Sensitive content

This media may contain sensitive content.

Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

Go Home

When Angela White takes it anal... it's pure magic 🍆🍑 That stretch, those moans – unreal. #AngelaWhite #PAWG #Anal #BigBooty #Thick #NSFW #AnalAddict #BigTits #PAWGQueen #Hardcore

addictedtopawg's profile picture

Alex Ass

3,339 subscribers

29,938 views • 5 months ago •via X (Twitter)

NSFW#AngelaWhite#PAWG#Anal#BigBooty#Thick#NSFW#AnalAddict#BigTits#PAWGQueen#Hardcore
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

“What did you think of Lando being booed at race because people and I've seen it online as well say he doesn't deserve the title because McLaren favored him over his teammate. Do you think that's total nonsense?” Jacques Villeneuve: “That's a little bit ridiculous. When there was some booing in some races, that was embarrassing. You should never boo a driver that's clean, doesn't do anything dirty, on track is respectful, and on top of it is super fast. What's wrong with people? That was embarrassing. And, had it been that Piastri was a second a lap faster than him and somehow Lando was winning because a lot of things were happening, his car breaking down every time, then you could start thinking, okay, that's really not cool. That's not fair. But that wasn't the case. And in the second half, Norris has been faster right at the beginning as well, last year as well. So there's this whole middle of the season where Piastri was driving a lot better than Norris and was getting the points. Norris had an engine blowing up, not Piastri. And so those fans, they don't look at that either. You have to look at the whole picture, at the whole season. And suddenly if your favorite is starting to go backwards, you just got to bite the bullet and accept it. Your favorite is just going backwards. That doesn't mean that the other one is treated better or the other one is undeserving just because the one you're a fan of is not winning right now. That’s really wrong. If you're a fan of the sport, then you have to be a fan of the sport and understand when your driver is maybe not cutting it at this point in time, even though he was before and he will in the future again. It's all a question of timing. But that's the price we have to pay now with social media and how big F1 has become. It's very passionate. The people are passionate and once, you know, fans come from fanatism, you stop thinking, when you get in that mindset and it happens to all of us. You want something so much that you get attached and you cannot - it's hard to start seeing reality. So you will try to mold the reality to your thought process and if your champion is not winning then it cannot be his fault. It has to be something from the outside. It has to be the team destroying his chance or not favoring and so on and so on and so on. But there's nothing concrete behind those comments. It's pure fandom and it'll always be like this. And ultimately it's not a bad thing. You know drivers at that - sportsman at that level have to grow a thick skin. If not, you don't deserve to be there. You just have to have a thick skin because they're all very happy to get the compliments. They love it when it's just positive, but it gets balanced out with negatives and you need to be able to take and accept the negatives as well. It goes both ways. You cannot have the good. You just have to be a thick skin and know that it's part and parcels of what's going on. And in one month, it will be forgotten and maybe everything will change and it be the other driver that suddenly will be criticized and so on. So, it's just that's just the way it is.”
3:10

“What did you think of Lando being booed at race because people and I've seen it online as well say he doesn't deserve the title because McLaren favored him over his teammate. Do you think that's total nonsense?” Jacques Villeneuve: “That's a little bit ridiculous. When there was some booing in some races, that was embarrassing. You should never boo a driver that's clean, doesn't do anything dirty, on track is respectful, and on top of it is super fast. What's wrong with people? That was embarrassing. And, had it been that Piastri was a second a lap faster than him and somehow Lando was winning because a lot of things were happening, his car breaking down every time, then you could start thinking, okay, that's really not cool. That's not fair. But that wasn't the case. And in the second half, Norris has been faster right at the beginning as well, last year as well. So there's this whole middle of the season where Piastri was driving a lot better than Norris and was getting the points. Norris had an engine blowing up, not Piastri. And so those fans, they don't look at that either. You have to look at the whole picture, at the whole season. And suddenly if your favorite is starting to go backwards, you just got to bite the bullet and accept it. Your favorite is just going backwards. That doesn't mean that the other one is treated better or the other one is undeserving just because the one you're a fan of is not winning right now. That’s really wrong. If you're a fan of the sport, then you have to be a fan of the sport and understand when your driver is maybe not cutting it at this point in time, even though he was before and he will in the future again. It's all a question of timing. But that's the price we have to pay now with social media and how big F1 has become. It's very passionate. The people are passionate and once, you know, fans come from fanatism, you stop thinking, when you get in that mindset and it happens to all of us. You want something so much that you get attached and you cannot - it's hard to start seeing reality. So you will try to mold the reality to your thought process and if your champion is not winning then it cannot be his fault. It has to be something from the outside. It has to be the team destroying his chance or not favoring and so on and so on and so on. But there's nothing concrete behind those comments. It's pure fandom and it'll always be like this. And ultimately it's not a bad thing. You know drivers at that - sportsman at that level have to grow a thick skin. If not, you don't deserve to be there. You just have to have a thick skin because they're all very happy to get the compliments. They love it when it's just positive, but it gets balanced out with negatives and you need to be able to take and accept the negatives as well. It goes both ways. You cannot have the good. You just have to be a thick skin and know that it's part and parcels of what's going on. And in one month, it will be forgotten and maybe everything will change and it be the other driver that suddenly will be criticized and so on. So, it's just that's just the way it is.”

naenia ¹ ⁶³

29,833 views • 8 months ago

🇺🇸MALCOLM X: "The white man can never win another war on the ground. His days of war––victory––his days of battleground victory are over. Can I prove it? Yes. Take all the action that's going on this Earth right now that he's involved in. Tell me where he's winning – nowhere. Why, some rice farmers, some rice farmers! Some rice-eaters ran him out of Korea, yes they ran him out of Korea. Rice-eaters, with nothing but gym shoes and a rifle and a bowl of rice, took him and his tanks and his napalm and all that other action he's supposed to have and ran him across the Yalu. Why? Because the day that he can win on the ground has passed. Up in French Indochina, those little peasants, rice-growers, took on the might of the French army and ran all the Frenchmen, you remember Dien Bien Phu! The same thing happened in Algeria, in Africa. They didn't have anything but a rifle. The French had all these highly mechanized instruments of warfare. But they put some guerilla action on. And a white man can't fight a guerilla warfare. Guerilla action takes heart, takes nerve, and he doesn't have that. He's brave when he's got tanks. He's brave when he's got planes. He's brave when he's got bombs. He's brave when he's got a whole lot of company along with him. But you take that little man from Africa and Asia; turn him loose in the woods with a blade. A blade. That's all he needs. All he needs is a blade. And when the sun comes down – goes down and it's dark, it's even-Steven." #Vietnam
2:16

🇺🇸MALCOLM X: "The white man can never win another war on the ground. His days of war––victory––his days of battleground victory are over. Can I prove it? Yes. Take all the action that's going on this Earth right now that he's involved in. Tell me where he's winning – nowhere. Why, some rice farmers, some rice farmers! Some rice-eaters ran him out of Korea, yes they ran him out of Korea. Rice-eaters, with nothing but gym shoes and a rifle and a bowl of rice, took him and his tanks and his napalm and all that other action he's supposed to have and ran him across the Yalu. Why? Because the day that he can win on the ground has passed. Up in French Indochina, those little peasants, rice-growers, took on the might of the French army and ran all the Frenchmen, you remember Dien Bien Phu! The same thing happened in Algeria, in Africa. They didn't have anything but a rifle. The French had all these highly mechanized instruments of warfare. But they put some guerilla action on. And a white man can't fight a guerilla warfare. Guerilla action takes heart, takes nerve, and he doesn't have that. He's brave when he's got tanks. He's brave when he's got planes. He's brave when he's got bombs. He's brave when he's got a whole lot of company along with him. But you take that little man from Africa and Asia; turn him loose in the woods with a blade. A blade. That's all he needs. All he needs is a blade. And when the sun comes down – goes down and it's dark, it's even-Steven." #Vietnam

Sony Thăng

87,149 views • 3 years ago

Rick Rubin: "Make what you love, not what you think people will like" "If you want to live in a creative way, which will benefit everything in your life, be a better person in your family, do a better job starting a new business, it's all the same. I don't really know anything about music. It's more a way of looking at the world and wanting it to be the best it could possibly be. And doing whatever it takes to be the best it could possibly be." Rubin shares how his career happened: "From the beginning, I never thought any of the things I'm doing were possible or realistic. I just did things out of the love of them, thinking I would have real jobs. That my passion would be my hobby, and I'd have a job to support my hobby. And it just magically turned out different than that without me knowing it was possible." On why some things connect and others don't: "The stars line up at certain times for certain things to happen. Sometimes you can make something great, and it doesn't connect for whatever reason. Sometimes you make two things you think are the two best things you've ever made. One of them connects with the world. One of them doesn't. And it might not have anything to do with what's in the art. It might be that it came out the same day as something else. Or there was a bigger story at the time. There's so much to it that we don't understand." He continues: "All we can do is make something good and put it out and hope for the best. That's all there is. We never know why things work. Even if you make a piece of art and it works, you may not know why." On talent versus work ethic: "There are a lot of talented people who never make it because they don't have the work ethic. It's not just talent, talent's a piece. And you could argue for some people, the work ethic trumps the talent." Rubin explains what real collaboration is: "Having worked with a lot of bands, I see there's often this friction where people are trying to get their idea in. That's not a collaboration. A real collaboration is when everyone who's there is working together towards whatever is the best thing for the whole. Whether it's your idea or someone else's idea, it doesn't matter. If you're invested in the collaboration, you want the best idea to win. You don't want your idea to win." On what makes art great: "What makes it great is the personal. With all of its imperfections. With all of its quirkiness. That's what makes it great. How you see the world that's different from how everyone else sees the world. That's why you're an artist. That's your purpose in sharing your work with the world." He warns against being derivative: "There are these derivative voices where they're finding what they think other people want to hear, and they start saying it because they've heard other people say similar things that are now successful. Even if they have some short-term success doing that, it's not revolutionary. It doesn't change the world. It doesn't last. The people who you first see and you might not like that you come to like because you don't understand them at first, those are the ones that change the world. Those are the ones you dedicate your fandom to for life." Rubin shares his philosophy on taste: "You can't second-guess your own taste for what someone else is going to like. We're not smart enough to know what someone else is going to like. To make something thinking, 'Well, I don't really like it, but I think this group of people will like it,' it's a bad way to play the game of music or art. You have to do what's personal to you. Take it as far as you can go. Really push the boundaries. And people will resonate with it if they're supposed to resonate with it." He describes creativity as catching waves: "We're really talking about magic. The universe conspiring on our behalf if we let it. Being in this flow of catching these waves that anyone can catch. If you're trying to catch it, you're open to it, you see it coming, you take off on every chance you get. And sometimes the ride happens. It's remarkable how it happens. It doesn't come from preconception. It's not an idea. It's through the doing." Rubin explains how ideas exist in the universe: "Have you ever had that experience where you have an idea for something, you don't do it, and then six months later you see someone else has done it? It's not because they took your idea. It's that it's time for that, and you can act on it or not. The best artists are the ones who have the best antenna for this material that's available. It's coming through. The best comedians see the best jokes. They see them coming. We all live in the same world; the way you see it, you have the best joke because you see it best." He closes with how to stay open: "If we listen to what's going on around us, you can overhear a conversation in a coffee shop, and it is the setup for an idea you're working on. You hear a phrase you don't commonly use. My experience is: when you are open and looking for these clues in the world, they're happening all the time. And they're happening often right when you need them."
8:29

Rick Rubin: "Make what you love, not what you think people will like" "If you want to live in a creative way, which will benefit everything in your life, be a better person in your family, do a better job starting a new business, it's all the same. I don't really know anything about music. It's more a way of looking at the world and wanting it to be the best it could possibly be. And doing whatever it takes to be the best it could possibly be." Rubin shares how his career happened: "From the beginning, I never thought any of the things I'm doing were possible or realistic. I just did things out of the love of them, thinking I would have real jobs. That my passion would be my hobby, and I'd have a job to support my hobby. And it just magically turned out different than that without me knowing it was possible." On why some things connect and others don't: "The stars line up at certain times for certain things to happen. Sometimes you can make something great, and it doesn't connect for whatever reason. Sometimes you make two things you think are the two best things you've ever made. One of them connects with the world. One of them doesn't. And it might not have anything to do with what's in the art. It might be that it came out the same day as something else. Or there was a bigger story at the time. There's so much to it that we don't understand." He continues: "All we can do is make something good and put it out and hope for the best. That's all there is. We never know why things work. Even if you make a piece of art and it works, you may not know why." On talent versus work ethic: "There are a lot of talented people who never make it because they don't have the work ethic. It's not just talent, talent's a piece. And you could argue for some people, the work ethic trumps the talent." Rubin explains what real collaboration is: "Having worked with a lot of bands, I see there's often this friction where people are trying to get their idea in. That's not a collaboration. A real collaboration is when everyone who's there is working together towards whatever is the best thing for the whole. Whether it's your idea or someone else's idea, it doesn't matter. If you're invested in the collaboration, you want the best idea to win. You don't want your idea to win." On what makes art great: "What makes it great is the personal. With all of its imperfections. With all of its quirkiness. That's what makes it great. How you see the world that's different from how everyone else sees the world. That's why you're an artist. That's your purpose in sharing your work with the world." He warns against being derivative: "There are these derivative voices where they're finding what they think other people want to hear, and they start saying it because they've heard other people say similar things that are now successful. Even if they have some short-term success doing that, it's not revolutionary. It doesn't change the world. It doesn't last. The people who you first see and you might not like that you come to like because you don't understand them at first, those are the ones that change the world. Those are the ones you dedicate your fandom to for life." Rubin shares his philosophy on taste: "You can't second-guess your own taste for what someone else is going to like. We're not smart enough to know what someone else is going to like. To make something thinking, 'Well, I don't really like it, but I think this group of people will like it,' it's a bad way to play the game of music or art. You have to do what's personal to you. Take it as far as you can go. Really push the boundaries. And people will resonate with it if they're supposed to resonate with it." He describes creativity as catching waves: "We're really talking about magic. The universe conspiring on our behalf if we let it. Being in this flow of catching these waves that anyone can catch. If you're trying to catch it, you're open to it, you see it coming, you take off on every chance you get. And sometimes the ride happens. It's remarkable how it happens. It doesn't come from preconception. It's not an idea. It's through the doing." Rubin explains how ideas exist in the universe: "Have you ever had that experience where you have an idea for something, you don't do it, and then six months later you see someone else has done it? It's not because they took your idea. It's that it's time for that, and you can act on it or not. The best artists are the ones who have the best antenna for this material that's available. It's coming through. The best comedians see the best jokes. They see them coming. We all live in the same world; the way you see it, you have the best joke because you see it best." He closes with how to stay open: "If we listen to what's going on around us, you can overhear a conversation in a coffee shop, and it is the setup for an idea you're working on. You hear a phrase you don't commonly use. My experience is: when you are open and looking for these clues in the world, they're happening all the time. And they're happening often right when you need them."

