August 15, 2024 • 59 mins
Sveriges baffles the crew when they ask whether the infamous Stocholm syndrome is entirely made up. Frederick wonders whether European manufacturers are intentionally sabotaging plastic bottles. The High Topped One is concerned about Blackstone's recent purchase of the DNA company Ancestry. All this and more -- with a big thanks to Alpha Flight -- in this week's listener mail segment.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
From UFOs to psychic powers and government conspiracies. History is
riddled with unexplained events. You can turn back now or
learn this stuff they don't want you to know. A
production of Iheartrading.
Speaker 2 (00:24):
Hello, welcome back to the show. My name is Matt,
my name is.
Speaker 3 (00:28):
No, they call me Bed.
Speaker 4 (00:30):
We're joined with our guest superproducer Max the Free Train Williams.
Most importantly, you are here. That makes this the stuff
they don't want you to know. Congratulations, folks, As you
hear this, some of us are on the road. Hopefully
you are having adventures as well. In this August of
twenty twenty four. We're gonna hear from High Top One.
(00:54):
We're gonna hear from Frederick, not our guy Matt, different
Frederick kind of multiverse there. Uh, we're gonna get a
clarification from our pal Jason j a little bit of
Alpha flight stuff. Uh, we're gonna we're gonna have a
weird conversation about Stockholm Centrum and I can't wait to
hear how it goes. Uh. Also before like because we're
(01:14):
doing the cold open things now, guys, thank you for
putting up with this last meal subsession.
Speaker 5 (01:21):
Kidding, it's a fascinating subject area. I think it says
a lot about an individual. It's like way more revealing
than like what's your favorite color or comic book or
music artist.
Speaker 3 (01:33):
I think, you know, I don't know.
Speaker 4 (01:35):
I like it. I like how it could be. It's
such an intense icebreaker. Like if we have to go
to these networking things and someone says, hey, say three
fun facts about yourself and just hit them with the
last meal.
Speaker 2 (01:49):
Yeah, that's a lot.
Speaker 5 (01:51):
I mean, you know what I would compare it to you, guys,
Desert Island media, desert is Oh, that's good to give
you that.
Speaker 3 (01:58):
It's it's a last final, it's a thing whatever.
Speaker 5 (02:01):
You can only have this one thing for the rest
of your life, which in this case isn't very long.
Speaker 2 (02:07):
I want to know the last meals of the most
dangerous large land animals.
Speaker 4 (02:12):
Are all back.
Speaker 3 (02:15):
I like it.
Speaker 4 (02:17):
The last meals are the most dangerous land animals. Folks,
send us your takes on this.
Speaker 3 (02:23):
Tune in.
Speaker 4 (02:24):
We've got an episode on our different show, our peer show,
Ridiculous History, all about last meals. In the meantime, this
is one of our favorite evenings of the week. We
are going to hear from you. No funny story. A
number of years ago, I was doing a pilot with
some friends of the show called School of Humans, and
(02:46):
I tried to let I tried to pitch them on
a show about dumb inventions. And I had all these
inventions that I thought were cool, but we're kind of dumb.
And one of them was a thing that someone else
already invented, a plastic top on bottles that remained detached
so you could screw it back on.
Speaker 3 (03:07):
Nah.
Speaker 2 (03:08):
By the way, is this let's start a coup? No,
this is way okay, this.
Speaker 4 (03:13):
Is actually let's follow up off airic because I'm embarrassed
to say the show that was a pilot, but I
think you know about it well.
Speaker 5 (03:20):
And also I mean speaking of a coup, there might
be one of brewing over this very invention over in
the EU.
Speaker 3 (03:29):
We'll be right back.
Speaker 5 (03:38):
And we're back with a message from Frederick. Not Matt Frederick,
just Frederick. They call me, he says, dear sirs. Two
days ago, I was waiting outside of the local pharmacy
when an elderly lady approached me with a plastic bottle
of soda. I agreeted the lady with a smile and
accepted the bottle into my hand, while agreeing to the
(03:58):
fact that they are unnecessary tough to open, especially for
a woman of her age.
Speaker 3 (04:02):
She was old.
Speaker 5 (04:04):
I screwed open her soda bottle slowly and carefully, but
yet with the precision and focus I put into the unscrewing.
The softer plastic of the cap had some short strings
or unhandy leftover parts sticking out from the soft plastic circle.
The circle that cracks when you crack open a plastic bottle.
Speaker 3 (04:22):
We all know it.
Speaker 5 (04:23):
Please see the picture I attached for reference. Now, I
personally don't drink sodas. I rarely even drink from plastic bottles.
I reuse a glass bottle as I prefer my balls
to be plastic free.
Speaker 3 (04:34):
They're not when another one, you can do about it.
It's everywhere, it's micro you can't see it. It's in
the air. Uh yeah, it's a bummer.
Speaker 5 (04:43):
But I tried this before lately, several times. In fact,
every single time I have opened a plastic bottle in
twenty twenty four, I have made this mess. I never
opened plastic bottles so poorly before. Has my ability to
open plastic bottles decreased so I googled it and I
found this a Reddit thread titled why are all the
(05:05):
plastic bottle caps attached?
Speaker 3 (05:08):
Lately?
Speaker 5 (05:09):
It has been Bowland to blame for this with his
enterprising mind. Well curious folks want to know. Apparently there
has been some EU regulation regarding plastic caps put into
place to control the plastic waste betterly.
Speaker 3 (05:24):
I like that.
Speaker 5 (05:25):
I like betterly. My grammar check on Google doc doesn't
like it, but I like it. For example, a lot
of milk carton caps are now attached to the bottle.
You cannot screw it off like we used to. I
think the initiative is rather stupid, as it complicates drinking
straight from the carton, one of the few delights I
have left in my life. I live alone, don't worry
not a pig, and the plastic is still different from
(05:48):
the rest of the carton material, so it doesn't exactly
make sorting and separating it easier.
Speaker 3 (05:53):
It is to be assumed.
Speaker 5 (05:55):
That the same regulation has worsened the quality of screw
caps on plastic bottles across Europe. Is it really to
have a better grasp on the plastic waste or are
the screw cap manufacturers deliberately lowering the quality of the
caps to save money on the bottom line.
Speaker 3 (06:11):
This is the conspiracy.
Speaker 5 (06:13):
I'm at the edge of the rabbit hole, and I
would love it if you could do the rest. How
are screw caps in the US here? They all used
to be fairly different. Sometimes I'd find a crappy one,
but now they are all, in fact crappy. One great
regard from the dynamic Dane they call me Frederick ps.
