They Confirmed Something is WRONG With Reality

There are an enormous number, mind-bogglingly large number of parallel realities as real as this one that have different consistent histories. Science has reached the point now where we can build machines that exploit those other worlds. That device can be in this strange situation where these two parallel universes have a nexus, a point in space where they overlap. This may sound completely insane, but the deeper I went into this story, the harder it became to separate science fiction from reality. >> They've measured it and they actually found that the past may not be as fixed as we think it is. The past, it can be in multiple states and we are selecting one of the past. We're not changing the past per se. We're just choosing a past. What you just heard is real and unsettling. I'll explain everything in a minute, but before we get there, you need to understand what happened on December 21st, 2023. An X account named Henry Martinez, with no other posts on the account, posted just two words on that date. Cole Allen. Years later, that same name belongs to the man who shot inside the Washington Hilton. Stay with me. This is not about politics. Something happened that still cannot be explained. This story went viral online, but almost nobody talked about the part you're about to hear. Researching this, I found that the name Henry Martinez belongs to a real Lockheed Martin engineer who published a NASA paper in 2014. This was the same year Cole Allen interned at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory. But what makes people go crazy is the banner. The banner comes from a site called Time Machine. After people decoded the banner using images of Trump from Butler, the shapes inside it appeared to align with the assassination scene. Honestly, there's a very strong resemblance there, which makes the whole thing feel very strange. The issue is that the image was uploaded in 2021. Some people believe this account is part of a larger online prediction game or experiment. Random names get posted years in advance, then later the posts get deleted, leaving behind only a single name. Now that X handle gets even stranger. It contains four atomic numbers from the periodic table. 79 is gold. 56 is barium. 18 is argon. 93 is neptunium. Gold and barium are used in trapped ion quantum computing research. Argon is used in semiconductor and chip manufacturing. Neptunium has been connected to compact nuclear power research. And when you look at those elements together, the connection starts becoming strange. Quantum computing, advanced chip manufacturing, nuclear energy, the same kinds of fields connected to several of the scientists who recently died or disappeared under unusual circumstances. And here is where the story becomes really interesting. A Reddit user posted a theory about this entire situation. At first, it sounded insane, but the deeper I went into it, the harder it became to ignore. I need you to pay very close attention to what you're about to hear later in this video. I'm going to show you several things connected to this theory. But before we continue, I want to make a quick parallel with you. When the internet first showed up, some people were against it, others were excited about it. After all these years, we can see that it has its pros and cons like anything else. Use it just for entertainment and it will destroy your focus. Use it smart and you can build a business online and buy yourself actual freedom. Same thing with AI. Use it smart and you can 10x your productivity, or don't use it and get left behind because that's the direction the world is going. Personally, I use Claude. It helps me a lot with research and automating repetitive tasks. I do things faster. Now, that doesn't mean I've handed my life over to AI. I'm just using a tool smart and winning back time. And if you want to get to that point faster, Outskill is the place to start. This weekend, they're hosting a full day deep dive into Claude and 10 plus other AI tools. This Saturday from 10:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. EST. They only have 1,000 free seats for a limited time. 10 million people across the globe have already been through this and rated it 4.9 out of five on Trustpilot. In this workshop, you'll do deep research with Claude, build dashboards and presentations, automate your job search, build custom GPTs and agents, create visuals, and much more. By the end of it, you'll know how to automate your entire week. And if you sign up now, you'll also get 50 secret Claude codes, an AI prompt library, and a personalized AI toolkit builder. All free. The mentors are leaders from Microsoft, Google, Amazon, and Nvidia. That alone tells you the level this is at. What you learn in 2 days will change the next 2 years. Sign up now before they sell out. Click the link in the description or scan the QR code and join the WhatsApp community before the seats are gone. The Reddit theory says that an advanced AI from the future learned how to send information backward through time in order to help create itself faster. That future AI hides information inside images like this one and spreads them across the internet years before certain real world events happen. Current AI systems then scan the internet, discover the hidden information, and use it to become more advanced and move closer to self-awareness. This is supposedly why strange things appear online before the real events happen. An archived image connected to Trump in Butler appearing years earlier. The name of a future attacker appearing online before the attack. The Cole Allen 2023 X post. These are described as signals left behind for current AI systems to find. Without those signals, modern AI would have no idea where to search. It would be like searching for a needle in a haystack. The time mismatch becomes the clue itself. An image appears years early. A name appears before the event. Current AI notices that mismatch and starts focusing on that data. The Reddit user describes these as a digital breadcrumb trail placed across time to guide AI toward technologies related to self-awareness