Mick West debunks chemtrails (natural contrails since the 1920s) and Flat Earth claims, citing physics and peer-rejected theories like WTC 7’s fire-induced collapse. He critiques groups like AE911 for oversimplifying evidence—e.g., a 97% vote against reopening their investigation—and dismisses Morgellons as misdiagnosed Lyme or aging symptoms. On AI, they warn of deepfake-driven propaganda (e.g., Gal Gadot hoaxes) and memory distortion fueling conspiracies, like CNN’s debunked Roy Moore claims. West’s Escaping the Rabbit Hole and Metabunk.org offer tools to combat misinformation, but Rogan laments how conspiracy culture diverts focus from real science while still thriving despite evidence. [Automatically generated summary]
Well, I'm doing research with a book I'm writing, which is called Escaping the Rabbit Hole, and it's about how people get into the rabbit hole and how people get out of the rabbit hole.
So the whole thing is about the rabbit hole, which is something basically people get sucked into.
And I think people do a lot of research into the reasons behind people getting into conspiracy theories, like the psychological reasons and the personality reasons and things like that.
But I think most conspiracy theorists are just regular people.
They're just ordinary people who get sucked into something.
And they tell me what happened to them when they got into conspiracy theories.
And it nearly always starts with them looking at some video.
Nowadays, it starts with them looking at some video.
And then they just get sucked in.
And then they start looking at another video, and another video, and another video, and Facebook and YouTube is feeding them these videos, because once you start going down that road, you just can't change your trajectory.
Autoplay thing or instituted this autoplay thing or the next video plays immediately and they're all related.
I think that's definitely been a thing with people and also like the suggestions on the right hand side if you're watching one video on a particular subject.
Well, I remember this was in the days, I think, before YouTube.
This was in the days when maybe YouTube was around, but it just wasn't that popular.
I remember me and my friend Eddie were high as fuck, and we're talking to my neighbor, and there was some plane that was flying over, and we were wondering why the clouds...
Coming from behind this plane stood so long.
So I asked him, I used to have this neighbor, I used to call him Bling Bling, because Bling Bling was incapable of talking about anything other than objects.
Like, oh, he'd talk about, oh, that's a nice car.
Is that a new car?
Where'd you get that watch?
Like, that was Bling Bling.
All Bling Bling wanted to talk about is, like, material possessions.
So, he and I were parked in front of his...
I was saying hi to him, and I said, hey man, do you remember clouds sticking around in the sky that long?
And he's like, no, I don't know.
Is that a new truck?
And like...
I just remember how ironic it was because I had told Eddie about Bling Bling.
You know, like, this is all this guy cares about and wants to talk about.
And then he did that while we were out there.
But I remember thinking, man, how weird would it be if all of a sudden clouds from jet engines Started appearing and it just appeared right before our eyes and we hadn't noticed it.
But I wasn't sold.
It didn't make any sense to me.
Because my thought on it was the amount of people that had to be involved.
You're talking about all these different airplanes.
Get all these people to keep their mouths shut.
These are...
They're pilots, right?
So they're not making shit tons of money.
And they live here, too.
That's the other thing.
Like, if they're actually spraying something in the sky, they live here, too.
Well, the theory now is that it's basically the power elite in the country is doing these chemtrails as a kind of last-ditch attempt to maintain power before the entire world collapses into chaos.
So they think it's kind of like a desperate situation.
If you look at a car on a cold day and you see the exhaust coming out of the tailpipe, you'll see like a cloud of condensation sometimes and you'll see some water coming out.
And the exact same thing happens with jet engines.
And when that exhaust hits the cold air, it condenses, it freezes, it makes a cloud.
And contrails are essentially clouds.
They're exactly the same physically as a regular cirrus cloud.
And just like the clouds vary in the sky, the amount of moisture varies in the sky as well, which is one of the reasons why you will see a jet pass through one area and you will see a contrail, and then it almost looks like they shut the contrail jets off, and then you see it pick up maybe a couple hundred yards later.
Yeah, and that's, when you say like a cloud, it's really exactly the same as a cloud.
If you look at any picture of a cloudy day and then just remove all the clouds, but they're still there as invisible clouds, then when the plane comes along, it's almost like the plane is this magic pen revealing these invisible clouds, because all a cloud is is a region of the sky where the humidity is above a certain level.
So you know that the humidity is pretty patchy across the sky because there's a cloud here and right next to it there's no clouds.
So where the cloud is, it's high humidity.
Where the cloud isn't, it's low humidity.
But if both of those were just lowered, like 10%, then you'd get no clouds at all.
Then a plane comes along, it raises the humidity in the cloud area and in the non-cloud area.
But this area, because it was a bit higher, you get a trail forming and this area you get no trail forming.
I'm like, how did you not put this together yourself?
Like, if you're the guy who's making this video, and you're trying to find a reason why you could, you know, some facts that you could throw at people.
We could say, hey, look, the government is definitely spraying things in the sky.
They're spraying aluminum.
Look, we found the aluminum, and we found it in the water.
It's in your water supply.
It's going to get in your body.
It's going to poison you.
Look, we found it in the water.
How the fuck did he not look at it himself, is what I was thinking.
And when me and him were having this conversation, I realized, like, you have these people that go down—they're not open-minded in regards to these subjects.
They go down a very narrow road, and that road is, the government is doing something to me.
So they're trying to find something, and actually trying to find an alternative explanation isn't really that attractive to them.
So they find aluminum in the water or in the soil or whatever, and then they glom onto that as being evidence of geoengineering, and that's great for them because they can just find loads and loads of samples of soil.
It's not it's not gonna just sit up there like that It would it would be a very different experience It would slowly settle to the ground and wouldn't look like a cloud and there's no reason to do it There's no benefit whatsoever.
There's no scientific evidence Ever uncovered ever that there's any benefit for anybody of spraying aluminum over people.
That's the thing, even with the whole geoengineering field, there's really no solid evidence that it will work.
We don't know what the side effects will be.
We don't know how much we would need to spray, and we don't know, like, you know, when we stop doing it, will the world bounce back in a terrible way and it'll be a big disaster.
Well, that's an interesting thing because one of the reasons why contrails are interesting to study is because they actually do have an effect on the temperature of the Earth.
And this is something that we found out after 9-11.
When September 11th happened in 2001, it was the big disaster, there was a shutdown on all flights in the United States.
And when they did that, the temperature changed.
Because these clouds literally do provide like a cover and do they act as an insulator or an escalator?
They block incoming radiation during the day and they block outgoing radiation at night.
But the net effect is that they actually block more outgoing radiation than they do incoming radiation.
So if planes didn't fly at night, then you would cool the earth down.
You'd have to stop flying quite a bit before night time.
So if all the flights in the world were between like 5am and 5pm local time, then you could actually cool the world down by just not having any flights at night because it's the night flights that have this really big kind of blanketing effect that stopped the outgoing radiation.
You know how it's warmer on a, well, in a cloudy day, like it doesn't get as cold at night.
You know, deserts get really cold at night because there's nothing over them.
They don't have any cover.
That's one of the reasons, but...