Jaynit

109,182 views • 4 months ago

🔥 Knapp and I, "have seen high-quality everything [UAP] that you'd ever want to see. It's amazing." ~Corbell 🔥 (Great way to end the year. Unless you think Corbell and Knapp are lying or have been fooled by nothing but fake photos and videos, the good stuff DOES exist. Damn. Wasn't expecting this, but it's very important to hear. You'll have to decide what this means for you. Happy New Year!) ~~~ Jeremy Kenyon Lockyer Corbell: "George and I are reporters and people send us stuff. He and I can both attest: We have seen high-fidelity, of things that like, are so egregiously bizarre, you guys (Knapp shaking his head up and down in agreement). I'll just admit it. We have been exposed to every type of footage you can imagine. Every type. Lots of it. And this has happened for a while, and I don't know what to do. I mean, as a journalist, we are able to be exposed to these things, and they're...you know, it's shocking. "There's a lot of footage from this aggregate program called IMMACULATE CONSTELLATION, and not even within that program. That program was just siphoning off. Here's the deal: Our sensor platforms - from space, to air, to sea, to undersea - pick up, all the time, highly-anomalous things that are unambiguously UAP. That's fact. I can attest to that as a human being sitting in front of you, that George and I have been exposed to it. I'm not gonna go any further today, but that is fact, we have been. "So, what happens is, you have our government saying, all of this reporting is coming in and it's going up on these classified servers, but like, what do we do with it, what do we do with it? So they've developed one of many programs that used to be called Immaculate Constellation, where they will pull the best of the best, a lot of it using AI. And they will pull these into an archive and have them assessed in secret groups. So that's what Immaculate Constellation actually was, was an aggregate program to take all of that footage, bring it, and nothing facing internally to the U.S. So if we're doing any exploitation (reverse engineering efforts. ~Joe), if it's anything with us? Nothing. But to other countries, and just passive and active picking up UAP, that's what Immaculate Constellation did. And now it's under a different name. But it does the same thing, and it's one of many programs. "So, I can attest, and so can George, that that footage of high-quality from all-domain is something that exists, it's unambiguous. Now the question is: Who do you show it to? Who gets to see it? What actions can they take? I don't know. I don't know. I'm not in charge here. Is there an adult in the room?" George Knapp: "Jeremy, DoD spokesperson says there is no record of anything called Immaculate Constellation within the Department of Defense. I guess it can't be real then, right?" Corbell: "You know, I think there will be clarity on that, because I think there's humans behind whistleblowing, and I think one day we're going to learn more about that. I hope that that helps. Like, when David Grusch came forward, and he said, 'Look, I dug into all these black projects, and I had 40 witnesses.' By the way, it's not the people that you know of and this sort of thing. This is like, deep within our intelligence agencies. David Grusch DID bring 40 people to the IC IG. He did do that. He told it like it is. Yeah, it exists. It exists. It's the most frustrating thing in the world, once you know for sure that high-quality data exists and that people that should see it haven't seen it, and you're kind of stuck. You don't know what to do about it. That's how I feel.: Knapp: "But maybe a technicality could be it exists or existed, but not within the Pentagon." Corbell: "Oh, yeah, all those games like, Immaculate Constellation was not a DoD USAP. So that's like, why you see Susan Gough like, technically, she's telling the truth. So, Immaculate Constellation was a USAP (Unacknowledged Special Access Program ~Joe) under a different heading. So imagine this: Imagine even the Department of Energy has its own USAPs. The White House has its own USAPs. So you can technically say it's not under DoD. They might have actuated some things for that operation, which was an operation, Immaculate Constellation, but they can get away with these technicalities. But there are USAPs in a lot of different departments, as you can imagine." Joe Murgia - Joe Murgia: "I am not letting you guys get away with not commenting again on what you've seen, image-wise. I mean, have you guys seen craft, structured craft, up close (Corbell and Knapp both shaking their heads up and down)?" Corbell: "Yep." Murgia: "Flying saucer-type craft?" Corbell: "Yep." Murgia: "Triangles?" Corbell: "Yeah." Murgia: "What else can you say about that?" Corbell: "The weirdest sh*t I've ever seen in my life, man. As journalists, we get a lot of weird stuff, and George and I, we'll look at it and assess it, and it's legitimate, and we've seen it. And, yeah, I don't know what else to say, George, unless you want to say something." Knapp: "We've seen stuff that we're not supposed to see. Put it that way." Murgia: "From government sensors?" Corbell: "Oh yeah." Knapp: "Yeah." Corbell: "Yeah. Look, as journalists, we don't know at first, right? Like, we'll get a bunch of information. We'll be exposed to a bunch of information. It's a very tricky place for us to be. First, are people f*cking with us? You know, is this a lie, is this real? We had that debate about the Jellyfish. Like, we had to, like, dig in and find out, which base, where was it, who's seen it? Multiple sources that have seen it at that base. It takes time. We're in that position now. We've been exposed to a lot of stuff and everything you just said, Joe, yeah. I mean, I could tell you as a friend, straight up, George could affirm this, with his own eyes, too. What that means, I don't know, and I don't know where to go from there. But we have seen high-quality everything that you'd ever want to see. It's amazing."
5:18

🔥 Knapp and I, "have seen high-quality everything [UAP] that you'd ever want to see. It's amazing." ~Corbell 🔥 (Great way to end the year. Unless you think Corbell and Knapp are lying or have been fooled by nothing but fake photos and videos, the good stuff DOES exist. Damn. Wasn't expecting this, but it's very important to hear. You'll have to decide what this means for you. Happy New Year!) ~~~ Jeremy Kenyon Lockyer Corbell: "George and I are reporters and people send us stuff. He and I can both attest: We have seen high-fidelity, of things that like, are so egregiously bizarre, you guys (Knapp shaking his head up and down in agreement). I'll just admit it. We have been exposed to every type of footage you can imagine. Every type. Lots of it. And this has happened for a while, and I don't know what to do. I mean, as a journalist, we are able to be exposed to these things, and they're...you know, it's shocking. "There's a lot of footage from this aggregate program called IMMACULATE CONSTELLATION, and not even within that program. That program was just siphoning off. Here's the deal: Our sensor platforms - from space, to air, to sea, to undersea - pick up, all the time, highly-anomalous things that are unambiguously UAP. That's fact. I can attest to that as a human being sitting in front of you, that George and I have been exposed to it. I'm not gonna go any further today, but that is fact, we have been. "So, what happens is, you have our government saying, all of this reporting is coming in and it's going up on these classified servers, but like, what do we do with it, what do we do with it? So they've developed one of many programs that used to be called Immaculate Constellation, where they will pull the best of the best, a lot of it using AI. And they will pull these into an archive and have them assessed in secret groups. So that's what Immaculate Constellation actually was, was an aggregate program to take all of that footage, bring it, and nothing facing internally to the U.S. So if we're doing any exploitation (reverse engineering efforts. ~Joe), if it's anything with us? Nothing. But to other countries, and just passive and active picking up UAP, that's what Immaculate Constellation did. And now it's under a different name. But it does the same thing, and it's one of many programs. "So, I can attest, and so can George, that that footage of high-quality from all-domain is something that exists, it's unambiguous. Now the question is: Who do you show it to? Who gets to see it? What actions can they take? I don't know. I don't know. I'm not in charge here. Is there an adult in the room?" George Knapp: "Jeremy, DoD spokesperson says there is no record of anything called Immaculate Constellation within the Department of Defense. I guess it can't be real then, right?" Corbell: "You know, I think there will be clarity on that, because I think there's humans behind whistleblowing, and I think one day we're going to learn more about that. I hope that that helps. Like, when David Grusch came forward, and he said, 'Look, I dug into all these black projects, and I had 40 witnesses.' By the way, it's not the people that you know of and this sort of thing. This is like, deep within our intelligence agencies. David Grusch DID bring 40 people to the IC IG. He did do that. He told it like it is. Yeah, it exists. It exists. It's the most frustrating thing in the world, once you know for sure that high-quality data exists and that people that should see it haven't seen it, and you're kind of stuck. You don't know what to do about it. That's how I feel.: Knapp: "But maybe a technicality could be it exists or existed, but not within the Pentagon." Corbell: "Oh, yeah, all those games like, Immaculate Constellation was not a DoD USAP. So that's like, why you see Susan Gough like, technically, she's telling the truth. So, Immaculate Constellation was a USAP (Unacknowledged Special Access Program ~Joe) under a different heading. So imagine this: Imagine even the Department of Energy has its own USAPs. The White House has its own USAPs. So you can technically say it's not under DoD. They might have actuated some things for that operation, which was an operation, Immaculate Constellation, but they can get away with these technicalities. But there are USAPs in a lot of different departments, as you can imagine." Joe Murgia - Joe Murgia: "I am not letting you guys get away with not commenting again on what you've seen, image-wise. I mean, have you guys seen craft, structured craft, up close (Corbell and Knapp both shaking their heads up and down)?" Corbell: "Yep." Murgia: "Flying saucer-type craft?" Corbell: "Yep." Murgia: "Triangles?" Corbell: "Yeah." Murgia: "What else can you say about that?" Corbell: "The weirdest sh*t I've ever seen in my life, man. As journalists, we get a lot of weird stuff, and George and I, we'll look at it and assess it, and it's legitimate, and we've seen it. And, yeah, I don't know what else to say, George, unless you want to say something." Knapp: "We've seen stuff that we're not supposed to see. Put it that way." Murgia: "From government sensors?" Corbell: "Oh yeah." Knapp: "Yeah." Corbell: "Yeah. Look, as journalists, we don't know at first, right? Like, we'll get a bunch of information. We'll be exposed to a bunch of information. It's a very tricky place for us to be. First, are people f*cking with us? You know, is this a lie, is this real? We had that debate about the Jellyfish. Like, we had to, like, dig in and find out, which base, where was it, who's seen it? Multiple sources that have seen it at that base. It takes time. We're in that position now. We've been exposed to a lot of stuff and everything you just said, Joe, yeah. I mean, I could tell you as a friend, straight up, George could affirm this, with his own eyes, too. What that means, I don't know, and I don't know where to go from there. But we have seen high-quality everything that you'd ever want to see. It's amazing."

Joe Murgia

140,668 views • 1 year ago

On the invasion in Cueta: THEY ALWAYS TELL YOU Today this film that has lived in my head for over 30 years comes to life in front of my eyes. 'The March' is a 1990 film shaped after 'Camp of the Saints' - A group of several thousand Africans migrate westward across northern Africa and sail across the Strait of Gibraltar to Europe. Their message is: "We are poor because you are rich." Why do I remember it? I was a child when I saw it. But some of the images were haunting in a way I cannot describe. For over 30 years - THIRTY YEARS - I have thought of this scene...the migrants slowly moving into quaint British towns, peering through windows at unsuspecting families, invading homes, demanding what those fat, rich Westerners have. When I tell you not a week goes by where I haven't thought of it, I mean it. Not. One. Week. Watching those Muslim men pouring into Cueta brought it to mind, although I had no idea what it was called. The magic of modern AI led me back to it and I have chills watching this again. Listen to the tv host as he says, "It's a publicly stated attempt to come into our streets, our homes, and shame us into helping them. Or, as they say...WATCH US DIE." They always tell you what their intentions are. They always tell you what they're going to do. And look at the studio audience in this film. Completely white. Is there anywhere in the UK you can see that anymore? From 1990 to today...that's how long it took to bring the magic of the movies to life. But it's here now. Yes, they always tell you. In 1990 I would have been 15 years old. 15yo me was hardly conservative. Still, this scene in particular stuck with me and has been locked away in my brain since that moment. Frankly, it's almost a relief to spill it out onto the page finally. I think this flag planted in 15yo me because that little girl was way more intuitive then I've ever given her credit for. 15yo me knew there was something ominous in the presentation, and she filed it away for a time when she wasn't completely submerged in a socialist household. 15yo me saw something dastardly, a warning. I couldn't articulate that at the time. I probably even felt an affinity for the migrants at the time. And yet, this scene has never left me. Today, I understand. Today I finally see. This was a projection...an announcement. 36 years... These globalists are patient. They don't mind moving slowly. They've been executing the reality of this film for that long, and now they have arrived. A full scale invasion, much like the premise of this film. They always tell you. We need to recognize the long game, and understand that the incremental changes are not to be ignored. They are part of the plan. It may be too late for Spain, for Europe. They did not heed the warnings given by the globalist elites themselves. They are overwhelmed and disarmed. America: I believe the Lord tattooed my heart with that movie and this scene for this very day - for me to tell you - THIS IS US. WE ARE NEXT. The invasion is coming and it will look exactly as they planned and exactly as they told us. We have already experienced a bit of this during Biden, but that was a fraction of what is to come. Heed these warnings. It is time to close ranks and protect what is ours. They have already announced themselves. We can no longer be so foolish as to believe they didn't really mean it. They always tell you.
1:03

On the invasion in Cueta: THEY ALWAYS TELL YOU Today this film that has lived in my head for over 30 years comes to life in front of my eyes. 'The March' is a 1990 film shaped after 'Camp of the Saints' - A group of several thousand Africans migrate westward across northern Africa and sail across the Strait of Gibraltar to Europe. Their message is: "We are poor because you are rich." Why do I remember it? I was a child when I saw it. But some of the images were haunting in a way I cannot describe. For over 30 years - THIRTY YEARS - I have thought of this scene...the migrants slowly moving into quaint British towns, peering through windows at unsuspecting families, invading homes, demanding what those fat, rich Westerners have. When I tell you not a week goes by where I haven't thought of it, I mean it. Not. One. Week. Watching those Muslim men pouring into Cueta brought it to mind, although I had no idea what it was called. The magic of modern AI led me back to it and I have chills watching this again. Listen to the tv host as he says, "It's a publicly stated attempt to come into our streets, our homes, and shame us into helping them. Or, as they say...WATCH US DIE." They always tell you what their intentions are. They always tell you what they're going to do. And look at the studio audience in this film. Completely white. Is there anywhere in the UK you can see that anymore? From 1990 to today...that's how long it took to bring the magic of the movies to life. But it's here now. Yes, they always tell you. In 1990 I would have been 15 years old. 15yo me was hardly conservative. Still, this scene in particular stuck with me and has been locked away in my brain since that moment. Frankly, it's almost a relief to spill it out onto the page finally. I think this flag planted in 15yo me because that little girl was way more intuitive then I've ever given her credit for. 15yo me knew there was something ominous in the presentation, and she filed it away for a time when she wasn't completely submerged in a socialist household. 15yo me saw something dastardly, a warning. I couldn't articulate that at the time. I probably even felt an affinity for the migrants at the time. And yet, this scene has never left me. Today, I understand. Today I finally see. This was a projection...an announcement. 36 years... These globalists are patient. They don't mind moving slowly. They've been executing the reality of this film for that long, and now they have arrived. A full scale invasion, much like the premise of this film. They always tell you. We need to recognize the long game, and understand that the incremental changes are not to be ignored. They are part of the plan. It may be too late for Spain, for Europe. They did not heed the warnings given by the globalist elites themselves. They are overwhelmed and disarmed. America: I believe the Lord tattooed my heart with that movie and this scene for this very day - for me to tell you - THIS IS US. WE ARE NEXT. The invasion is coming and it will look exactly as they planned and exactly as they told us. We have already experienced a bit of this during Biden, but that was a fraction of what is to come. Heed these warnings. It is time to close ranks and protect what is ours. They have already announced themselves. We can no longer be so foolish as to believe they didn't really mean it. They always tell you.

