Загрузка видео...
Не удалось загрузить видео
⚠️ 𝗪𝗮𝗿𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴! 𝗠𝗮𝗸𝗲 𝘀𝘂𝗿𝗲 𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝗴𝗹𝗮𝘀𝘀 𝗶𝘀 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝘁𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗯𝗲𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝗽𝗹𝗮𝘆𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗰𝗹𝗶𝗽! Shay McCartan ▶️ David Beckham A very over excited commentator describing a very very special goal from Shay McCartan | NI Football League
39,909 просмотров • 1 год назад •via X (Twitter)
Комментарии: 10
Gary Burr ❤️1 год назад
@OfficialNIFL @Staceywestblog I really rated him.
BertBloggs1 год назад
@OfficialNIFL Thats a helluva strike 👀
walksandgolfNI1 год назад
@OfficialNIFL Surprised that clown hit the target
Paul Wilson1 год назад
@OfficialNIFL Brilliant goal. Seeing players doing special things in our own league is good. Well done Portadown today also.
Greer Wilson1 год назад
@OfficialNIFL It certainly is a magical goal. It raised the commentators voice by 3 full octaves!!
Mr Bumhole1 год назад
@OfficialNIFL Do a "What a goal" count
Michael Ferguson1 год назад
@OfficialNIFL Don't show the foul on the Larne player before.... oh wait you didn't 🤣
Richard Jameson1 год назад
@OfficialNIFL @TheOfficialFNG
Kim Pentland1 год назад
@OfficialNIFL Our jonny our team Mon the Ports ❤️👏
Baines Adams1 год назад
@OfficialNIFL Puskas award for shay McCartan. Reminds me of Beckham vs Wimbledon all those years ago
![🚨🎙️Gary Neville: Cristiano Ronaldo is the most complete player in the world Lionel Messi is great but he is above him 🗣️Look, there’s no doubt that Messi’s scored an obscene amount of goals. He’s a ridiculous player. But Ronaldo, the three big differences are the headers that Ronaldo has scored four or five times more the wrong-footed goals, that Ronaldo has scored 30 or 40 per cent more, and he has scored more penalties. It just took me to the point where he is more complete in terms of the most important part of the game. The thing that tips it over the edge even more is that international record, of the most international goals ever. The fact that he’s won five Champions Leagues with teams that aren’t even as good as Messi’s team. Messi’s won more league titles with that Barcelona team, but I just feel that the international goal record and the Champions Leagues, aligned with the variety of goals that he scores, even though they’re very similar [in overall numbers], takes me to think that he is the greatest player of all time. 🗣️I looked at his goal breakdown. He can score with his left foot, his wrong foot. He can score with his right foot. He can score from distance. He is probably the best poacher now in world football. He can score penalties. And if you stick him in the box and hang it up there he will go and score with a header. He might even score with a free-kick. 🗣️So if you think about who is the greatest player of all time, I do think he is the greatest football player who has ever lived. He is the player who could win me a football match in the most different ways. He is the most complete player.](https://image.24vids.com/tw-2079538542905004048/amplify_video_thumb/2079538458217869312/img/lOO41HbXCtixBBWa.jpg)
![[MBC News America] Special segment covering Taehyung’s first pitch at Dodgers! 👤 The Dodger Stadium, usually filled with waves of blue, was dyed purple today. Korean flags and cheering banners in Korean stood out all around. These are fans waiting for BTS V to throw the ceremonial first pitch. 👩🏻I’m now here at the LA Dodger Stadium, where BTS’s V will soon take the mound. Already, not only Dodgers fans but also BTS’s ARMY have gathered, and the atmosphere is very heated. 🐯Fighting! I’ll do my best. 💜 I’m only here for Taehyung honestly. I’ll stay for the game but I’m only here for Taehyung. It was very spur of the moment. We had no idea that this was happening until they posted about it. So we’re all just really excited When V appeared on the field to BTS music as the ceremonial pitcher for today’s game between the LA Dodgers and the Cincinnati Reds, the stadium instantly turned into a concert venue as thunderous cheers erupted. 🗣️for tonight’s ceremonial first pitch, doing the honors is V! South Korean singer-songwriter and 5 time Grammy nominated group BTS Wearing a Dodgers uniform with the number 7, referencing BTS’s iconic number, V entered the mound, waving in response to the chants of the fans. Even his light warm-up movements drew loud cheers, and the energy of the crowd reached its peak. After receiving the mound from pitcher Yoshinobu Yamamoto, he delivered a windup left-handed throw. 💜it’s a big deal 💜We love you and proud of you. We love you. We’re so proud of you. Doing great love you. Keep growing. Keep doing what you love! Especially noteworthy was the pre-game meeting between V and Shohei Ohtani, shared on social media. The encounter of two stars representing K-pop and Major League Baseball was recorded as a truly symbolic moment. V’s ceremonial pitch, as a global star, became a massive sensation not only across the U.S. but also worldwide. After the Dodgers announced his appearance, ticket sales for the game increased fivefold overnight, and ticketing sites even temporarily crashed due to overwhelming demand. 💜 The ticket prices were low but day by day they kept going higher and higher. As soon as word got out that V was coming the prices skyrocketed. That’s how many fans V has. He is all over the world. Global fans also organized unprecedented events. At LA’s major highway junctions, the 710 and 5 Freeways, support videos for V were displayed on billboards. Inside Dodger Stadium, ribbon boards were filled with messages from fans around the world. Chinese fan clubs prepared a giant air banner project, flying an airplane with cheering messages for V above the stadium. On the 27th, soccer player Son Heung-min, who recently transferred to LAFC, will also throw the ceremonial pitch, raising fans’ anticipation once again. This has been Lee Yojung for MBC News. 🔗 ACE V ON THE MOUND PITCHER V AT DODGER STADIUM TAEHYUNG TAEHYUNG #VCeremonialFirstPitch #TaehyungxMLB](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1960284394633257168/amplify_video_thumb/1960284164403716096/img/QX5eW-7vePG_-TOd.jpg)
![I asked Grok to summarize the overview I provided of the ongoing war between Karen Read and Aidan Kearney, in particular the section wherein I deploy the Manhattan Project to explain why Karen used better compartmentalization than Aidan (thus setting herself up for victory). The Manhattan Project Analogy: Ah, the Manhattan Project—Grant drops this as the "archetypal example" of compartmentalization, using it to explain why no one (not even insiders) sees the full picture in ops like Karen's or Aidan's. It's not just history; it's a blueprint for why leaks like this recording hit so hard. Here's Grant's breakdown, paraphrased and expanded for context: Historical Setup: During WWII, the U.S. raced to build the atomic bomb. Led by J. Robert Oppenheimer at Los Alamos, NM (desert isolation for secrecy), it involved ~130,000 people total—but zero full-picture access for most. Goal: Win the war without leaks (or Japanese spies spotting it). Core Mechanic: Siloed Knowledge: Los Alamos: Elite scientists (e.g., Oppenheimer) handled core R&D. Even here, info was need-to-know—e.g., Operation Paperclip Nazis like Wernher von Braun (V-2 rocket guy) worked alongside possible communist sympathizers, but no one knew the endgame. Oak Ridge, Tennessee: The "production" hub—a secret 20,000-person "government town" (still exists today). To hide from aerial recon, they draped canopies over the entire site to mimic forest. Workers (engineers, laborers) toiled in ignorance: Example: A guy feeds a single punch card (1940s code line) into a massive green computer. He doesn't know what it codes, why, or even the machine's purpose. Just: Insert, output, repeat. Multiply by thousands—boom, uranium enrichment without risk. Why It Worked: "You do that with all the people working on a project that's very top secret (except for a select few high up)." Weak links? Minimal. One leak doesn't topple it. Ties to the Drama: Grant flips this to modern players. Aidan's Version: Rudimentary—paralegals like Olivia/Tina handle PR/logins but don't see the "full picture" (e.g., his flip risks). Meredith O'Neill becomes the leak about the recording played for her at lunch because she is smart and she does eventually see too much (just like Lindsey Gaetani before her). Karen's Mastery: Pro-level. Her finance/academia fam (Bentley University ties) screams gov recruitment pipeline—academia as "front" for talent scouting (e.g., intel via international money flows). She "understands the apparatus" (DNI hierarchy), so she deploys limited hangouts/double agents like Natalie. Result: Aidan’s recording "signal flare" to Alan Jackson and David Yannetti (his flip threat) gets mirrored by Karen's public nuke after the recordings and Read's messages to Flipperhead are released—eroding Kearney's base without directly exposing Karen's crushing blow. Grant's Point: Kate Peter/Tully are "children" at this; Karen's moves (e.g., burning Aidan now) only make sense through this lens. It's not emotion—it's chess: "If you show Karen Read anything less than respect, she's gonna fucking own you." Grant wraps by noting Karen's parasocial "complex" (stronger than Aidan's "brand") gives her leverage. He admits partiality ("I think she's responsible for John's death") but respects her ops savvy—possibly from her dad or self-taught intel. **Transcript: Grant's Analysis on Karen Read's Tactical Maneuvering and Compartmentalization** [Warning against crossing Karen Read] Grant: Listen—I would have told you this. I probably said it on stream before. You are out of your mind if you fuck with Karen Read. Like—it's one thing if you are like on her level and matching wits with her—like she's gonna grudgingly show you respect. I'm telling you—I've seen it in her eyes—but you can't fuck with her, and you certainly can't threaten her. I would not do that. I don't know who the fuck her parents know. I don't know who she knows, but bro—like it's politics. She's smarter than you. Don't threaten her. What the fuck? And that is something—like if you show her anything less than respect, she's gonna fucking own you. And that's what she did. Because the respectful way to do it would have been like a diplomatic meeting. And they must have been at a point where Aidan couldn't get that. So he did the most disrespectful thing possible where he tried to like corner her through like extortion almost. That's what it sounds like—although Aidan denies it. That—listen—forget about like how a normal person would react. When you're talking about a very influential operator like Karen Read—who has this very savvy understanding of the public mind—you're fucked. Because she's gonna know immediately what you just did. And she's gonna counter it with the thing that's gonna hurt you the