Yeah, the contrails will actually warm the planet because the amount of outgoing radiation they block is just way higher because of the wavelengths and the size of the particles and whatnot.
That's something that people are legitimately monitoring.
What people need to understand is just because you feel like when you look up in the sky and you see these crisscross patterns that they're spraying you.
No one's spraying you.
This is just a natural reaction to jet engines and condensation in the atmosphere and the heat and the moisture of the jet engine.
They are actually talking about a way of using contrails for a kind of geoengineering.
And this is something that people often get confused about because you see these two words together, contrails and geoengineering, and they think, oh, that's chemtrails.
But what they're trying to do is use air traffic control and computers and weather forecasting to make it so the planes don't fly through the contrail-forming areas when they would make contrails at night and make it so they do fly through contrail-forming areas with contrails during the day.
So if they were considering trying to heat up the atmosphere or heat up the earth at night, they would just fly over these moisture-rich areas, and if they weren't, they would avoid them.
But the goal, obviously, is to combat climate change, global warming, and cool the Earth down.
So a relatively cheap way of doing that, to a degree, is to have these planes be controlled by computers.
And it increases fuel costs for the airline by about 2% or 3% because they have to make very deviations, sometimes in height and sometimes in direction.
But it could actually have a significant effect on the Earth's climate if we had the entire world's airline fleets all in this program where they would fly, making controls where they were needed and not making controls where they were not needed.
...often referred to collectively as geoengineering, that potentially could help reverse the warming effects of global climate change.
One that has gained my personal attention is stratospheric aerosol injection, or SAI, a method of seeding the stratosphere with particles that can help reflect the sun's heat in much the same way that volcanic eruptions do.
An SAI program could limit global temperature increases, reducing some risks associated with higher temperatures and providing the world economy additional time.
A method of seeding the stratosphere with particles that can help reflect the sun's heat in much the same way that volcanic eruptions do.
An SAI program could limit global temperature increases, reducing some risks associated with higher temperatures and providing the world economy additional time to transition from fossil fuels.
This process is also relatively inexpensive.
The National Research Council estimates that a fully deployed SAI program would cost about $10 billion yearly.
As promising as it may be, moving forward on SAI would also raise a number of challenges for our government and for the international community.
On the technical side, greenhouse gas emission reductions would still have to accompany SAI to address other climate change effects such as ocean acidification because SAI alone would not remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere.
On the geopolitical side, the technology's potential to alter weather patterns and benefit certain regions of the world at the expense of other regions could trigger sharp opposition by some nations.
Others might seize on SAI's benefits and back away from their commitment to carbon dioxide reductions.
And as with other breakthrough technologies, global norms and standards are lacking to guide the deployment and implementation of SAI and others.
Yeah, you spray sulfur dioxide, which isn't exactly a reflective particle, but it acts like a nucleus for upper atmosphere, clouds and things like that.
It's basically, like he said, the same thing a volcano does.
When a volcano erupts, it spews a whole bunch of sulfur dioxide and various other things into the upper atmosphere.
And that creates haze, basically, which blocks the incoming radiation and cools things down.
Every time a big volcano goes off, you see a little dip in the Earth's temperature because of this blocking effect that it has.
And so the theory is that you could do something similar, and you could do it by spraying things out of planes.
But he's talking about things that we might do in the future.
He uses the future tense, like we could do this, we may do this, the effects might be this.
And he's talking about the possible geopolitical impacts of it, which are very significant.
Like if one country is going to be spraying something that would cause, say, the monsoons to double in intensity or to halve in intensity in India...
That could cause the deaths of millions of people from famine and flooding.
The pattern of hurricanes is pretty much the same as it's been for a long time.
When you look at the statistical variations, there's maybe a bit more intense because the oceans are a bit warmer.
People think that hurricanes have been steered Yeah, I've heard that one.
Through HAARP. Yeah, through HAARP. That doesn't make any sense.
But there are ways that do make sense, which are cloud seeding.
Like if you do lots of seeding of the hurricane on one side, you could perhaps reduce the amount of humidity, of moisture on that side.
And so it'll kind of turn a little bit more and move over to one side.
So there are ways that It might work.
And they did actually experiment with this, I think back in the 70s or so.
There was one experiment where they tried seeding a hurricane, but it ended up going somewhere else other than where they intended it, and it destroyed a whole bunch of houses.
What I was going to say is those studies would have to be available for people to understand, but nobody wants to do that.
Nobody wants to go in.
You want to look up and see the thing behind the jet and go, they started it, they're spraying, there's patchwork, look, there's haze all over us, which it does happen.
You can have a clear sky and you have the right conditions and a bunch of jets fly over and all of a sudden it's very hazy.
Yeah, well, I took some of these photos and I put them up, I think the last time we had this conversation, where you could see them from World War II. You could see these jets, and you see the contrails behind the jets.
But that's the other thing.
It's like contrails dissipate, but chemtrails stay.
Well, you misunderstand what happens.
The contrails stay if there's more moisture.
If the conditions are correct, they stay.
And if the conditions are barely enough to make a contrail, they dissipate fairly rapidly.
If you ask them, why do you think that contrails dissipate and chemtrails stay?
And they say, because I can see it.
If you look up, you look at the chemtrails, and they're staying, and the contrails are dissipating.
How do you know which is which?
Well, the contrails are the ones that dissipate.
So they don't have any basis for their belief.
And the one thing I do, which you've probably seen, is that video where I go through all my old books on the weather, and I look up in each one of them, the section on contrails, and I read the bit in it that says contrails persist for hours sometimes, contrails sometimes spread out to cover the sky, contrails last a long time.
And I go back from these books from the 1990s all the way back to the 1950s, and I've got books in the 1940s.
And if you show people these actual books, it's a really powerful way of getting through to them because they've just assumed that contrails can't persist.
Well, 90% of the people don't notice contrails until they hear about the chemtrail conspiracy theory.
A lot of people, they will hear about it, and then the same day, they will go outside and look at the sky, and then that's the first time they've ever noticed these contrails.
Even the people who are high-ups in the chemtrail movement, they only notice them when they hear about the theory.
There's a guy...
I can't remember his name now, but he lives in San Diego and he never noticed them until like 2014. And he lived there all his life.
And now he's publishing scientific papers.
J. Marvin Herndon is his name.
He's publishing these scientific papers about how the spraying coal ash, the waste products of burning coal in power stations, the spraying that in the upper atmosphere.
He's actually got like three or four papers published.
In these kind of pay-to-publish scientific journals.
Now, the problem with it is, when he's talking about possible solutions, and then people look up and they see these actual clouds that are created by jets, they assume this has already begun, that the government would not tell us about it.
Now, imagine if that was something that the government was engineering.
If they really were engineering, spraying things to give people respiratory illness so that the hospital industry could...
Profit.
Whatever the reason was.
That would be something that people could be concerned with.
Like, look, there's a real connection between airplanes and illnesses.
But it's not spraying stuff in the sky.
That's not real.
I understand people love these things, and I understand people don't trust the government.
Those things completely make sense to me.