The two strings sticking out from the cap usually stick
out from the circle on the neck of the bottle.
Speaker 3 (06:35):
Making drinking from the bottle a risky affair.
Speaker 5 (06:38):
Please let me know if you wish for further documentation
of the issue at hand.
Speaker 3 (06:41):
Frederick, my guy.
Speaker 5 (06:43):
This one stood out to me because, you know, more
than two years now, I ventured out of the United States.
So the first time since my childhood, I went to
Paris and found that all of the plastic bottles there
water bottles, specifically, not soda. We're already doing this. I'd
(07:05):
never encountered this before. They're like these little caps that
have these little plastic strings attached, so you flip it
up and it kind of goes out sort of like
a you know, a water bottle or a reusable maybe
coffee thermous or something like that.
Speaker 3 (07:18):
But they're unwieldy.
Speaker 5 (07:20):
They kind of hang in an odd angle when you're
drinking from them. I found that it would cause me
to spill the water embarrassingly down my cravat, you know,
because that's how I dressed when I was in Paris.
I wore a cravat and the puffy collar, and it
was really really embarrassing. We were in these beautiful locations
and here I am dribbling water like a small child.
(07:40):
And it turns out that they were just ahead of
the curve, because back in twenty eighteen it was announced
that this would be a new requirement in the European Union.
The idea is that oftentimes when people unscrew the bottle top,
(08:01):
it ends up separate it from the bottle.
Speaker 3 (08:03):
People either throw it.
Speaker 5 (08:04):
It's a separate opportunity for littering, it's a separate opportunity
for waste.
Speaker 3 (08:09):
If you're like me and hopefully.
Speaker 5 (08:12):
Most other civilized humans, you screw it back on before
you throw it away.
Speaker 6 (08:17):
You know.
Speaker 5 (08:17):
I always am very careful to keep my bottle tops
because I like the only positive thing about a bottle
you know, given the whole microplastics in the balls thing
is that you can reuse it. You can drink some
of it, cap it up, put it in the fridge
and save it for later. If it's carbonated, it won't
go it won't go flat. If it's got water in
it, it won't soak up any fridge smells or any weird
(08:39):
things like that. So you know, I do try to
keep it connected to the bottle, and then when I'm
done with it, I screw it back on.
Speaker 3 (08:44):
I don't just toss the cap separately. That's barbaric.
Speaker 5 (08:48):
But I found a clip in researching this from a
BBC Breakfast I guess segments from I can't. I thought
it posted somewhere else and I didn't really a date.
But I think it's relatively recent because it is talking
about this beginning to proliferate everywhere, because this is meant
to be in full effect by this year July of
(09:10):
this year, so because of the fact that like manufacturers
are sending their products wide in the European Union. Of course,
the UK is not part of the European Union anymore.
That does mean though they still they can't make one
for one market and one for the other since they
are all connected, so they have to just make the
one type of screwcap. And it is this weird, unpleasant
(09:32):
little pop top that sticks out of the side of
the bottle once you get it off.
Speaker 3 (09:36):
And here's a gentleman reacting to this development.
Speaker 4 (09:42):
And no only believe this. This at least this clip
we have was posted on August third of this year,
so pretty recently.
Speaker 6 (09:49):
I'm sure it can't be the only one who thinks
is and I'm all helping out the environment.
Speaker 2 (09:53):
But who ever came up with the idea of keeping.
Speaker 3 (09:59):
Lech connected to the bottle? It says, on't it?
Speaker 2 (10:04):
I am attached to recycled together. You can also recycle
it if you take the litter, and then you're screwp.
Speaker 6 (10:12):
It's just.
Speaker 4 (10:17):
Dangerous, is what it is. Who okay? That is that?
That is the clip. It goes goes out a little
bit longer, but then the rest is just newspeople.
Speaker 3 (10:36):
It's good though.
Speaker 5 (10:37):
The news discussion is really good because they bring up
some interesting points. First of all, we know that recycling
plastic is dubious at best in general, right, like like
does it get recycled?
Speaker 3 (10:50):
Like what material is it made into?
Speaker 5 (10:52):
We know how expensive it is for companies to use
recycled material, so oftentimes I don't know, you know, they're
certain types of plastics that can't be recycled, like those
plastic grocery bags that you get, because they're so thin
that it would be impossible to compact them into like
another usable material. The science of recycling, you know, plastic,
(11:14):
I think is is just it's not super great, and
different municipalities recycle things differently. Apparently the plastic top is
a higher density type of plastic, so in and of itself,
it's sort of when the cap is on in certain municipalities,
it renders the whole thing unrecyclable because it's on there.
Speaker 4 (11:38):
Yeah, check out our twenty twenty episode or September twenty third,
twenty twenty Plastics, microplastics and conspiracy, because here, at least
in the United States, recycling is unfortunately part of a
larger corporate conspiracy to move the burden of pollution onto
the consumer. And yeah, I agree with you from Rick.
(12:00):
First off, thank you again for writing to us.
Speaker 3 (12:02):
I agree with you.
Speaker 4 (12:04):
This is not solving the problem it purports to solve,
in part because of the material science that you're pointing
out there no, well.
Speaker 5 (12:13):
Yeah that and also, like I guess in theory it
could cut down on litter of like the caps just
being willingly thrown around and like being separated, and now
you've got a whole bunch of bottle caps. And there
is somebody that goes on this this BBC Breakfast you know, segment,
who talks about the whole disparity with like, Okay, if
(12:34):
the bottle caps are attached, you can't even recycle the
bottle anymore because these two different densities of plastic.
Speaker 3 (12:40):
So that definitely doesn't solve the problem.
Speaker 5 (12:41):
The other was the fact that it is technically a
problem that there are all these disconnected bottle caps that
are you know, causing litter and maybe getting you know,
stuck in storm drains or what have you. But they
do point out that they are really good for making art,
and there's a whole like bottle cap mural in the
(13:03):
UK that is made out of these plastic bottle caps.
So that's an interesting piece in the segment just in
and of itself, interesting for its own reasons. But yeah,
it is really odd because they don't thread. They kind
of pop, but they don't pop super well. And they
no longer make a very good seal. So once you've
(13:24):
popped it back on there, if you put the water
bottle on its side or something like that, it's just
gonna leak everywhere. So it's just not particularly logistically well designed. Ben,
I know, if you had been responsible for this, you
would have figured out a better solution.
Speaker 3 (13:37):
It would have been air tight.
Speaker 5 (13:39):
It would have like had enough thread that you could
like hang it off the side and get your mouth
around it and not be poking yourself in the eye
like this poor fellow, you know on the YouTube clip
that we played. But I was taken aback when I
saw them, and then I found, you know, in Spain
recently when I went there, they're everywhere.