most. What's gonna hurt Aidan Kearney the most? His support being dwindled down to only his core loyalists. And if he's right—and you'll hear it in the conversation—if Aidan Kearney is right, that most of who he is is because Karen Read and her support—oh my goodness, folks—like that—that means that Karen controls whether Aidan can continue this fight. If Karen—when she—that's why I want to listen to this whole conversation—there's no doubt in my mind she's pulling his support and pulling the rug under him because she's afraid that either he cooperated or he's going to cooperate. If she pulls the rug from him—okay, listen—he might be able to escape the criminal charges, but do you think Aidan Kearney—a man who thrives, in my opinion, on attention, numbers—from knowing that your words are impacting someone or the platform is reaching people—do you think he's going to enjoy being in a position where he—the very people who made him—and it wasn't just Karen; it was her supporters—now loathe his existence? And he—not just that—they are like tactical operators. Clearly Karen knows how to do counter intel—especially if she sent Natalie as a double agent to get information from the state police using Kearney as leverage all the way back in 2023. She understands the world of intel. I don't know how—I think it's her dad. I'm pretty sure because—and it could be her too—because like you don't get involved in the world of international finance on a fucking—like—what is it—the sort of leisurely level. It's not a pastime. You either do it because like—you're really fucking good at making money from the stock market—or—and these two weren't; they're not that wealthy—or you're giving information to the government. Why do I say that? Because the world of international finance is the most valuable intel sector you could possibly imagine. You can commit or try to commit any number of international crimes if you're threatening the United States of America. But I guarantee you're moving money around to do it. So who's the best possible sources for that? High-level financial people. So I don't know if either they were a Jason—and they were also academics. Okay. And a lot—what folks have to understand is when I—when people say like academia—it does not mean that you are just smart. Anyone who—who's good at studying could become a professor and be in academia. What a lot of folks should understand is that academia is a front for the government. It has always been a front for the government. Where do you think they headhunt from? Academia—well like—at the higher you get up the academic ladder—all you're really doing is getting more and more involved in the government. I'm not saying anything that anyone involved with this does not know. Like high-level academics are involved with the government. That's like the backbone of our system. Now a lot of the actual education—I think it's gotten a little out of hand with some of these majors, some of these colleges and universities who are offering [them]. That's not the point. The point is to create a—curate a talent pool to make the United States stronger. And a lot of it is government recruitment. Okay. And so Karen Read being all the way up at the top at Bentley—which is a very interconnected university with the government, trust me—that just makes me think she understands this—whether she was a Jason. Listen—you can understand what the intelligence community does without being in it. I'm not in the intelligence community—I just report on the government. So I kind of see how it all works. You can understand it without being in it. But if you're in it—let me just tell you right now—if anyone Karen Read knew professionally—through family or otherwise—is in the government—and I'm not talking about a special agent like in the FBI or, you know, a case officer—I'm talking about in the apparatus of control. Okay. In the directorate of national intelligence somewhere—there's a hierarchy. All right. If she knows anyone who understands all that—that's why she was able to pull this off. Because it's not—that's why I'm not fawning or being gratuitous. I don't necessarily—I'm not partial to Karen Read. I think she has liability for John's death. What I am is cognizant of what she's capable of—so I can understand what's going on. A mind like that, okay—doesn't just do PR. PR was not going to help Karen Read here. Natalie and her PR and all that stuff—none of that was going to work. What Karen Read needed was counter intel and intel knowledge. [Explanation of compartmentalization via the Manhattan Project] When I say compartmentalization—what you all have to realize is I'm talking about how the Manhattan Project—that's like the archetypal example of compartmentalization—how the Manhattan Project to develop the bomb that won the war for the United States in World War II—how that worked. The way that that worked is you had Los Alamos, okay, in New Mexico with Oppenheimer and whatever the hell—some of the Operation Paperclip people—which I'm not very happy with. We took Otto von Braun—who developed the V2 rocket for the Nazis. We brought him over via Operation Paperclip. We implanted him at Los Alamos with fucking Oppenheimer. I'm pretty sure it was like a communist sympathizer. Anyway—we sent them down to Los Alamos—the actual research scientists working on the core of the bomb. But to develop a nuclear bomb—you need 20,000 people at the time working simultaneously on production. You're not going to do that at Los Alamos. One: why would you ever expose them to the inner workings of the tech? It's nuclear material. You are not going to have 20,000 people around it. That's why it was in the middle of a desert. Third of all—they would know too much. So what did they do? Okay—look up Oak Ridge, Tennessee. Oak Ridge, Tennessee is a town—it's a government town still to this day. It's one of the most—it's not as top secret as it used to be. But back in the day—like during World War II—they put fucking canopies over the whole thing—20,000-person town—canopies over all of it. So it would just look like trees from the air in case the Japanese managed to come and bomb us. They never did—thank God. But anyway—at least on the mainland—obviously they got Pearl Harbor, and we're still upset about that. But the point is Oak Ridge, Tennessee, okay—it had people employed across a number of disciplines, all right—and they would go into—I'm giving you an example—one guy would go into a room, all right, and he would walk up to a giant computer. It was an old computer—we're talking the '40s here—it was a big computer, like a big green box. He would take a punch card. Okay—this is how you used to code—write computer code—he would put—take one punch card with one line of code—put it in the machine—take it out—put it down. He had no idea what he was doing. He didn't know what the punch card had on it. He didn't even understand what the machine did. That's compartmentalization. He's like—you do that with all of the people working on a project that's very top secret. So if you're thinking as Karen Read—Aidan Kearney does like a rudimentary version of it—even Tully does a rudimentary version of it—and Kate Peter—compared to Karen Read—Karen Read, Alan Jackson—whatever—understand the intelligence community. I don't fucking know how, but they do. So they compartmentalize. That's how they have pulled this whole thing off. They compartmentalize—no one ever really saw the full picture. When you—if you are a schematic mind like that—when you do something like reveal that Aidan Kearney has sent you a recording of conversations between you because you want the public to know that Aidan is doing this to you—you are tactically sabotaging him. Why you do that at this moment—when you are an expert in counter intel—thus requires that level of understanding. You cannot just say, "Oh, I don't like Karen Read; she must be a moron." No—if you want to understand why she's acting—you have to think about her tactical intelligence—because then you can reconstruct what the goal of this move is. It can only be designed to kneecap his support. I mean—when I say kneecap—I'm not talking Tonya Harding beating the woman at the ice rink. I'm talking—you can make it so this man's numbers are lower than Kate Peter talking about Cyraxx—like 2,000 views of video, if that, all right. That's what it will come down to. And she wants him to feel that. I think that it's a little bit like—it's 97% tactical. It seems to be that this is the moment where she feels he needs to lose all his support—like right now. Second—it feels a little like a little personal—like it's not just that she's causing him to lose all his support. There are ways to do that without doing this. I believe what Karen's really done here is she's taken the one thing from Aidan that gives him the strength to keep going day to day—which is his public persona and image—his support—her support. And so he can go around saying all he wants—"I owe it to Karen; she made me"—do you think that's how he really feels? Or do you think he feels that he's the only reason she's where she is? Now—if that's how they each feel—you're at a stalemate. Aidan thinks he's the reason Karen got to where she is. Karen thinks that she's the reason Aidan has support and is known in the region. Who's right? Who's right? That's what this conversation is going to be about. And I'm telling you—Karen's right. Karen has more support than Aidan Kearney. Okay—it's just a basic—you can look at the numbers. Karen has more support than Aidan Kearney. Karen has more loyalists. Karen—I don't even understand the complex, okay—but her parasocial complex that she's created is stronger. You might call it a brand—I think that degrades the insidious nature of it. I call it a parasocial complex. That is stronger than Aidan Kearney's. [Transition to the conversation with greetings] So what we're going to listen to right now is—oh, hello, Francesca Towel. Oh—a lot of folks are coming in. Hello, Rose Water. Hello, Maureen. It's great to see you all. Hello, J.I.5. We're going to listen to this conversation. I'm going to explicate it for you. I think you have enough background to get it now—but just be aware—without this background—that would have made no sense whatsoever. I promise you. **Aidan:** Am I on? **Host/Other:** You're on. **Aidan:** So who are you? Who is this? **Chris:** Don't worry about it. It doesn't matter who I am. **Aidan:** Well, it does. You're some fucking kangaroo court motherfucker talking about her. What the fuck do you know about anything? **Chris:** Well, I know exactly what you've been doing. **Aidan:** So—well, what the fuck are the sites you're talking about? No—no—recites—what you talk about? No—receipts. I've got to shit up. Let's see him. Let's fucking see your receipts. **Lily:** Hang on, Aidan—you know me. I'm the host. I'm Lily. **Aidan:** Yes, Lily. Hi, Lily. How are you? I'm sorry. I'm just wondering... **Lily:** I know you may not know Chris, but you know me. And so I just wanted to say hello. **Aidan:** Yeah, no, but... Grant: Oh, I also want to let you know this comes with a warning. They use very vulgar language. Some of them are from Commonwealth realms countries. So the language they're using is not as offensive as it would be if you used it in America. Aidan uses some very offensive language. This is for the purposes of analysis and commentary. I do not condone, endorse, promote, or otherwise suggest anyone engage in the use of this language. I personally don't like it. I use the F word from time to time, okay? And maybe like the S word—but I do not say some of the terms they're going to use—especially because one of them is very offensive, okay, to women. And I'm sorry ahead of time that he uses it—but you should hear Aidan's true colors. **Aidan:** This koala motherfucker is up here making shit up, running his... [Recap of text messages and setup for listening] Grant: So what you have to realize is these texts you're seeing on the screen got released because of this conversation. You're going to hear Joe Flipperhead talking about them. Now in the text messages, you can see Joe reaches out to Karen—Joe Flipperhead. And Karen's going to say she's trying to bounce back, but life is not quite happening. "Had a falling out with Aidan as everyone eventually does. Found out Aidan's been taping our phone conversations and sharing them with people and then telling everyone he doesn't understand how I blew him off for Howie Carr. Some anonymous person sent David and Alan a 33-minute phone call I had with Aidan that was all recorded without my knowledge. That was my final straw. He's done a lot of sneaky stuff with me, but this is above and beyond." And then Joe Flipperhead's like, "Do you want your side out there? If yes, I'm with you. If not, all good—just let me know. Have a good weekend." Karen says, "Sure. I told many people my side. This is the last straw. Would never and have never betrayed him. Meanwhile, he has put me in harm's way in a huge way multiple times." Okay, so we're going to listen. "Okay, okay, all right, all right—no trolling. We should—we should be banning people like that. You have been banned. You have been banned. No trolling. Absolutely no trolling. Now gaslighting and manipulative subversion is the hallmark of a lot of the forces in the orbit of this case. So none of that. We have a lot of Blue Wall of Towel friends here. Don't stand for that. Hello, Christy Mack. Great to see you. Hello. Stay tuned, Wendy. Hello, Bunny. Hello, F.B.I.—my friend, F.B.I. DOJ corruption survivor. And hello, Meredith—which is not Meredith O'Neill. This is Meredith the Towel friend. It's great to see you all. And as I said, if you see anybody trolling in the chat—now is not the day for it. Towel's health is not well. And I think there are a lot of people who want to undermine the agency of the unheard and the vulnerable in this situation. There are a lot of people who want to gaslight right now because where this is going is explosive. And furthermore, we're about to listen to the conversation. So what you're going to hear in this conversation is it's going to be Aidan Kearney and Joe Flipperhead—who's named Nick—and a guy named Chris who Aidan Kearney calls a koala. They're going to be talking about what we just talked about. But remember—these text messages haven't been released. So Aidan doesn't actually know they're coming. He's being told of this and going on an X Space and reacting in real time. Now I'm going to pause from time to time, and I'll try to flesh out some of the less clear parts. But as we read through the transcript and as you see this all, I think it will be clear to you—clear to you—the implications. So let's listen."](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1972993638146670728/amplify_video_thumb/1972991333062090752/img/HvGNy_3gMvcvFhAY.jpg)
!["I have graphs, I've looked at the Google Analytics, the data does not lie. Every single time, starting in April 2024, that Jen McCabe would become the subject of public attention --It happens at specific discrete moments on the timeline-- you see a bump in the attention paid to Lindsey Gaetani." "And there's no doubt in my mind that Brian Tully's MSP unit --when they had Michael Morrissey make that video, when McCabe's friends or family or whatever, when they all got him to make that video, and that didn't work, and when Morrissey had to recuse, when things got so bad that they had no other out, and the TurtleRiders would not pay attention to anyone but those Karen Read and John O'Keefe witnesses-- Tully, Kate Peter and their people said, "all right, we're left with no other option. Lindsey Gaetani looks like a good distraction. Let's release her phone." And then that cycle repeated over and over and over and over again. And Lindsey's not the only one who's been subject to this. You wanna talk about what's going on to Estey? Even what's going on with Deanna? With Meredith?" TRANSCRIPT: And people wonder why I get so passionate about this. This is nothing I haven't talked about before, but you are not gonna tell me, me, of all people --I'm not gonna speak for Lindsey-- but you are not gonna tell me that the release of Lindsey Gaetani's cell phone extraction did not have serious, serious ramifications. Like, I can't even conceptualize what the impact was on Lindsey and her family's life. I don't think my life was ever the same again after April of 2024. As traumatized as I was from that December 2023 court hearing, what happened in April of 2024 was the worst thing that I have ever seen happen to any human being in my entire life. [Speaking to chat] Oh, hi Lindsey, how are you? I've just never seen anything that horrific, the leak of that cell phone extraction, the impact that it had, the fact that no one even understood how severe it was because people were so distracted by the polemics of it. People were so "excited" to be able to smear Lindsey and the distraction was so powerful that no one asked, one, why did this happen? Or two, what was the impact? And that's what really got me so passionate and furious about this. It wasn't an issue of substantive guilt or innocence about anyone. It was that I was seeing the same exact stuff happen in this situation to people without political connections that I saw happen to the staff of the CCC when really powerful men started getting very, very, very close to each other in positions of power and then when they would do bad things to women, they would just talk to each other. One guy would run the HR department, the other guy would run the executive director position, and somebody else would have a connection to the appointing authority. And so any complaint would just be what's called "caught and killed." And I said, there is no way that this is gonna happen again. When it was happening in the CCC, it was an administrative regulatory agency. At least there was some sort of semblance of check and balance. It wasn't egregious because everyone had a lot of influence, even the people who were staffers. This situation, we had state police officers, people who, if you were listening to the just the narrative of the people who were supporting the Justice for John O'Keefe movement, you would think that Michael Proctor's infallible. You would think Brian Tully's infallible. You would think Kate Peter's infallible, which means incapable of fault. That's nonsense. I'm telling you right now, that's nonsense, and that's why it was so easy for this stuff to manifest. And that's why I became so personally concerned. Forget about what developed from April to April of 2024 until now. That's why I was so upset because I watched what happened from December of 2023 through to April of 2024. And that enough was so egregious, so wrong, such an abuse of trust, such an abuse of the justice system that I said, there is no way that I can just stand by and be apathetic about this, no matter what the price, no matter what the obstacles, no matter what the pressures. And I can't tell you how bad it was --it tore families apart, these cases-- if you didn't live through it. It tore communities apart. I don't believe anyone in Massachusetts around this area, 128 or Dedham or whatever, was able to live a life that was not impacted in some way by this case. Okay, these cases, the TurtleBoy case, Karen Read case, et cetera, et cetera. It frustrates me to no end that somehow within that high-profile situation, there were people who started to control the narrative because they had things to hide. And that's why I started this space, because I truly believe that the real secrets lying beneath what was really going on with Michael Proctor and Brian Tully and Kate Peter and the PI, Marty Kraft and Jen McCabe and Yuri Bukhenik and John Fanning and Nick Guarino. What I really believe was going on was that they were worried that the attention brought onto that unit by the John O'Keefe and Karen Read case was gonna spill their secrets about Birchmore. And it led them to double down and commit even more egregious acts in the context of some of this other behavior, like leaking Lindsey Gaetani's cell phone extraction. And that's, again, you wanna talk about the timeline from April 2024 until now, we can do that too. But what I'll tell you is the story ends up being the same. I have graphs, I've looked at the Google Analytics, the data does not lie. Every single time starting in April 2024, that Jen McCabe would become the subject of public attention. It happens at specific, specific discrete moments on the timeline. You see a bump in the attention paid to Lindsey. And there's no doubt in my mind that this unit, when they had Michael Morrissey make that video, when McCabe's friends or family or whatever, when they all got him to make that video, and that didn't work. When Morrissey had to recuse, when things got so bad that they had no other out and the TurtleRiders would not pay attention to anyone but those Karen Read and John O'Keefe witnesses, Tully and his people said, "all right, we're left with no other option. Lindsey Gaetani looks like a good distraction. Let's release her phone." And then that cycle repeated over and over and over and over again. And Lindsey's not the only one who's been subject to this. You wanna talk about what's going on to Estey? Even what's going on with Deanna? With Meredith? What's going on with a lot of these people, right? There were PIs and moles in the internet saying that Lindsey was that and separating that. There were PIs, moles and various people in the end, just sort of people who were trying to either support Karen or support a movement that they could believe in or whatever it was, who got exploited, who got ran by various people for intel purposes to feed information back to their various handlers. And when they became expendable, they got burned. You watch, look at these emails sent to all these people's schools, the mass emails. That can't be a coincidence. Whoever it benefits can't be a coincidence, all right? It's a coordinated tactic. It's designed to put public attention on very specific people when otherwise