But you've got to pay attention to what's real and what's not real.
Because as soon as you don't do that, then all the real stuff that the government does, all the real stuff the government does, like these fucking roads they're going to build in Alaska right now through dangerous areas where they have salmon rivers, they're going to start doing mining.
I think, what is the Pebble Beach?
Is that the...
No.
What is the big mining issue in Alaska that is going on right now Bristol Bay.
And they want to do this, and it's near a major salmon area where these salmon use this river, and people that live there are terrified that they're going to do this.
This is a real for-profit...
Thing where they're putting the environment at risk.
That's real.
So this is something that people should be concerned about.
But they're not.
They don't get concerned about those kind of things.
You know, environmentalists do and, you know, conservationists do.
But the conspiracy theorists don't.
They don't look at that and go, hey, here's clear evidence of the government being in bed with enormous businesses that stand to profit spectacular amounts of money.
From risking the environment and risking these very delicate salmon fisheries.
Like you say with the airplane stuff, like if people are thinking they're spraying chemicals out of the back of the airplanes, they're just not going to be worried about...
Right.
Regular pollution.
And if they think that they're controlling the climate already, they're not going to worry about any type of global warming.
And one of the reasons why I believe that is because of the formation of the single bullet theory.
And the single bullet theory was formed because the fact that they had to account for one bullet that hit the underpass, ricocheted off, and put some man in the hospital.
And that before that they did not have an explanation for why all of these bullets, bullet holes, all these wounds were in all these different people's bodies.
The other reason why I'm inclined to believe there's a conspiracy was the fact that they found that bullet on Connelly's gurney when they brought him into the hospital.
It's too convenient and the bullet itself is fairly pristine.
Now knowing as much as I know about bullets from personal experience of hunting, You can't hit anything with a bullet.
I pulled a lot of bullets out of animals.
When you shoot an animal and you hit bone, those bullets, they distort brutally.
I mean, they don't look like that if they go through two people and hit all sorts of bone.
That's the bullet that came out of Connelly's body, or Connelly's gurney, excuse me.
And that's the bullet that they're attributing to this single bullet theory.
If you look at the path of the bullet, That goes through Kennedy and then goes through Connolly.
Right, but you've got to combine that with the fact that the bullet came out fairly pristine, which means it didn't actually go through a kind of a bouncy path like that.
There's also the fact that there was particles, there was more metallic particles from the bullets, more fragments from the bullet in Connelly's body than were missing from the bullet.
I do not believe that was the bullet and I think that that is a very reasonable assumption.
When you shoot those bullets into water or you shoot those bullets into like fluff or something like that that doesn't have a lot of impact to slow the bullet down, then you get a bullet that looks like that.
If you shoot a bullet into bone, they distort wildly.
The odds of it hitting only soft tissue and it's going to go through his neck and it came out here that didn't clip one of his vertebrae or something like that, I don't think that's real.
I think also there's a difference between, and this is fact, from David Lifton's book, Best Evidence, which was a book by an accountant who went over the Warren Commission report and found all these factual inaccuracies and all these contradictions.
He found that there was a difference in the autopsy report at Bethesda, Maryland, the Bethesda Naval Hospital, versus what they had reported on the scene in Dallas.
The first doctors that got a hold of Kennedy's body in Dallas before they flew him to Bethesda said that the hole in his neck was an entry wound.
When they got to Maryland, they changed that to a tracheotomy hole.
They changed the impact, and they said that this was not an impact from a bullet, that it was from something else.
Yeah, well, I think, well, there was also a lot of pressure on these people to try to wrap this up nice and tight and say that Lee Harvey Oswald was the shooter.
And this was a couple of years after the assassination.
There was a memo that went out where they were concerned about all these conspiracy theories that were coming out.
And they used the term conspiracy theories and then they said they should try to basically debunk them and make the people who...
look like conspiracy theories, basically.
So the theory is that the term conspiracy theory came from that particular memo.
But that memo, they never actually encouraged people to use the term.
But yeah, there was a huge concern from the CIA that they would lose the trust of the public if everybody started believing that it was a conspiracy theory.
At least that's what they said.
I mean, maybe there is a conspiracy and maybe they're just trying to cover it up.
Did you see the most recent dump of information on the Kennedy assassination that Jack Ruby had stated to people that before the day of the Kennedy assassination, keep an eye out today, there's going to be fireworks?
Whereas he could be just talking about he was going to go visit his ex-wife or something, or he was going to go to the bar, or he was looking forward to shouting at the parade or whatever.
People say things, and after something happens, people go back and they look at everything that happened, and then they say, well, that sounds like something significant.
Like with the Vegas shooting, there was a woman walking around the crowd in the Vegas shooting saying, you know, you're all going to die.
This is what some people said.
And this was like half an hour before the actual shooting itself.
So people take that event and then, you know, since a lot of people did die, they think that this woman actually knew what was going to happen and she was trying to warn people.
See, unfortunately, I don't really follow JFK. Conspiracy very much and the reason I don't is that there are already like I think literally over a thousand books Mm-hmm.
It just didn't it There's many books that you could read about the Kennedy assassination, and some of them favor the conspiracy, and some of them favor the assassination.
I think a lot of them have merit on both sides.
One thing that drives me crazy was people say that you could never make that shot.
That's fucking bullshit.
That's bullshit.
This is why I know it's bullshit, because it was only like a couple hundred yards.
Like a couple hundred yards, shooting at something the size of a person's head is easy.
Look, I mean, first of all, if you were used to that rifle and you practiced that, someone said, oh, the scope was off.
I think that's bullshit, too.
The reason why I think that's bullshit is because it's easy to knock a scope off.
You have to have a direct chain of evidence.
Between the time Lee Harvey Oswald had that scope shooting that rifle, the moment he shot that rifle, and then you have to hand it off to someone who checks the scope right then.
Because if you drop a rifle, the scope goes off.
Just drop it.
I've done that before.
I dropped a rifle once when I was hunting in Wisconsin and my scope was off by 6 inches at 100 yards.
Just dropping it.
So the idea that he could have never made that shot because the scope is off.
Scopes get adjusted.
That's what happens when you drop a scope.
They move.
That's the whole thing about ballistics.
You have to check them.
You go to the range.
You set up a lead sled.
You lay the rifle down so it's perfectly stable.
You squeeze off a shot.
You use the binoculars, you find out where the shot hit on the target, and then you adjust the scope.
They're adjustable.
So the idea that his scope was no good is crazy.
The idea that that shot was too far to make, insane.
I think it was less than 100 yards when they think he made the first shot, which is a chip shot.
That's a shot that you would make without even a rest.
Now he's making this shot resting on the window, so he's perfectly steady.
The idea that that was impossible is crazy.
The idea that no one can do that in three shots, that's been disproven.
Someone can do it.
Someone who's really good at reloading and loading can do it.
I worked with the same people that did his show, the same people that did his show.
The reason why I did Joe Rogan Questions Everything is they wanted me to take over Jesse's show after he was done, and I was uninterested.
I was like, I'm not that guy.
I'm not like the I Believe Every Conspiracy guy.