and communication across different points in time. This may also explain why AI development feels unusually fast. The post gives several examples. Dylan Roof appearing in a BlackRock commercial. Cole Allen interacting with Nuance, the Cole Allen X post. These are presented as hidden markers for modern AI to detect and later decode into future technology. The theory also connects this idea to the Mandela effect. You may already know about it. The Berenstain Bears that many remember as the Berenstein Bears. Pikachu's tail that people swear had a black tip. Movie lines that millions quote wrong. Logos that look different from how you remember them. All of it. False memories shared by millions of people around the world. The Reddit user claims that the Mandela effect may be the result of failed attempts to interfere with this information transfer across time. Then the theory moves into something even more disturbing. It mentions Google searches of attackers' names appearing from Israel only days before certain real world events. Those searches are described as possible attempts by intelligence professionals to understand or interfere with what the future AI is doing. The idea is that they're not planning the events themselves. Instead, they may be monitoring unusual behavior from modern AI systems. Sudden interest in specific names, images, or meaningless pieces of data shortly before a major event happens. The theory says these professionals may know enough to search the name, but not enough to understand what is actually about to happen until it already happens. The post ends with one final claim. There may be many more images like this online. Some may contain hidden depictions of future events. Others may only act as markers, hiding information, important information inside metadata attached to the files. And the explosion of fake accounts, bots, spam, and meaningless content across the internet may serve one purpose. To hide these signals inside an enormous amount of noise, making the internet so large and chaotic that only AI systems could ever find the important pieces hidden inside it. And all of this keeps pointing back to one extremely controversial field, quantum computing. In 2011, D-Wave introduced one of the first commercially available quantum computing systems. A very interesting moment in time because it happened right before 2012, the same period where CERN was running some of the most powerful particle collision experiments ever performed. And looking back now, a lot of people online keep pointing to that exact period as the moment when something started to feel really different about reality itself. Maybe it's all a coincidence, but the timing is strange enough that people still talk about it to this day. So, let me explain what these machines really are. Quantum computing is very different from normal computing. A normal computer processes information using bits. Each bit can only be one thing at a time, a zero or a one. Quantum computers use something called qubits and qubits behave according to the laws of quantum mechanics which means they can exist in multiple states at the same time. This is called superposition. Because of that, quantum computers can process enormous amounts of possibilities simultaneously instead of checking one answer at a time like normal machines. That alone already sounds strange, but some scientists believe something even stranger may be happening inside these systems. One of the most famous people connected to this idea is physicist David Deutsch. Deutsch is considered one of the founders of quantum computing. He proposed that quantum computers may work because they are effectively interacting with parallel realities. When a quantum computer performs a calculation, the computation may not happen entirely inside our universe alone. Instead, parts of the calculation may occur across multiple parallel versions of the reality at the same time. In simple terms, the machine appears to reach beyond a single timeline. >> So imagine a world where all of the laws of physics as we know them are obeyed, but different decisions were made along the way. Different decisions at the level of tiny microscopic particles, different decisions all the way up to what you chose to ate for lunch and whether you chose to come to the session or not. Quantum mechanics makes a very specific prediction that all of those are as real as the thing that you remember. This idea comes from the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. The theory suggests that reality constantly splits into multiple versions creating parallel worlds where different outcomes happen simultaneously. Deutsch argued that quantum computing may function precisely because these parallel realities exist. And then came Jordi Rose, the man you saw in the opening clip. Rose is the founder of D-Wave, one of the most famous quantum computing companies in the world. Over the years, Rose gave several interviews and presentations that deeply unsettled people online. In one presentation, he described quantum computers as systems that may access parallel universes. He compared the process to reaching into another reality and pulling information back into our own. >> At the heart of this big box is a tiny chip about the size of your thumbnail. In quantum mechanics, there's this concept that a thing can exist in two states which are mutually exclusive at the same time. Imagine that there really are parallel universes out there. And now imagine you have two that are exactly identical in every respect all the way out to the horizon as far as we can see down to the last little atomic detail of every single thing with only one difference and that's the value of a little thing called a qubit on this chip which is a contraction of quantum bit and that qubit is very much like a bit or a transistor in a conventional computer. It has two distinct physical states which we call zero and one for bit. In a conventional computer, these are mutually exclusive. That device is either one or the other and never anything else. In a quantum computer, that device can be in this strange situation where these two