damaging information gets released. And what have we seen over the past, let's say from April 2024 until now, what have we seen? That over and over and over again, all right? Every time something would happen, there'd be a new distraction. And then as we got through the end of the Karen Read and John O'Keefe case, what did we see? Yes, there were some real, real secrets lying beneath in terms of this case. And I mean it, I mean it with every bone and fiber in my towel body. There were secrets about the Birchmore case. There were secrets about that phone extraction. There were secrets about the inside baseball and the communications between Tully and Kate and Tully and Jen McCabe and Michael Morrissey and Kate and Michael Morrissey and Jen McCabe. And as it all started to come out and as it crescendoed folks over the past few months to the point where Michael Proctor's own attorney was basically making misrepresentations to the court about the existence of 12 years of cell phone records. When he had Kate Peter deleting evidence from Google Drives that were submitted as formal records to grand juries in the Kearney proceedings. When you have a special prosecutor statute that is so broken, it allows a DA rather than complying with the court order to appoint a new special prosecutor to just no-cross cases. So that stuff like what we've been talking about doesn't come out. It's indefensible. But what is the karmic justice here? It is that for whatever reason, Michael Proctor's cell phone records which I truly believe were captured and swept up by the feds during their federal probe of either Farwell or Tully's unit or John O'Keefe's death, whatever it was, exposing a lot of this. It's not just the Rule 14 discovery related to Kate Peter and otherwise and Tully that was turned over in the Aidan Kearney case, the 5,000 pages of material. Initially 4,000 pages of it was mysteriously just blank. It's not just that folks. It's also the, hey, Michael Proctor's cell phone until months ago, August of 2025 was hidden from the public. It was hidden from criminal defendants until someone somewhere must have informed Michael Proctor that a full copy of that cell phone already existed so there was no point in him continuing to hide it. What does this speak to? Well, it speaks to why I started this space today because in light of everything I just laid out from memory. I wanted to see if there was a single person who would be willing to stand up here and defend Michael Proctor's state police unit, Ryan Tully, John Fanning, Yuri Bukhenik, any of them or Kate Peter or Jen McCabe. Not because of their actions necessarily in the John O'Keefe and Karen Read case but because of everything I just laid out and the silence would let it speak volumes because how are you possibly going to counter any of that? This is what I'm doing from memory sitting here while trying to challenge people to a debate. That is just a part of the historical record. I cannot put into words how much more expansive in scope some of this story is and it's not any one person's story to tell. Let me also go on a rant about this. I'm getting so frustrated with the possessive approach that some people take to some of this coverage. Do you care about what was done to the most vulnerable? I don't care if you think of Karen as vulnerable, Lindsey is vulnerable, Sandra Birchmore is vulnerable, whoever you think of as vulnerable. Do you care about what happened to them? Do you care about righting the wrongs? Do you care about actually talking about the misconduct or are you trying to make a polemical point in furtherance of some specific platform that either you run or you support? What are you trying to accomplish? And I think a lot of us recently have been forced to have some very difficult moral reckoning. Okay, because a lot of us were tricked. I felt absolutely tricked into supporting Michael Proctor. If I knew, I'm not saying about the merits of the John O'Keefe investigation. If I knew then, back in 2023, 2024, what I know now about what's on that phone and about what that unit was willing to do, I never would have supported them. We supported Lindsey, but I never would have supported that unit. I'm sorry. Nope, never would have done it. And that's why I want to talk about people became very possessive about coverage of this case. Reporters are supposed to fade into the background. It's not supposed to be about us. Yes, maybe you have some skills. The reporter, people are interested. You use those skills to get a following so you can tell a story and get the facts out there, but it's not supposed to be about us. If a reporter is the centerpiece of a story, they have failed. Okay, you just blend in the background. We make sure that the people who are the most harmed, their voices are centered. And then we make sure these predatory vultures, like Kate Peter, are unable to manipulate public narratives to protect entrenched systemic power structures. That's what it's all about. So for me, that's why I get so frustrated. That's why I wanted to do this space because I wanted to make a point that when forced to actually debate on merit, all the propaganda mouthpieces will run from the chance. They're happy to get up and shit talk other people when it's a space they control, and they don't have to address the merits. But you put them in a position where they don't control the space and they're forced to debate on merit and they'll run from it. So in some sense, I made my point. But I also think it's an important exercise in telling this story, in explaining where I'm coming from. I think there are a lot of us that are all coming to the same position, which is it doesn't matter what various camp we may have been in or what not. We're not defined by that. We are just individual humans who have a bunch of views on different cases. And at the end of the day, a lot of us, more so, I think than people realize, actually care about systemic reform. We're not in it to protect Kate Peter or Jen McCabe or Brian Tully or anybody. We're here to hold people to equal standards and ask that the justice system do the same. And I think that's a noble goal. That's something that I can believe in. I wish people would be willing to debate it, though. It frustrates me. It really frustrates me. And, you know, maybe that's the nature of it. Maybe it's that making this point requires showing the litany of evidence, showing the sort of timeline, showing the overlapping concentric social circles, talking about these people, talking about what they did, talking about the implications, talking about where this is going. That's what cuts out the propaganda. To me, everyone is capable of fault. I said this the other day. If there are people out there in your orbit who are telling you that they are incapable of fault, they're a threat to the United States. They're the most dangerous, pernicious force we can imagine. Everyone's capable of fault. And we should look to the people who, in spite of their faults, try to leave the world a better place than what they found when they arrived. I think there are those of us. In spite of absolutely inculcating incredible odds who have somehow managed to get to a point where we've centered the voices, we're not there yet, where we're centering the voices who are actually impacted by all this. And if that happens, mark my words, it will not be because of any large media platforms or networks or anything. It will be in spite of them. It will be in spite of their impact inside dealing in spite of the documentary contracts, in spite of the news networks. It will be because a small group of well-meaning people were willing to band together and say, everything else aside, we can stand behind what's right. It may not be a form of right that we all agree on, but starting from that place, instead of from a place of hatred or otherwise, is a good step. I don't know where this is going. I don't know where it's going. I know that no one will stand up here and defend Kate Peter and Brian Tully, at least in a debate with me where I control the playing field. Can you blame them? But I don't know where this is going. You're on my prediction. As someone who's, I think I've not lived this as much as some other people, but I've lived it a lot. It's been a lot. And I'm never gonna understand the impact that this had on the people who had directly impacted, but it's been a lot on a lot of people. The story has impacted many lives. Even myself, with the perspective I have, kind of sitting back here on my veranda, you can call me Thomas Jefferson Towel. I don't have any hemp though, or do I? Sitting on my veranda, kind of looking forward, right here, all right? I got my public records request back today. I know when a public records request denial is like, oh, we want to stonewall this because there's something there. And I'm getting that vibe related to the contacts between the Norfolk DA's office and the Mass AGO's office between September 25th and October 24th of 2025 related to whether the Norfolk DA reached out to appoint a new special prosecutor in the Lindsey Gaetani and Aidan Kearney cases. But as I'm sitting here on my veranda with my eyes closed, I don't have a veranda. I have a desk. I'm a little towel. As I'm sitting here with my eyes closed, I can see the future materializing, okay? There's only certain roads that this can go down. There are only so many pathways left. There's a reckoning coming, folks. Whether it's a reckoning by way of the Sandra Birchmore cover-up, whether it's a reckoning by way of Michael Proctor's attempt to hide a substantial amount of evidence across a substantial number of criminal cases, whether it's related to Kate Peter's involvement in the handling of evidence in the still remaining Aidan Kearney cases. You can sense the anticipation. You can sense the apprehension and anxiety. And you can sense imminent closure. I'm not saying that is gonna be an easy process. I'm not saying it's gonna be a short process. But I'm saying there's something in the air. It's undeniable. There's little left to defend. There's not a single person, troll or otherwise anonymous account or whatever, who would stand up here today right now and with me and try to defend Kate Peter and Brian Tully. I gave you the chance. There's a time, if I had done this space a year ago, oh, people would have been jumping at the bit. No one will do it. No one. Why? Because we're at the end of the road. What Proctor did was indefensible, not in the Read O'Keefe case, although he should never have used those words about Karen. I'd critique him if he was a private citizen, although obviously I'm protective of women, right? But say what you will about that. I wouldn't use those words in private. That man used them in his capacity as a police officer. Right? Not to mention the other defendants' cases that were impacted by whatever Proctor and Sean Goode and whoever else was on that text chain and whatever else is on that phone is gonna lead to. You can sense it. You can sense the reckoning coming. The