Speaker 3 (13:56):
And this is something that is.
Speaker 5 (13:58):
Wide now, you know, as of the July third, which
was the deadline for this. So it is an example
of sort of like government mandates that make the require
changes that maybe don't actually do the thing they're purporting
to do. It's sort of like a talking point and
an inconvenience for manufacturers, but not necessarily something that is
solving the problem that it's setting out to solve.
Speaker 4 (14:18):
Yeah, Just so it's kind of like it's kind of
like making an inconvenient umbrella because you're saying rain is
a thing, so let me build a new kind of umbrella.
And everybody hates that umbrella, right, People also like the familiarity.
(14:39):
I think that I love that got that clip on there,
because since we're an audio show for now, when you're
drinking from this from this bottle, well as you as
as our poor clearly performatively distressed bottle guy points out
the bottle cap does make it more a difficult to
(15:01):
drink from. And you pointed, you said it was getting
on your cravat, your pants, your sleeves in front of
the French stockings. This is this is this is technically
I guess it's it's better than what it was, maybe,
but it kind of, you know what it kind of
reminds me of in a different way, was when former
(15:24):
New York City Mayor Bloomberg attempted to ban like large sodas.
Speaker 3 (15:31):
Or large like the big gulps. I believe big gulps.
Speaker 4 (15:34):
Yeah, just so, because obviously there is an issue with
nutrition in the United States. But that's the wrong way
to solve the problem, you know what I mean, That
doesn't fix food deserts. It's a it's a worse umbrella
than the umbrella before. I'm trying to come up with
the idea of the worst design for an umbrella.
Speaker 3 (15:54):
Here.
Speaker 5 (15:54):
Here's the thing too, Guys, if you're frustrated in the
first place, you can take the thing off.
Speaker 3 (16:03):
Guys.
Speaker 5 (16:03):
You can rip these pieces of threat power plastic threads.
You can rip it right off, Twist it right and
it'll come off. But when you're already frustrated, chances are
much more likely you're just gonna throw it on the
ground in protest. If it's a reasonably designed screw on cap.
First of all, don't know who these monsters are that
are throwing their screw on caps away separately from the bottle.
(16:24):
I just that doesn't compute for me.
Speaker 4 (16:27):
Well, it's like the trolley problem. I think that's a
better comparison to earn my way back from my terrible
umbrella comparison. I guess it should be called the grocery
cart problem here in the US. The grocery cart problem
is a very basic philosophical read on the character of
an individual. You go to a grocery store, use a
(16:49):
grocery cart or trolley whatever they would call it in
your neck of the global woods. And then there are
designated places where you return that little piece of equipment.
It cost you nothing but a few seconds to return it.
But many people don't. They simply don't. They will leave
it in the parking lot, they'll leave it willy nilly
(17:10):
somewhere else. And I, you know, I see there are
valid arguments. Maybe somebody is afraid for their safety to
return a grocery cart occasionally.
Speaker 5 (17:20):
Or there aren't enough what do you call them receptacles.
I guess maybe there's only like one and it's all
the way on the other side. Again, not an excuse,
it's something that you do. It's your job as a
citizen to do that. But Ben, I'm glad you brought
that up because it does remind me of another very
European solution.
Speaker 3 (17:34):
To that problem. The deposit.
Speaker 5 (17:36):
The deposit the or legal I think it is grocery stores,
which is European chain of grocery stores.
Speaker 3 (17:43):
You stick a quarter in it and it.
Speaker 5 (17:44):
Unlocks it from the trolley receptacle for lack of a
better word, and you don't get your quarterback until you
stick it back in that thing, and then it ejects
your quarter, so you're not losing the quarter. So it's
just kind of like a way of giving people accountability.
Speaker 3 (18:00):
Guess, but this doesn't seem like the right way to
do it, Matt. I know you've got thoughts.
Speaker 2 (18:05):
You know what I'm saying.
Speaker 4 (18:06):
What do you said?
Speaker 2 (18:07):
Let those caps be free, guys, Free.
Speaker 3 (18:11):
The bottle caps, Free the caps for the caps.
Speaker 5 (18:14):
Or you know, in a sufficiently apocalyptic enough future, they
could become our currency, like in the Fallout series.
Speaker 4 (18:21):
Maybe we need those metal caps.
Speaker 5 (18:23):
Yeah, metal, they have met fair enough. Well, this is
a bit of a light one, guys. I think we
were maybe in need of such. But Frederick, thank you
so much for writing in. And I really did I
do relate because I was you know, I thought I
was just a dumb American and didn't know how to
drink water from a fancy European bottle.
Speaker 3 (18:42):
But apparently I'm not the only one.
Speaker 5 (18:43):
So let's take a quick break here, aware from our sponsor,
and then come back with more messages from you.
Speaker 2 (18:56):
And we've returned, guys, I want to do something a
little long conventional from one of these listener mail episodes.
I want to start with something I discovered, and I
want to explore it with you in real time together.
If that's okay, would you mind experimenting with me for
a moment?
Speaker 3 (19:13):
Oh gosh, I love to experiment, Okay.
Speaker 2 (19:16):
I stumbled on something just scrolling through the old gram
mindlessly as I do now, because it exists in I
scroll perhaps, yep, I can't stop myself, but I'm really
trying to found a video, and it sent me down
a bit of a rabbit hole and I ended up
finding something from USA Today posted in twenty twenty in
(19:40):
July of that year, They'll want to talk to you
guys about so way back in the early COVID times.
In July twenty twenty, there is an Instagram user named
who do fck want to Go? The Number two Prison
posted a video that got a lot of heat, got
a lot of clicks and likes and scrolls or whatever.
(20:03):
And in this video there's a man holding an iPhone
back in twenty twenty. He opens the phone app on
that iPhone and then, as if he's dialing a phone number,
he keys in the following star pound two one pound,
and then he says, if you take these actions with
(20:23):
your phone, it will it will let you know if
this phone is compromised, and if it shows that the
features on the next screen after you do this are enabled,
then you should dump your phone immediately, get a new phone,
get a new SIM card. Guys, do you want to
run that test right now?
Speaker 3 (20:44):
Yes?
Speaker 2 (20:45):
Yes, because I just did, and I don't like what
I'm seeing and I kind of have gone down a
bit of a deep dark paranoia hole with this, and
everything I'm reading online is saying shouldn't be going down
this paranoia hole. But uh, it is kind of freaking
me out.
Speaker 3 (21:05):
Uh.
