even show their hidden sides. I really mean this.. and that day, we all saw some odd behaviors. Its no secret. It's truly not about the roaching, its the cynical intent you had to push yourself to lie, such a Dishonest move. (and you tripled down on this LIVE) you kept mentioning the "shot caller" called run, so you ran. That doesnt add up to me.. Why didnt you go back then? When they called "come back" (shot caller btw) Instead of going back you took offense to these words "come back" and replied "look at my mana" "what do you want me to do?" While quickly hovering your mouse over the mana gem & Rob of the Archmage (for ppl that need context these two items restore mana instantly, which he purposely didnt use FULLY knowing) You knew what you were doing, you wanted to play the smartass and not look like a coward so instead you lied to us all. "look at my mana" then you press Ice barrier into a blink again.. trying prove yourself to stream that you really have no mana.. (he's squeezing every last bit he can, its such a poor attitude, Rather do this then save the team. Wanting to be sooo right in that moment) you're not fooling any Classic WoW players with that move. Saying there is nothing I can do. You kept digging to save your ego, instead of simply using those items to help out OR tell the truth. Such an evil act.. and for what? Look smart on stream for a few hrs?? Trick a bit of viewers that dont play wow? Like show some decency. Its okay to be wrong, say the right things man. Now comes the sad part where you guys are in a argument after 2 players just died.. Instead of showing some empathy, you make it about yourself and leave the call.. (I made zero mistakes, you guys pulled, I left ??????? wth is this mentality?? Where does it come from? You were lying and being mean for no reasons, insecurity? ) Anyone that tried to explain to you or make you come to your sense (in twitch chat) you call them all a dumbass and ban them. Not to forget you mentioning professions 300/300 ???????? how does that even matter? Are you really that more important than others? This is the vibe you kept giving off. It was just all about you. All you needed to say was Damn.. sry for the death, maybe I couldve done something. Thats What ppl are upset about. A mage that explains blizzard talents... speaks highly about Surviving Deaths as a group, saying its the best experience.. teamwork?? All the stuff you talked about in the clips were FALSE. You couldn't deliver as you spoke and thats fine, just own up to it!! Stop LYING. Lastly the call with Tyler1 (2nd discord call happens with current GM) Everything should've been hashed out THERE, NONE of this wouldve happened then. Yet you leave the call again when it comes to Yamatos turn to speak. SUPER disrespectful especially after they heard your part of the explanation. Yamato says a sentence and you leave immediately??? Thats not how you handle things. This isnt a group of randoms.. You dont get to walk away from your problems, its a guild. Treat each other fairly and show some respect. Its also a HUGE disrespect towards Soda, this guy put in so much time for this to work and you cant say a simple "My bad"?? like cmon. Now ppl think hes running a terrible guild yet its the complete opposite, this has been an amazing run. So here I am typing this long msg so you or any of the viewers can understand the roots and cause. Most of the guild members are confused too, they dont even know what to say. Its such a awkward situation you put us all in. You should've never lied and walked away from this thing. Maybe now you'll get an idea why ppl are upset. For anyone that wants to make excuses, saying its just a game? It doesnt matter whether it be gaming, sports, school, or at work. You dont do this type of stuff. Its fkin toxic. Continue gaslighting and feeding your lies to your community?? Like own up to some things. It was never about blaming everything on you for the deaths. Almost EVERY streamer agreed to that. Its the way you behaved, stop playing a fool. Yes I think its laughable that something so small became this big because you kept double downing. Hope you speak with yamato soon and clear things up! Sry If I came across harshly, except you needed to hear this from someone. Your ego needs a check 100% That behavior was odd man.. I'd also like to tell everyone reading, ITS FINE TO Apologize or own up to your mistakes. This doesnt show weakness, It actually takes more strength & courage to own up to things. Bottom clip for a mini context.