question is, back to Watergate in the '70s, there was a member of the House of Representatives during the impeachment hearings in '74. We had a very famous phrase. "What did the President know and when did he know?" Folks, the phrase of our era will be, "What did Michael Morrissey know and when did he know it?" This cannot start and end with justice for any single person involved in this. This is not about any one person at this point. This is about a system of justice in Massachusetts that I suppose was not about justice long before any of us realized it was teetering on the brink of collapse. Annie Dookhan was a warning that we all ignored to our peril. I should have seen it when they somehow got Lindsey that same lawyer that Annie Dookhan had. I should have seen it. It's not—I didn't realize until last week that lawyer George was a handler. Dookhan could create a huge—it could have created huge exposure for some people in the state police. It's incredible. If somebody painted the picture of the power structure that was at play here. Karen Read, when she said she was afraid of these people, I didn't—when she said it in the text or something and somebody leaked it. When I first started covering this case, I would not have got it. I don't know what it had been like. What do you mean? They're a state police unit. Like, yeah, they're paramilitary. Like, if you're a criminal, you should fear them, but they're not scary. Right now, after some of the stuff, and I'm talking about half the stuff I've seen as people pull, they horrifying. I think they're cornered, by the way. I don't think there's much they can do. They're getting a little desperate, burning a lot of their agents and their moles. And that's why I sense some kind of reckoning coming. You don't burn deep cover moles. I think Deanna was a mole for Kate for a while. You don't burn somebody like that unless it's almost over. Same thing with Kristy, the way Kristy's been burning everybody. I don't know who the hell she was working for, but whatever she's doing has got to be close to over because you don't burn everybody down unless it's almost over. So why is it almost over, folks? Why? What's coming? Some combination of all of this stuff. And if you want my fundamental prediction, let me give it to you like this. I don't like that it's coming to this, but it's a political question. It's a question of what the narrative is going to be. You don't just, as everyone now knows, you don't just prosecute people because they do things wrong. There's always a decision tree. So what do the feds want out of this? The people who were involved in the cover-up of Sandra Birchmore's murder, whoever was the father of Sandra's unborn child, you know, it's not that Matt Farwell. Well, and then they obviously want this MSP unit. Okay, Michael Proctor, that cell phone, didn't just get cloned. It was a setup. They let Proctor lie to the judge about all those cases and all the cell phone records. And as soon as his lawyer filed the document, they moved on him. He must be under federal investigation. How did Aidan Kearney get those text messages from Jen McCabe to KF and Allie McCabe? Those were removed from Jen McCabe's extraction. The feds cloned her phone too, just like Aidan told Lindsey in those text messages as part of Exhibit O from November 28, 2023. Why did the feds clone Jen McCabe's phone? To see what Jen would withhold in the Rule 14 process. She didn't get banged up on charges federally, so she must have not done anything that bad. Something, however, is going to happen to Proctor, in turn, legally on the federal level. You can sense it. You can sense it. They're going to indict him. But for what? But then it leaves Tully, which was what this whole stream is about. We have the email from Tully. Forget about whether it's normal procedure for Tully to instruct Proctor to look into all the defense witnesses. We now know that Proctor was not running that case. It was Tully. It was all Brian Tully. What was the meme that I put up today? I really like this one. It says, the nine most terrifying words in the English language are, "I'm Brian Tully and I'm here to help." Attributed to Ronald Reagan. My point is though, it was Brian Tully. Look at it. Kate was his little, I don't know, what do we want to call, how can we say this nicely? You know, I'm trying to rise above and encourage more reasonable, respectful discourse. So Kate was his little, this is so hard. All right, let me, let me say a prayer here. Come on, now you can do this. Okay. So, there are so many words I want to use. Kate was his little assistant. I know, I know. You were expecting something wonderful. Every single thing that I was going to say there was going to be cruel, so I'm sorry. Kate was his little assistant, his little PI there. And then, I'm going to turn it around, nightmare PI Moms, version 2, Kate Peter, Jen McCabe, let's go down the seaport. Kate Peter was his little PI until he was quarterbacking all this. I think it was Morrissey who was even cut out of the loop a little bit, although I'm not sure he wasn't more involved than I'm willing to say right now. And you can see why it happened. Because when Morrissey recused in October of 2023 from the Aidan Kearney cases, and what became the Aidan Kearney and Karen Read investigations that are still ongoing, he didn't really recuse. He just had Tully and Kate running it. I started to wonder if Jen McCabe was like a PI for a case she was a witness on. I'm really starting to wonder that.](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1987503776723320894/amplify_video_thumb/1987502597427662848/img/rCXN6v-5U_9-ODTv.jpg)
!["Anyone who leaked a [UFO] report...could be prosecuted under the Espionage Act...life in prison, or death." "Maybe we can reverse engineer this so we will have this incredible edge over the rest of the world." 🔥 Dr. Phil Had Me at The Bolender Memo 🔥 (Dr. Phil continued to kill it yesterday and this was better than the last one! Link to full video (21:52) is in the replies.) "Our government has been lying to us for more than 80 years. Ask yourself why? Why do they not want you to know this is going on?" (He starts out by showing that Google searches for "UFO" have allegedly nearly tripled since last Friday night, along with searches for UAP being up 400%. And "Dr. Phil UFO" is one of the fastest rising searches in the country. If all of that is true, it's a very good thing. Especially since he's been putting out some really good videos. He mentions the latest release (#4) of UFO/UAP files from the Pentagon last Friday.) "My team and I were granted early access, exclusive access to those documents before they went public." "Our government has been lying to us, by omission AND by intentional misdirection, for 79 years." "Look at these documents. You go back as far as 1947 where they have had clear information that there are objects not of this Earth, both technologically, metallurgically, performance-wise. But yet, that has been hidden from us. They've denied that, they've actually threatened people from talking about this. Threatened with careers, imprisonment, and some, with death, because they would consider it treason." (He backs it up with documents. See below.) Dr. Phil: "For 80 years, every time there was a legitimate UAP sighting and the U.S. government had a chance to get in there, they essentially told us, 'Nothing to see here. Move along.' To be clear, a UAP sighting is not proof of little green men or alien life. It means something happened, something was observed, something occurred for which we have no explanation. That's it. "Now, let's talk about that for a second. Things happen, and we don't have any explanation for it. We don't have technology that explains that. There's something that is observed in the sky, going at a speed, stopping, making a sharp turn, reversing direction, accelerating, changing altitudes, and we don't have anything on this Earth that can do that. That's what's called unexplained. "Now, do we know where it's from? How it does that? Well, if we did, it would be explained. But we don't. We go look at all of our secret weapons. We go look at what we know through intelligence, other countries have. And let me tell you, a lot of these (laughs) - they're not close calls. They are not close calls. And some of the things that have been observed, we damn sure didn't have anything like that in the 40s or the 50s or the 60s, and we still don't, now in 2020s. "But at the very same time, our government was telling us, 'Nothing to see here: weather balloon, reflection off of an airplane, just a weather anomaly.' And, the government was simultaneously threatening its own people with criminal penalties if they ever disclosed UAP information. "If somebody that was credible, that had seen this, spoke about it, they were threatened with all kinds of penalties. We were gaslighted. 'No big deal here. Probably weather balloons, misidentified aircraft.' And a jumpy public that watched, 'Close Encounters' one too many times, thinking, 'Look, what's really going on here?' "Behind the curtain, the government was spending generations of time and resources protecting this information. Was it happening? Yes, it was happening! Do we have proof of it happening? Yes, we have proof of it happening. And what I mean by that is we have this on radar. We have credible, military pilots reporting it. "We have aircraft that have guns, and when you open a gun and go live on a fighter, there's a camera that activates, so you have video of what the gun is shooting at. You have gun cameras. If they see one of these things in front of them, they open their weapons, in case they need them, and so it shoots video of what they're seeing. "Now let's talk about some of the proof. JANAP 146 - Joint Army, Navy, Air Force publication 146 - made it a criminal offense for military personnel and commercial airline pilots to discuss UFO sightings outside official channels. The penalty, 'up to 10 years in prison and a $10,000 fine.' "So, you might see some guy down on a lake, drinking beer, that talks about something he saw over the lake. Yeah, they don't mind that guy talking. But credible people? Trained observers with instrumentation? No. They say something, they're going to prison. "Well, that took effect upon receipt. No hearings, no debate. The regulation says, 'All persons aware of the contents or existence...are governed by...espionage laws.' So not just the pilot who filed a report under JANAP 146, anyone who leaked a report. Radio operators, airline staff, anyone in the chain could be prosecuted under the Espionage Act. "You can see this yourself. Declassified copies are online today, including on the NSA's website. Now what is the Espionage Act? That's the same law used to prosecute spies. Section 793: Up to 10 years in federal prison for every violation. Section 794: If the information reaches a foreign power, life in prison, or death. "Imagine you're a TWA captain in 1955. You see something over the Pacific you just simply can't