Speaker 2 (21:05):
We don't have to say who our carriers are, but
maybe right now, guys, let's bleep this part. So go
ahead and bleep this.
Speaker 3 (21:16):
All right, guys.
Speaker 2 (21:17):
So this is what we have to do. It's an
easy experiment, very simple. If you've got your phones on
you do. We all have our phones. Okay? Do you
do you mind playing along to Ben? Okay, so type
in Star like you're gonna type a number in okay,
Star Star pound pound two to one, one pound and
(21:41):
hit the call button.
Speaker 3 (21:42):
Oh buddy, I'm scared.
Speaker 2 (21:44):
It should run. It should run a script.
Speaker 3 (21:46):
It is running a script. Please wait setting interrogation six.
What the crap?
Speaker 2 (21:52):
This is an interrogation code. Okay. It's a coded script
that runs on your phone, and it should be checking
your call forwarding settings on your phone if you're doing this,
if you're playing.
Speaker 3 (22:03):
Along at home, all disabled for me.
Speaker 2 (22:06):
Excellent, all disabled Okay. Now Noel has a different carrier
than I've got. My script is still running. I did
it at the same time as you, guys. Mine comes
up error performing request unknown error setting interrogation, failed voice
call forwarding on all calls, setting interrogation, failed data call
(22:29):
forwarding on all calls, SMS call forwarding on all calls,
sync data circuit calls forwarding on all calls, and it
goes on and on and on to packet access call
forwarding on all calls as though.
Speaker 4 (22:45):
So it's not followed up. For a lot of people,
they're seeing disabled yes on all calls, but you are
not seeing yes.
Speaker 2 (22:51):
To be clear, I am not seeing that at all.
There are other people who are getting this exact result
of settings on their phones, and it may have to
do with a carrier. I'm not gonna say which carrier
it is on air here, but check which carrier you
have and maybe check the message boards. If this makes
you nervous, Free.
Speaker 4 (23:10):
Train says that he received in all clear or similar
to NOL, so.
Speaker 5 (23:14):
It says on all calls, but then followed by a
single line item that says disabled.
Speaker 3 (23:18):
Right, that's OK.
Speaker 2 (23:21):
And online. I don't know if you guys can see this,
but it does say on all calls.
Speaker 4 (23:26):
Right, you're missing. So it's a center text or it's
a centered text that has three different lines, and then
if that stuff is disabled, then you have a fourth
line that says disabled. And Matt has no disabled message
on any of those parts of the search.
Speaker 2 (23:46):
It looks it looks as though I went through and
set up call forwarding for all of the functionality of
my phone's phone features, which I did not. And this
is the this is the thing you have to know.
My particular carrier offers call forwarding as a service that
(24:06):
you have to I guess, sign some documentation for before
you want to gain access to it. So if I
go in my phone's settings, I don't even have call
forwarding as an option on this particular phone, which is
very strange to me, but it also just made me
super nervous. But the whole point to talk about this
(24:27):
is to see, Ben, did you try it? Did you
see if yours does.
Speaker 4 (24:30):
The same thing all disabled on this phone.
Speaker 2 (24:33):
Okay, got it. So I think maybe it is just
my carrier, because, as we've discussed off air, that is
the one variable that we can confirm, at least here
in this moment.
Speaker 5 (24:44):
Well, can you tell us a little bit more about
what this even means. I don't think I even understand
the necessity or why one would want to use this feature.
Speaker 2 (24:53):
So the person who made potential compromise right, Yes, but
the person who made that video said, basically, you've got
a tapped phone if these settings are on, because someone
is forwarding your calls to somewhere else. That would make
it seem as though they are listening in to your calls.
But technically, call forwarding would actually forward every time let's
(25:14):
say an SMS, text message or a call was sent
to that device. Instead of going directly to that device,
it forwards that signal, essentially that instance, to another device
that you are choosing to forward it to, like a
Google Voice number back in the day, at least for me,
or you know, another void phone number or something like that.
That is not the same.
Speaker 4 (25:35):
Thing for some Internet protocol.
Speaker 2 (25:37):
Yes, that's not the same thing as somebody listening into
all your phone calls via you know, actually hacking into
your phone or.
Speaker 4 (25:45):
Something or like a like the cut. Yeah, it's not
like a criminal or fed wire tap or it's not
even it's not similar to the kind of things that
private investigators would use.
Speaker 2 (25:56):
No, not at all, not at all, but it was.
But it's present this way in social media videos as though.
Here's how to know if the FBI is listening to
your calls. Do this basically and there. I just want
to point this out because I saw these videos happening
in my feed yesterday as we're recording. So it's still
something people are talking about. It's still something people are
(26:19):
scared about, but in a way that maybe they don't
need to be worried about in my case at least
I hope. But it is very, very weird to see it.
If you do want to go down that rabbit hole,
as far as you wish to go, look up that
phrase interrogation code. They are a bunch of different codes
you can type into your phone app, no matter who
(26:41):
your carrier is, no matter what kind of phone you have,
And these are just interesting things and ways to look
at your phone's settings through your phone app. Very cool, Okay, guys.
Now that that's past, thank you for playing that game
with me. Let us hear from High Top One.
Speaker 6 (27:00):
Hey, what's so guys, pro time listener, first time caller.
If you use this, call me the High Top One.
So I've just seen this. It's old, but I just
saw it, and I don't know if you guys spoke
about it, but cenerently, that's a firm called Blackstone has
purchased the DNA ancestry.
Speaker 3 (27:22):
That's kind of weird.
Speaker 6 (27:23):
I believe you guys are talking about that before, like
talking about how it's kind of not cool. It kind
of would be a good idea to put your DNA
into one of those DNA ancestry things, because you never
know who can have access to information. But yeah, what
does an investment firm want to do with all that DNA?
(27:45):
That's kind of questionable. But yeah, thank y'all. Cool, that's awesome.
Speaker 4 (27:51):
Take yourself.
Speaker 2 (27:52):
Thank you so much, High Topped One. I said High
Top One. It's High Top to One. Guys, that's my fault.
Speaker 4 (27:58):
Thank you, High Top One.
Speaker 2 (28:00):
There we go. The reason why we're we're talking about
this and thinking about this is because this is something
you guys we talked about this four years ago during
birthday season. Yes, yeah, that's correct, because it is true.
(28:22):
The investment firm Blackstone did, in fact acquire ancestry dot Com.
They paid four point seven billion dollars for it, which
is a crap ton of money for something that must
have four point seven billion dollars worth of value.
Speaker 3 (28:37):
Right, Not always right, pretty speculative.