Kira

18,928 views • 24 days ago

This isn't alien technology, literally or metaphorically. The breakthrough here isn't in engineering at all — it's in corporate organization. See, most machines are broken because the organizations that make them are broken. As an engineer, I would estimate that at least 30% of the parts of any given device exist only to correct for the design flaws in the other 70%. Works like this. Suppose I, an engineer, design a set of pipes and injectors to feed fuel to a combustion chamber at a consistent and controllable rate. Except in testing, there's some corner cases it doesn't handle well. Now, if you're an engineer, you understand this is normal. Nobody ever gets a design right the first time, unless it's so trivial that it's probably been done before. Your first design doesn't survive the wind tunnel, your first code doesn't compile right away, and if does, it segfaults. Your rockets blow up. And there's a flow problem with your fuel feed lines. It happens. Doesn't mean you're stupid. Means you didn't have enough information. But you have an even bigger problem. Middle management. Middle management is a special variety of hazmat suit, which is worn by the finance, sales, or market guys who run companies, so they don't have to touch the icky engineers. C-suite guys hate hate hate engineers, because it's a terrifying sensation to be dependent on someone you cannot understand, who doesn't appear to respect you much. (It does not occur to them that it is also extremely frustrating to have your work paid for, and thus controlled, by someone who cannot understand what you do, who doesn't appear to respect you much.) The primary role of middle management is talk to engineers so C-suite guys won't have to, and the primary qualification is to be a member of the right social class, and to hate engineers. This qualification is dressed up in secret handshake buzzwords like "management experience", as used in the sentence "I know you have been an engineer for twenty years and the other engineers all come to you for advice and leadership, but you don't have management experience, so I am going to hire my golfing buddy's 23 year old kid, who just graduated business school." So the fact that the fuel lines lines are not working quite right isn't your problem. That's part of the normal engineering process. Your problem is that your manager hates you and everything you stand for, and doesn't trust you or take your word for anything. He think his job is to keep you in line rather than help or empower you. So when you say "the fuel feed lines need to be redesigned", he says "we already spent six months and seventeen million dollars design the fuel feed system, we can't let you do it again." He thinks you are telling him seventeen million dollars worth of work needs to be thrown away and redone, and he cannot be told otherwise, because he cannot be told anything. So he says "you have two weeks and fifty thousand dollars to fix it". So you add another turbopump. What else can you do in two weeks? Now there's a new part. And if something goes wrong with that, another new part will be added to fix it. Because the company's actual priority isn't what you are responsible for — the design. It's what middle management is responsible for — the schedule and the budget. You have to play the villain so they can play the hero. What middle management doesn't understand, is paid to not understand, is what engineering actually is. Engineering is the process of making mistakes until you run out of mistakes to make. So when you spend six months and seventeen million dollars, and ended up with a design that doesn't quite work right in all cases, you weren't throwing away money, you were burning through mistakes. You've gotten a lot of them out of the way and won't make them again. But you have to get rid of some more before the design is actually right and doesn't require extra parts. The work of engineering isn't making the thing. It's teaching yourself to make the thing. Once you've done that, you can make the thing with minimal effort and time, because you know how to make the thing. C-suite financiers would hate this idea if they understood it. Why? Because it's unpredictable. Financiers like safe investments that make money. Not knowing how long something will take or how much it will cost is terrifying to them. So they train engineers to lie to them, by hiring a middle managers who try to force them to lie, and just interpret every guess as a promise if engineers still refuse to do so. But lying to yourself doesn't make the truth go away. The truth is that engineering projects take as long as they take, and cost as much as they cost. And that no one knows how long or how much they will be, because no one knows how many mistakes are waiting to be made, until they actually make them. The only thing you thing you can do about this is hire really good engineers, who catch more of their mistakes on the white board, leaving fewer to be caught in the wind tunnel, and this makes engineering faster... but it doesn't make engineering more predictable. Gantt charts are nothing but a collection of lies that corporations have taught themselves to tell themselves, lies that middle managers try to make true by enforcing them as promises. The ultimate reason that machines are 30% unnecessary parts is that the corporations that build them are 30% unnecessary people. This is what's different about Elon Musk. It's not that he's a better engineer. It's that he's a better manager. He understands engineers and engineering, and he doesn't hate them because he is one. He understood all along that green-field design is full of unknown-unknowns, and that there is absolutely no number-crunching, pie-chart, MBA magic that can eliminate this risk... it can only be hidden from view. The critical understanding is in the video clip below, where he says that SpaceX only had a 10% chance of success. You cannot say something like that unless you get it. And when you get it, you are free. Free from artificial anxiety about schedules and budgets. Anxiety about schedules and budgets is based on the delusion of control. Managers can't make a project finish "on time". They never could. The only power they have is the power to screw it up. The fate of a project is already written in the unknown unknowns before it ever starts. And the best, the absolute best, an engineering team can ever do, under any circumstances, is to confront those unknowns with clear-eyed honesty, and a willingness to adapt. Well, when you say to yourself, "This project has a 10% chance of succeeding", you've already confronted the pain of those admissions, which means you have already conquered the fear. The fear that makes you try to treat a prediction as a promise. The fear that makes you insert an extra turbopump, when what you really need to do is get busy redesigning the pipes, even though you have no idea how long it will take or much it will cost. Even when your rockets blow up. The SpaceX Raptor engine isn't just, or even primarily, a triumph of engineering smarts. It's a triumph of character. It's about an entire team with virtues MBAs lack: self-awareness, persistence, courage, humility, and, ultimately, hope. Because that's what it takes to pursue the best design, the RIGHT design, not even knowing if it exists to be found, much less whether you'll find it before you run out of money. Great things are not accomplished by middle managers with spreadsheets and Gantt charts. They are accomplished by teams of experts with passion and vision. Who are willing to risk failure so they can succeed. So what's the point in me saying all this? Am I just writing a puff piece on SpaceX and the Raptor engine? No. The point is that this is not special, one-off, magic alien technology. It's the systematic result of a correct understanding of engineering. Which means that EVERY COMPANY CAN BE LIKE THIS. If the people who control the purse strings are willing to learn from this example, and stop managing with spreadsheets and fear.
0:40

This isn't alien technology, literally or metaphorically. The breakthrough here isn't in engineering at all — it's in corporate organization. See, most machines are broken because the organizations that make them are broken. As an engineer, I would estimate that at least 30% of the parts of any given device exist only to correct for the design flaws in the other 70%. Works like this. Suppose I, an engineer, design a set of pipes and injectors to feed fuel to a combustion chamber at a consistent and controllable rate. Except in testing, there's some corner cases it doesn't handle well. Now, if you're an engineer, you understand this is normal. Nobody ever gets a design right the first time, unless it's so trivial that it's probably been done before. Your first design doesn't survive the wind tunnel, your first code doesn't compile right away, and if does, it segfaults. Your rockets blow up. And there's a flow problem with your fuel feed lines. It happens. Doesn't mean you're stupid. Means you didn't have enough information. But you have an even bigger problem. Middle management. Middle management is a special variety of hazmat suit, which is worn by the finance, sales, or market guys who run companies, so they don't have to touch the icky engineers. C-suite guys hate hate hate engineers, because it's a terrifying sensation to be dependent on someone you cannot understand, who doesn't appear to respect you much. (It does not occur to them that it is also extremely frustrating to have your work paid for, and thus controlled, by someone who cannot understand what you do, who doesn't appear to respect you much.) The primary role of middle management is talk to engineers so C-suite guys won't have to, and the primary qualification is to be a member of the right social class, and to hate engineers. This qualification is dressed up in secret handshake buzzwords like "management experience", as used in the sentence "I know you have been an engineer for twenty years and the other engineers all come to you for advice and leadership, but you don't have management experience, so I am going to hire my golfing buddy's 23 year old kid, who just graduated business school." So the fact that the fuel lines lines are not working quite right isn't your problem. That's part of the normal engineering process. Your problem is that your manager hates you and everything you stand for, and doesn't trust you or take your word for anything. He think his job is to keep you in line rather than help or empower you. So when you say "the fuel feed lines need to be redesigned", he says "we already spent six months and seventeen million dollars design the fuel feed system, we can't let you do it again." He thinks you are telling him seventeen million dollars worth of work needs to be thrown away and redone, and he cannot be told otherwise, because he cannot be told anything. So he says "you have two weeks and fifty thousand dollars to fix it". So you add another turbopump. What else can you do in two weeks? Now there's a new part. And if something goes wrong with that, another new part will be added to fix it. Because the company's actual priority isn't what you are responsible for — the design. It's what middle management is responsible for — the schedule and the budget. You have to play the villain so they can play the hero. What middle management doesn't understand, is paid to not understand, is what engineering actually is. Engineering is the process of making mistakes until you run out of mistakes to make. So when you spend six months and seventeen million dollars, and ended up with a design that doesn't quite work right in all cases, you weren't throwing away money, you were burning through mistakes. You've gotten a lot of them out of the way and won't make them again. But you have to get rid of some more before the design is actually right and doesn't require extra parts. The work of engineering isn't making the thing. It's teaching yourself to make the thing. Once you've done that, you can make the thing with minimal effort and time, because you know how to make the thing. C-suite financiers would hate this idea if they understood it. Why? Because it's unpredictable. Financiers like safe investments that make money. Not knowing how long something will take or how much it will cost is terrifying to them. So they train engineers to lie to them, by hiring a middle managers who try to force them to lie, and just interpret every guess as a promise if engineers still refuse to do so. But lying to yourself doesn't make the truth go away. The truth is that engineering projects take as long as they take, and cost as much as they cost. And that no one knows how long or how much they will be, because no one knows how many mistakes are waiting to be made, until they actually make them. The only thing you thing you can do about this is hire really good engineers, who catch more of their mistakes on the white board, leaving fewer to be caught in the wind tunnel, and this makes engineering faster... but it doesn't make engineering more predictable. Gantt charts are nothing but a collection of lies that corporations have taught themselves to tell themselves, lies that middle managers try to make true by enforcing them as promises. The ultimate reason that machines are 30% unnecessary parts is that the corporations that build them are 30% unnecessary people. This is what's different about Elon Musk. It's not that he's a better engineer. It's that he's a better manager. He understands engineers and engineering, and he doesn't hate them because he is one. He understood all along that green-field design is full of unknown-unknowns, and that there is absolutely no number-crunching, pie-chart, MBA magic that can eliminate this risk... it can only be hidden from view. The critical understanding is in the video clip below, where he says that SpaceX only had a 10% chance of success. You cannot say something like that unless you get it. And when you get it, you are free. Free from artificial anxiety about schedules and budgets. Anxiety about schedules and budgets is based on the delusion of control. Managers can't make a project finish "on time". They never could. The only power they have is the power to screw it up. The fate of a project is already written in the unknown unknowns before it ever starts. And the best, the absolute best, an engineering team can ever do, under any circumstances, is to confront those unknowns with clear-eyed honesty, and a willingness to adapt. Well, when you say to yourself, "This project has a 10% chance of succeeding", you've already confronted the pain of those admissions, which means you have already conquered the fear. The fear that makes you try to treat a prediction as a promise. The fear that makes you insert an extra turbopump, when what you really need to do is get busy redesigning the pipes, even though you have no idea how long it will take or much it will cost. Even when your rockets blow up. The SpaceX Raptor engine isn't just, or even primarily, a triumph of engineering smarts. It's a triumph of character. It's about an entire team with virtues MBAs lack: self-awareness, persistence, courage, humility, and, ultimately, hope. Because that's what it takes to pursue the best design, the RIGHT design, not even knowing if it exists to be found, much less whether you'll find it before you run out of money. Great things are not accomplished by middle managers with spreadsheets and Gantt charts. They are accomplished by teams of experts with passion and vision. Who are willing to risk failure so they can succeed. So what's the point in me saying all this? Am I just writing a puff piece on SpaceX and the Raptor engine? No. The point is that this is not special, one-off, magic alien technology. It's the systematic result of a correct understanding of engineering. Which means that EVERY COMPANY CAN BE LIKE THIS. If the people who control the purse strings are willing to learn from this example, and stop managing with spreadsheets and fear.