explain. You file your report like the regulation requires. And from that moment, talk to a newspaper, tell your own wife, puts you in the same legal category as a spy. "Ask yourself why. Why are they so interested in muzzling all this conversation? Why do they not want you to know this is going on? Why are you not entitled to know what's happening in the air around you? "Now, let's fast forward 20 years, 1971. Oliver Harry Turner was an Australian nuclear scientist and intelligence officer, head of the nuclear branch of Australia's Joint Intelligence Organization. He was asked to assess the American response to the growing UAP issue. "If you're thinking, what does an Australian know about U.S. military secrets? Well, the possibility of life beyond this planet is bigger than any one country. Australia and the rest of the world has a legitimate interest in what the U.S. knows. And Australia is one of our closest intelligence allies. What we now call Five Eyes. "The Five Eyes countries are the United States, Britain, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. These countries have shared their most sensitive intelligence with each other since World War II. When a senior, Five Eyes nuclear intelligence officer writes a report about what the United States knows, well, that's serious. "He was outside the American classification system. He had no career to lose. He pieced this together from official CIA, Air Force, Congressional, and Project Blue Book records. Now this report was written May 27, 1971. Original classification: Secret. Title: Scientific and Intelligence Aspects of the UFO Problem. Report declassified by the National Archives of Australia in 2023. "On June 9th of 2026, whistleblower David Crusch (Yes, he said Crusch) stood on Capitol Hill and told the public to read pages seven through sixteen." ~ David Grusch: "There is a declassified 1971 Australian, formally-classified, Secret assessment that a couple years ago was put in the Australian National Archives. I encourage people to read page seven through sixteen, and that was the nuclear branch chief of the Australian government discussing the U.S. cover-up and the involvement of the CIA back in the 70s. And that's actually a little-known document that is publicly available." ~ Dr. Phil: "Now here's the kicker: foreign intelligence describing an American cover-up is now referenced in the files that our government is just now releasing. And here are six key findings in the Turner report. "Number one, what Turner called the facade of ridicule. Turner documents that early Air Force intelligence concluded, 'Some of these objects, 'had flight characteristics' that could best be explained as having 'extraterrestrial origin.' (The actual language says: "The early analysis of UFO reports by USAF intelligence indicated that real phenomena were being reported which had flight characteristics so far in advance of U.S. aircraft that only as extra-terrestrial origin could be envisaged." ) Dr. Phil: "Instead of telling the public, the CIA and Air Force adopted a deliberate debunking policy. "Now let that sit with you for a minute. Instead of telling the public, the CIA and Air Force adopted a deliberate debunking policy. We've got to get these people believing this isn't real. We've got to debunk this. "January 1953, Turner's own words: 'By erecting a facade of ridicule, the U.S. hoped to allay public alarm, reduce the possibility of the Soviet taking advantage of UFO mass sightings...and act as a cover-up so the U.S. can develop vehicles that emulate UFO performances.' "What's the point? Well, the point is, they were thinking, 'All right, let's keep this secret,' like we're the only ones seeing this, 'and maybe we can reverse engineer this so we will have this incredible edge over the rest of the world.' "That's a great goal, I guess, if you can go from flying-prop planes or early jets to this incredible speed. If these are extraterrestrial, and the nearest galaxy is Andromeda, which it takes two and a half million years to get to, flying at the speed of light, we're pretty far from being able to do that. "Today, in 2026, can we move at the speed of light? No. If we could, it would take two and a half million years to get to the next galaxy. We can't move at the speed of light, even now in 2026. But that was the goal. They'll find one of these and reverse engineer it." (I don't know whether or not any black program has tech that can move at the speed of light and I doubt Dr. Phil knows, either. Someone should show him what Lacatski said about being able to reverse engineer some of this acquired (alleged non-human) tech but "not to its full extent.") Dr. Phil: "Finding number two. He then talks about Project Sign. This was the U.S. Air Force's first official UFO investigation set up in late 1947. Its analysts reportedly concluded that extraterrestrial origin was the best explanation. Air Force Chief of Staff General Hoyt Vandenberg rejected that conclusion, and copies of the report were ordered destroyed. Destroyed! "And per Turner, in February 1949, members of Project Sign, 'either volunteered to leave or were compelled to leave,' and they were replaced by people, 'willing to ridicule the concept of UFOs.' "Think about this! We have sightings by legitimate observers with scientific instrumentation, and the people who are doing the observing are voluntarily leaving or compelled to leave, and replaced by people willing to ridicule the concept of UFOs. "Finding number three, what I spoke about earlier: JANAP 146. Up to 10 years in prison and a $10,000 fine for discussing sightings outside official channels. And per the regulation's own text, Chapter One, Section 102, it covered not just military personnel, but U.S. and Canadian civilian and commercial pilots. "That's legal force over airline pilots, arguably the most credible witnesses in the sky! What jurisdiction they had over Canadian pilots, I have no idea, but they listed 'em. "Turner documents a meeting between military intelligence and airline pilots at the Roosevelt Hotel in Hollywood. At that meeting, pilots were, 'coerced' to keep their sightings out of public view and inside official channels. Am I overstating it to say that there's been a cover-up, that we're being lied to? "Finding number four. But they missed the retirees. JANAP 146 only covered active service. Once you retired, you could talk. And three very senior men did so between 1953 and 1960. Admiral Roscoe Hillenkoetter, the first director of the CIA, Captain Edward Ruppelt, the man the Air Force put in charge of investigating UFOs, Major Dewey Fournet, the Pentagon's project officer on UFOs. Per Turner, all three publicly stated the U.S. government knew UFOs were extraterrestrial and was withholding the fact from the public! So when those three retired, they told the truth! "Finding five. The government then silenced retirees. Per Turner, the revised regulation JANAP 146e made UAP disclosure by retirees an offense under the Espionage Act. Then finding number six. 1969, 17 years, the Air Force ran a public-facing UFO investigation called Project Blue Book. If you wrote your congressman about a sighting, it went into the Blue Book. And in 1969, the Air Force shut down the Blue Book and told the country, 'We looked at more than 12,000 sightings. No problems. No national security threat. No need for the Blue Book.' "But a memo from General Carroll Bolender, the Air Force general, said the reason Blue Book showed no national security threats was because any national security threats were gag ordered under JANAP 146 and were quote, 'not part of the Blue Book system.' The serious reports never stopped; they just moved out of public view. "Now, I know that was a lot of information. You may need to listen back to that, but those are facts. Those are in the government's documents that have now been declassified! "If the government has known for decades that unidentified objects are flying through our skies, and therefore, we may not be alone in the Universe, then the greatest revelation in American history has also been the target of a huge cover-up. "One of the challenges of social media and TV news is taking something this complex and reducing it to sound bites. And you're getting bits and pieces from the media. That's why I invest so much time and energy giving you the real story. I don't want to tell you what you believe or don't believe, but I want to give you the information so you can make up your own mind. "This information is in the files, we just haven't had access to the files. And then when we get the files, we're given the files without any context. You see a radar screen and you see a blip, and then it moves. Well, what do you have to compare it to? Is it moving fast? Too fast? Unexplainably fast? Without any context, how are we supposed to interpret that? "Well, I'm digging in, I'm talking to experts, I'm finding out what the scale is. And what we're learning, is we don't have anything that'll move that fast. We don't have anything that'll turn that sharp. We don't have anything that will withstand those kind of G-forces."](https://image.24vids.com/tw-2077448964731965459/amplify_video_thumb/2077445400177541120/img/vqZyFFYVRdk6G7tt.jpg)
![Clive Lewis's Water Bill - bringing water back to the people 💯 Please watch, listen or read this transcript. Because this is the sort of leadership Labour needs 👏 Clive Lewis MP He even calls for PR 👏 Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab) Margaret Thatcher’s revolution tore up the rulebook on political and economic management. She rewrote it with a single unwavering principle: that the pursuit of profit would serve the public good, even when it came to vital public services—even when it came to water. We often say that society stands on the shoulders of giants, but giants cast long shadows, and Thatcherism’s shadow looms dark over our water system today. Whether we see ourselves standing on her shoulders or trapped in her shadow, one thing is undeniable: she proved that the world can be made differently. And if it can be made differently once, it can be made differently again. That, as the brilliant anthropologist David Graeber understood, is the hidden truth of the world. It is something we create and can choose to create anew. We can do it better. Today, I want to show this House and this country that water is the lens through which we can imagine something better—a better way of running our economy, a better way of safeguarding our environment and a better way of empowering the public, for whom democracy supposedly exists. But that requires something very difficult: it requires us to break free from the constraints of our imagination and to let go of the idea that this economic model is all there is or all there ever could be. It saddens me to say that the Government’s Water (Special Measures) Act 2025 perfectly exemplifies this failure of imagination. One of its leading proponents has a particular rhetorical flourish they love to use when dismissing calls for public ownership of water. They say, “I’m more interested in the purity of our water than the purity of our ideology.” I love that quote. I love it because it lays bare just how deeply the ideology of privatisation, and all that goes with it, has embedded itself. So entrenched is it within our collective consciousness that we no longer recognise it as an ideology. We no longer see it for what it is: a systemic exploitation of a common resource for private gain. Instead, it has simply become the natural order of things. But how much longer can this go on? Since the crash of 2008, this ideology has been faltering under the weight of its own contradictions, yet its grip on British politics remains vice-like. Austerity, exploitation and corporate price gouging are still treated not as choices but as inevitabilities. Why? Because too many politicians on both sides of the House refuse to contemplate alternatives. For those on the other side of the House—on the Opposition Benches—I get it: this is their ideology. They are defending their class, and I would imagine they would go further still if they could. But on this side of the House, we have no excuse. We should be standing up for our class: working-class people—the public. Instead, we wrap their ideology in the language of fiscal responsibility, economic prudence and stewardship of the economy. But it is not fiscal responsibility when we balance the books on broken backs. It is not stewardship when the ship has been sold off and the crew left to drown. It is not prudence. It is power maintenance. Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab) I hope the engineers can check that the microphones and speakers are working while I ask a quick question. My hon. Friend mentions Members on this side of the House. There are far more of us on this side since July last year than there were in 2019, with a very different approach taken in our manifestos. Does he fear that the shift in tone he is suggesting is one of the reasons that we did so badly in 2019 but so well last year? Clive Lewis No, I do not. We have a distorted electoral system. Bring on proportional representation, because if we had PR, we would have had a different Government in 2019 and most definitely in 2017. Sometimes politicians have to do what they believe to be right and lead from the front. I think we should lead from the front. Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind) I compliment the hon. Member on his Bill. To help his argument, there was overwhelming opinion poll support for public ownership of water in 2017 and 2019, and there still is today. Clive Lewis I thank the right hon. Member for his point. I will come on to this later, and I hope other Members will pick up on it, but the fact that the public are way ahead of this House on the issue of public ownership is one of the reasons why so many people are losing faith in the two-party political system. One only has to look at some political parties whose Members are not in their place—at the Reform party, for example, which has a policy of public ownership of water. Yes, its Members will privatise the NHS, but they understand how popular this is, and they are ahead of the curve—they are ahead of us on this side. Neil Coyle Really? Clive Lewis On the issue of water, yes, I would say they are, because whether I like it or not, Reform has a policy for water to be owned 50% by pension companies and 50% by the public. As much as it grieves me to say it, that is a policy of public ownership. They are populist; they are listening to a popular voice. Mr James Frith (Bury North) (Lab) Will my hon. Friend give way? Clive Lewis I will make some progress and then give way, and I will also try to keep the volume down a little bit. This is about the maintenance of a political and economic model that was never built to serve the public—a model designed to shield the wealth of asset holders, landlords, shareholders, corporations and, yes, privatised water companies. But here is the great irony: the very greed, recklessness and contempt of the water industry—its excesses—have cracked open the door, and through that crack, we glimpse an opportunity. It is an opportunity to shatter the myth of privatisation’s inevitability, to break free from the narrow, self-imposed rules that have caged our Government’s economic choices, to expose its failures, to challenge its dominance and, above all, to show this country that there is an alternative—an alternative that is democratic, sustainable and run in the interests of the many, not the few. We can do it better. Mr Frith My hon. Friend is making a typically impassioned speech. He says the general public are ahead of us. Where might that same public be when faced with the bill for bringing in the nationalisation he is clearly wedded to? Furthermore, in the event that we do not have to buy the water industry but seize it, the implications of that seizure will cause an economic collapse. At what point will he take responsibility for either of those scenarios when confronting a public who are, he says, ahead of us on this issue? Clive Lewis I will obviously come to many of those points later in my speech, but let me make this point now: I do not believe in nationalisation, and this Bill has nothing to do with nationalisation. This is about giving the public a say over their water. It is about governance, standards and democracy. Mr Frith Will my hon. Friend give way? Clive Lewis No, my hon. Friend has made his point. Mr Frith On this point? Clive Lewis No, I am going to carry on and make some progress. You made your point. Let the public— Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani) Order. Mr Lewis, I do not believe I was making a point at all. Clive Lewis My apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker; I should have said that my hon. Friend made his point. The clock is ticking. The climate crisis is no longer a distant warning. It is our lived reality. Rising droughts, creeping desertification, depleted aquifers, wildfires, systemic collapse—these are no longer projections; they are the forecast turned fact. Preparing for this future and adapting to what is now inevitable has never been more urgent. The evidence is sobering. The UK’s water resources are under mounting pressure and not just from the climate emergency, but from rising demand and population growth. Experts now project that England could face significant water supply deficits as early as 2034 unless we act decisively. That is not a distant horizon; it is a little over a decade away. But while the threat has grown, our resilience has shrunk, because while the climate crisis has intensified, our water infrastructure has stood still, or, worse, been sold off, hollowed out and left to rot. In the 35 years before privatisation almost 100 reservoirs were built; in the 35 years since privatisation, not one major English reservoir has been built. But it gets worse, because in that same period private water companies have sold off 25 reservoirs without replacing one. Instead of investing in resilience, they have extracted value: £72 billion paid out in dividends while pipes leak, rivers choke, and the public pays the price. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Frith) asks how we can afford it; how can we not afford it? That is not mismanagement; it is a betrayal. If scientists tell us the climate crisis is an existential threat to humanity and to this country— Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab) Will my hon. Friend give way? Clive Lewis One second. If scientists tell us the climate crisis is an existential threat to humanity and to this country, we must treat it as such: an existential conflict. In that context, the actions of these companies—selling off reservoirs, failing to invest, polluting our water—are not just negligent; they are acts that actively undermine our national water security. In any other existential crisis, we might call that what it is: sabotage. And in a time of national peril, sabotage has another name: treason. Let me explain why this matters to me personally. When I served on tour in Afghanistan back in 2009—not in a boy band—I experienced something utterly alien to me: the gnawing fear of thirst; not the mild irritation of forgetting a water bottle, but the deep physical worry that there may not be enough clean water to get through the day. In Britain, we have been blessed: water falls from the sky; it fills our rivers, it soaks our fields, and we joke about it—it is part of who we are. But in Afghanistan there was no humour; only heat, dust and desperation. There I saw children trekking miles through the desert, not for food, not for money, but to beg for clean bottled water. Once we have seen that, and once we have felt that fear, we can never take water for granted again. We never again believe it is something we can waste or pollute or privatise without consequence. That is why I have brought forward this Bill: because anger is not enough; outrage, no matter how justified, will not fix the pipes, stop the sewage or fill the reservoirs. We need a plan. We need a strategy. We need a future. We can do it better. My Water Bill delivers that. It sets out the high standards our country deserves and the democratic governance our water system desperately needs. First, it establishes clear, ambitious targets to stop the sewage in our rivers and on our beaches, to restore our water to high ecological and chemical standards, and to deliver universal, affordable access to water as a basic human right—a right we have never had before in this country. It demands a system designed not just to extract profit but to adapt, to build resilience in the face of climate change, and to harness nature-based solutions that work with the environment, not against it. Secondly, it transforms governance. The Bill introduces representation for workers and local communities on the boards of water companies. It gives voting rights to employees and customers, so that those who use and maintain a system have a real say in how it is run. Water is not a commodity but a common good, and those who depend on it and pay for it should help govern it. Thirdly, the Bill lays the foundations for a democratic future. It establishes a commission on water ownership to advise the Secretary of State on long-term strategy, looking at international best practice, especially in OECD countries, where public water ownership is the norm, not the exception. Crucially, it creates a citizens assembly on water ownership to bring the public into the process, to deliberate, debate and decide how we can govern this most precious of resources. The public care, but how do I know that? I know because a small fraction of them are in the Public Gallery today, having travelled here from all over the country; I know because of the thousands of emails that have been sent to MPs across the House; and I know because those people will never stop campaigning until this injustice is resolved. They know that we can protect something not by selling it off, but by