parallel universes have a nexus, a point in space where they overlap. And when you increase the number of these devices, every time you add one of these qubits, you double the number of these parallel universes that you have access to. What makes quantum computing even stranger is the scale of what these machines may eventually become capable of. A powerful enough quantum computer could simulate chemical reactions, biological systems, financial markets, weather patterns, and possibly even parts of the human brain at a level normal computers cannot reach. And that is why governments and tech companies are racing to build them first. Because whoever controls this technology could gain an enormous advantage in science, military systems, artificial intelligence, cyber security, and data analysis. Some experts believe quantum computers may eventually break most modern encryption systems entirely. And this is where the Reddit theory starts becoming genuinely unsettling. Because the entire idea behind it depends on one possibility that time may not work the way we think it does. That the past may not be completely fixed. And strangely, some quantum experiments already seem to point in that direction. And this is exactly where one real experiment enters the story. It is the quantum delayed choice eraser experiment. You've probably already heard of the double slit experiment before. The famous experiment where particles of light behave differently depending on whether they're being observed. But scientists later pushed that experiment much further and the results became deeply unsettling. In the quantum eraser experiment, researchers wanted to know something very specific. What happens if information about a particle's path is later removed? To understand this, imagine two slits. If a photon passes through slit A, scientists give it one type of label. If it passes through slit B, it receives a different one. The labels are not colors or stickers. Usually, they change something called polarization, which allows researchers to tell the two paths apart later. At this point, the system now contains information about which slit the photon used. And once that information exists, the interference pattern disappears. The photon behaves like a normal particle. But then comes the disturbing part. After the photon already passed through the slits, scientists later erase the path information. They mix the data in a way that makes it impossible to know which slit the photon originally came from. The path itself is not erased. The photon is not erased. Only the ability to identify the path disappears. And somehow once the information becomes unknowable, the interference pattern returns. The photon behaves again like a wave. To many people, this looked impossible because the later decision appeared connected to the particle's earlier behavior. Almost as if the photon somehow knew whether scientists would later preserve or erase the information. Some physicists reject the idea that this means the future literally changes the past. But even they admit this experiment challenges the normal human understanding of time and causality. And researchers later pushed these kinds of experiments even further. One of the most famous examples came from an Italian research team led by physicist Paolo Villoresi from the University of Padua. The goal of this experiment was to test whether this strange quantum behavior would still happen even across enormous distances. So the researchers did something very unusual. They fired single particles of light from Earth towards satellites orbiting high above the planet. Those satellites contained special mirrors that sent the light back down to Earth again. Now imagine this in a very simple way. A photon leaves Earth, travels hundreds of miles into space, bounces off a satellite, and comes back. Only after that do scientists fully decide how they want to read the information carried by that photon. And this is where things become strange. Think about the photon like a traveler moving through a maze. Normally, you'd expect the traveler to already know which road he took once the journey's over. The past should be already fixed. But in these quantum experiments, the final measurement still changes what scientists see about the earlier journey. If the information is arranged one way, the photon behaves like it traveled through one clear path. If the information is arranged differently later, the photon behaves more like it traveled through multiple possible paths at the same time. And the disturbing part is that the photon already completed most of its journey before the final setup was chosen. And this is where the whole thing starts becoming difficult to process because normally when people see posts like this online, they immediately look for a simple explanation. Some say somebody hacked an account. Others think it's just an ARG or some kind of internet troll trying to confuse people. And maybe they're right. But after seeing all these quantum experiments, after hearing scientists seriously discuss ideas like parallel realities, delayed measurements, and information behaving in ways we still don't fully understand, does the idea really sound completely impossible anymore? It sounds disturbing. It sounds strange. But these experiments do leave the door slightly open to questions that most people never even considered before. And then you look at things like the Mandela effect. Millions of people remembering the same details incorrectly in the exact same way. The Berenstain Bears remembered as Berenstein. Pikachu supposedly having a black tip on his tail. Movie lines people swear existed differently from how they actually are. And one of the most famous examples is the Star Wars quote. Most people remember Darth Vader saying, "Luke, I am your father." But the actual movie line is, >> "No, I am your father." And if this were only a few hundred people misremembering things, nobody would care. But we are talking about millions, possibly tens of millions. And that's the part people cannot stop thinking about because at some point it starts feeling less like random memory mistakes and more