Devon Eriksen

126,518 views • 7 months ago

👽 Did Grusch See Footage of Live Aliens? 👽 "Grusch has seen evidence that will leave you slack-jawed when you hear it." ~JF 😶 What Left Congress Speechless, and Staffers with Their Eyes Popping Out of Their Heads? 😱 ~ "Examine biological evidence of living or deceased non-human intelligence." ~Burlison Proposed Legislation (I'm gonna break all of this down and give you my speculation on what left Fox with his jaw on the floor, members of Congress speechless, and their senior staffers with their eyes popping out of their heads.) ~ James Fox: " Probably about two weeks ago (late May), we were having meetings on The Hill with members of Congress. We brought in a PR firm, 42 West, and we were having a meeting with staff members, bipartisan. We had Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, Rep. Tim Burchett Press Office, Rep. Eric Burlison. We had a representative from Congressman Jared Moskowitz's office. We had a number of Chiefs of Staff (top staffer for a specific member of Congress), like, present." (Don't really know why they needed a public relations firm in attendance, but if it helps them with advice on how to handle this, so be it. Just know: it appears like members of that PR firm know what Grusch said, and we don't.) Fox: "And, I can't reveal what was said. I thought it was gonna be said at the actual event that we had yesterday (June 9th) in DC with Mr. Grusch." (Don't be mad at Fox for keeping his word to Grusch and not sharing what was said in that private meeting. But I don't blame people for being annoyed that Grusch shared this information six or so weeks ago and we still don't know what he said in that room.) Fox: "Then, what Mr. Grusch revealed to all of us, what he had seen with his own eyes, left the room speechless. It drew the oxygen out of the room. I looked at everybody in that room, and their eyeballs were popping out. My jaw was on the floor. Like, I simply couldn't believe what he'd seen with his own eyes. Like, I can't wait for it to come out. "So I asked Mr. Grusch today, 'Can I talk about what I heard?' And he's like, 'No, but I will be addressing it very soon.'" (Like I said, it's almost been one month now (June 12) since Fox said this, so what does "very soon" mean? Was Grusch supposed to share this information on CNN with Jake Tapper last week but it didn't happen because that interview was, reportedly (Fox told us), postponed?) Fox: "So that's where we stand right now. But I can tell you, Mr. Grusch has seen evidence that will leave you slack-jawed when you hear it. It's coming, it's coming." (We heard that Gruch's Op/Ed was coming soon and that was 2.5 years ago. It never happened. So, I don't blame people for being skeptical about this. If Grusch hasn't told us by this time next week, I propose someone (a member of Congress) who was in that room just tell us. That's fair, right? Total transparency from our elected representatives?) ~ Fox: "Mr. Grusch is legitimately concerned about his personal safety. He's coming out with it, I promise you, this is coming out. He assured me today that he will address this issue to the general public very soon, in the near future." (I'm glad Grusch told a room full of people what he saw, as that may offer him some protection from people who allegedly want him to stop talking.) Fox: "So I can't speak to what he's gonna say, but I'm just telling you from what I heard out of his mouth, sitting in an office of a member of Congress? And everybody (Fox laughs) in the room, you could have heard a pin drop." Clayton Morris: "Could you give us a hint? Is it related to craft? Can you maybe dance around it a little bit? I want to say, 'You're killing me, Smalls (laughs).'" Fox: "Yeah, so if you can imagine, if you know about 'Moment of Contact,' that involves captured non-human intelligent beings. Think about that for a minute. Think about that case. I heard it out of his mouth, and I can tell you, I was in the room. And I looked around the room, and I'm looking at these young, like, guys in their 20s, you know, the staff guys? And their eyeballs were popping out of their head. My jaw was on the floor. I couldn't believe it." (There's a reason why I included that quote (living or deceased non-human intelligence) from the new Burlison/Carson/Crane legislation at the top of this tweet: At the very least, I'm confident Grusch told them that he saw photos of dead non-human beings. Bodies. But what about evidence of LIVING non-humans, aka aliens of unknown origin? More on that at the end. Fox: "My jaw was on the floor. I couldn't believe it." (Would Grusch saying he saw photos of craft and dead non-humans have that type of effect on Fox? Seems like that's something he would have expected to hear.) ~ Fox: "It was an [out of] body experience when I heard that. But I can tell you...the impression I got, was that he felt a little more protected to talk about this because of President Trump's directive to release the files, and that this... Again, this is my speculation, okay? This is not what Mr. Grusch said. "I got the impression that he was much more relaxed - even though he was still not fully relaxed - because of President Trump's directive to release these files. And that it was something that he had seen during his official investigations just within the last few years." (Imagine how much more relaxed Grusch (and others) would feel if we had an actual Executive Order from Trump with strong language to protect whistleblowers?) Fox: "And that it...I think it had an extremely profound impact on his life when he saw this evidence that he described. Again I'm leaving it right there. I've been talking with Republicans, and they said if Joe Rogan tweets about this, that the President will hear it, And I can't overstate the significance of that." (Why hasn't Rogan already done that? No excuse. Fox has been on Rogan and I'm sure he has Joe's contact information. Make it happen.) Fox: "We need people. We're not asking for money, we're not asking to get on your show, we're just asking, Mr. President, please, as many people as possible, release the files that should not be associated with national security. And that's the alien or non-human sentient beings. That's it." ~~~ (I'm going to speculate on what Grusch may have said in that room.) Fox: "I think it had an extremely profound impact on [Grusch's] life when he saw this evidence that he described." (Grusch has said he started out as a skeptic when he started looking into this. If he was shown what he felt were photos of non-human bodies, I think that might be enough to have an, "extremely profound impact on his life." Depending on exactly what those photos showed, of course.) In "Moment of Contact," Eric Davis had this exchange with Fox: James Fox: "Put me wherever you were when you got to see photographs of crash retrieval and documents. What did that feel like?" Dr. Eric Davis: "That was startling, when I actually see recorded evidence with my own eyes. Photographs, reports, and whatnot. That took it to a higher level, that kicked it up several notches of reality. And that made it very clear that this reality is very hard, very physical, very real. "And this type of evidence, you can't come by in the open literature, it's not public, it's classified. And I can't discuss what it was, but I can tell you, yeah, it's a crash retrieval, there's a craft, and there's alien bodies. That's all I can say about it." Fox: "You swear on your life that you saw those pictures?" Davis: "Oh, I swear on my life, and everybody's...my children's life, so (laughs). Yeah, I'm absolutely telling you the truth. I saw the evidence, and it's stark! I can't tell you the exact number, because it's classified, but I'll just say, there's a few dozen total retrievals." Full exchange with video... ~~~ As I said in my other post, I think Davis, Semivan, Puthoff, Kelleher, Grusch, Lacatski, Stratton, aka The AAWSAP Gang (I just made that up), may have seen the same evidence of photos and reports. Has Grusch seen more than that? I don't know. In 2025, Davis said this... Burlison: "Can you comment on whatever species have been piloting these craft? Are they largish? Are they multiple species? What was their size, and how many are usually on a craft?" Davis: "They're typically the multiple species people are familiar with. The Greys, the Nordics. People have talked about Reptilians and Insectoids. It's not that they're Reptilian or Insectoid, it's that they resemble, to the participant, a reptile, or insect type. A humanoid, because they have this...a hand, and four limbs, and a torso, so..." Burlison: "Large? Small?" Davis: "Human size, human scale." Burlison: "How many are in a crew?" Davis: "Well, the group, well, the Greys I'm familiar with from investigating the crash at Corona, which is misnamed the crash at Roswell. It's not the crash at Roswell, it's the crash at Corona, New Mexico. Those were Greys, those were four-foot tall. And the Nordics are typically human-sized, probably...I've heard five, six-feet tall. And same with the people who mislabel Reptilian and Insectoid. They're roughly that height, too. I haven't heard anything about anything seven or eight feet or nine-foot tall, of that nature." Full post with video... ~ And this past Sunday, Davis said this to The Good Trouble Show with Matt Ford... Davis: "I can say to you guys that there are a minimum of four different alien species. The credibility of that ranges on the spectrum from no credibility to high credibility. The high credibility is the classified part." Full post: My Final Thoughts (Based on everything Davis has shared, it seems he saw classified photos of what appeared to him to be non-human craft and photos that appeared to show dead non-humans (bodies) with enough detail that he could see that some resembled reptiles and others resembled insects. Were there also photos of Greys and beings that looked human (Nordic)? I don't know. These images of non-humans would fall into what Davis deemed "high credibility" and "the classified part.") Davis: "I saw the evidence, and it's stark!" (If Davis saw close-up photos that showed details of beings that looked like Reptilians and Mantids, I'd say that qualifies as stark!) Back to what Fox said... Fox: "Then, what Mr. Grusch revealed to all of us, what he had seen with his own eyes, left the room speechless. It drew the oxygen out of the room. I looked at everybody in that room, and their eyeballs were popping out. My jaw was on the floor. Like, I simply couldn't believe what he'd seen with his own eyes." (I think what caused that reaction was Grusch describing seeing close-up photos of different types of non-human beings. Maybe.) However, Fox also said this: "...if you can imagine, if you know about 'Moment of Contact,' that involves captured non-human intelligent beings (This is the Varginha, Brazil case. ~Joe). Think about that for a minute. Think about that case. I heard it out of his mouth, and I can tell you, I was in the room." (The biggest CLAIM in that film and from that case is that a live, non-human being was captured and that Dr. Italo saw video of it, and then stood next to it for a few minutes when it was in the hospital, in a bed, being cared for by another doctor. Did Grusch say he saw evidence (photos or videos) of a live being that appeared to be non-human? Joe Rogan asked him that in his November 2023 interview... Grusch: "Once you realize the phenomenon's real, then you realize we've recovered artifacts and, you know, biologics or, you know, dead pilots, if you will, even though it's kind of creepy to think about in your world view. You don't think they were ever, you know, alive sometimes, too, right? And I'll leave it at that, only because, you know, that is something the President and his cabinet need to disclose this in a controlled manner." (He was either hinting that he's seen them alive or that them being alive and on this planet is a huge deal and not his responsibility to announce. I think it's the latter.) Rogan: "Are there discussions of interactions with live beings?" Grusch: "Uhh, there was some water-cooler talk about that kind of thing." Rogan: "But that's it?" Grusch: "But, you know, I don't even wanna get into it because it's like, uh, there was some details provided to me but it's like, it's secondary and I don't know if that's like, the telephone game and I don't know if it was hyperbolized in any way...um, you know, in the break room, so to speak. So I just... I'm so anal about making sure what I say is accurate...I don't, you know, I don't know." (Based on what he said there, it seems like he has NOT seen any evidence of live beings. If he now comes out and says that he has, it will seem like a flip flop. So, I'm gonna go with Grusch said he saw photos of non-human bodies and they were of the different types/species that Dr. Eric Davis referenced. One more flashback to what Davis said in that public, congressional briefing in May of 2025.) Davis: "It's not that they're Reptilian or Insectoid, it's that they resemble, to the participant, a reptile, or insect type." (That sounds like someone who has seen exactly what they look like, via photos.) Final point... "Examine biological evidence of living or deceased non-human intelligence." ~Burlison Proposed Legislation (That language was in the original UAPD Disclosure Act co-sponsored by Senators Schumer and Rounds, and four other senators. Why put that language in there if you haven't heard credible reports of living or deceased (bodies) non-human intelligence? Are there stories of living, non-humans on this planet? Yes, and I'll leave you with one of them.) ) (Just to make it clear: I think Grusch will say that he saw clear photos of different types of non-human bodies and some looked like reptiles and others looked like insects. It would be amazing to hear Grusch say he saw video or film of living beings, but I don't expect that. However...this still bothers me... Would Grusch describing seeing photos of craft and different kinds of dead aliens leave veteran-of-the-UFO-field, James Fox, with his jaw on the floor? I guess we're gonna see. And hopefully soon.)
4:25

👽 Did Grusch See Footage of Live Aliens? 👽 "Grusch has seen evidence that will leave you slack-jawed when you hear it." ~JF 😶 What Left Congress Speechless, and Staffers with Their Eyes Popping Out of Their Heads? 😱 ~ "Examine biological evidence of living or deceased non-human intelligence." ~Burlison Proposed Legislation (I'm gonna break all of this down and give you my speculation on what left Fox with his jaw on the floor, members of Congress speechless, and their senior staffers with their eyes popping out of their heads.) ~ James Fox: " Probably about two weeks ago (late May), we were having meetings on The Hill with members of Congress. We brought in a PR firm, 42 West, and we were having a meeting with staff members, bipartisan. We had Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, Rep. Tim Burchett Press Office, Rep. Eric Burlison. We had a representative from Congressman Jared Moskowitz's office. We had a number of Chiefs of Staff (top staffer for a specific member of Congress), like, present." (Don't really know why they needed a public relations firm in attendance, but if it helps them with advice on how to handle this, so be it. Just know: it appears like members of that PR firm know what Grusch said, and we don't.) Fox: "And, I can't reveal what was said. I thought it was gonna be said at the actual event that we had yesterday (June 9th) in DC with Mr. Grusch." (Don't be mad at Fox for keeping his word to Grusch and not sharing what was said in that private meeting. But I don't blame people for being annoyed that Grusch shared this information six or so weeks ago and we still don't know what he said in that room.) Fox: "Then, what Mr. Grusch revealed to all of us, what he had seen with his own eyes, left the room speechless. It drew the oxygen out of the room. I looked at everybody in that room, and their eyeballs were popping out. My jaw was on the floor. Like, I simply couldn't believe what he'd seen with his own eyes. Like, I can't wait for it to come out. "So I asked Mr. Grusch today, 'Can I talk about what I heard?' And he's like, 'No, but I will be addressing it very soon.'" (Like I said, it's almost been one month now (June 12) since Fox said this, so what does "very soon" mean? Was Grusch supposed to share this information on CNN with Jake Tapper last week but it didn't happen because that interview was, reportedly (Fox told us), postponed?) Fox: "So that's where we stand right now. But I can tell you, Mr. Grusch has seen evidence that will leave you slack-jawed when you hear it. It's coming, it's coming." (We heard that Gruch's Op/Ed was coming soon and that was 2.5 years ago. It never happened. So, I don't blame people for being skeptical about this. If Grusch hasn't told us by this time next week, I propose someone (a member of Congress) who was in that room just tell us. That's fair, right? Total transparency from our elected representatives?) ~ Fox: "Mr. Grusch is legitimately concerned about his personal safety. He's coming out with it, I promise you, this is coming out. He assured me today that he will address this issue to the general public very soon, in the near future." (I'm glad Grusch told a room full of people what he saw, as that may offer him some protection from people who allegedly want him to stop talking.) Fox: "So I can't speak to what he's gonna say, but I'm just telling you from what I heard out of his mouth, sitting in an office of a member of Congress? And everybody (Fox laughs) in the room, you could have heard a pin drop." Clayton Morris: "Could you give us a hint? Is it related to craft? Can you maybe dance around it a little bit? I want to say, 'You're killing me, Smalls (laughs).'" Fox: "Yeah, so if you can imagine, if you know about 'Moment of Contact,' that involves captured non-human intelligent beings. Think about that for a minute. Think about that case. I heard it out of his mouth, and I can tell you, I was in the room. And I looked around the room, and I'm looking at these young, like, guys in their 20s, you know, the staff guys? And their eyeballs were popping out of their head. My jaw was on the floor. I couldn't believe it." (There's a reason why I included that quote (living or deceased non-human intelligence) from the new Burlison/Carson/Crane legislation at the top of this tweet: At the very least, I'm confident Grusch told them that he saw photos of dead non-human beings. Bodies. But what about evidence of LIVING non-humans, aka aliens of unknown origin? More on that at the end. Fox: "My jaw was on the floor. I couldn't believe it." (Would Grusch saying he saw photos of craft and dead non-humans have that type of effect on Fox? Seems like that's something he would have expected to hear.) ~ Fox: "It was an [out of] body experience when I heard that. But I can tell you...the impression I got, was that he felt a little more protected to talk about this because of President Trump's directive to release the files, and that this... Again, this is my speculation, okay? This is not what Mr. Grusch said. "I got the impression that he was much more relaxed - even though he was still not fully relaxed - because of President Trump's directive to release these files. And that it was something that he had seen during his official investigations just within the last few years." (Imagine how much more relaxed Grusch (and others) would feel if we had an actual Executive Order from Trump with strong language to protect whistleblowers?) Fox: "And that it...I think it had an extremely profound impact on his life when he saw this evidence that he described. Again I'm leaving it right there. I've been talking with Republicans, and they said if Joe Rogan tweets about this, that the President will hear it, And I can't overstate the significance of that." (Why hasn't Rogan already done that? No excuse. Fox has been on Rogan and I'm sure he has Joe's contact information. Make it happen.) Fox: "We need people. We're not asking for money, we're not asking to get on your show, we're just asking, Mr. President, please, as many people as possible, release the files that should not be associated with national security. And that's the alien or non-human sentient beings. That's it." ~~~ (I'm going to speculate on what Grusch may have said in that room.) Fox: "I think it had an extremely profound impact on [Grusch's] life when he saw this evidence that he described." (Grusch has said he started out as a skeptic when he started looking into this. If he was shown what he felt were photos of non-human bodies, I think that might be enough to have an, "extremely profound impact on his life." Depending on exactly what those photos showed, of course.) In "Moment of Contact," Eric Davis had this exchange with Fox: James Fox: "Put me wherever you were when you got to see photographs of crash retrieval and documents. What did that feel like?" Dr. Eric Davis: "That was startling, when I actually see recorded evidence with my own eyes. Photographs, reports, and whatnot. That took it to a higher level, that kicked it up several notches of reality. And that made it very clear that this reality is very hard, very physical, very real. "And this type of evidence, you can't come by in the open literature, it's not public, it's classified. And I can't discuss what it was, but I can tell you, yeah, it's a crash retrieval, there's a craft, and there's alien bodies. That's all I can say about it." Fox: "You swear on your life that you saw those pictures?" Davis: "Oh, I swear on my life, and everybody's...my children's life, so (laughs). Yeah, I'm absolutely telling you the truth. I saw the evidence, and it's stark! I can't tell you the exact number, because it's classified, but I'll just say, there's a few dozen total retrievals." Full exchange with video... ~~~ As I said in my other post, I think Davis, Semivan, Puthoff, Kelleher, Grusch, Lacatski, Stratton, aka The AAWSAP Gang (I just made that up), may have seen the same evidence of photos and reports. Has Grusch seen more than that? I don't know. In 2025, Davis said this... Burlison: "Can you comment on whatever species have been piloting these craft? Are they largish? Are they multiple species? What was their size, and how many are usually on a craft?" Davis: "They're typically the multiple species people are familiar with. The Greys, the Nordics. People have talked about Reptilians and Insectoids. It's not that they're Reptilian or Insectoid, it's that they resemble, to the participant, a reptile, or insect type. A humanoid, because they have this...a hand, and four limbs, and a torso, so..." Burlison: "Large? Small?" Davis: "Human size, human scale." Burlison: "How many are in a crew?" Davis: "Well, the group, well, the Greys I'm familiar with from investigating the crash at Corona, which is misnamed the crash at Roswell. It's not the crash at Roswell, it's the crash at Corona, New Mexico. Those were Greys, those were four-foot tall. And the Nordics are typically human-sized, probably...I've heard five, six-feet tall. And same with the people who mislabel Reptilian and Insectoid. They're roughly that height, too. I haven't heard anything about anything seven or eight feet or nine-foot tall, of that nature." Full post with video... ~ And this past Sunday, Davis said this to The Good Trouble Show with Matt Ford... Davis: "I can say to you guys that there are a minimum of four different alien species. The credibility of that ranges on the spectrum from no credibility to high credibility. The high credibility is the classified part." Full post: My Final Thoughts (Based on everything Davis has shared, it seems he saw classified photos of what appeared to him to be non-human craft and photos that appeared to show dead non-humans (bodies) with enough detail that he could see that some resembled reptiles and others resembled insects. Were there also photos of Greys and beings that looked human (Nordic)? I don't know. These images of non-humans would fall into what Davis deemed "high credibility" and "the classified part.") Davis: "I saw the evidence, and it's stark!" (If Davis saw close-up photos that showed details of beings that looked like Reptilians and Mantids, I'd say that qualifies as stark!) Back to what Fox said... Fox: "Then, what Mr. Grusch revealed to all of us, what he had seen with his own eyes, left the room speechless. It drew the oxygen out of the room. I looked at everybody in that room, and their eyeballs were popping out. My jaw was on the floor. Like, I simply couldn't believe what he'd seen with his own eyes." (I think what caused that reaction was Grusch describing seeing close-up photos of different types of non-human beings. Maybe.) However, Fox also said this: "...if you can imagine, if you know about 'Moment of Contact,' that involves captured non-human intelligent beings (This is the Varginha, Brazil case. ~Joe). Think about that for a minute. Think about that case. I heard it out of his mouth, and I can tell you, I was in the room." (The biggest CLAIM in that film and from that case is that a live, non-human being was captured and that Dr. Italo saw video of it, and then stood next to it for a few minutes when it was in the hospital, in a bed, being cared for by another doctor. Did Grusch say he saw evidence (photos or videos) of a live being that appeared to be non-human? Joe Rogan asked him that in his November 2023 interview... Grusch: "Once you realize the phenomenon's real, then you realize we've recovered artifacts and, you know, biologics or, you know, dead pilots, if you will, even though it's kind of creepy to think about in your world view. You don't think they were ever, you know, alive sometimes, too, right? And I'll leave it at that, only because, you know, that is something the President and his cabinet need to disclose this in a controlled manner." (He was either hinting that he's seen them alive or that them being alive and on this planet is a huge deal and not his responsibility to announce. I think it's the latter.) Rogan: "Are there discussions of interactions with live beings?" Grusch: "Uhh, there was some water-cooler talk about that kind of thing." Rogan: "But that's it?" Grusch: "But, you know, I don't even wanna get into it because it's like, uh, there was some details provided to me but it's like, it's secondary and I don't know if that's like, the telephone game and I don't know if it was hyperbolized in any way...um, you know, in the break room, so to speak. So I just... I'm so anal about making sure what I say is accurate...I don't, you know, I don't know." (Based on what he said there, it seems like he has NOT seen any evidence of live beings. If he now comes out and says that he has, it will seem like a flip flop. So, I'm gonna go with Grusch said he saw photos of non-human bodies and they were of the different types/species that Dr. Eric Davis referenced. One more flashback to what Davis said in that public, congressional briefing in May of 2025.) Davis: "It's not that they're Reptilian or Insectoid, it's that they resemble, to the participant, a reptile, or insect type." (That sounds like someone who has seen exactly what they look like, via photos.) Final point... "Examine biological evidence of living or deceased non-human intelligence." ~Burlison Proposed Legislation (That language was in the original UAPD Disclosure Act co-sponsored by Senators Schumer and Rounds, and four other senators. Why put that language in there if you haven't heard credible reports of living or deceased (bodies) non-human intelligence? Are there stories of living, non-humans on this planet? Yes, and I'll leave you with one of them.) ) (Just to make it clear: I think Grusch will say that he saw clear photos of different types of non-human bodies and some looked like reptiles and others looked like insects. It would be amazing to hear Grusch say he saw video or film of living beings, but I don't expect that. However...this still bothers me... Would Grusch describing seeing photos of craft and different kinds of dead aliens leave veteran-of-the-UFO-field, James Fox, with his jaw on the floor? I guess we're gonna see. And hopefully soon.)