Speaker 2 (28:42):
Well, I mean yes, but in this case it is
ancestry dot com, which is in the DNA business, which
seems super fishy and weird, right, And when we talked
about it, we were trying to understand why the heck
would they want to do that? Why would they do
that if if they can't gain access to all of
(29:04):
that user data, the all of the people that have
ever paid in and got their DNA tested or at
least created an account, why would they pay that much
money unless they were getting a treasure trove of something
or some kind of potential future use for that data
that currently is either illegal to do or just there's
(29:26):
no laws. You know, there's no regulations and laws around
whatever they want to do in the future. Guys anything,
do you have any thoughts on this? Before we move
forward with what we've found at least lately in the news.
Speaker 4 (29:40):
Sure. Yeah, Back in the previous I think it was
an episode. It may have been strange needs our listener, mel.
I think it was an episode we talked about the
danger of private investment firms purchasing this, and how even
if the data is anonymous, meaning that it can't be
traced to a specif individual of their name, it still
(30:02):
poses a certain danger. From my understanding, High Top to one,
there's at least an aspect of exaggeration or perhaps even
alarmism going around now in the current day. But even
(30:22):
with that, and I know you're going to tell us
about it, Matt, even with that, I would say the
concern about private insurance firms or private insurance entities leveraging
that data do remain a clear and present danger. Potentially.
That's like the most fair I could be about it.
Speaker 2 (30:43):
Oh No, that's really good man. You're absolutely correct the
recent fears about this. And I'm assuming the reason why
you called in about this, high Top to one is
because there are a ton of social videos just like
the one I just mentioned about that weird little code
you can put in your phone. They're going around saying,
oh Man Blackstone purchased ancestry dot com. They've got access
(31:06):
to all our DNA. We have to be worried. We
need to think about this. It's got the conspiratorial tone
when it comes to the music. You know, often there's
an AI generated voice that is, you know, telling you
basically to be afraid that this has happened, and to
be nervous about it, and you know, maybe get angry
about it. Even I've seen several of them, and it
is something that happened in twenty twenty. So the thing
(31:29):
that's being purported as like breaking news for you is
something that happened forty years ago.
Speaker 4 (31:34):
It was.
Speaker 2 (31:37):
Scrutinized pretty heavily in the news because it was a
weird move, I think, to a lot of people. But
at the same time, it was a giant corporate move
by an investment firm that also good Lord, I mean
right now, I guess we could list some of the
things that Blackstone has its tendrils in, but there's there's
so much. Again, go to our episode. I think it's
(31:58):
a Blackstone.
Speaker 3 (31:59):
Episode that we did. Ben yes, right, and.
Speaker 2 (32:04):
They have investments in all kinds of things. In this case,
they bought seventy five percent of ancestry dot com, and
it's you know, look, if you trust Snopes, and I
know we do sometimes, but we also know there can
be some weirdness with the website. But there was a
(32:25):
twenty seventeen investigation that concluded, at least according to WRC
dot com, that's ABC Channel eight News, the conclusion of
Snopes was that customers must license their DNA data to
ancestry dot com through those TOS things Ben you just
(32:46):
mentioned the other day, the terms of service and all
of the things that you sign when you sign up
for an account. But the person who is licensing their
DNA retains ownership and they can request that their data
be removed from the database.
Speaker 4 (33:03):
They can opt out. Very important distinction because you are
opted in. And I think also, isn't there a if
I'm remembering this correctly, ancestry dot com, which still functions
autonomously as a subsidiary, they they of course have some
legal term in there about how they're not liable if
(33:28):
there's a security breach or something like that. Yes, is
that a yes?
Speaker 3 (33:31):
Yes?
Speaker 2 (33:32):
And they also state that they do not ancestry dot
com does not share genetic personal information with third parties
without consent. Also, customers, you own your DNA. Now, is
the let's say corporate owner of a company a third party?
(33:54):
That's a that's an interesting question. What do you think, guys?
Speaker 3 (33:57):
Is alphabet? Google?
Speaker 4 (33:58):
Is Google alphabet? Yeah?
Speaker 2 (34:00):
Is it the same entity? Or legally would it be
a third party?
Speaker 5 (34:05):
Hmmm?
Speaker 4 (34:06):
Well they don't I think it again, not a lawyer here,
but I would if we're thinking through it logically, then
it would depend upon whether Blackstone owns ancestry dot com
in entirety or whether they have a stake in that company, right.
Speaker 3 (34:24):
And how big that steak is. It's well, that's practically yeah.
Speaker 4 (34:30):
But it's not owning the whole thing, so it's still qualify.
Speaker 1 (34:34):
No, I know.
Speaker 5 (34:34):
I'm just saying like, for all intents and purposes, it's
it just seems to be.
Speaker 3 (34:38):
Like almost like a loophole amount that they don't own,
you know.
Speaker 2 (34:42):
Yeah, I don't know that it's.
Speaker 4 (34:45):
We who owns the other? Who owns the remaining percentage?
Speaker 6 (34:50):
Oh?
Speaker 2 (34:50):
Yeah, I do not know the answer that question. What
I want to know who owns the rest? Oh, we're
gonna do it right now, owns the rest of ancestry
dot com. Uh, let's see Blackstone group, fishirt.
Speaker 5 (35:12):
It's been a minute black Blackstone being just like this
massive investment.
Speaker 4 (35:16):
Yes, but different from black Rock.
Speaker 5 (35:18):
Yeah, yes, yes, I do. I do remember the episode.
I was just making sure that I wasn't getting it twisted.
Speaker 2 (35:23):
Oh crud, is it a black Rock episode and I'm
confusing it with black I.
Speaker 5 (35:28):
Know we discussed Blackstone guys, like in Strange News. It's
come up, but it's certainly likely that we get a
black Rock series, maybe not a full deep dive on
black Stone.
Speaker 4 (35:38):
Well, here's the thing before we get in the weeds here.
Oh god, just just to stay on mission before we
get in the weeds here. We want, I think. But
we're all sane and hopefully you're you're playing along with
us at home, fellow conspiracy realists. Black Rock and Blackstone
are both super duper sketchy.
Speaker 2 (35:55):
Yes, yeah, black Mineral.
Speaker 3 (36:00):
Is it a zone?
Speaker 2 (36:01):
Yeah? But the whole point is that investment firm did
not outright pay four point seven billion dollars for that
DNA information. They bought a company as an investment right,
as one of their assets in their portfolio. Right that theoretically,
as of right now, is not about buying everybody's DNA,
(36:22):
but it is creepy that it happened, and it's not
fun and we don't like it. In conclusion, no conclusion,
We'd love to hear what you think about all this.