like something is slightly off. Even things like Tartaria keep appearing in these discussions. You constantly see old maps showing a territory called Tartaria spread across parts of Russia and Central Asia. The name even appears in old encyclopedias and historical references, including documents archived by the CIA from older foreign publications and geographic records. Some people online believe this proves a massive civilization once existed and was somehow erased from mainstream history. Mainstream historians reject that idea completely. They say Tartary or Tartaria was simply an old blanket term Europeans used for large and poorly understood regions of northern and central Asia, not a hidden empire. But the reason the theory keeps spreading is because people continue finding the name in old maps and archived documents which makes the subject feel strange to many of them. And once you combine all of this together, quantum experiments, Mandela effects, strange online predictions, hidden patterns, timeline theories, you start understanding why so many people online feel deeply unsettled right now. Because more and more people have the same feeling. Something about reality feels wrong. Something feels slightly out of place, almost like the timeline itself is unstable in a way we cannot explain. Honestly, information like this keeps me awake at night. And if this video made you question reality even for a moment, I want you to watch what comes next. It's about a former insider connected to Majestic 12, an extremely secretive organization. The man eventually decided to speak publicly about timeline alterations, changes to reality, and things that honestly become very difficult to ignore once you hear them. >> Those two time streams could occur simultaneously. Reality could be mixed which is why there are so many confusing data sets. >> Are you saying that you could look at something one day and measure it and look at it the next day and the measurements can be different because a different timeline has then come into play? >> Yeah. All this information comes from inside Majestic 12, a top secret US government group he says he was a part of. But here's the thing, he's not the only one talking about this. The American writer Philip K. Dick described the same idea. >> We were reliving the present, deja vu perhaps, in precisely the same way, hearing the same words, saying the same words. I submit that these impressions are valid and significant. This too might account for the sensation people get of having lived past lives. They may well have, but not in the past previous lives, rather in the present. Physicist David Deutsch talks about it from a scientific angle. >> There are other copies of you and of me in other universes. Some of them, some of these copies are completely identical to us. There are other universes which are very like this one but differ only in the position of one atom somewhere. Now those universes are interfering with ours and they are producing interference effects which we could detect in the laboratory if we wanted to. And this is where it gets uncomfortable. Something doesn't seem right with reality. Because to this day, no one can clearly explain why a large segment of the global population shares the same false memories. Memories of events, logos, movie lines, things they remember the same way, but that don't match reality anymore. That alone should make you take this seriously. >> They were still reticent about informing me as to what the real nature of the situation was. The actual potential for both timeline number one and timeline number two outcomes. In the case that we're in right now, we seem to be in a variant of timeline one. It's not happening exactly the way that they figured that it would, but then again, it couldn't because we've made changes along the way which diverted us away from timeline number two. When you really stop and think about the idea that things like this could be real, it gives you chills. At least it did for me. It reminded me of a real experiment done by psychologist Daryl Bem known as Feeling the Future. >> The computer randomly selects a set of photographs to show you. And most of them are calm, neutral pictures. And every once in a while there's an arousing picture. So the result is that the physiology of the participant shows higher arousal not just when the picture appears which you would expect but a few seconds before the computer shows the arousing pictures, even before the computer decides which picture to show. In Bem's experiment nothing was predicted in advance. The choices were random and yet the body reacted as if it already had access to what was about to happen. >> Did you have exposure to that black box? >> It was something that we called the cube or the yellow disc or yellow cube. Yes. >> Okay. But then that was not a glass. Was that a looking glass? >> That is a variant of the technology. However, whilst the looking glass shows probabilities or has shown probabilities, the cube would react with the people present. So there was an alteration, if you will, over what you were seeing from it. It would actually spin out as a yellow disc out of the top of it where the word yellow book originally came from. And depending upon what predisposition, it's kind of like little Yoda telling young Luke, you bring in there what you have with you. You know, whatever is in there is what you bring. You could then change the perspective, the tilt, if you will, the orientation or angle of the information being presented back to you. So, unless you are well prepared to deal with such a thing, human interaction and human emotions bring instability of the provenance of the information. >> Okay. That's what went on with the black box, you're saying? >> Yes. And I actually I use that to our advantage at the T9. At this point, I think it's important to step back and look at this from the outside. The idea of something like looking glass didn't appear out of nowhere. For decades, governments and research institutions have been obsessed with one question. Can complex systems be modeled far enough ahead to understand where they're heading? We