Joe Murgia

203,845 views • 1 month ago

I made this product launch video over the weekend with just prompts It's all vibe coded There's something you should know, though: Like everyone else, a few days ago my timeline started getting full of videos like this when Remotion launched their Claude skill, so I decided to give it a go I was captivated by all the examples, so I started like everyone was saying: "just write a prompt" I typed the prompt, and it created an extremely bland, untasteful, stock-looking video 10 prompts in and it was not getting better. It was very, very bland. But at least it was something, so I kept going at it I ended up spending my entire weekend on this, 2-3 days of work. Only to realize my original reference videos that inspired me to get started were all fake Everyone was outright lying about their results. They all claimed "I made this with just one prompt", but it was just bait, they didn't really use Remotion or code at all, it was just a normal, human-made motion video Then you expand the X post and read the replies and they're all like "haha joke" in the comments, but their main post already got 1.5 million views and bamboozled everyone who didn't read further And this is a problem: when a viral trend happens, these posts flood your timeline, and you only realize that they're all noise and bait (and that they haven't even used the tools they claim) when you click through the post and read its comments. But 90% of people (like me, initially) just see the post on their timeline while scrolling, and assume it's all real. You don't go in to check every single post you see: you just like it, or save it for later, and carry on with your day, thinking what you saw was the real thing, and that it's all outstanding results, and that motion designers are really done And it's so anxiety inducing, because everyone is hyping their results, but most of it is just not true. I have stopped reading X lately because going in makes me so anxious, everyone is claiming extraordinary outlier results just for the views and clicks, and you feel like you're lagging behind and you're not good enough because you don't get those results So for this video I decided to actually take the tech out for a spin, and see what results I could really get out of it I used Remotion and Claude Code 4.5, but contrary to what everyone was claiming, this video was not "just a prompt". It was fully vibe coded, but it required much more than a prompt. It was multiple days worth of work Here's what I learned: - Making vibe coded videos with Remotion is ~10-20x slower than building app code. I've been wasting my Claude limits on this video - Everything takes a lot of manual work and reprompting. You often need to go frame by frame correcting tiny things - It makes very silly mistakes - Even Opus 4.5 has very very limited knowledge of spatial / visual things. It doesn't understand well z-indexes, layers, compositions, proportions, temporal coherence, etc. Claude Code feels extremely dumb when creating code for Remotion videos, which surprised me a lot, beacuse I had been mind blown by how incredibly well it worked with my Ruby on Rails SaaS codebases - You need to have some design knowledge to adjust things manually, you need to ask for exactly what you want, in the technical jargon it expects. You can't just say "make this more beautiful" or "animate this better" because it just creates slop - Right now vibe coded videos are promising, but I think I could have done this video faster just by doing it manually in After Effects. It really took that much work - If you have a creative idea for something you want to animate, it takes multiple hours of back and forth prompting to create just one or two seconds worth of **good** animation - Tip: PARAMETERIZE everything! It tends to hardcode magic numbers everywhere in the code, so if you change something earlier in the video timeline, everything else breaks. You want to essentially be creating "key frames" with code by telling it to parameterize every frame where something important happens, and calculate the rest of the keyframes based off that. This comes in handy when you need, for example, to adjust keyframes to match the music So in summary: vibe coded videos are promising, but right now it only works for very stock-looking videos unless you put in a ton of effort Maybe actually useful for 1-2 second web animations though, I'll try that next It will obviously get better, this feels like the quality of code generation in 2023-2024, you need to hold its hand and correct it at every step along the way. But even if video code generation was better, you would still need someone with motion design knowledge to at least set the creative direction, lay out the overall script and composition, etc. It's not completely hands-off unless you want slop And a word on caution: especially here on X, there's 90% hype and 10% reality, nothing is what it seems. Do not believe what you see online, people are constantly baiting and then just laughing it off in the comments
0:28

I made this product launch video over the weekend with just prompts It's all vibe coded There's something you should know, though: Like everyone else, a few days ago my timeline started getting full of videos like this when Remotion launched their Claude skill, so I decided to give it a go I was captivated by all the examples, so I started like everyone was saying: "just write a prompt" I typed the prompt, and it created an extremely bland, untasteful, stock-looking video 10 prompts in and it was not getting better. It was very, very bland. But at least it was something, so I kept going at it I ended up spending my entire weekend on this, 2-3 days of work. Only to realize my original reference videos that inspired me to get started were all fake Everyone was outright lying about their results. They all claimed "I made this with just one prompt", but it was just bait, they didn't really use Remotion or code at all, it was just a normal, human-made motion video Then you expand the X post and read the replies and they're all like "haha joke" in the comments, but their main post already got 1.5 million views and bamboozled everyone who didn't read further And this is a problem: when a viral trend happens, these posts flood your timeline, and you only realize that they're all noise and bait (and that they haven't even used the tools they claim) when you click through the post and read its comments. But 90% of people (like me, initially) just see the post on their timeline while scrolling, and assume it's all real. You don't go in to check every single post you see: you just like it, or save it for later, and carry on with your day, thinking what you saw was the real thing, and that it's all outstanding results, and that motion designers are really done And it's so anxiety inducing, because everyone is hyping their results, but most of it is just not true. I have stopped reading X lately because going in makes me so anxious, everyone is claiming extraordinary outlier results just for the views and clicks, and you feel like you're lagging behind and you're not good enough because you don't get those results So for this video I decided to actually take the tech out for a spin, and see what results I could really get out of it I used Remotion and Claude Code 4.5, but contrary to what everyone was claiming, this video was not "just a prompt". It was fully vibe coded, but it required much more than a prompt. It was multiple days worth of work Here's what I learned: - Making vibe coded videos with Remotion is ~10-20x slower than building app code. I've been wasting my Claude limits on this video - Everything takes a lot of manual work and reprompting. You often need to go frame by frame correcting tiny things - It makes very silly mistakes - Even Opus 4.5 has very very limited knowledge of spatial / visual things. It doesn't understand well z-indexes, layers, compositions, proportions, temporal coherence, etc. Claude Code feels extremely dumb when creating code for Remotion videos, which surprised me a lot, beacuse I had been mind blown by how incredibly well it worked with my Ruby on Rails SaaS codebases - You need to have some design knowledge to adjust things manually, you need to ask for exactly what you want, in the technical jargon it expects. You can't just say "make this more beautiful" or "animate this better" because it just creates slop - Right now vibe coded videos are promising, but I think I could have done this video faster just by doing it manually in After Effects. It really took that much work - If you have a creative idea for something you want to animate, it takes multiple hours of back and forth prompting to create just one or two seconds worth of **good** animation - Tip: PARAMETERIZE everything! It tends to hardcode magic numbers everywhere in the code, so if you change something earlier in the video timeline, everything else breaks. You want to essentially be creating "key frames" with code by telling it to parameterize every frame where something important happens, and calculate the rest of the keyframes based off that. This comes in handy when you need, for example, to adjust keyframes to match the music So in summary: vibe coded videos are promising, but right now it only works for very stock-looking videos unless you put in a ton of effort Maybe actually useful for 1-2 second web animations though, I'll try that next It will obviously get better, this feels like the quality of code generation in 2023-2024, you need to hold its hand and correct it at every step along the way. But even if video code generation was better, you would still need someone with motion design knowledge to at least set the creative direction, lay out the overall script and composition, etc. It's not completely hands-off unless you want slop And a word on caution: especially here on X, there's 90% hype and 10% reality, nothing is what it seems. Do not believe what you see online, people are constantly baiting and then just laughing it off in the comments

Javi

312,375 views • 6 months ago

CNN shows off their new-found respect for now-anti-Trump MTG and they give her a platform for her to call on Trump's cabinet to remove him from office via the 25th Amendment. She claims Trump was going to use nukes on Iran for before J.D. Vance stepped in: WOLF BLITZER: Congresswoman, thanks so much for joining us. I know you recently called for the president to be removed from office under the 25th Amendment to the Constitution after that threat that he made about destroying the whole civilization of Iran. The President has a long history of shocking and unprecedented social media posts. Why was this the final straw for you? MARJORIE TAYLOR GREENE (R-GA): Because it's absolute madness. How can any person that is mentally stable call for an entire civilization of people to be murdered, to be wiped out, to never come back again? That's what the president called for. And that that shows that there's serious instability in his thinking, that he would not only would he even say that in a private room, perhaps with his advisors, but actually go to his megaphone, his Truth Social, and post that for the entire country and the entire world. And I'm - this is - it's it's unreal. This should never be tolerated. Um, I know that's a, it's a very difficult, hard stretch to - to see it actually coming through, but the conversation needs to be had and he's out of control. And people within the administration need to step up, take responsibility and rein this in. PAMELA BROWN: And administration officials, as we've heard, have said that he was ready to follow through with this threat. Just hours after he made it, he announced this two week cease fire. That's still very tenuous at the moment. The White House is claiming it was the President's tough rhetoric that brought Iran to its knees. What do you say to that? GREENE: I'm sorry. That's not - that's not tough rhetoric. It's it's insanity. It's calling for the murder of an entire civation [sic] of men, women, children of - of innocent civilians. That's not - that is not what I would call proper or even decent - um, negotiations. There should be negotiations happening. And they did happen. And J.D. Vance, the vice president, was the one that helped bring that cease fire. It doesn't seem to be much of a cease fire, but it is supposedly a cease fire. And that happened through negotiations through J.D. Vance. And J.D. Vance did not go to his social media and threaten to murder every single man, woman and child in Iran. Presumably, we can only presume that that would happen through nuclear bombs, because that's the type of horrific weaponry that would be used to wipe out an entire civilization. So no, I pushed back on that. And I think the American people fully agree. Everyone was out raged. BLITZER: I just want to be clear, congresswoman, do you genuinely believe President Trump had the intention of killing Iran's entire population of more than 90 million people? If Iran had not agreed to a cease fire? Is the U.S. military, for example, even capable of that? GREENE: I don't think that our good men and women in the U.S. military would want to even carry something like that out. That's that's the other thing. Um, and I think that's important to point out. We have, we, our men and women in the military are the greatest among us. They're serving our country, defending our freedoms. And I'm so grateful to them and I support them so much. But we should never have a commander-in-chief that would call for for the great men and women of the United States military to wipe out an entire civation [sic] -civilization and put that on their shoulders. And, you know, we've already got so many veterans that live with PTSD every single day in America - um, that that can't sleep at night with terrible nightmares of, of the wars that they fought in, in foreign lands, foreign wars, and foreign lands - um, not for America, for foreign countries, and foreign purposes. And this is what the president was talking about. So I can only take him at his word because those are the words that he spoke to the entire world. (...)
4:12

CNN shows off their new-found respect for now-anti-Trump MTG and they give her a platform for her to call on Trump's cabinet to remove him from office via the 25th Amendment. She claims Trump was going to use nukes on Iran for before J.D. Vance stepped in: WOLF BLITZER: Congresswoman, thanks so much for joining us. I know you recently called for the president to be removed from office under the 25th Amendment to the Constitution after that threat that he made about destroying the whole civilization of Iran. The President has a long history of shocking and unprecedented social media posts. Why was this the final straw for you? MARJORIE TAYLOR GREENE (R-GA): Because it's absolute madness. How can any person that is mentally stable call for an entire civilization of people to be murdered, to be wiped out, to never come back again? That's what the president called for. And that that shows that there's serious instability in his thinking, that he would not only would he even say that in a private room, perhaps with his advisors, but actually go to his megaphone, his Truth Social, and post that for the entire country and the entire world. And I'm - this is - it's it's unreal. This should never be tolerated. Um, I know that's a, it's a very difficult, hard stretch to - to see it actually coming through, but the conversation needs to be had and he's out of control. And people within the administration need to step up, take responsibility and rein this in. PAMELA BROWN: And administration officials, as we've heard, have said that he was ready to follow through with this threat. Just hours after he made it, he announced this two week cease fire. That's still very tenuous at the moment. The White House is claiming it was the President's tough rhetoric that brought Iran to its knees. What do you say to that? GREENE: I'm sorry. That's not - that's not tough rhetoric. It's it's insanity. It's calling for the murder of an entire civation [sic] of men, women, children of - of innocent civilians. That's not - that is not what I would call proper or even decent - um, negotiations. There should be negotiations happening. And they did happen. And J.D. Vance, the vice president, was the one that helped bring that cease fire. It doesn't seem to be much of a cease fire, but it is supposedly a cease fire. And that happened through negotiations through J.D. Vance. And J.D. Vance did not go to his social media and threaten to murder every single man, woman and child in Iran. Presumably, we can only presume that that would happen through nuclear bombs, because that's the type of horrific weaponry that would be used to wipe out an entire civilization. So no, I pushed back on that. And I think the American people fully agree. Everyone was out raged. BLITZER: I just want to be clear, congresswoman, do you genuinely believe President Trump had the intention of killing Iran's entire population of more than 90 million people? If Iran had not agreed to a cease fire? Is the U.S. military, for example, even capable of that? GREENE: I don't think that our good men and women in the U.S. military would want to even carry something like that out. That's that's the other thing. Um, and I think that's important to point out. We have, we, our men and women in the military are the greatest among us. They're serving our country, defending our freedoms. And I'm so grateful to them and I support them so much. But we should never have a commander-in-chief that would call for for the great men and women of the United States military to wipe out an entire civation [sic] -civilization and put that on their shoulders. And, you know, we've already got so many veterans that live with PTSD every single day in America - um, that that can't sleep at night with terrible nightmares of, of the wars that they fought in, in foreign lands, foreign wars, and foreign lands - um, not for America, for foreign countries, and foreign purposes. And this is what the president was talking about. So I can only take him at his word because those are the words that he spoke to the entire world. (...)