We'll be right back with more messages from.
Speaker 4 (36:35):
You, and we have returned. This is going to be
mini sandwich Matroshka of the Deli sandwich within a sandwich.
Dear friends, our first is a letter from home. Then
(36:55):
we'll have an email. We might end with another letter
from home, depending on how everybody feels about a very
weird vibe. Our first thing breaking news freight train. Can
we get a like a breaking news sound? Yeah, that's good,
that's good. Some of that won't get a suit, Our pal,
Jason J. Writes in with a mission critical clarification. Drums
(37:20):
as served at chicken wing spots are technically part of
the wing.
Speaker 3 (37:25):
Thank you everyone. It's like the forearm of the wing.
Speaker 5 (37:28):
Yes, like if if my arm were a wing that
have a leathery bit attached to it, the drum, and
then this part here with the bone split in the
middle would be the would be the flat.
Speaker 4 (37:38):
M You're gonna have some weird dreams tonight, my friend.
Speaker 3 (37:41):
I know I always do manion envision envision.
Speaker 4 (37:47):
No, I've kidded wonderful dreams. Everything's a dream man, so
you only get the wake up once, as they say.
But Jason j thank you very much. We appreciate you
getting the truth out to the people and other members
of the audience. We are going to go now to
(38:09):
someone who wants to who's throwing throwing some really interesting
words at us, and I'd love to hear you, guys
thoughts on this. Someone called severe Gas s v E
R I g E S. We are not native speakers
of this language. Please pardon our pronunciation. Sverguez. You say
halla h A L l a uh. Longtime listener, first
(38:32):
time emailer, You could call me Sverguez. You may use
this email on air. I recently discovered the A P A.
That's the American Psychiatric Association does not recognize Stockholm syndrome
as a real diagnosis, nor is it included in the
Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. The DSM, most popularly known
(38:54):
here in the US as the d S M four
ED puts in some sound cues which I love not
included in the DSM. Digging into this a bit further,
says our fellow conspiracy realist. It seems the entire phenomena
may be a sort of Tulpa name dropping. This because
I learned about Tulpa's on your show. As pop culture
(39:16):
willed this condition into existence, the term is so ubiquitous,
I think you'd be hard pressed to find someone who
hasn't heard of Stockholm syndrome. Yet the APA says it
does not exist, So where did it come from? I
am no expert researcher, but I've found some interesting tidbits
(39:38):
that may shed some light on the controversy. It appears
several police blunders put the lives of the hostages in
danger and at times cause them more discomfort, terror and
harm than their captors. The reason the victims quote unquote
took the side of the criminals is because they were
more scared of what law enforcement might do to them. Unfortunately,
(40:01):
an understandable thing here in the United States and abroad.
Our pal continues. Neils Beasure wrote, the psychiatrist responsible for
creating Stockholm syndrome never spoke to the hostages directly. Another
sound effect. Oh it's a double gasp. They wrote a
(40:21):
double gasp. Okay, so people in the medical community believe
quote Stockholm syndrome became a way of silencing an indignant, angry, exhausted,
courageous young woman. It seems like there are some things
here some people in Swedish law enforcement may not want
us to know. I mean other than the death of
(40:42):
or disappearance of Carl Eric right. I think your listeners
might find this story captivating and possibly make them more
fun at parties. Anyway, maybe this is good father for
an episode, or at least an interesting discussion over a
few beers. I love your show. Make more episodes, please,
and I think I've listened to them all at this point.
Speaker 3 (41:04):
They should get a prize for that.
Speaker 4 (41:06):
Yeah, thank thank you.
Speaker 3 (41:07):
Sevirgis.
Speaker 5 (41:08):
Yeah, Tulpa a Tulpa trophy exactly just as he get
into existence. This is stemming from a particular incident though,
right this this bank robbery.
Speaker 4 (41:18):
The description of Stockholm syndrome comes from August twenty third,
nineteen seventy three, Stockholm bank robbery. Everybody at a place
called Sverge's Credit Bank were up in arms with this.
We want to shout out something you sent us to
Veggi's a great article by Rebecca Armitage published in August
(41:42):
of twenty twenty three, right around this time last year,
over ABC dot Net out of Australia, and here's their description.
The guy, the Robert, is a safecracker named Jan Eric Olsen.
He comes into this bank with a submachine gun, a knife,
a transistor radio, some rope and explosives and he is
(42:05):
dressed in a brown wig and fake glasses. He walks
in super cinematic, fires a few rounds into the ceiling
and then yells the party is just begotten. This is
not what a normal day in Sweden is like.
Speaker 3 (42:20):
Yeah, I think it's mainly pretty chill of good techno.
Speaker 5 (42:24):
I love sweetish technol, Swedish electronicys some of my favorite artists.
But yeah, you know the thing about a term like this, though,
I get that it's not in the DSM five five
four five, but it describes a circumstance that I think
a lot of people can relate to that maybe there
isn't another better, more psychologically accurate term, you know, the
(42:48):
idea of identifying with an abuser.
Speaker 4 (42:51):
Sure, yes, and we'll get to that, And I'm really
glad you brought that up. I want to get to
the origin of this as well. To answer the question
here the row he turned into a siege. It was
a six day standoff, and this is the result because,
like you said, it happened in Stockholm, so it's named
after Stockholm. It's called Stockholm syndrome. And it's a phrase
(43:13):
that gets thrown around a lot in conversation. The idea,
and I think you're onto something there and old with
the idea of the complexity of relationship that can occur
between abusers and the abused, even with just you know,
like if you have to hang out with bullies all
(43:33):
the time, you try to get along with them even
when they're you know, terrible. The or the idea of
people caught in you know, horrible domestic situations or romantic
things gone awry, fraught family relations between parents and children.
I think really onto us something. The issue with Stockholm syndrome,
(43:55):
the origin of this particular phrase is that it's coined
by this guy we mentioned earlier, the psychiatric advisor who
is working with police during the standoff at the credit bank,
and he is the guy who goes to the press
and says, look, one of these hostages, a younger woman
has formed an emotional bond with the bank robber. Her
(44:18):
name Kristin Enmark. She's twenty three at the time, and
she's sort of like the patient zero we could call
it for the idea of Stockholm syndrome. But this guy
Kneels is heavily implying in his earlier statements that the
connection she has, the emotional bond between Kristin and Mark
(44:39):
and Jan Eric Olsen, is somehow sexual. So now it's like,
is the guy courting the press.
Speaker 3 (44:47):
A little bit?