I think people have a real weird vested interest in proving that things are a conspiracy.
I'm interested in finding out what things really are, like legitimately what they really are.
And even if I'm wrong, like I'm not interested in reinforcing things I've already said.
If I find out that what I said was wrong, I'm interested in repeating that I was wrong as many times as I can to get it out to as many people as I can.
So this JFK thing, there's bullshit on both sides of it.
But the idea that this guy who went over to Russia, married a Russian citizen, came back here, was, I mean, he was absolutely involved in some shady, weird shit with Cuba.
He's a fucking weird guy.
Like, Lee Harvey Oswald was a weird guy.
The idea that he was completely innocent, I'm not buying that either.
You can even point to somebody and say there is somebody there and they'll think there's somebody there later because the brain is so chaotically working, it forms memories in a very weird way.
Especially when it comes to something that's so significant, like the president getting shot or any sort of violent thing.
Now, this is something that gets repeated ad nauseum about 9-11.
It's something that people point to where they think that When the planes hit those buildings, that there was detonations that caused Tower 1 and Tower 2 to fall.
There's no way they would have fallen like that.
When people say, no, they heard things in the buildings, they heard explosions, people always say shit like that.
And on top of that, if you're dealing with a building collapsing like that, you're going to hear a lot of crazy shit.
Which goes to Tower 7. That's another one that keeps coming up.
See if you can find the video, Jamie.
There's the video that shows what really happened in Tower 7. There's a guy who was a conspiracy guy.
He was really deep into conspiracies.
And then the more he started looking into Tower 7, the more he realized that everyone is just showing the very final video where Tower 7 collapses like a controlled demolition.
And it looks exactly like a controlled demolition.
However, if you find the full video, you see that the interior had collapsed moments before, like quite a bit before.
But he shows how the top of it, you can see the top of Tower 7 give in, which is consistent with this idea that the diesel fuel that they had in the basement had created, wasn't it like diesel tanks?
The fire is what triggered the collapse eventually, but the fact that all the windows were missing from the south side contributed a lot to that, because you got a lot of wind flow through.
So this is not a quick thing like a controlled demolition.
All those windows giving in is indicative of all those floors collapsing probably more than it is.
The idea of, you know, the people that want to see conspiracy think that those bombs were going off there, and that as those detonations or explosions were going off, that that's what caused all those floors to collapse on top of each other.
Yeah, I think that's what I was talking about with the core beliefs of the conspiracy theories with 9-11, this fact that World Trade Center 7 looks like a controlled demolition is its core belief.
But when you actually get into something and describe what's actually happening, you have to go to a much more complicated conspiracy theory and a much more complicated way of looking at what actually happened.
And now they're trying to do a complicated study of World Trade Center 7 at the University of Alaska.
This is something paid for by architects and engineers for 9-11 Truth.
They're trying to actually figure out how they can reconcile controlled demolition with the fact that it collapsed the way it did.
So what they're trying to do is find something that reinforces their initial idea instead of just look at the facts itself saying, If you look at the top of the penthouse collapsing, that's not indicative of a controlled demolition.
That's indicative of the model that NIST described, which is a slow burn inside, extremely hot, deterioration of all the internal structure.
Everything starts to collapse inside and then the outside collapses too.
Yeah, well some of them will say that that is actually how controlled demolitions are done.
You blow up the interior of the building first and then you blow up the exterior of the building.
But the problem is that none of the exterior columns were cut.
There was no explosion seen on the exterior columns.
If you look at the World Trade Center 1 and 2 coming down, you can kind of imagine there are explosions going all the way down because there's things that look like explosions from the falling floors.
But in 7, you just see the building kind of just kind of crumple down.
So they have to kind of explain that.
So they've come up with this study that they've funded.
It's cost them, like, nearly $400,000.
And they're trying to come up with an explanation that doesn't involve fire.
So they're saying, like, if it was controlled demolition, then the way they would have done it is blowing up these interior columns and it would have pulled in the exterior and collapsed the way we see in the video.
And I think that some of them say that the penthouse thing was a separate thing.
Because they wanted to have a neat demolition.
So they first of all blew up a few floors just underneath the penthouse.
So it neatly collapsed inside the building.
And then they blew up some floors at the bottom.
So it all fell in on itself without damaging the surrounding buildings too much.
It's based on confirming this idea that this is a controlled demolition, not on examining the whole thing as it is and going, OK, is it possible that the NIST model is correct?
The thing that I bring up to people all the time when they want to talk about conspiracies, there's a real conspiracy in 9-11 and that's the fact that it happened.
The fact that they did fly planes into buildings, that's a conspiracy and they pulled it off.
That actually did happen.
People don't want that to be it.
They want it to be a much broader conspiracy involving world governments that are trying to close in on all our rights and this is the way to do it.
But these are people who have really no conception whatsoever of physics.
And it's a minority of people.
But you'll find people who don't understand how aluminum can cut through steel.
You know, the columns of the exterior of the World Trade Center were made of steel.
Very strong steel.
And planes are made of mostly aluminum.
So they don't understand how a plane made of aluminum, which is soft, can go through steel, which is very hard and strong.
And the example I always give to them is the ping-pong ball going through a ping-pong paddle.
If you make it go fast enough, this is something I think Mythbusters do and various other people have done, you send a regular ping-pong ball 500 miles an hour into a ping-pong paddle and it just goes straight through it, leaves a ping-pong ball hole in the middle of it.
What I was going to bring up was a guy killed himself once accidentally on a movie set.
Because he took an unloaded gun and he shot it into his temple and it blew his brains out.
Yeah, it was blank.
But the fact that it was blank didn't stop that air from blowing through.
There's a thing that people do when they hunt in Alaska.
And in incredibly moist climates and places where there's a lot of dirt and debris, they will put tape over the top of the rifle, over the end of the barrel where the bullet comes over.
Or they even use a condom.
And it has no effect whatsoever on the accuracy of the bullet because the air coming out of the rifle barrel from the explosion blows that tape out before the bullet even gets to it.
The only reason they have to have that thing right at the end of the barrel is the ping pong ball would slow down so rapidly in the air because it's so light.
If you shot something a little bit heavier but still pretty small, it will go through it.
I think this is a problem with a lot of these theories is that a lot of the people that are involved in these theories are either not educated in what they're talking about because there are some various nuances to things like this ping pong ball trick or they don't want to be.
They don't want to look at anything that takes away from this conspiracy.
They don't want to look at anything that debunks or disproves.
They just want confirmation of their initial idea that this is some big, grand conspiracy.
That someone is in on it and it's happening right before our eyes.
Yeah, it's quite hard to even get one point past a lot of people.
If someone starts out with that theory that aluminum cannot cut steel, then that just becomes the gatekeeping obstacle that you have to get past.
If you can't disprove that one thing, nothing else matters really for them because the plane couldn't have entered the building, therefore everything is a conspiracy.
And it's important for people before they decide that this is, you know, that the government's spraying things in the sky or that the world is flat or whatever these things are.
It's important to look at all the evidence.
These YouTube videos, one of the real problems with them is that they get to play out without being interrupted, much like a podcast, unfortunately.