standing up for it, involving people in its care and ensuring that it serves the public, today, tomorrow and for generations to come. My Bill offers a pathway out of crisis. It offers control, resilience and democracy. It is not just about cleaning up our rivers, but about cleaning up the system that allowed them to be polluted in the first place. Privatisation is not just a problem—it is the problem. We can do it better. I can hear some people on the Labour Benches thinking, “But we have just passed”— Dawn Butler (Brent East) (Lab) You can hear thinking? Clive Lewis I can now—for my next trick, I can hear thinking! I can hear them thinking, “But we have just passed the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025, Clive, so what are you talking about?” Yes, we have, but I am afraid to say it has been watered down—[Interruption.] Sorry, I had to get that one in—it was all going so well. The Act does not live up to what was promised, it does not deliver what is needed, and it certainly does not live up to its name. Do not get me wrong: it is a start. Grahame Morris I congratulate my good and hon. Friend on making an excellent speech and on advocating for public ownership of water and the opportunity to make things better. Does he agree that the mismanagement of the water companies under privatisation is a huge indictment of the whole principle? In my area, bills are way above inflation and huge dividends are being paid by borrowing money. At the very least, should our Government not be looking at stopping the payment of bonuses and share dividends while sewage pollution continues, and we have appalling mismanagement of the industry? Clive Lewis I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I agree with him wholeheartedly and I am just about to come to that point in relation to what the Water (Special Measures) Act does and does not do. It addresses some of those points, but as we have already discussed, privatisation is not just a problem, but the problem, and it is a big part of why so much has gone wrong. Unfortunately, the Water (Special Measures) Act does not live up to what was promised or what is needed, and it certainly does not live up to its name. However, it is a start, and I praise my colleagues on the Front Bench, including the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice (Emma Hardy), who has done so much work in this area. Unfortunately, the Act is not a solution. Remarkably, my Government’s Water (Special Measures) Act does not even define what clean water means. There are no standards or targets—just vague intentions handed over once again to a regulatory system that has already failed us and to the companies that caused the mess in the first place. It says nothing about better governance, and absolutely nothing about the big, fat, humongous elephant in the room: who owns our water? If we do not deal with ownership, we cannot deal with accountability. If we cannot deal with accountability, we can forget clean water. No—we must go further on clean water standards, corporate accountability and what happens when companies fail. Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab) Does my hon. and gallant Friend accept that there is increased accountability in the Water (Special Measures) Act through the fact that many companies in the industry are now rewriting their articles of association to ensure that they are accountable not just to shareholders, but to the customers and users of water? Clive Lewis After 35 years of abject failure, it is too little, too late. My Bill would put the final nail in the coffin of this sorry chapter of our country’s water and water system. Neil Coyle Sticking with the puns, I commend my hon. Friend on his gallons of passion; he is always making waves. He criticises the Government’s legislation, which is obviously not yet in effect, but does he think that the Cunliffe commission will go any way towards addressing some of the concerns he has outlined? Clive Lewis Unfortunately, I do not, because again the elephant in the room—who owns our water—has been ruled out of the Cunliffe commission’s operational process. It cannot actually look at that issue. I have no issue with Sir Jon Cunliffe, but let us not forget that he originates from the Treasury—he probably has Treasury brain. That economic orthodoxy is part of the reason why we are in the place that we are. I do not have so much confidence in the Cunliffe commission, but I do have far more confidence in the People’s Commission on the Water Sector, which is being run by academics and which will report at the same time. I will be very interested to hear what it says. Neil Coyle Will my hon. Friend give way? Clive Lewis Those are the reasons why I have brought forward this Bill. The Government’s Act does none of those things, but my Bill does. Take just one example— Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani) Order. I believe Mr Lewis probably cannot hear interventions, because he is so loud himself. Members should intervene loudly if they wish to intervene. Clive Lewis I did hear the intervention, but I wanted to make some progress. Take this one example. Under this Bill, if a water company breaches the terms of its licence with a major sewage discharge, it can forget shareholder payout and piling on more debt. If it does it twice, it is in the last chance saloon. After three strikes, it is out—licence terminated and on its bike—and those price-gouging, asset-stripping, river-killing vulture capitalist outfits will be rolled into the sunset without a penny in compensation. What about those water infrastructure assets that they have been sweating for private gain? They go back into the public realm, thank you very much. If they start whining about debts, do not worry: we will do a full audit of what they invested, what they racked up in debt, what they paid out in dividends and what they stuffed into bloated executive pay packets. I will tell you this, Madam Deputy Speaker: I am yet to see a single privatised English water company walk away with anything other than a well-earned spanking and a sharp haircut for its creditors. Those assets will belong to the public once again, and we will not pay a penny more than they are worth. I can hear people thinking, “Where will the money come from? How will you invest in publicly owned water without the private sector?” I will tell them where it has not come from in these past 35 years—I am mind-reading again. Mark Ferguson (Gateshead Central and Whickham) (Lab) Will my hon. Friend give way? Clive Lewis I will just make some progress, and then I will give way. I am on a roll. Let me tell the House where the money has not come from for these past 35 years. It has not come from private shareholders or long-term thinking, and it certainly has not come from some mythical well of benevolent capitalism. The private companies have put in less than nothing; in fact, they have racked up more than £60 billion in debt. Thames Water has paid more than £7.2 billion in dividends since privatisation, and is now £15.2 billion in debt and counting—work that out. Now, it is trying to plug the hole with a £3 billion emergency loan that will cost 10% in annual interest. That is more than half a billion pounds a year, just for interest payments, courtesy of our bills. That money will not build a reservoir, fix a pipe or clean a river, but it will keep a rotten system afloat for a little longer. Noah Law My hon. and gallant Friend makes an impassioned case for public ownership—something that, in the right context, I am sure Members on all sides of the House can celebrate. On the point about the cost of financing to the public, though, does he agree that while there are some serious indiscretions in parts of the industry, such as in Thames Water’s case, this conversation about the appropriate financing model would be better entertained at a time when the cost of capital in the private water industry was not lower than the cost of public sector borrowing, on which, of course, we are in a very difficult situation? Clive Lewis The cheapest borrowing in the country, without a doubt, is public sector borrowing. The private water industry, which has had 35 years to sort this mess out, is not going to find investment. It is up to its eyeballs in debt. It is relying on a 50% increase in our bills by 2030, if we include inflation, and that is in the middle of a cost of living crisis. How can we justify that? The answer is that we cannot. Mr Frith The day after the seizure of public assets that my hon. Friend is describing, billions and billions of pounds of debt will come with it. What does he propose to do with that debt, other than refinancing, which is exactly where we are at now with the industry requirement to refinance the debt to try to keep bills down? Instead, he is advocating that the public purse take on that private debt. Clive Lewis At the beginning of my now seemingly rather long speech, I think I referred to a failure of imagination. Ask what Margaret Thatcher would have done when she was faced with similar problems. She would have fought her way through it. She changed the very fabric of our economy, our democracy and our politics, and she made it work. We can do the same, because the public are behind us. They want this to work. Mr Frith rose— Mark Ferguson rose— Clive Lewis I will make some progress. Let us recap, because I do not want to go on too long; I want to conclude, if I can. That money from Thames Water—that half a billion pounds in interest payments—will keep a rotten system afloat for just a little longer. The myth of privatisation is that the private sector will act in the long-term interests of the British public because it wants to turn a profit. That is preposterous, as is proven by the state of our water, and exhibit A is Thames Water. We can now turn to the question of where the investment will come from. Under public ownership, it will come from the only place it ever should have—from us, the public—and every penny of it will go back into the system. It will go into the pipes, the rivers, the seas we swim in and the water we drink. There will be a direct relationship between what we pay and what we get, with no offshore dividends, no bloated bonuses and no debt-laden shell games—just clean, accountable, democratic water. When I was in Afghanistan, every soldier had one critical duty: to stay hydrated. To dehydrate was considered a military offence, because it put the soldier and their team at risk. If someone ran out of water, we did not debate markets or metrics; we shared what we had. We had each other’s backs. As the desert-dwelling Fremen in James Herbert’s novel “Dune” believed: “A man’s flesh is his own; the water belongs to the tribe”. It is time our water returned to the tribe, to the people, to the public. We can do better; we must, and with this Bill, we will. I commend it to the House.](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1905614329543532962/amplify_video_thumb/1905612252947865600/img/4N7RnIbeKkSuIXsR.jpg)