Savix

378,492 просмотров • 1 год назад

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."
10:20

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

65,251 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

Vayne takes you on a hunt. you don't know why. she doesn't take anyone. she says stay behind me. don't speak unless i speak first. don't make a sound when we move. you say yes. she looks at you for a second longer than usual. "if i tell you to run, you run. you don't look back for me. are we clear" you say yes. she doesn't answer. she just turns and walks out the door. you follow her through the city streets. she moves different when she's working. shoulders lower. steps shorter. her head doesn't turn but her eyes do. you can feel her cataloguing everything. the man smoking outside the tavern. the cat under the cart. the second floor window with the curtain half drawn. she leads you through an alley you didn't know existed. stops at a brick wall. then she climbs. there are handholds carved into the mortar that you wouldn't have noticed if she hadn't used them first. she's halfway up before she realizes you're still at the bottom. she looks down at you. "up" you climb. your hands are shaking by the time you reach the top. the roof is flat. old clay tiles along the edges. a low wall you can crouch behind. the city stretches out below you in every direction. a thousand windows glowing gold in the dusk. she's already at the far side. crouched. crossbow unslung. watching a building across the square. she doesn't look at you when you come up beside her. "stay low" you crouch. "that building. third floor. second window from the left" you look. "i see it" he'll come to that window sometime tonight. i've watched him do it for three nights. i want to know who he meets you ask who he is. her jaw tightens. "a demon pretending to be a man" you don't ask what that means. you settle in beside her. the wind is up here. it pulls at her hair and she doesn't bother fixing it. the sun is going down behind her. her profile in the gold light looks like something carved. her hands on the crossbow are steady. completely still. you've never seen anyone be this still. an hour passes. she doesn't move. you try not to move. your leg falls asleep. you shift an inch. she looks at you. you go completely still again. she looks back at the window. another hour. the sun is gone. the city is blue and black. lamps are lighting up one by one. the air is getting cold. you're shivering before you realize you're shivering. she notices. she doesn't say anything. then she takes off her cloak. doesn't look at you. holds it out to the side. "take it" you say "you'll be cold" "i don't get cold. take it" you take it. it's warm from her. it smells like leather and steel and something underneath. pine. smoke. something you can't name. you put it around your shoulders. the hem pools on the tile. it's huge on you. it's not huge on her. you hadn't realized how tall she is until you were wearing her cloak. she doesn't look at you for the next ten minutes. the stars come out. she shifts closer to you. just a little. so her shoulder is almost touching yours. you don't say anything about it. she doesn't either. you can feel the heat coming off her even through the cloak. another hour. still nothing at the window. she says "tell me something" you blink. "what" "anything. i need to stay sharp. talking keeps me sharp. not about the target. something else" you didn't expect that. you tell her about a book you've been reading. she listens. actually listens. her eyes never leave the window but you can tell she's hearing every word. she asks one question. you answer. she goes quiet again. you keep talking. quieter now. she interrupts you. "shh" she's not looking at the window anymore. she's looking at the roof two buildings over. you don't see anything. you don't see anything for a long time. then you do. a shadow that moves the wrong way. her hand finds yours. she doesn't look at you when she does it. her eyes don't leave the shadow. her fingers lace through yours and LOCK. tight. too tight. knuckles going white around your hand. "don't move" she breathes. you don't move. you can feel every ounce of her focus through her grip. it's not a lover's hold. it's a predator's. every muscle in her hand coiled. ready to drop yours the instant she needs the crossbow. she's not holding you for you. she's holding you to keep track of where you are without having to look. it should scare you. it doesn't. there is something about being held that tight by someone that dangerous that makes the rest of the world go quiet. your heartbeat slows. your breathing slows. the cold stops mattering. you are not the one hunting but you are with the one who is. and nothing is going to get through her to reach you. the shadow crosses the roof and disappears into a stairwell. she watches the spot it left for another full minute. her hand is still locked around yours. she doesn't loosen it. you don't want her to. finally she lets out a breath you didn't know she was holding. "not him. but someone who works for him" her grip eases. slowly. finger by finger. like she's having to consciously tell each one to let go. the last one is her thumb. it stays against your palm for half a second longer than the rest. then she takes her hand back. the cold rushes in where she was. she glances at you. just for a second. then she looks back at the window. the rest of the night she's quieter than before. the target never shows. when the sky starts turning grey she stands up. stretches. rolls her shoulders. looks out over the city one last time. "we're done" you stand too. your legs don't work right. she catches your elbow without looking. "careful" she keeps her hand there until you're steady. then she takes it away. you start to hand her cloak back. she says "keep it for the climb down" she goes first. you follow. the handholds are easier going down once you know where they are. when you're both on the ground she turns to take the cloak. you hand it to her. her fingers brush yours. she doesn't pull back as fast as she usually does. she puts the cloak back on. it's warm now. from you. she has to notice. she doesn't say anything about it. she walks you home. at your door she stops. "don't tell anyone what you saw tonight" you say "i didn't see much" she looks at you. her eyes in the lamplight. the edge of her mouth. almost softer than it should be. "you saw enough" then she turns and walks back into the dark. you close the door. your hand still feels cold where hers was. you can still smell pine on your shirt. you don't sleep. Study the Saskio way
8:09