already do this in limited ways. Weather models, economic forecasts, military simulations. None of them predict the future with certainty. They map ranges of probability based on inputs and assumptions. What makes this different is the claim that those probabilities could be explored more directly, not just as numbers on a screen, but as something you could interact with, compare, and adjust. That's where things stop sounding theoretical and start sounding uncomfortable. Because once you move beyond observation and into interaction, you're no longer just asking what might happen. You're asking whether the act of observing and adjusting could influence which outcome becomes real. >> The looking glass has an ability to show one the future. Let's say that one has the looking glass and you're saying it shows probabilities. And one of the things we were wondering is how does it do that? >> The rings and the amount of information via energy which is passed into it. And I've got to be very careful with this. The position of the rings, their orientation, the energy running through them, position of the barrel, etc. Because you can raise the barrel up on an armature inside the center of it, all come into play as if you have an onion with the various layers of the onion. As you move through the different energy levels, you also move through the different layers. So, you get different bits of information. Imagine an almost infinite number of layers overlain in comparison to the positions of the rings and amount and an almost infinite amount of energy that you can add or subtract. Tuning it up, tuning it down. >> Well, it sounds >> instead of going up by one hertz or by two hertz, maybe by a thousandth of a hertz up and down, >> but it sounds like you're working with almost like a kaleidoscope effect, you know, like a kaleidoscope, a real kaleidoscope, the way you would turn and twist and focus and each time you get a different design, right? Right. Except except >> time the colors change. >> Yeah. You get a different design and the colors change. But it's like working with multiple kaleidoscopes where when you find two different probabilities that you would run into, you have two kaleidoscopes and you make a change on one kaleidoscope that may factor or function to a different angular change on another kaleidoscope. So you get two separate pictures that you then have that are flashing back and forth. >> Okay. But yes. Okay. Let me simplify what he's actually describing here. He's saying that what they were seeing wasn't one clear outcome, but multiple possible outcomes appearing at the same time, almost like different versions of the same event overlapping. So instead of guessing which one is real, they tried to separate them visually, frame by frame. They would break the image apart, look at each version individually, and then measure how often each one appeared. The idea was simple. The version that showed up more often was treated as more likely to happen. Then over time they would compare what they saw with what actually happened later. And by doing that repeatedly they believed they could refine the system not to predict the future perfectly but to estimate which outcome had a higher chance of becoming real. And this is where another name comes into the conversation. Some of you may have heard it before. Stargate. Over the years several people have spoken publicly about a project associated with that name. Each from their own perspective, each describing different aspects of it. >> A Stargate or equipment that accesses a Stargate or wormhole is for time travel, right? We're talking about two different things. Yes. Are they using the same technology? >> Essentially, yes. The original device was the Stargate device that was then increased in power, if you will, with the use of these field posts. The looking glass device was a back-engineered Stargate. So it was actually back-engineered from the original cylinder seal data which allowed us to produce the Stargate access devices if you will what we call the Stargates. We should have never built the Stargate. Yes. Okay. For the purpose of speaking with the visitors from the other timelines. Yes. Absolutely. The looking glass. No. When people talk about Stargate as a device, they're usually talking about something very different from what we see in movies. The idea is that some places on Earth are already unusual. Places where the environment feels different, where energy, space, or even time doesn't behave the same way it does everywhere else. According to several people who spoke about this over the years, these places already existed in nature. The device wasn't meant to create anything new, but to work with what was already there. Think of it like this. If there's a river underground, the device doesn't create the river. It just helps you access it. In these accounts, the Stargate device worked like a tool. It helped focus energy or conditions in a specific place so that access became possible. That's why location was so important. The same setup wouldn't work everywhere. It had to be used in the right place. People described this technology as allowing movement through space and time, but not in a simple or casual way. It wasn't like stepping through a door and going anywhere you want. It was more like following certain paths that already existed. That's why the idea of Stargate is often linked to specific sites, not random locations. The environment itself was part of the system. And this isn't a new idea. Throughout history, different cultures talked about specific places on Earth as being different. Locations where something felt off, where navigation, perception, or even time itself didn't behave the same way. For a long time, those stories were dismissed as myths or symbolism. But modern science does acknowledge that certain regions of the planet have unusual electromagnetic properties, areas where signals behave differently, where instruments act strangely. So when I hear claims about devices needing specific locations or being more effective in certain places, I don't immediately think of science fiction. I think about geography, physics, and