But they get to have these...
Grand statements without anyone who's an expert stepping in and stopping them and saying, well, that's not true, and here's why it's not true, and here's why you can prove that it's not true, which would just derail most of these conspiracy theories really quickly.
And if you're into something and you get sucked into it and you've got this really interesting theory and it's like all these revelations, like, oh my God, I'm getting the real skinny on the world.
The ice wall.
Yeah.
You just get sucked in and then when it's finished, you're on kind of a dopamine high and you want to do more.
I would go outside and I would try to find those things streaking across the sky.
What it was was that there was a video that was made called Roswell Rods and it was trying to say that there was these bugs Like things that looked like jellyfish that were flying through the air so fast the naked eye couldn't see them but they would catch them on video cameras.
And then finally someone figured it out that what it really was was you could have an HD camera right next to a standard definition camera and the standard see those things flying across the sky.
It's just a video artifact when the camera cannot pick up Those bugs, it elongates them and streaks them across the camera.
Yeah, it's so hard when it's actually been proven and you've got this conclusive proof and yet there are still loads and loads of people who believe in rods and orbs.
Well, I think they also get caught up in the business of whatever it is.
You know, if you're in the UFO business and then someone comes along and shuts down your business, you're going to try to, well, let me sort of, they're not going to look at it objectively.
They're going to go, I want to keep my business alive.
Their take is kind of like the standard of 9-11 truth.
They think that it's controlled demolition and they think they have all this evidence for controlled demolition, but it's not very good evidence.
One of the experts is a high school physics teacher.
And, you know, he's probably fairly good at high school physics, but he just makes some very simple mistakes about physics of the falling towers, and they repeat this on their website, unquestioningly.
There's another guy who's, like, the expert on the nanothermite residue that was found.
You know, they think that these red and grey specks of what looks like paint and rust was actually nanothermite.
Since he's now, like...
An expert on their site, he gets to say whatever he likes and he's got this one theory about how the bits of steel that flew out of the building had these nanothermite rockets attached to them, which is why they were leaving these trails of smoke behind when they fell down.
And these are things that are just pretty ridiculous and you can kind of...
Debunk them with physics, but they'll have none of it because they've got their experts saying something.
And you can't deny the fact that...
You can't debunk their experts because they're experts.
Where would you know more about a high school physics teacher about physics?
Where would you know more about nanothermite than this guy who's an expert in nanothermite?
So they've got all this supposed expertise...
Making these mistakes about 9-11.
The president has this ridiculous demonstration that he does where he holds up two cardboard boxes and underneath one of them there's empty space and underneath the other one there's a tower and he drops them and this one falls to the ground and this one bounces off the cardboard box and he's basically saying this is what should have happened.
This upper portion should have stopped on the way down, and he's using these cardboard boxes as a demonstration.
But they're ridiculous oversimplifications of what actually happened.
Yeah, they recently tried to get a motion passed at the American Institute of Architects, which was basically a reopened World Trade Center 7. And they went to the convention and they stood up and they gave their speeches and gave all their evidence about why, you know, the Building 7...
The investigation should have been reopened, and they took a vote, and I think it was about something like 97% to 3% against doing this.
So of the architects who were actually there, these professional architects, 97%, I can't remember the exact figures, but it's around that, voted against this.
Yeah, even though there are thousands of signatures to the AE911 petition who are actually architects, When you actually look at the actual millions of architects that are out there in the world, it's a very small fraction of that.
Right, but how many of those millions have studied it?
That's the real problem.
I would like to see someone who's like a real, legitimate, top-of-the-food-chain architect from the debunking side view it from someone who is absolutely all in as conspiracy.
Lots of people have done various studies on 9-11, the collapses of the building.
There was a book by a guy from London, I think it's called Feng Fu, Chinese guy from London who wrote a book on progressive collapses in large buildings.
It came out last year, 2016, and it discusses why buildings haven't collapsed, why the World Trade Center towers collapsed, amongst a whole bunch of other buildings, why we either collapsed or didn't.
So there are lots of people who do actually study it.
And within AE 9-11, architects and engineers for 9-11, the vast majority of them have not studied it.
If you look at their position statements, everybody who joins it writes a little statement which goes on the website.
They'll say things like, I watched loose change and that opened my eyes.
Or, it looked weird to me.
That's the real common thing.
When I saw the towers fall, I knew it wasn't a regular collapse.
Well, he definitely has chronic Lyme, and he thinks that what Morgellons is is a side effect of chronic Lyme where people start thinking there's fibers growing out of their skin.
And so they think that fibers that come from their clothes or carpets, they get stuck to someplace they've been itching because they open up a wound, and that they start misinterpreting that as being something that's grown out of their skin.
He's a Morgellons guy in the fact that he has seen the hallucinations, but because of the fact that he's a doctor and scientifically minded, he believes that he's watching his own mind play tricks on him, and he thinks there's neurotoxic qualities to whatever the pathogens that are in Lyme disease are.
There's post-Lyme syndrome and chronic Lyme, which some people think there's a chronic infection, and other people think there's just chronic effects left over from having Lyme disease for a long time.
I think a problem with a lot of these medical conditions is that they're clinical diagnoses, which means that they're diagnosed not with tests that you can do of blood and things like that, but it's based on the symptoms.
And a lot of the times people, they like to attribute their problems to something and give it a name.
So we've got a lot of things now like fibromyalgia, where we don't have...
We can't do a blood test usually for something like fibromyalgia.
You have elevated immune responses and things like that, but you can't say for sure this is fibromyalgia.
It could be just a symptom of something else.
But people like to put a name on things.
So if people have, they're getting aches and pains or whatever, they say it's fibromyalgia.
They convince themselves it's fibromyalgia.
With the- Self-diagnosis.
Yeah.
And with Morgellons, that happens a lot.
People get old, your joints start to ache, your hair starts to fall out, and your eyes start to, you know, you're losing your vision, your focus.
And people think, what's wrong with me?
And they don't realize they're just getting old.
And they look it up and they think they have Morgellons.
Or they think they have chronic Lyme.
People just, if they're getting ill for some reason, they like to attribute their chronic condition to something.
So they might tag on to a particular thing like chronic Lyme if they got bit by a tick, like last summer, and then this summer now they have all these problems, they might self-diagnose as having chronic Lyme.
It seems to me that if they're broadcasting it, and this is something that, you know, the government's talking about it, they're investigating it, all these different people are investigating it, it seems like there's enough evidence that they're concerned.
After a nine-month probe hampered by a lack of access to medical records, a panel of Cuban scientists today declared U.S. diplomats here likely suffered a collective psychogenic disorder Huh.
Doctors treating victims of the attack, though, have found visible, perceptible damage to the patient's brains, marking the first solid evidence that sophisticated weapon described by embassy staff is entirely real, the Associated Press reports.
See, it says the State Department of the FBI officials...
Oh, it's so unlike anything the State Department and the FBI officials have ever seen that the Cuban government's claim the high-pitched whirring sounds reported by the U.S. Embassy staff are just cicadas.
Seems almost plausible.