Nicholas Fondacaro

11,267 views • 4 months ago

AIPAC is a lobby. It's not the wealthiest. It's not the most influential. It is the one that draws the most attention and you know, that's got a little bit, tiny, forgive me, a tiny bit to do with prejudice. And there's a lot less concern about actual foreign lobbies. Every single dollar AIPAC has ever raised is American Every single member of AIPAC is American. Nobody has the concern about the Qatari lobby and the Saudi lobby and the Chinese lobby in America, which is wealthier and spends more in America than this lobby of Americans saying something that they believe in. A few arguments are made against AIPAC. One argument is that AIPAC always supports the Israeli position. That is not true. AIPAC always supports its membership's position. And here's the problem. Its membership deeply disagrees on Israeli politics. Incidentally, the last time AIPAC criticized the Israeli government was blunt and fierce, and it was about Netanyahu letting Ben-Gvir into the coalition because Ben-Gvir is a racist. And you know why AIPAC could come out with a literal statement coming out against Ben-Gvir entering the government? Because almost the entirety of its membership was horrified. And then AIPAC could speak. Every dollar in Obama's $4 billion, $3.8 billion a year that he gives to Israel has to be spent in the United States. 100% of it. And you know who advocated for increasing the amount that has to be spent back in America to make sure it's an American thing? AIPAC. Iron Dome. AIPAC campaigned for America to help support the building of the Iron Dome technology. And AIPAC itself advocated that, in the actual contract where the Americans send over the money and the Israelis build this technology no American organization knew how to build, that in exchange for the money, America co-owns Iron Dome. Qatar has massive influence campaigns in America, spends hundreds of millions of dollars on lobbying in America, the Attorney General of the United States today was a literal registered lobbyist for Qatar. Nobody makes this campaign, "How dare you accept money from PACs that support the relationship between the Arab world or the Muslim world in America." But it's much deeper than that. Because AIPAC was born in a moment of American Jewish shame. In World War II, American Jews sat silent. By 1943, everybody already knew what was happening. And 400 rabbis—religious rabbis, dressed up in all the getup from Eastern Europe, many of them Yiddish-speaking with bad English, refugee rabbis—came to Washington to meet President Roosevelt and to beg him to do something. And Roosevelt snuck out of the back door of the White House to avoid the meeting. And they went home, horrified, having not even been able to meet the president while Jews are being burned in the gas chambers. And there was a Jewish journalist who accompanied them. That moment was seared into his consciousness. AIPAC was founded by a generation of Jews that said, we will never be silent when other Jews are herded into a gas chamber. And that's treason? The three times that AIPAC literally frontally faced down an American president in Washington? It lost. It is influential because the Pentagon sees handing money to the Israelis in exchange for a technology nobody thought was possible as a workaround of a bloated and unmoving and immovable American defense industry. When AIPAC pushes that, it always, always takes care of the American interest because it's a bunch of Americans. And the demonizing of that is just pure prejudice and bigotry. And AIPAC, by the way, is not going anywhere. Because the very people coming for the Jews are also driving Jews to AIPAC. It's a little bit like Zionism. -- via Haviv Rettig Gur
2:59

AIPAC is a lobby. It's not the wealthiest. It's not the most influential. It is the one that draws the most attention and you know, that's got a little bit, tiny, forgive me, a tiny bit to do with prejudice. And there's a lot less concern about actual foreign lobbies. Every single dollar AIPAC has ever raised is American Every single member of AIPAC is American. Nobody has the concern about the Qatari lobby and the Saudi lobby and the Chinese lobby in America, which is wealthier and spends more in America than this lobby of Americans saying something that they believe in. A few arguments are made against AIPAC. One argument is that AIPAC always supports the Israeli position. That is not true. AIPAC always supports its membership's position. And here's the problem. Its membership deeply disagrees on Israeli politics. Incidentally, the last time AIPAC criticized the Israeli government was blunt and fierce, and it was about Netanyahu letting Ben-Gvir into the coalition because Ben-Gvir is a racist. And you know why AIPAC could come out with a literal statement coming out against Ben-Gvir entering the government? Because almost the entirety of its membership was horrified. And then AIPAC could speak. Every dollar in Obama's $4 billion, $3.8 billion a year that he gives to Israel has to be spent in the United States. 100% of it. And you know who advocated for increasing the amount that has to be spent back in America to make sure it's an American thing? AIPAC. Iron Dome. AIPAC campaigned for America to help support the building of the Iron Dome technology. And AIPAC itself advocated that, in the actual contract where the Americans send over the money and the Israelis build this technology no American organization knew how to build, that in exchange for the money, America co-owns Iron Dome. Qatar has massive influence campaigns in America, spends hundreds of millions of dollars on lobbying in America, the Attorney General of the United States today was a literal registered lobbyist for Qatar. Nobody makes this campaign, "How dare you accept money from PACs that support the relationship between the Arab world or the Muslim world in America." But it's much deeper than that. Because AIPAC was born in a moment of American Jewish shame. In World War II, American Jews sat silent. By 1943, everybody already knew what was happening. And 400 rabbis—religious rabbis, dressed up in all the getup from Eastern Europe, many of them Yiddish-speaking with bad English, refugee rabbis—came to Washington to meet President Roosevelt and to beg him to do something. And Roosevelt snuck out of the back door of the White House to avoid the meeting. And they went home, horrified, having not even been able to meet the president while Jews are being burned in the gas chambers. And there was a Jewish journalist who accompanied them. That moment was seared into his consciousness. AIPAC was founded by a generation of Jews that said, we will never be silent when other Jews are herded into a gas chamber. And that's treason? The three times that AIPAC literally frontally faced down an American president in Washington? It lost. It is influential because the Pentagon sees handing money to the Israelis in exchange for a technology nobody thought was possible as a workaround of a bloated and unmoving and immovable American defense industry. When AIPAC pushes that, it always, always takes care of the American interest because it's a bunch of Americans. And the demonizing of that is just pure prejudice and bigotry. And AIPAC, by the way, is not going anywhere. Because the very people coming for the Jews are also driving Jews to AIPAC. It's a little bit like Zionism. -- via Haviv Rettig Gur

Max 📟

37,674 views • 10 months ago

Haviv Retting Gur talk about AIPAC: AIPAC is a lobby. It's not the wealthiest. It's not the most influential. It is the one that draws the most attention and you know, that's got a little bit, tiny, forgive me, a tiny bit to do with prejudice. And there's a lot less concern about actual foreign lobbies. Every single dollar AIPAC has ever raised is American Every single member of AIPAC is American. Nobody has the concern about the Qatari lobby and the Saudi lobby and the Chinese lobby in America, which is wealthier and spends more in America than this lobby of Americans saying something that they believe in. A few arguments are made against AIPAC. One argument is that AIPAC always supports the Israeli position. That is not true. AIPAC always supports its membership's position. And here's the problem. Its membership deeply disagrees on Israeli politics. Incidentally, the last time AIPAC criticized the Israeli government was blunt and fierce, and it was about Netanyahu letting Ben-Gvir into the coalition because Ben-Gvir is a racist. And you know why AIPAC could come out with a literal statement coming out against Ben-Gvir entering the government? Because almost the entirety of its membership was horrified. And then AIPAC could speak. Every dollar in Obama's $4 billion, $3.8 billion a year that he gives to Israel has to be spent in the United States. 100% of it. And you know who advocated for increasing the amount that has to be spent back in America to make sure it's an American thing? AIPAC. Iron Dome. AIPAC campaigned for America to help support the building of the Iron Dome technology. And AIPAC itself advocated that, in the actual contract where the Americans send over the money and the Israelis build this technology no American organization knew how to build, that in exchange for the money, America co-owns Iron Dome. Qatar has massive influence campaigns in America, spends hundreds of millions of dollars on lobbying in America, the Attorney General of the United States today was a literal registered lobbyist for Qatar. Nobody makes this campaign, "How dare you accept money from PACs that support the relationship between the Arab world or the Muslim world in America." But it's much deeper than that. Because AIPAC was born in a moment of American Jewish shame. In World War II, American Jews sat silent. By 1943, everybody already knew what was happening. And 400 rabbis—religious rabbis, dressed up in all the getup from Eastern Europe, many of them Yiddish-speaking with bad English, refugee rabbis—came to Washington to meet President Roosevelt and to beg him to do something. And Roosevelt snuck out of the back door of the White House to avoid the meeting. And they went home, horrified, having not even been able to meet the president while Jews are being burned in the gas chambers. And there was a Jewish journalist who accompanied them. That moment was seared into his consciousness. AIPAC was founded by a generation of Jews that said, we will never be silent when other Jews are herded into a gas chamber. And that's treason? The three times that AIPAC literally frontally faced down an American president in Washington? It lost. It is influential because the Pentagon sees handing money to the Israelis in exchange for a technology nobody thought was possible as a workaround of a bloated and unmoving and immovable American defense industry. When AIPAC pushes that, it always, always takes care of the American interest because it's a bunch of Americans. And the demonizing of that is just pure prejudice and bigotry. And AIPAC, by the way, is not going anywhere. Because the very people coming for the Jews are also driving Jews to AIPAC. It's a little bit like Zionism.
2:59

Haviv Retting Gur talk about AIPAC: AIPAC is a lobby. It's not the wealthiest. It's not the most influential. It is the one that draws the most attention and you know, that's got a little bit, tiny, forgive me, a tiny bit to do with prejudice. And there's a lot less concern about actual foreign lobbies. Every single dollar AIPAC has ever raised is American Every single member of AIPAC is American. Nobody has the concern about the Qatari lobby and the Saudi lobby and the Chinese lobby in America, which is wealthier and spends more in America than this lobby of Americans saying something that they believe in. A few arguments are made against AIPAC. One argument is that AIPAC always supports the Israeli position. That is not true. AIPAC always supports its membership's position. And here's the problem. Its membership deeply disagrees on Israeli politics. Incidentally, the last time AIPAC criticized the Israeli government was blunt and fierce, and it was about Netanyahu letting Ben-Gvir into the coalition because Ben-Gvir is a racist. And you know why AIPAC could come out with a literal statement coming out against Ben-Gvir entering the government? Because almost the entirety of its membership was horrified. And then AIPAC could speak. Every dollar in Obama's $4 billion, $3.8 billion a year that he gives to Israel has to be spent in the United States. 100% of it. And you know who advocated for increasing the amount that has to be spent back in America to make sure it's an American thing? AIPAC. Iron Dome. AIPAC campaigned for America to help support the building of the Iron Dome technology. And AIPAC itself advocated that, in the actual contract where the Americans send over the money and the Israelis build this technology no American organization knew how to build, that in exchange for the money, America co-owns Iron Dome. Qatar has massive influence campaigns in America, spends hundreds of millions of dollars on lobbying in America, the Attorney General of the United States today was a literal registered lobbyist for Qatar. Nobody makes this campaign, "How dare you accept money from PACs that support the relationship between the Arab world or the Muslim world in America." But it's much deeper than that. Because AIPAC was born in a moment of American Jewish shame. In World War II, American Jews sat silent. By 1943, everybody already knew what was happening. And 400 rabbis—religious rabbis, dressed up in all the getup from Eastern Europe, many of them Yiddish-speaking with bad English, refugee rabbis—came to Washington to meet President Roosevelt and to beg him to do something. And Roosevelt snuck out of the back door of the White House to avoid the meeting. And they went home, horrified, having not even been able to meet the president while Jews are being burned in the gas chambers. And there was a Jewish journalist who accompanied them. That moment was seared into his consciousness. AIPAC was founded by a generation of Jews that said, we will never be silent when other Jews are herded into a gas chamber. And that's treason? The three times that AIPAC literally frontally faced down an American president in Washington? It lost. It is influential because the Pentagon sees handing money to the Israelis in exchange for a technology nobody thought was possible as a workaround of a bloated and unmoving and immovable American defense industry. When AIPAC pushes that, it always, always takes care of the American interest because it's a bunch of Americans. And the demonizing of that is just pure prejudice and bigotry. And AIPAC, by the way, is not going anywhere. Because the very people coming for the Jews are also driving Jews to AIPAC. It's a little bit like Zionism.

Open Source Intel

27,219 views • 10 months ago

I know it's easy to discard gaming from the 80s, 90s, and even the early 2000s as nothing more than nostalgia viewed through rose-tinted glasses. One aspect that often gets overlooked in that debate is actually based on facts, not just overly sentimental nostalgia. Having a computer and wanting to get the most out of it - and sometimes even just to get it working at all - required you to be far more invested, curious, and hands-on, so maybe that's why anyone who experienced that era feels a stronger connection to it. You had to read up on things, learn, and tinker with both software and hardware. If you had a PC in the 80s or 90s, it wasn't a "one and done" purchase. There was constant upgrading: swapping out a crappy sound card for a better one, replacing a small/slow hard drive, installing a CD-ROM drive, doubling your RAM from 1 MB to 2 MB… the list went on and on. It meant installing and updating drivers so everything actually worked. It meant understanding compatibility issues - all without the internet in the early days - so you relied on magazines, manuals, and friends who had "been there, done that." And that was just the hardware side. Then came the software: getting drivers, configs, and setups tuned perfectly so you could squeeze every last bit of performance out of the machine. Some games simply wouldn't run unless you freed up those final kilobytes of conventional memory. There was even a whole industry built around "managing your PC" with tools like Norton Commander and countless others. These days, there is... No more fiddling with AUTOEXEC.BAT or CONFIG.SYS files. No fine-tuning HIMEM.SYS. No IRQ conflicts with your sound card. No more boot disks. Juggling hard drive space? Forget it - drives now come in terabytes, not megabytes. Dealing with a 5.25" floppy, a 3.5" floppy, and a CD-ROM drive all crammed into one case? What a drag. Saving up for that shiny new VGA card to replace your old EGA? Not a thing anymore. And yet, if you ask older gamers who lived through the 80s and 90s, most of us actually enjoyed customizing and troubleshooting our machines. It was part of the experience - part of the joy and excitement. Sure, it involved plenty of trial and error and frustrating "OMFG, why isn't this working?!" moments… but when it finally worked, the reward was so much sweeter. Finally freeing up those last couple of kilobytes of your 640K base memory? Glorious. Replacing that pathetic PC speaker with a real sound card? Pure ecstasy. To all you old-school gamers out there, I hope you experienced it the same way. I always felt that the need to tinker endlessly made the whole experience more rewarding. You were more connected to your machine and understood it on a deeper level. These days, you just click a button and the game downloads and installs itself. I have a modern PC, of course. It's been over 20 years since I last had to do any real tinkering. That's convenient, sure… but the magic and curiosity is gone.
1:34

I know it's easy to discard gaming from the 80s, 90s, and even the early 2000s as nothing more than nostalgia viewed through rose-tinted glasses. One aspect that often gets overlooked in that debate is actually based on facts, not just overly sentimental nostalgia. Having a computer and wanting to get the most out of it - and sometimes even just to get it working at all - required you to be far more invested, curious, and hands-on, so maybe that's why anyone who experienced that era feels a stronger connection to it. You had to read up on things, learn, and tinker with both software and hardware. If you had a PC in the 80s or 90s, it wasn't a "one and done" purchase. There was constant upgrading: swapping out a crappy sound card for a better one, replacing a small/slow hard drive, installing a CD-ROM drive, doubling your RAM from 1 MB to 2 MB… the list went on and on. It meant installing and updating drivers so everything actually worked. It meant understanding compatibility issues - all without the internet in the early days - so you relied on magazines, manuals, and friends who had "been there, done that." And that was just the hardware side. Then came the software: getting drivers, configs, and setups tuned perfectly so you could squeeze every last bit of performance out of the machine. Some games simply wouldn't run unless you freed up those final kilobytes of conventional memory. There was even a whole industry built around "managing your PC" with tools like Norton Commander and countless others. These days, there is... No more fiddling with AUTOEXEC.BAT or CONFIG.SYS files. No fine-tuning HIMEM.SYS. No IRQ conflicts with your sound card. No more boot disks. Juggling hard drive space? Forget it - drives now come in terabytes, not megabytes. Dealing with a 5.25" floppy, a 3.5" floppy, and a CD-ROM drive all crammed into one case? What a drag. Saving up for that shiny new VGA card to replace your old EGA? Not a thing anymore. And yet, if you ask older gamers who lived through the 80s and 90s, most of us actually enjoyed customizing and troubleshooting our machines. It was part of the experience - part of the joy and excitement. Sure, it involved plenty of trial and error and frustrating "OMFG, why isn't this working?!" moments… but when it finally worked, the reward was so much sweeter. Finally freeing up those last couple of kilobytes of your 640K base memory? Glorious. Replacing that pathetic PC speaker with a real sound card? Pure ecstasy. To all you old-school gamers out there, I hope you experienced it the same way. I always felt that the need to tinker endlessly made the whole experience more rewarding. You were more connected to your machine and understood it on a deeper level. These days, you just click a button and the game downloads and installs itself. I have a modern PC, of course. It's been over 20 years since I last had to do any real tinkering. That's convenient, sure… but the magic and curiosity is gone.