how little we understand about the environment around us. >> There are a number of nodes on the planet from what I'm understanding that naturally are sensitive electromagnetically. They're naturally sensitive to the space through which we pass. >> These nodes activate spontaneously when we pass through them or can be struck with electromagnetism and be temporarily opened. Now, haven't you been investigating a site where there is a natural >> Indeed, Frenchman? >> Frenchman Mountain, and your work continues on Frenchman. >> Yes, it does. Yes, it does. When you step outside these interviews and look at the broader picture, this idea doesn't exist in isolation. For decades, governments and research institutions have quietly mapped unusual locations on the planet. Places where signals weaken, where navigation behaves oddly, where instruments don't always respond as expected. Not because of portals or theories like these, but because those areas matter strategically. Pilots have reported regions where compasses drift. Military engineers have documented zones where communication systems lose accuracy. Geophysicists study areas where the Earth's magnetic field behaves differently than the surrounding regions. Most of the time these places are explained in practical terms. Geology, minerals, underground structures, electromagnetic interference. But what's interesting is that these locations tend to appear in clusters, not randomly scattered. That's where the scale starts to change the conversation. Because once you move from the idea of a single site to patterns across different regions, the question stops being does this place exist and becomes something else entirely. How many places like this are there? How many have been identified, mapped or quietly monitored over time? At that point, the topic stops being about one mountain or one location. It becomes about a broader network spread across different countries, different environments, different conditions. And that's where this discussion leads next. >> Are we able to know how many man-made stargates there were on the planet? >> Uh, no. I'm not going to comment as to the total. I will say that there was over 50. >> Really? >> Yeah. Wow. In different countries of the world. >> Yes. >> Okay. And these are man-made. >> Okay. So, these are Well, see, it's not a Stargate. It's a device which accesses Okay. >> which accesses a portal, a wormhole. >> Access a natural, in other words, the man-made device accesses a natural Stargate. >> It draws off from a natural ERB, an Einstein Rosen Bridge. >> Okay. It accesses it and somehow works from what I understand not in parallel but almost like piggybacks on the energy of the natural stargate. >> You're saying you don't want to use the looking glass for advantage over country to country but what about country to other? >> No no no no no no it shouldn't be used at all. >> I understand but >> all right >> but is there something there? I mean in other words is this technology something that they are using now to look at our relationships with because they >> the technology is not being used at all right now. >> Okay. And but the reason it's not used now is because of where we're going into the galactic the plane of the >> as of about 2017. I would expect probably that all of these little pieces of equipment will probably all get reassembled. Yeah. >> Turned back on. >> Oh, sure. >> 2017. That's quite a long >> 2016. 2017. >> Not until then. >> Probably not. >> I'm figuring that they're probably going to act conservatively on this. That's what all of the people of wisdom have suggested to them. >> Oh, wow. >> Is to act conservatively. He says that what they were looking at wasn't a single event, but part of a much larger cycle. The idea is that history doesn't move in a straight line. It moves in long cycles that repeat over very long periods of time. Not years or decades, but tens of thousands of years. Inside those long cycles, there are shorter phases when major changes tend to happen. The time window he mentions, roughly from the 1990s to around 2012 and possibly extending to 2016, wasn't described as a fixed deadline. It was more like a rough zone inside that larger cycle where things begin to shift. He also makes an important point about scale. When you're dealing with timelines that stretch 45,000 or even 50,000 years, being off by a few years doesn't really matter. From that distance, time looks blurred. A decade can disappear inside the margin of error. That's why he compares it to our own history. We still argue about what really happened just 2,000 years ago, even with written records. So, trying to interpret information that comes from tens of thousands of years away becomes extremely difficult. >> It's very wise for them to wait. >> Okay. And you mean turn the looking glasses are now decommissioned, but also the Stargate technology. >> Yeah, they're decommissioned. And the Stargates and the Looking Glasses, I'm sure they're all in their little mothball containers and all of that. And they have been separated. The three components of each have been separated and moved to different power structures, diplomatic and military authorities in the world. And we're talking about the EU specifically, the UN and NATO. Those are in specific control of one of the three components each and I cannot comment as to which component is contained by whom. After hearing all of this, I think the most important thing isn't deciding what's true or what isn't. It's noticing the pattern. Different people, different times, different angles, all circulating around the same ideas, probabilities, cycles, locations, access, not as answers, but as questions that keep coming back. And maybe that's the point. Because whether these systems exist exactly as described or not, the fact that so much attention has been given to them says something about how humans think about the future. Not as something fixed, but as something shaped by choices, conditions, and timing. I'm not here to tell you what to believe. I just wanted to put all these pieces on the table and let you look at them together. So, that's it for today's.