Speaker 4 (44:48):
Was some juicy red meat, you know? Or what is
he basing this on? Because it turns out our conspiracy
realist here is correct. We can't find a record of
this psychiatrist speaking directly to like every hostage. Uh he
he said, Uh, this is essentially like, well, he talks
(45:12):
about this on the news after the captives get released,
and he brings up the idea of brainwashing, and we're
familiar with brainwashing, you know.
Speaker 5 (45:20):
Well that's and that's that's what. Yeah, it occurs to me.
I mean like it comes from a place of empathy.
I think many times where people are how key I
love this person and yet they're treating me horribly, you know,
Or it doesn't even have to be as as serious
as love. It could just be like, I want to
understand this person, and yet they treat me horribly, and
yet through my own empathy, I will I will endure
(45:44):
this in the hopes that maybe I can change them.
I think it's I think it's something that exists very much.
And and is there a better term, ben, Is there
another term that is in the DSM that would be
more appropriate than this very mysterious term.
Speaker 4 (46:01):
It's a good question. I think they're a kissing cousin terms,
maybe that apply, and perhaps a Venn diagram sort of
way to some of the tendencies we're outlining here, I mean,
speaking empathy. We have to realize that obviously, and this
is vastly oversimplifying a lot of people who are abusive
(46:22):
or bullies or have toxic traits up to an including
robbing banks. They don't see themselves as the bad person,
you know what I mean? They they have somehow self
rationalized their own things, right, because everybody's the hero of
their story. The fascinating thing, though, is up until this.
Speaker 2 (46:44):
Well, unless they have a disorder that unless allow them
to do that, which is also in five.
Speaker 4 (46:51):
Yes, yeah, yeah, and I earlier just to get in
front of the email, I did say DSM four to
be sure, DSM five is the current iteration, and that
there's a whole bag of badgers about what can or
cannot be included in the DSM, and many of the
choices made by the creators of the DSM remain controversial today.
(47:13):
But as I was saying, I didn't know Stockholm syndrome
as a concept was so controversial, nor did I.
Speaker 3 (47:19):
It's just it gets thrown around so much.
Speaker 5 (47:21):
But I think a lot of psychological terms like armchair
diagnoses and whatnot, get thrown around outside of the realm
of maybe what their original intents are. But I had
no idea that it just straight up isn't in there,
because we all know what it means, and I think
it's a helpful term for a thing that does certainly exist.
Speaker 4 (47:40):
Or something like it, right, or aspects of it. Yeah,
and the thing is a lot of times so people
ignore women, right, especially the media. It's just true, and
it's terrible. It seems like a lot of times the
media was running to this psychiatrist and they were ignored
the statements of actual hostages, including Kristen and Mark. Because
(48:05):
she's the one who pointed out the police were acting
incompetently from what she experienced. And she said these police
were forcing hostages to negotiate for their own lives with
the assailants. And they said, the hostages looked at the
way the police were behaving and the way the robbers
were behaving, and they trusted the robbers more because the robbers'
(48:29):
actions were more rational and therefore predictable. And Mark said
police were pointing firearms at the hostages. And she said
one of the people who helped drop the bank while
the high screw tried to protect the hostages from being
caught in gunfire with law enforcement. So it seems that
there's much more to this story than we originally might
(48:53):
have assumed, or at least you know that I had assumed.
Speaker 5 (48:56):
I mean, that's a real specific situation too. It's very
different from what we think of Stockholm syndrome as describing,
like I there are two sides here. I'm scared of
the person that's supposedly trying to help me, and I
trust the person that's supposedly trying to hurt me. But
in reality, maybe that's actually rational in this situation, right,
(49:18):
Whereas Stockholm syndrome, as we think of it is irrational.
Speaker 4 (49:21):
Yeah, maybe it's kind of a devil you know situation.
And again, think about the sample size. We can say
this off the cuff, most people have not been involved
in bank robberies on either side. Got an affirmative nod
from Matt there, so that counts as fact checking.
Speaker 5 (49:37):
What is most likely to get you killed in a
bank robbery being a hero getting caught in the crossfire
by the cops, because it does not behoove bank robbers
to murder people.
Speaker 3 (49:50):
It just doesn't. And the money is ensured.
Speaker 5 (49:54):
So if everybody knows that, which most people do, it's
I'm not saying it's a victimless crime. That's maybe overstated
in the case a little bit, but it behooves everyone
to just keep their mouths shut. And if cops come
in shooting, I would be more scared of the cops
than I would are the bank robberts.
Speaker 4 (50:08):
Well, everybody who's ever worked as a bank teller or
in some aspect of like retail banking, Yeah, you comply,
and you know that bank robbers we had a brain
stuff video about this year, So no, they don't make
a lot of money at all. I still I loved
that episode it was real eye opener. But I would argue,
(50:33):
then I will posit. I would say to our palace,
ferygas over here, and again, apologies for this pronunciation. I
would argue that Stockholm syndrome becomes a description in that
nineteen seventy three Stockholm bank robbery, but it becomes cemented
in popular culture a year later with the abduction of
(50:55):
Patty Hurst in nineteen seventy four, Sure the Symbionese Liberation
Army right the SLA, because she begins denouncing her family
as she's taken. She's held hostage. She is super wealthy
American aristocrat, granddaughter of William Randolph Hurst, the paper tycoon,
(51:16):
newspaper tycoon, and she is talked to trash about her family.
And then later after she's captured, supposedly held hostage, she's
seen working with this organization, the SLA, to rob banks
in California, in San Francisco in particular, and she says, look,
I've talked with these people.
Speaker 3 (51:35):
I get it. I'm on board. They're right.
Speaker 4 (51:38):
Fast forward a year later, nineteen seventy five, when she
is arrested, she basically pleads something like Stockholm syndrome, and
the question is is that genuine?
Speaker 3 (51:53):
Is that.
Speaker 4 (51:55):
A play on the part of the defense. I don't know,
what do you guys think. I'm sure there's so many,
so much discourse about this.
Speaker 2 (52:04):
Some really interesting quotations from this piece from ABC dot
net dot AU. I I don't know if it's from
it's a quote from someone named doctor Wade. She is
a really interesting quote, and I think it makes sense
here says the ideal hostage is a woman who keeps
(52:24):
her mouth shut and thinks that the police are going
to protect her. And when someone pops up like me
who says the opposite, you have to call it being
unhealthy insane, instead of looking at what the police did,
because that was one of the big questions there in
that case, right about how the police reacted to the
hostage taker and some very dangerous actions that were taken
(52:47):
on the on the part of the police. And so
it's just very interesting to me that it then becomes
this one guy's thing that could potentially make him famous.
Speaker 4 (52:58):
It reminds me of that of that Weasley little academic
in Silence of the Lambs.