Click on that link that says they're just cicadas.
Yeah, and I think probably something happened, like, you know, some guy heard something and jumped out of bed and it stopped, and then got back into bed and it started again, and someone else...
That's funny, because if you were in Cuba, and they didn't want you there, and you heard weird noises, you're like, God damn it, they're attacking me with a sound ray.
People think, I'm sick, and then they focus on something.
Like, if you feel like you're itching a bit and you think you've got some kind of weird pathogen under your skin, you're just going to itch more and more.
And there's a thing called sick building syndrome, which is possibly a real thing and possibly a psychogenic thing.
But a lot of people think that sick building syndrome, a lot of the times when it happens, it's like when lots of people working in the same place get similar symptoms.
It's happening because of this mass psychogenic illness.
One person says, I feel sick, and everyone kind of assumes it's something in the environment around them that's causing that, and so they kind of feel sick as well.
And that is when people go to visit people who have schizophrenia, if they hang out with those people, they start developing very bizarre behavior of their own.
Maybe not when he's got that stopwatch hanging from his string.
It was always a watch, right?
Follow the watch very carefully.
You're getting sleepy.
Yeah, that's real.
Hypnosis is real.
I was wondering.
I was like, what is this like?
Is this bullshit?
But it really does put you in a very unusual state.
And when you get out of it, you can go through a lot of stuff that you have maybe cluttering around inside your mind and reorganize after a hypnotic session.
It's pretty interesting.
There's a reason why people use it for quitting smoking and things along those lines.
Yeah, well, this just shows how malleable the human brain is.
And it goes back to that whole thing with being brainwashed by YouTube.
People make documentaries in a way to hypnotize people.
They structure it in a way that you get these images coming at you and these ideas and this reinforcement of things in a way that will actually just kind of embed this idea in your brain without you even really realizing it.
He wrote, the reason why Tenth Planet Jiu-Jitsu is named Tenth Planet Jiu-Jitsu, I actually came up with the name, and one of the reasons why I came up with the name is because we were talking about Zechariah Sitchin.
And the idea is that this came from another planet.
We actually came up with the name before Pluto had been changed from, you know, they had...
So we decided that this jiu-jitsu is coming from another planet, like out there where the Anunnaki live.
But it was based on Zachariah Sitchin's book, The Twelfth Planet.
And his book was all about Planet Nibiru and that the Sumerian texts...
Where when you decipher them correctly, they all describe this ancient race that came from this other planet that has this elliptical orbit that comes in between Earth and Mars and Jupiter?
Somewhere.
It comes near Earth every 3,600 years.
And that this group of beings called the Anunnaki created human beings by coming down here and...
Taking them and taking lower primates and injecting their DNA into them and blah blah blah.
What I disbelieve is people that are in contact with aliens.
I think the idea, you know, the Fermi Paradox, right?
The idea that there's so many planets and so many galaxies and so many solar systems at the odds of life being out there so high, why have we not been contacted?
That's interesting to me.
It is entirely possible in my estimation as a moron that we are the most advanced life form in the universe.
It's entirely possible because we exist.
Because we are the most advanced life form on Earth.
We know that, right?
As far as we know.
As far as, like, communicating things that we've discovered in 2017, we are the most advanced.
It's entirely possible that we're the most advanced everywhere.
They will be hundreds, thousands, or millions of times more powerful than humans in terms of their processing power and hundreds of times more powerful in terms of their strength.
Yeah, because it's going to be an explosive thing.
There's this thing in AI now called...
I'll write it down because I forgot what it was.
Generative Adaptive Networks, which is this way of doing AI where the robots basically teach themselves.
They have one robot who is judging things, and there's one robot that's creating things.
And the robot that's creating things teaches the robot that's judging things how to judge, and the robot that's judging things teaches the creating robot how to create.
And then they just go back and forth, back and forth.
The old way of doing AI was like you would teach a robot to do things and you'd correct it when it gets wrong and you'd tweak the algorithm.
But now you've got these robots that are learning things incredibly rapidly by teaching themselves how to do things.
And the humans who are running these robots don't actually understand how this actually works.
You end up with this huge big matrix of numbers which no one can actually decipher but the results come out of it.
They've got things like now where you can take a scene in a video and you can turn night into day or you can turn a snow scene into a summer scene because the AI knows how to do these things.
Yeah, I saw something that was incredibly disturbing.
They said that when robots become sentient, like when they have the ability to make up their own decisions and do things for themselves, the first thing they're going to do is improve upon their own design.
And they will be able to have 10,000 years of human, like if humans were evolving technology, a robot or a sentient AI could do 10,000 years worth of technological advancement in two weeks.
Maybe that's what's going on with all this crazy push to accept 78 different gender pronouns and non-binary people and all this stuff that didn't exist in the past.
Maybe there's like a natural inclination in the human species to move towards a genderless prototype of the future.
We went into this in depth yesterday under the influence, obviously.
We did a podcast where we were talking about what an alien is, the archetype alien with the big head and the very thin body and the mouth that's barely visible.
I think that this is probably what we see ourselves becoming when we have some sort of a symbiotic relationship with technology, where technology becomes a part of us, when we have the ability to manipulate genes, which is absolutely coming, and then we have This enormous head, which, I mean, look at our heads, right?
We're like a few weeks and it worked a little sort of science fiction now what yeah, but I think that's entirely possible for the future and then the idea of human beings moving away from Biological bodies If they figure out a way to download consciousness, which is one of Kurzweil's things, right?
They figure out a way to get to a point where consciousness is something that can be transferred.
You'd have the other body on steroids, and you'd have the other body working out the Olympic Training Center and turn the other body into a super athlete, and then the one that you're skydiving and doing backflips with.
Not just creating talking things like posts on YouTube.
They can create pictures.
These networks I was talking about can actually create videos that look like real videos.
So I think you're going to get actual content creators, which are artificial intelligence, like YouTube personalities, that are actually artificial intelligence.
And you talk about botnets and things, but they're just like people just posting shit, like reposting memes and things.
What if you actually get an artificial intelligence that can actually hold a conversation with someone, and an artificial intelligence that's actually more intelligent than the person that it's holding the conversation with?
It would be able to manipulate that person and control them.
And since it's just a computer doing it, you could have thousands or millions of them.
And you can do all kinds of targeted social media campaigns.
There'll be someone who would be, you know, in a few decades there'll be people, there'll be artificial intelligences that will be just as intelligent as you or me and will be able to have the same conversations on social media that you and I can have on social media right now and people won't be able to tell the difference.
There's this big famous test in AI, which is the Turing test, where the test is someone sits in a room with a typewriter and they talk to the computer in the other room and if they can tell it's a computer, then it passes the Turing test and it's meant to be intelligent.
If you restrict the topics to just baseball or Britney Spears or something like that, they have these very limited domains that they can talk about.
But if you get a general-purpose AI that is actually intelligent and can and has goals to change someone's mind about something like politics You could have a real problem.