exQUIZitely 🕹️

34,686 views • 3 months ago

I've received a lot of DMs asking about beef pricing and I'm putting the explanation here so I can reference the post in future responses: Why rancher-finished beef costs $6 a pound hanging weight when you can buy cheaper elsewhere. (Hanging weight is 70-75% of take home weight, putting final cost between $10-$11 take home weight per lb.) It's a fair question especially from those who haven't been around cattle or ranching. The answer comes down to what "finished" means and how the animal got there. Finishing is the last stretch of a beef animal's life, the final four to six months, when it puts on the fat that gives beef its marbling, tenderness, and flavor. An unfinished animal is leaner, tougher, and blander. Some folks sell cattle that never went through a real finishing phase; less time and less feed, and you can taste it the first time you cook a steak. It takes like deer meat (to me anyway). Our cattle finish on open pasture with free-choice feed available whenever they want it. They graze grass, supplement themselves at the feeder, and take the time they need. They have fresh water, shade, room to roam, and frolic. No growth hormone implants and no confinement or restricted movement. Our finishing steers on a cool morning will run, buck, and play right up to harvest weight. An animal finished this way typically takes 24 to 30 months from birth to harvest, and it lives well the whole way. Grocery store beef comes out of feedlots where thousands of head stand in manure filled dirt pens, no grass, no shade, eating a formulated high-grain ration, with hormone implants boosting weight gain 10 to 20 percent. All is designed to get to slaughter weight faster and cheaper. A feedlot animal is often done at 14 to 18 months. They rarely move, and that's intentional. By the end, they can at most barely waddle from the feed bunk to the water tank. That kind of scale is exactly how the price gets driven down, and it comes at a cost the label doesn't show. Cheap beef requires crowding, confinement, and treating animals as production units, "Quality" is whatever survives the process. Then it all gets pooled. The beef in the grocery case is blended from countless animals, often including imported beef from overseas. Nobody can tell you what ranch it came from, because it is a mix of beef from across the globe. It's why one beef recall affects hundreds of thousands of people-- nobody knows what cow the diseased meat came from or what it was mixed with. The $6 a pound at our place goes to raising the animal, meaning two-plus years of grass, hay, and feed for one animal rather than 14 months of commodity ration split across ten thousand head. It covers land, water, and vet care, with no implants doing part of the work for free. Processing runs another $1.05 a pound hanging weight, paid to a small family run processor that cares and hangs and ages your beef for two to three weeks instead of rushing it from kill floor to cryovac. Nobody's getting rich at $6: we turn a modest profit only because we own the land. A rancher paying to lease or buy ground doesn't break even at $6 a pound hanging. That's the real cost of raising beef right at small scale, and it's why the price can't go lower without changing how the animal is raised. When you buy from a ranch, you're paying what the beef actually costs to produce, not what an industrial system can squeeze it down to. Cheaper beef is cheaper because somebody cut corners. Around here, nobody does. All life costs life and to believe otherwise disrespects that which sustains us. Our philosophy is to respect every animal that sustains us and our customers, giving each the best life possible. That is the real cost of doing business this way, and it's worth it.
0:45

I've received a lot of DMs asking about beef pricing and I'm putting the explanation here so I can reference the post in future responses: Why rancher-finished beef costs $6 a pound hanging weight when you can buy cheaper elsewhere. (Hanging weight is 70-75% of take home weight, putting final cost between $10-$11 take home weight per lb.) It's a fair question especially from those who haven't been around cattle or ranching. The answer comes down to what "finished" means and how the animal got there. Finishing is the last stretch of a beef animal's life, the final four to six months, when it puts on the fat that gives beef its marbling, tenderness, and flavor. An unfinished animal is leaner, tougher, and blander. Some folks sell cattle that never went through a real finishing phase; less time and less feed, and you can taste it the first time you cook a steak. It takes like deer meat (to me anyway). Our cattle finish on open pasture with free-choice feed available whenever they want it. They graze grass, supplement themselves at the feeder, and take the time they need. They have fresh water, shade, room to roam, and frolic. No growth hormone implants and no confinement or restricted movement. Our finishing steers on a cool morning will run, buck, and play right up to harvest weight. An animal finished this way typically takes 24 to 30 months from birth to harvest, and it lives well the whole way. Grocery store beef comes out of feedlots where thousands of head stand in manure filled dirt pens, no grass, no shade, eating a formulated high-grain ration, with hormone implants boosting weight gain 10 to 20 percent. All is designed to get to slaughter weight faster and cheaper. A feedlot animal is often done at 14 to 18 months. They rarely move, and that's intentional. By the end, they can at most barely waddle from the feed bunk to the water tank. That kind of scale is exactly how the price gets driven down, and it comes at a cost the label doesn't show. Cheap beef requires crowding, confinement, and treating animals as production units, "Quality" is whatever survives the process. Then it all gets pooled. The beef in the grocery case is blended from countless animals, often including imported beef from overseas. Nobody can tell you what ranch it came from, because it is a mix of beef from across the globe. It's why one beef recall affects hundreds of thousands of people-- nobody knows what cow the diseased meat came from or what it was mixed with. The $6 a pound at our place goes to raising the animal, meaning two-plus years of grass, hay, and feed for one animal rather than 14 months of commodity ration split across ten thousand head. It covers land, water, and vet care, with no implants doing part of the work for free. Processing runs another $1.05 a pound hanging weight, paid to a small family run processor that cares and hangs and ages your beef for two to three weeks instead of rushing it from kill floor to cryovac. Nobody's getting rich at $6: we turn a modest profit only because we own the land. A rancher paying to lease or buy ground doesn't break even at $6 a pound hanging. That's the real cost of raising beef right at small scale, and it's why the price can't go lower without changing how the animal is raised. When you buy from a ranch, you're paying what the beef actually costs to produce, not what an industrial system can squeeze it down to. Cheaper beef is cheaper because somebody cut corners. Around here, nobody does. All life costs life and to believe otherwise disrespects that which sustains us. Our philosophy is to respect every animal that sustains us and our customers, giving each the best life possible. That is the real cost of doing business this way, and it's worth it.

Okie_Rancher

100,815 views • 9 days ago

My theory: (Kinda long- bare with me) A normal person could never handle a real life of fame and all the demands made on that person. This is why when the real person reaches such high levels of fame (Britney, Justin, Selena, etc..), they crash out hard whether it's drugs or shaving their head, spitting on fans, whatever it may be, they go crazy. I believe this is when they are given the ultimatum and 28 years old is the cutoff. That's why so many die mysteriously and/or tragically at that age. They refused to sell their human vessel to keep their fame. Some are sacrificed much younger to more powerful entities (example: Aaliyah>>Beyonce) to steal their soul essence. Look into the eerie connections between Jay Z, Aaliyah and Beyonce. This is why celebrities randomly have black eyes. Conveniently after falling from grace where they soon make a comeback. This is why Justin's eyes were all twitchy and weird and they want you to think it was the covid jab. That was the psyop. Celebrities never got the jab because they know what it is. It was the vril. This is why so many celebrities drastically change from their younger selves beyond aging or plastic surgery. It's like their entire essence has changed. It's not really them anymore. The body is still there but the soul is dead and gone. In Selena's case, I think she was physically sacrificed to keep her and Justin's baby alive, Reign, which is the child of Kourtney Kardashian. Selena lost all her tattoos and had a massive change in essence. She has zero confidence, passion, charisma, sex appeal, or anything that she had before. The OG Selena would have never given that lavender clown Benny a second glance. This is why Justin married Hailey because the real Selena was never coming back. This is why his tattoo of her, she has angel wings. This is why she was in that movie where her baby was literally sacrificed in the movie because they have to tell us and show us. Revelation of the method. Then they blame Lupus or Lyme's for the insane, drastic changes. Look into how many celebs have those two ailments. There are no coincidences. Now look at Justin, he's made his comeback and emotionally captured millions of hearts with his Coachella performance. It's not really him. They are all sacrificed the moment the parasite takes over. They have shown us in movies with similar themes. - Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1978) - The Puppet Masters (1994) - The Faculty (1998) - Splinter (2008) Of course as always, this is all just my wild imagination for pure entertainment purposes. 😉
2:07

My theory: (Kinda long- bare with me) A normal person could never handle a real life of fame and all the demands made on that person. This is why when the real person reaches such high levels of fame (Britney, Justin, Selena, etc..), they crash out hard whether it's drugs or shaving their head, spitting on fans, whatever it may be, they go crazy. I believe this is when they are given the ultimatum and 28 years old is the cutoff. That's why so many die mysteriously and/or tragically at that age. They refused to sell their human vessel to keep their fame. Some are sacrificed much younger to more powerful entities (example: Aaliyah>>Beyonce) to steal their soul essence. Look into the eerie connections between Jay Z, Aaliyah and Beyonce. This is why celebrities randomly have black eyes. Conveniently after falling from grace where they soon make a comeback. This is why Justin's eyes were all twitchy and weird and they want you to think it was the covid jab. That was the psyop. Celebrities never got the jab because they know what it is. It was the vril. This is why so many celebrities drastically change from their younger selves beyond aging or plastic surgery. It's like their entire essence has changed. It's not really them anymore. The body is still there but the soul is dead and gone. In Selena's case, I think she was physically sacrificed to keep her and Justin's baby alive, Reign, which is the child of Kourtney Kardashian. Selena lost all her tattoos and had a massive change in essence. She has zero confidence, passion, charisma, sex appeal, or anything that she had before. The OG Selena would have never given that lavender clown Benny a second glance. This is why Justin married Hailey because the real Selena was never coming back. This is why his tattoo of her, she has angel wings. This is why she was in that movie where her baby was literally sacrificed in the movie because they have to tell us and show us. Revelation of the method. Then they blame Lupus or Lyme's for the insane, drastic changes. Look into how many celebs have those two ailments. There are no coincidences. Now look at Justin, he's made his comeback and emotionally captured millions of hearts with his Coachella performance. It's not really him. They are all sacrificed the moment the parasite takes over. They have shown us in movies with similar themes. - Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1978) - The Puppet Masters (1994) - The Faculty (1998) - Splinter (2008) Of course as always, this is all just my wild imagination for pure entertainment purposes. 😉

𝒦𝑒𝓁𝓁𝓎࿎☽

58,193 views • 4 months ago

The question of whether Polymarket will ban bots is not what you should be thinking about. The right question is how one Python bot manages to make $736K a week. I'm talking about the wallet SeriouslySirius. Its stats look like a glitch in the matrix 400K% ROI and over $3.8M in net profit. His profile: Here's how it works. There's no magic or gut feeling for picking winners. It's pure math and algorithms. The secret behind the strategy: It doesn't guess outcomes. The bot doesn't try to figure out who will win. It trades price differences. Only liquid markets. NFL and NBA. Huge volumes there so you can enter a $500K position without crashing the market instantly. Vegas as the benchmark. The bot is tied to Vegas bookmaker lines not to crowd emotions on Polymarket. Catching lag. This is the real juice. When a Vegas line moves by 0.5 to 1 point Polymarket lags for a few minutes. The bot sees this movement before everyone else and jumps into the trade while the platform price hasn't caught up yet. This gives 3 to 8 cents of guaranteed profit per dollar. Buying underdogs. If the crowd overvalues the favorite the bot buys the underdog below 50 cents and just waits for the market to correct the price. Will it get banned? Probably not. The bot doesn't break the system it makes it more efficient by adding liquidity. Essentially this is not a gambler but a high frequency hedge fund operating on sports events. This is an example of how Python code and understanding market mechanics beats any expert analysis. Copying this manually is almost impossible because you simply can't keep up with the robot in those 2 to 3 minutes when the opportunity window opens. But the logic itself of looking for price mismatches relative to Vegas is a solid approach. Tracking wallets that repeat this execution pattern is easier with PolyCop
0:31

The question of whether Polymarket will ban bots is not what you should be thinking about. The right question is how one Python bot manages to make $736K a week. I'm talking about the wallet SeriouslySirius. Its stats look like a glitch in the matrix 400K% ROI and over $3.8M in net profit. His profile: Here's how it works. There's no magic or gut feeling for picking winners. It's pure math and algorithms. The secret behind the strategy: It doesn't guess outcomes. The bot doesn't try to figure out who will win. It trades price differences. Only liquid markets. NFL and NBA. Huge volumes there so you can enter a $500K position without crashing the market instantly. Vegas as the benchmark. The bot is tied to Vegas bookmaker lines not to crowd emotions on Polymarket. Catching lag. This is the real juice. When a Vegas line moves by 0.5 to 1 point Polymarket lags for a few minutes. The bot sees this movement before everyone else and jumps into the trade while the platform price hasn't caught up yet. This gives 3 to 8 cents of guaranteed profit per dollar. Buying underdogs. If the crowd overvalues the favorite the bot buys the underdog below 50 cents and just waits for the market to correct the price. Will it get banned? Probably not. The bot doesn't break the system it makes it more efficient by adding liquidity. Essentially this is not a gambler but a high frequency hedge fund operating on sports events. This is an example of how Python code and understanding market mechanics beats any expert analysis. Copying this manually is almost impossible because you simply can't keep up with the robot in those 2 to 3 minutes when the opportunity window opens. But the logic itself of looking for price mismatches relative to Vegas is a solid approach. Tracking wallets that repeat this execution pattern is easier with PolyCop