Vayne takes you on a hunt. you don't know why. she doesn't take anyone. she says stay behind me. don't speak unless i speak first. don't make a sound when we move. you say yes. she looks at you for a second longer than usual. "if i tell you to run, you run. you don't look back for me. are we clear" you say yes. she doesn't answer. she just turns and walks out the door. you follow her through the city streets. she moves different when she's working. shoulders lower. steps shorter. her head doesn't turn but her eyes do. you can feel her cataloguing everything. the man smoking outside the tavern. the cat under the cart. the second floor window with the curtain half drawn. she leads you through an alley you didn't know existed. stops at a brick wall. then she climbs. there are handholds carved into the mortar that you wouldn't have noticed if she hadn't used them first. she's halfway up before she realizes you're still at the bottom. she looks down at you. "up" you climb. your hands are shaking by the time you reach the top. the roof is flat. old clay tiles along the edges. a low wall you can crouch behind. the city stretches out below you in every direction. a thousand windows glowing gold in the dusk. she's already at the far side. crouched. crossbow unslung. watching a building across the square. she doesn't look at you when you come up beside her. "stay low" you crouch. "that building. third floor. second window from the left" you look. "i see it" he'll come to that window sometime tonight. i've watched him do it for three nights. i want to know who he meets you ask who he is. her jaw tightens. "a demon pretending to be a man" you don't ask what that means. you settle in beside her. the wind is up here. it pulls at her hair and she doesn't bother fixing it. the sun is going down behind her. her profile in the gold light looks like something carved. her hands on the crossbow are steady. completely still. you've never seen anyone be this still. an hour passes. she doesn't move. you try not to move. your leg falls asleep. you shift an inch. she looks at you. you go completely still again. she looks back at the window. another hour. the sun is gone. the city is blue and black. lamps are lighting up one by one. the air is getting cold. you're shivering before you realize you're shivering. she notices. she doesn't say anything. then she takes off her cloak. doesn't look at you. holds it out to the side. "take it" you say "you'll be cold" "i don't get cold. take it" you take it. it's warm from her. it smells like leather and steel and something underneath. pine. smoke. something you can't name. you put it around your shoulders. the hem pools on the tile. it's huge on you. it's not huge on her. you hadn't realized how tall she is until you were wearing her cloak. she doesn't look at you for the next ten minutes. the stars come out. she shifts closer to you. just a little. so her shoulder is almost touching yours. you don't say anything about it. she doesn't either. you can feel the heat coming off her even through the cloak. another hour. still nothing at the window. she says "tell me something" you blink. "what" "anything. i need to stay sharp. talking keeps me sharp. not about the target. something else" you didn't expect that. you tell her about a book you've been reading. she listens. actually listens. her eyes never leave the window but you can tell she's hearing every word. she asks one question. you answer. she goes quiet again. you keep talking. quieter now. she interrupts you. "shh" she's not looking at the window anymore. she's looking at the roof two buildings over. you don't see anything. you don't see anything for a long time. then you do. a shadow that moves the wrong way. her hand finds yours. she doesn't look at you when she does it. her eyes don't leave the shadow. her fingers lace through yours and LOCK. tight. too tight. knuckles going white around your hand. "don't move" she breathes. you don't move. you can feel every ounce of her focus through her grip. it's not a lover's hold. it's a predator's. every muscle in her hand coiled. ready to drop yours the instant she needs the crossbow. she's not holding you for you. she's holding you to keep track of where you are without having to look. it should scare you. it doesn't. there is something about being held that tight by someone that dangerous that makes the rest of the world go quiet. your heartbeat slows. your breathing slows. the cold stops mattering. you are not the one hunting but you are with the one who is. and nothing is going to get through her to reach you. the shadow crosses the roof and disappears into a stairwell. she watches the spot it left for another full minute. her hand is still locked around yours. she doesn't loosen it. you don't want her to. finally she lets out a breath you didn't know she was holding. "not him. but someone who works for him" her grip eases. slowly. finger by finger. like she's having to consciously tell each one to let go. the last one is her thumb. it stays against your palm for half a second longer than the rest. then she takes her hand back. the cold rushes in where she was. she glances at you. just for a second. then she looks back at the window. the rest of the night she's quieter than before. the target never shows. when the sky starts turning grey she stands up. stretches. rolls her shoulders. looks out over the city one last time. "we're done" you stand too. your legs don't work right. she catches your elbow without looking. "careful" she keeps her hand there until you're steady. then she takes it away. you start to hand her cloak back. she says "keep it for the climb down" she goes first. you follow. the handholds are easier going down once you know where they are. when you're both on the ground she turns to take the cloak. you hand it to her. her fingers brush yours. she doesn't pull back as fast as she usually does. she puts the cloak back on. it's warm now. from you. she has to notice. she doesn't say anything about it. she walks you home. at your door she stops. "don't tell anyone what you saw tonight" you say "i didn't see much" she looks at you. her eyes in the lamplight. the edge of her mouth. almost softer than it should be. "you saw enough" then she turns and walks back into the dark. you close the door. your hand still feels cold where hers was. you can still smell pine on your shirt. you don't sleep. Study the Saskio way

Tony Chau

11,914 просмотров • 5 месяцев назад