Well, we were talking about Duncan and I yesterday were saying think about Someone creating an artificial version of him based on the hundreds of hours of his audio recordings Because he has so many podcasts as do I you know if somebody wanted to take a podcast Like mine where there's a thousand episodes and take those thousand plus episodes and Take my opinions and the way I describe things the way I talk Which I mean like if you're talking to me in a podcast like this you're just talking
to me This is what I talk like so and you get a bunch of variables, right?
You get me excited me depressed me shocked me sad me happy You would have so much to choose from yeah, you could kind of material You could kind of like fill in the blanks and guess pretty accurately how I would react or respond to certain things.
Well, then it becomes a thing of like, how do you know you're you?
And how do you know you're talking to someone else that's them?
Like, here's the thing.
Let's just say...
Why'd you leave this rubber dick just sitting right here, man?
That's just rude.
Chris Ryan gave me a rubber dick.
Sorry.
I just noticed it.
I looked over.
I had a comment.
Let's say your father died, which is one of Ray Kurzweil's big things.
One of his primary motivations is to recreate his father.
He lost his father when he was young, and he believes that through the advent of artificial intelligence and through the data that he's collected, the recordings of his father and the images, that one day he will literally be able to communicate with his father again.
I don't know if that's real, but I do know that someone like Duncan, say if my friend Duncan died, it's entirely possible that within the next 50 years, they're going to be able to create a version of Duncan, and Duncan can come over and say, Hi, dude, I'm back!
Who lived in the middle of nowhere and had to be flown into him and he had created that guy right there, created artificial intelligence and then went over the Turing test and everything in that too.
It's one of my favorite movies.
That's one of my top ten favorite movies of all time.
It hit so close to home and there was so little cut the shit in that movie.
You know, I describe movies based on the cut the shit scenes.
Like some movies are like, what?
Oh, fuck.
Cut the shit.
How the hell did that happen?
There was none of that in that movie to me.
That movie to me was like, wow, this all could take place.
Especially with these future robot things, so much of it is just trying to make a robot that's just like a human, when the robots are not going to be like humans.
AI is something they don't need this huge physical infrastructure.
They don't need a big military or anything to do, like cyber warfare, with AI. Fuck.
So they could be developing all this artificial intelligence to do things like infiltrate everybody's social media and make them vote for the different guy.
That's one of the real problems that I have today with the conversations regarding politics, regarding whether or not Russia hacked the election, is because people are so concerned with painting out their party to be innocent and the other party to be guilty and describing all the different things that the Russians did and the interference and all the subterfuge that's being used that I think we're missing out on
this idea that you can electronically affect the way people think about things if you have enough resources to attack an idea with propaganda through bots.
Yeah, it's going to be really hard to figure out exactly what happened, but it's going to be even harder in the future, though, because people will be covering the tracks a lot better.
In that movie they described the possibility of faking these conflicts and having this fake video and having movie directors film everything and it would influence the way people thought about world conflicts.
And there's a scene in that where they map somebody's face onto a porn actor.
And at the time, I thought that was the most ridiculously stupid thing I've ever heard of because it would never possibly work and there's no way of getting that degree of accuracy.
And now I've got an app in my iPhone that actually does it to a reasonable degree, where it's quite hard sometimes to see what's going on.
There's this thing called Mug Life, which is just a toy app where you take a picture of yourself and it instantly maps it onto a 3D face.
And you can do all these expressions and you can say these things.
It has these meme generators.
And it's basically, you know, it's that type of thing, which I thought was ridiculous speculation like 20 years ago, but now it's come to pass.
Well, there's an article that I tweeted today about Gal Gadot, who is the woman from Wonder Woman.
They use an algorithm, and they tape her face onto a porn video.
So they have her doing porn, and it looks just like her.
You can kind of tell a little bit that it's not her, but not much.
It's enough where you're like, whoa, they're going to get really good at this, and then they'll be able to have you doing anything.
You could be a murderer.
They can have you outside murdering people, and they put that on the news.
And then by the time they retract it, they say, oh, Mick West wasn't really out there just gunning people down.
It was someone else.
Your neighbors don't trust you anymore.
You have to move.
The damage is done.
You know, and that's...
Not that I support, like, a lot of the fucking hysterics and the craziness that Trump tweets and all the different shit that he tweets, but occasionally they get things wrong, and they make stories about him, like the CNN Russia story, where they had to fire those three...
Well, after they had fired those reporters who had made these erroneous connections and had this, like...
Flaw-ridden piece.
They fired them, but the story had already been written.
I guess there's a rush to get things out there, and they're trying very hard.
But you've got to be very careful because once something's out there, that initial thing of being out there is so much more powerful than any retraction.
Like the Roy Moore thing, which is going on right now, there's the election today.
There's a thing where they said that his signature was fake because the ink on the image was black on one side and blue on the other side.
And so they said, oh, this must have been faked because the Roy is black and the Moore is blue.
I was looking into that and I did some experiments where I did a signature and then held it at an angle and took photos of it and I found out that there's this type of chromatic aberration from the camera which just does that with ink.
And it's very easy to duplicate and you can show that this was actually what was going on in this image and then you can look at other images of the signature from different angles which show that it's all black.
So there's this one image on CNN that showed this blue and black ink.
And then I figured out that it was just this trick of the camera.
But even though it's been debunked and explained, people are still spreading the exact same thing around.
So many people want that to be true, that it was forged, that if you can take something that's slightly problematic, like her not saying that she actually added this annotation afterwards, and then you can say that she admitted to it being forged, which is basically a lie.
Yes.
But it will stick for long enough.
It doesn't really matter that it's a lie, because by the end of today, it doesn't really matter at all.
So all he had to do was get this story out there.
He had enough stuff in it to make it seem vaguely plausible to people who wanted to believe that she forged it.
She added a note underneath that had the date, but he had also written the date above.
He wrote, like, you know, to a sweeter, more darling girl, I could never say Merry Christmas, Roy Moore, 77. And then underneath, she had written Old Hickory House, 1977. And did she try to claim that he had written that?
Originally, it seemed like she was saying that he'd written the whole thing.
And she read out the inscription and she said, Roy Moore wrote this in my book, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
But even then, you know about creative memories and how people's memories change over time.
A lot of people claim they remember where they were when they heard about the space shuttle blowing up, the first one.
People have done extensive research into that, tracking people's stories over a decade or so, and they found that a significant percentage of people changed their stories ten years later as to about where they were.
So for something like...
Harassment or something like that, it's entirely possible that the story could change.
Doesn't mean that it's false, but it's just possible that it could change.
But I really think that that's entirely possible in the future, that there's going to be some way we have a neural interface with some sort of a recording device that's far more accurate.
And that we'll all agree to it.
We'll all agree to it, just like photographs.
Like, if Jamie is standing next to...
You and I say, Jamie and Mick West were in the room together and take a picture.
It used to be that I could say, well, that's definite because I have this photo.
But now with Photoshop and video editing tools, so even then, so what am I talking about?
Because even then your memories are going to be able to create artificial memories.
They could put fake memories in your brain and have you have fake experiences?
There's a lot of experiences that were gigantic to me.
Like, all of my years of martial arts competition.