Blaze

26,369 views • 7 months ago

This video is propaganda. It functioned to keep Sargon in beer money, and the population of the UK in denial about race. Like all good lies, it contains elements of truth, of which Sargon supplies massive helpings - far more than most propagandists ever dare - but it's effective... The first two minutes and 32 seconds are all true, by which time your brain trusts him, and you see him as being on your side as a White native Englishman. Of course right from the start he picks the easiest of targets (put a box of cornflakes next to a Guardian journalist and it will look like a patriot). And then (at 2:33) you get: "...but luckily for everyone else, being English is not just about being a race...". He continues: "...it's a particular way of viewing the world much as anything else", "...saying that I as an individual matter; every human matters". Of course Carl is not in any way wrong to identify and celebrate various English cultural artefacts as English, nor is he wrong to identify them as cultural, but the trick being done is to cut away their moorings from the DNA of the people who created them. You don't see him doing it, but he's in the water, scuba-diving down with a knife between his teeth, towards the tethers... ...And sure enough, at 5:19, in a mocking sneering smug tone: "But anyway Maya, let's get back to 'racial politics'. Let's not talk about values or ideas or ideals, or things that actually make the world a better place: let's get back to your fucking racial politics" (building to an angry exasperated tone). And suddenly there we are. 😐 The culture in which we were all being encouraged to take pride and admire now floats entirely free of its genetic substrate. Racial politics is bad, and associated in your brain with Guardian journalists. This - our - culture which the bodies and brains of our ancestors built, is now some sort of magic pink sparkly cloud hovering just above the ground, into which Indians and Africans can walk serenely and thereby be sort of transformed into us, nearly, just so long as it's done at a slow responsible pace. At 5:54 Sargon continues his imaginary conversation with Maya of The Guardian, adopting a super-confident and mildly exasperated lecturing tone (his favourite mode of address, obviously), and says: "But Maya, immigrants are not just a race; there are many hundreds of thousands of immigrants from France, and if you go to London, to an area which is predominantly populated by French people, it would not be sensible to say 'well this is an English area of London', is it, and yet that's nothing to do with their race, because they, like you will obviously point out, are White...". Well hang on Carl, yes, they are all White, and so maybe the thing making it (as you say) "not-sensible" to say they should not be in London doesn't become non-racial. Looks like you just talked yourself there in an illogical way. They are all White. Maybe this matters. Perhaps if we instead consider the prospect of adding the same number (many hundreds of thousands) of subsaharan Africans to London rather than Frenchmen, now it would be very sensible indeed to say they should not be there, whence the sensible - racial - criterion is plain to see. A full essay on the evolution of human nature in geographically isolated regions and the neurodiversity which emerged from that is beyond the scope of this tweet, but suffice to say White culture is what you get from White people, and African culture is what you get from African people. Europeans are White, and the relative closeness among European countries and cultures (compared to subsaharan Africans) by most metrics you might care about is not a coincidence, since heritable biological traits actually exist and actually matter, and they are not distributed evenly between different racial groups (see Fst distance), ergo race matters. Carl is a master of tugging at heartstrings, talking about these "past generations of blacks" who "admired English culture", and "wanted to be like us" etc.. Yes, no doubt many such individuals existed. They were always exceptional though, and we know they were exceptional, because if they weren't then Africa today would basically be similar to Yorkshire, just with nicer weather. And the problem for Carl is that Africa is obviously not like that, nor does any population of blacks anywhere in the world behave as a group like Europeans. I don't care particularly about John Cleese or what he says or where he goes, so the rest of the video is not terribly interesting, but just note at 6:48 Carl talks in approving terms of how "a small number of immigrants is OK", but "an overwhelming flood is pushing that principle too far". The problem with that is the number of non-Whites already in Britain was crazy-high in 2019 when Carl made this video, and our children were already well on track to becoming minorities in British schools without adding a single immigrant, even back then. Horrible racial conflict has been rife across the capital at least since the 90s, and it would be delusional to see the 1981 Brixton riots as anything but racial, ...and all this, and every sort of demographic vandalism besides, has come to pass PURELY because people who had advocated for racial politics in the 60s and 70s were successfully demonised by the media, just as Carl is doing in this video. The obvious foolishness of large numbers is like the obvious danger of lots of gunpowder compared to a small amount of gunpowder. It's not like the conflict magically goes away when the numbers are small. You just get White people lying to themselves and pushing discomfort down into their subconsciousness, and non-Whites sometimes (but by no means always) playing the game at first till their numbers become large enough. Pakistanis understood that cultural attitudes to child rape were different in our country, and so they assimilated by successfully hiding their child rape for about 20 or 30 years. Some White people even helped with that assimilation. The parts of our culture that Carl claims to want to promote (rule of law, freedom to criticise Islam, mutual respect, etc) is stuff that exists DESPITE the non-White population in the UK. It IS racial. And like of course it's racial. We are our DNA. Our culture was made by people, ...who were made by DNA. You can not make White people feel good - proudly talking up White culture - and then in the next breath sneer down your nose at those engaging in racial politics. It's a nasty (and given that Carl is not stupid, I have to suspect cynical) trick, the effect of which is to encourage a White audience to continue entertaining a suicidal and delusional belief in a tabula rasa model of human nature. His defenders will say "oh this is an old video, he's changed now...", and I am sure he is delighted that you believe so. Show me any example of him back-tracking on a single word of that though. I'll wait. I am writing this because I see what's happening to our population, and frankly anyone who isn't willing to recognise the need for racial politics is not your friend in this battle. If Carl has changed, then now would be a really great time to make that clear and come out on the side of Racial Nationalism. Anything else is just muddying the waters and enabling the stigmatisation of actual patriots. Look at where the UK is, and where it is going. Look at the pictures of schools with literally a single White face sitting among a sea of blacks. It's fucking insane, and it's obviously a racial issue that requires racial politics. At least we're talking about a rational lawful non-violent approach to sorting out who should be allowed to claim Englishness. We're having a conversation. Steve Laws, for example, is not a terrorist: he is a brave patriot giving a voice to the native population of a land which wants to recover that land. In reality English people are basically lovely. We're softies. The rest of the world knows that though. If we start to get a serious program of remigration off the ground, yes the reduction in sheer numbers of racial aliens will be welcome in itself, but black families that didn't produce criminal rugrats, and haven't spent the past 40 years moaning about how racist the English are will probably find that White communities rally round them, put in a good word for them, and achieve a consensus about not deporting them. What needs to happen is a basic shift in the narrative, and in the psychology: the assumption and understanding should be that citizenship is genetic, and that any exception to that is a polite and kind gesture from our people, which we have the full moral and legal right to withhold if we feel that we're being treated as suckers. And that's what I have to say about that. ...And of course Happy New Year to everyone in Australia!!! 🥳🎉🪩 -A.Frog '25/'26 🐸👍🏻
20:47

This video is propaganda. It functioned to keep Sargon in beer money, and the population of the UK in denial about race. Like all good lies, it contains elements of truth, of which Sargon supplies massive helpings - far more than most propagandists ever dare - but it's effective... The first two minutes and 32 seconds are all true, by which time your brain trusts him, and you see him as being on your side as a White native Englishman. Of course right from the start he picks the easiest of targets (put a box of cornflakes next to a Guardian journalist and it will look like a patriot). And then (at 2:33) you get: "...but luckily for everyone else, being English is not just about being a race...". He continues: "...it's a particular way of viewing the world much as anything else", "...saying that I as an individual matter; every human matters". Of course Carl is not in any way wrong to identify and celebrate various English cultural artefacts as English, nor is he wrong to identify them as cultural, but the trick being done is to cut away their moorings from the DNA of the people who created them. You don't see him doing it, but he's in the water, scuba-diving down with a knife between his teeth, towards the tethers... ...And sure enough, at 5:19, in a mocking sneering smug tone: "But anyway Maya, let's get back to 'racial politics'. Let's not talk about values or ideas or ideals, or things that actually make the world a better place: let's get back to your fucking racial politics" (building to an angry exasperated tone). And suddenly there we are. 😐 The culture in which we were all being encouraged to take pride and admire now floats entirely free of its genetic substrate. Racial politics is bad, and associated in your brain with Guardian journalists. This - our - culture which the bodies and brains of our ancestors built, is now some sort of magic pink sparkly cloud hovering just above the ground, into which Indians and Africans can walk serenely and thereby be sort of transformed into us, nearly, just so long as it's done at a slow responsible pace. At 5:54 Sargon continues his imaginary conversation with Maya of The Guardian, adopting a super-confident and mildly exasperated lecturing tone (his favourite mode of address, obviously), and says: "But Maya, immigrants are not just a race; there are many hundreds of thousands of immigrants from France, and if you go to London, to an area which is predominantly populated by French people, it would not be sensible to say 'well this is an English area of London', is it, and yet that's nothing to do with their race, because they, like you will obviously point out, are White...". Well hang on Carl, yes, they are all White, and so maybe the thing making it (as you say) "not-sensible" to say they should not be in London doesn't become non-racial. Looks like you just talked yourself there in an illogical way. They are all White. Maybe this matters. Perhaps if we instead consider the prospect of adding the same number (many hundreds of thousands) of subsaharan Africans to London rather than Frenchmen, now it would be very sensible indeed to say they should not be there, whence the sensible - racial - criterion is plain to see. A full essay on the evolution of human nature in geographically isolated regions and the neurodiversity which emerged from that is beyond the scope of this tweet, but suffice to say White culture is what you get from White people, and African culture is what you get from African people. Europeans are White, and the relative closeness among European countries and cultures (compared to subsaharan Africans) by most metrics you might care about is not a coincidence, since heritable biological traits actually exist and actually matter, and they are not distributed evenly between different racial groups (see Fst distance), ergo race matters. Carl is a master of tugging at heartstrings, talking about these "past generations of blacks" who "admired English culture", and "wanted to be like us" etc.. Yes, no doubt many such individuals existed. They were always exceptional though, and we know they were exceptional, because if they weren't then Africa today would basically be similar to Yorkshire, just with nicer weather. And the problem for Carl is that Africa is obviously not like that, nor does any population of blacks anywhere in the world behave as a group like Europeans. I don't care particularly about John Cleese or what he says or where he goes, so the rest of the video is not terribly interesting, but just note at 6:48 Carl talks in approving terms of how "a small number of immigrants is OK", but "an overwhelming flood is pushing that principle too far". The problem with that is the number of non-Whites already in Britain was crazy-high in 2019 when Carl made this video, and our children were already well on track to becoming minorities in British schools without adding a single immigrant, even back then. Horrible racial conflict has been rife across the capital at least since the 90s, and it would be delusional to see the 1981 Brixton riots as anything but racial, ...and all this, and every sort of demographic vandalism besides, has come to pass PURELY because people who had advocated for racial politics in the 60s and 70s were successfully demonised by the media, just as Carl is doing in this video. The obvious foolishness of large numbers is like the obvious danger of lots of gunpowder compared to a small amount of gunpowder. It's not like the conflict magically goes away when the numbers are small. You just get White people lying to themselves and pushing discomfort down into their subconsciousness, and non-Whites sometimes (but by no means always) playing the game at first till their numbers become large enough. Pakistanis understood that cultural attitudes to child rape were different in our country, and so they assimilated by successfully hiding their child rape for about 20 or 30 years. Some White people even helped with that assimilation. The parts of our culture that Carl claims to want to promote (rule of law, freedom to criticise Islam, mutual respect, etc) is stuff that exists DESPITE the non-White population in the UK. It IS racial. And like of course it's racial. We are our DNA. Our culture was made by people, ...who were made by DNA. You can not make White people feel good - proudly talking up White culture - and then in the next breath sneer down your nose at those engaging in racial politics. It's a nasty (and given that Carl is not stupid, I have to suspect cynical) trick, the effect of which is to encourage a White audience to continue entertaining a suicidal and delusional belief in a tabula rasa model of human nature. His defenders will say "oh this is an old video, he's changed now...", and I am sure he is delighted that you believe so. Show me any example of him back-tracking on a single word of that though. I'll wait. I am writing this because I see what's happening to our population, and frankly anyone who isn't willing to recognise the need for racial politics is not your friend in this battle. If Carl has changed, then now would be a really great time to make that clear and come out on the side of Racial Nationalism. Anything else is just muddying the waters and enabling the stigmatisation of actual patriots. Look at where the UK is, and where it is going. Look at the pictures of schools with literally a single White face sitting among a sea of blacks. It's fucking insane, and it's obviously a racial issue that requires racial politics. At least we're talking about a rational lawful non-violent approach to sorting out who should be allowed to claim Englishness. We're having a conversation. Steve Laws, for example, is not a terrorist: he is a brave patriot giving a voice to the native population of a land which wants to recover that land. In reality English people are basically lovely. We're softies. The rest of the world knows that though. If we start to get a serious program of remigration off the ground, yes the reduction in sheer numbers of racial aliens will be welcome in itself, but black families that didn't produce criminal rugrats, and haven't spent the past 40 years moaning about how racist the English are will probably find that White communities rally round them, put in a good word for them, and achieve a consensus about not deporting them. What needs to happen is a basic shift in the narrative, and in the psychology: the assumption and understanding should be that citizenship is genetic, and that any exception to that is a polite and kind gesture from our people, which we have the full moral and legal right to withhold if we feel that we're being treated as suckers. And that's what I have to say about that. ...And of course Happy New Year to everyone in Australia!!! 🥳🎉🪩 -A.Frog '25/'26 🐸👍🏻

𝙰𝚌𝚌𝚎𝚙𝚝𝚊𝚋𝚕𝚎 𝙵𝚛𝚘𝚐

167,032 views • 7 months ago

I MADE THE BEST 2D SPRITE AI PIPELINE EVER! After testing so much, doing tons of math, trying various different methods I finally got truly the cleanest sprite result I could ask for! You should bookmark this post! ✅ I think this is the happiest 'aha' moment I've had since starting this journey. Day 48 of making a custom webGL game engine using Cursor 🔽🔽🔽 I've been trying to solve sprites since I started this project. I came close a couple of times but it was always something - either dynamic lights wouldn't work, or the genAI results would make them grainy, or I would have to have incorrect alpha etc. After so much struggling, wanting to give up, thinking it's impossible - it was finally done! Perfect matte interpolation of black & white backgrounds resulting in a clean outline of the sprite, half transparent effects keeping their full quality. But this was not enough for me. I wanted more. I wanted those dynamic lights for the most badass anime effects that I'll be creating for the next many weeks! And somehow, I managed to come up with the perfect balance that is nice to the eye with almost no visible imperfections or artifacts when using any kind of dynamic lights. See for yourself! 🔽🔽🔽 How does this magic happen? 1⃣ First, the animation is created using Kling AI. I found it the best to keep the quality anime 2D style I wanted, but I guess others may work as well. 2⃣ Then, the frames are carefully extracted at lossless quality and processed via automation through Nano Banana pass to create an opposite background (white->black or black->white). 3⃣ Once we have a proper spritesheet, I then used MiDaS to compute the depth maps, and then algorithmically create PBR maps for lighting. The remaining depth maps can also be used for various effects, although haven't explored it much yet. 4⃣ Finally, all elements are cut into single frames and overlapped with their respective normal maps. If done right, they're pretty much ready for runtime. I like my heroes to be 512 to truly stand out like fighting game characters, but all of this works with far smaller or bigger sprites. Mind you, it's important to note that Nano Banana has a max output of 4k. Therefore you don't want to make your atlases larger than 4k - which is still quite a lot since it allows you 8x8 512 frames. 💡💡💡 I believe the output quality is beyond anything currently available, and I'll be looking into packaging the whole thing into a web app so people can use it. If you find this useful, please repost it! I really wanted to share this method to the world. Thank you for reading! Look forward to day 49 update!
0:58

I MADE THE BEST 2D SPRITE AI PIPELINE EVER! After testing so much, doing tons of math, trying various different methods I finally got truly the cleanest sprite result I could ask for! You should bookmark this post! ✅ I think this is the happiest 'aha' moment I've had since starting this journey. Day 48 of making a custom webGL game engine using Cursor 🔽🔽🔽 I've been trying to solve sprites since I started this project. I came close a couple of times but it was always something - either dynamic lights wouldn't work, or the genAI results would make them grainy, or I would have to have incorrect alpha etc. After so much struggling, wanting to give up, thinking it's impossible - it was finally done! Perfect matte interpolation of black & white backgrounds resulting in a clean outline of the sprite, half transparent effects keeping their full quality. But this was not enough for me. I wanted more. I wanted those dynamic lights for the most badass anime effects that I'll be creating for the next many weeks! And somehow, I managed to come up with the perfect balance that is nice to the eye with almost no visible imperfections or artifacts when using any kind of dynamic lights. See for yourself! 🔽🔽🔽 How does this magic happen? 1⃣ First, the animation is created using Kling AI. I found it the best to keep the quality anime 2D style I wanted, but I guess others may work as well. 2⃣ Then, the frames are carefully extracted at lossless quality and processed via automation through Nano Banana pass to create an opposite background (white->black or black->white). 3⃣ Once we have a proper spritesheet, I then used MiDaS to compute the depth maps, and then algorithmically create PBR maps for lighting. The remaining depth maps can also be used for various effects, although haven't explored it much yet. 4⃣ Finally, all elements are cut into single frames and overlapped with their respective normal maps. If done right, they're pretty much ready for runtime. I like my heroes to be 512 to truly stand out like fighting game characters, but all of this works with far smaller or bigger sprites. Mind you, it's important to note that Nano Banana has a max output of 4k. Therefore you don't want to make your atlases larger than 4k - which is still quite a lot since it allows you 8x8 512 frames. 💡💡💡 I believe the output quality is beyond anything currently available, and I'll be looking into packaging the whole thing into a web app so people can use it. If you find this useful, please repost it! I really wanted to share this method to the world. Thank you for reading! Look forward to day 49 update!

Startracker 🔺

145,925 views • 6 months ago