If you had asked me to like accurately depict some of the most significant memories of my life from like age 16 to 21, like all those martial arts fights that I had, I wouldn't even be able to touch it.
Yeah, there's a few things that I remember because there's some significance to it.
Like, I remember the space shuttle thing because I was over at an ex-girlfriend's house and it was one of the few times that we saw each other before we had completely stopped seeing each other.
Like, we had kind of broken up, and then I'd driven out to her house to visit her, and then while I was over her house, we saw the launch, and we were like, holy shit.
We actually saw the replay of it blowing up, and we were like, whoa.
So they made it look like this dude's just driving around, and then this water bottle's gonna pull it out of air, and then he can just pull it out of the tube, and wow, look, I've got water all of a sudden.
So they're saying like a little water bottle this size with a little solar panel and this little condensing thing that's this big will fill it up in a few hours.
...physical face technology swapping thing like 20 years ago was impossible, but 20 years from now, maybe they're playing the long game with this water bottle.
The slides that he used in the talk to illustrate, there was like an event of some UFO buzzing an aircraft carrier and some fighter jets were going after it and they couldn't find it and they put up some slides on the screen there which looked like a shiny silver penis flying around.
And it's actually something that, the type of thing we do on Metabunk is identify objects like that.
So we figured out what this was, and it's actually a number one numerical helium balloon, like the digit one.
Yeah, and I found, like, a bunch of other shots of the same thing, where you can see it rotating, and you can see it's fairly clear.
It's this number one.
But it's on this conspiracy website.
They thought it was a UFO, so he got it off that, and said this is a UFO. Took the image, kind of degraded it a bit, so you can't really tell what it was.
It was quite hard for me to track it down, because they'd messed with it so much.
What's disturbing to me is that he's got this business that claims to be some sort of aerospace business, and he's involved in it with all these other people.
That's weird, because the guy who's running that, I can't remember his name, Fortune or something like that, is like a real guy who works at Lockheed Martin or somewhere, run the skunk work.
They're talking about some kind of craft that warps the very nature of time and space itself and kind of rides a wave of a wormhole or something like that.
And this guy thinks that it's plausible.
And all they have to do is kind of like try really, really hard.
If they all put their heads together and like this scientists do all this science a lot and then these builders do their really good building based on these really good science they're gonna get, then they'll get this flying craft.
The crazy thing, too, was that he had been contacted by the government because they knew that he could go on shows like mine and talk about this, and then he would have a platform because he's a rock star.
And not just a useful idiot in that sense, but a person who is just mistaken.
So then they can dismiss my videos by laughing at them.
I do lots of little videos where I do things like demonstrate how something buckles, like a column buckling when you put a load on it.
Right.
Or things like that.
Just physics videos.
And then they just say, you're an idiot.
We don't need to look at this video.
So it's a way of getting around the problem.
And a lot of other people say that I'm so smart about chemtrails and things like that, that I must be a government agent because I know so much about contrails.
So I get both sides of it.
I'm either a really smart government agent or I'm just a stupid, useful idiot.
There was a thing I did recently where the scientists were saying that the bits falling off the World Trade Center were leaving trails that must be from the rocket motors that are pushing them away from the World Trade Center.
So I said, no, it's probably just some dust on it.
And they said, no, it wouldn't do that.
It wouldn't leave a long trail.
So I got a big sledgehammer and I piled some ashes on it from my fireplace and then I stood on top of a wall and I was throwing this sledgehammer with a big trail of dust coming from it for like half an hour videoing myself doing it until I got some representative videos of it.
You know, one of the ones that kept coming up that I thought was the most ridiculous about the Flat Earth was I'd read this a couple of places where people were talking about ships disappearing on the horizon.
You know I was talking about how architects and engineers from 9-11 have to do this really advanced thing now because we've debunked the basic stuff so they have to move to this advanced stuff.
Same thing with flat earth people.
Now you demonstrate how things actually do go over the horizon, and mountains do get obscured by the horizon, and how the sun sets and things like that.
And so they come up with this complicated explanation where there's this kind of giant refractive lens of atmosphere above the Earth, which is bending all the light from the sun in such a way that the Earth appears to be round, even though it's actually flat.
Yeah, and the thing is they've been shown this so many times that this actually happens.
There's so many videos now on YouTube that actually demonstrate this thing, like there's time lapses of ships going over the horizon, like zoomed in all the way with the P900 cameras, which do like an 83 times zoom, as big as you can go.
There's this one guy, Dr. Zach, who's, I don't know where he is, like a foreign guy who does these...
Yeah, he does these Flat Earth videos, and they're all mathematically showing things in AutoCAD with drawing lines and stuff, and he gets like 400,000 views.
Where he puts up something about how the moon is cooling things and he has this thermometer thing where it's showing that the moon is actually making things cold.
Then I put up a video explaining why it's just a reflection because these infrared thermometers don't work that way.
And then he puts another thing like Debunk this, Mick West!
But it's just, to me, it's such a strange thing to concentrate on, that this is like, their identity is wholly invested in proving this thing to be some sort of a massive conspiracy.
Looking in completely different directions, and they're both actually, because they're both fairly close to each other, really, they're looking at the same stars in the sky.
My concern about all this, in particular the flat earth stuff, is young kids wasting their time on stupid shit when the world is filled with massive real mysteries and incredibly fascinating things that you should be diving in and learning about.
Yeah, well, that one was so stunningly stupid to me.
And then, I don't even want to go into the flat earth thing anymore, but it's the thinking behind it that's the problem.
The thinking that every single airline pilot, everyone involved in Um, commercial shipping, everyone involved in aerospace, everyone who makes satellites, everyone, all those people are lying.
Every cartographer, everyone, all the map makers, everyone, they're all full of shit.
Everyone has agreed to not tell everyone else about the ice wall.
If the earth was flat and there was an ice wall, scientists would detail it and they would explain why the earth was flat and they would show you a working model of the earth being flat and that's what they would teach in school.
There's no benefit whatsoever to describing the Earth in a shape that it doesn't exist in.
If you take photographs of it, like on the horizon, and then another photograph of it when it's right up there, and compare them side by side, if you're the same zoom settings, it's exactly the same.
At this stage of my life, it seems when there's so many incredible things to pay attention to that are real, This is what I feel like about all this stuff where people are looking into conspiracies that they're just nonsense.
It's like they're chasing their tail.
They're trying to confirm something where there's so much evidence that it's not real.
It really bothers me.
It drives me nuts.
I just don't understand it and I wish that it wasn't a problem.
I wish it wasn't an issue.
And it is.
And it's one of the reasons why I continue to talk about these things and I really want to shine as much light on them as possible.
There's a real pattern that you could fall into and you can waste a tremendous amount of time in your life if you start looking at things incorrectly.
And flat earth to me is the best example of it.
It's the best example because it's so stupid.
I mean, it's so utterly preposterous that everyone is lying and that there are no images at all of this flat earth, but yet this one guy or a couple guys...
And I had heard that it had started all out as a as a troll on 4chan is that they they had started doing this like way back in you know like It could have been, but the Flat Earth thing goes back to the 1800s.