Speaker 3 (53:06):
You know that's been laid great Hannibalekta late great.
Speaker 4 (53:10):
So he just wants to you know, he's looking to
establish his reputation. Now, we haven't spoken with Kristin Enmark,
and we're quoting Endmark there in that excellent article. Yeah,
in that excellent article. But I do think there's an
episode in this. We want to hear your thoughts, folks,
because we're raising some questions here that we're hoping to
(53:31):
answer in the future. Now, as of twenty twenty three,
Kristin Enmark was alive in her seventies and has always
been on record about the way she feels this situation
was mischaracterized and then became sort of a pop culture
troupe or as we as one of us said earlier
(53:52):
in Armchair Psychology thing, we want to know your thoughts.
We're intensely interested in this. We are not going to
to a lovely if somewhat provocative series of quizzes by
our pal Alpha Flight. Shout out to that comic book,
so that may be something in the future.
Speaker 3 (54:12):
But we also quickly with his Alpha Flight. You're throwing
this around like I should know what this is. I
gotta know.
Speaker 4 (54:17):
It's the Stockholm syndrome. A comic books. Bro Okay, cool, No,
it's an Alpha Flight is a team I called them
like the off Mic. I called them the Canadian Avengers.
Maybe they're more like the Canadian X Men. But they're
a team of Canadian superheroes. Uh, and they're they actually
come about because they're part of uh the origin story
(54:41):
of James Howlett or Wolverine as he's more popularly.
Speaker 3 (54:45):
Oh, I thought his name was Logan.
Speaker 4 (54:49):
His original name spoilers is James.
Speaker 3 (54:52):
Howett like Howland Wolf, Helen h O W L E. T. T. Howlette.
Speaker 4 (54:59):
He doesn't Alon, Yeah, he doesn't go by low. It's
an assumed identity.
Speaker 3 (55:03):
You. I mean, I had no idea.
Speaker 4 (55:05):
Because of the because of weapon X WEX.
Speaker 3 (55:08):
Got it nice?
Speaker 2 (55:10):
What was the thing? It was like the Great Lakes Avengers?
Is that or the great.
Speaker 4 (55:14):
Like the Great Lakes Avengers, the West Coast Avengers. Yeah,
and then the actual Avengers. Yeah yeah, Great Lakes Avengers
probably one of my favorites, but not for the right reasons.
Speaker 2 (55:26):
What about Batman and the Outsiders?
Speaker 4 (55:28):
Man, I don't know, Okay, look, outside of Batman, they
don't really have superpowers, which I know is a threshold.
But Batman has.
Speaker 3 (55:37):
Kind as a superpower.
Speaker 5 (55:39):
Yeah, if you're like really good.
Speaker 4 (55:43):
So maybe maybe if you're really good. Let us know
if you have a superpower, and do check out our
previous episodes of real life Superpowers Alpha Flight. I can
either confirm nor deny your question, but do appreciate your interest.
We can't wait to hear from you. Thank you to
High Top One, thank you to Frederick, thank you to
(56:04):
Jason j. Thank you to Saveraga's. Thank you to everybody's
tuning in join us. Give us your take on everything
we talked about, especially leads for new episodes. We can't
wait to hear from you. We try to be easy
to find online.
Speaker 5 (56:19):
Find us online at the handle Conspiracy Stuff where we exist,
on Facebook, where we have our Facebook group Here's where
it gets Crazy, on x FKA, Twitter, and on YouTube
with video content galore.
Speaker 3 (56:30):
You can also find us.
Speaker 5 (56:31):
On Instagram and TikTok at the handle Conspiracy Stuff show guys.
Speaker 2 (56:35):
Ben I just remembered I found it in my notes.
It was a guy called doorman.
Speaker 4 (56:40):
Yes, yeah, because he has a very specific type of
phasing teleportation, but.
Speaker 2 (56:46):
It sounds so much worse and also flat man, very flat.
Speaker 4 (56:52):
There's a lot of creativity going into names.
Speaker 3 (56:55):
Right under the door.
Speaker 4 (56:58):
Actually they can bind their.
Speaker 5 (57:01):
Doorman is also intensely polite, and he just holds the
door for everybody.
Speaker 3 (57:05):
That's his sort.
Speaker 4 (57:06):
Man, is kind of cool. It's a very specific power,
but if you need it, it's helpful.
Speaker 3 (57:11):
Oh man.
Speaker 2 (57:12):
And we won't even get into squirrel girl. That's a
whole other thing.
Speaker 4 (57:15):
No, mcu is going to do a squirrel girl thing later.
Speaker 3 (57:18):
I'm sure, and really quickly, guys. I just clocked this
on the on the internet. Stockholm the movie in theaters.
Let's see is this old?
Speaker 4 (57:29):
Yeah, but there's no doorman in it.
Speaker 3 (57:31):
No, that's true, but there is ethan hawk flatman.
Speaker 5 (57:36):
No, no, but this is literally the Stuart and Naomi
Repas and Mark Strong. It looks I don't think this
kind of came and went, guys, But this is the
story of that very bank robbery in question. So if
you want to see a dramatized version of the Stockholm
syndrome origin story, check out Stockholm.
Speaker 4 (57:55):
And also shout out to the most effective member of
Great Lakes Avengers, mister Mortal. Mister Immortal, if you are
hearing this and you are not fictional, and you'd like
to give us a phone call, we'd love to hear
from you.
Speaker 2 (58:06):
That feels like a legit superhero to me, mister Immortal.
Speaker 5 (58:10):
Yeah, that's like one of the best superpowers, never dying.
Speaker 4 (58:13):
That's pretty he dies, he just can come back, so
it's still kind of their good. Good superpowers always have
a drawback. Otherwise you just you're kind of boring.
Speaker 2 (58:25):
You know what. There's a one drawback to calling us,
and that is that you only have three minutes. If
you do want to call us, it's one eight three
three STDWYTK When you call in, give yourself a cool
nickname and let us know if we can use your
message on the air. If you got more to say
than can fit in three minutes, one out. Instead, send
us a good old fashioned email.
Speaker 4 (58:45):
We are the entities that read every single email we receive.
Tell us your favorite three superpowers or your ideal ones.
Tell us your ideal last meals, because we'll get out
of this phase eventually. Be well aware, yet on afraid.
Sometimes the void writes back conspiracy at iHeartRadio dot com.
Speaker 2 (59:22):
Stuff they Don't Want You to Know is a production
of iHeartRadio. For more podcasts from iHeartRadio, visit the iHeartRadio app,
Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to your favorite shows.
From UFOs to psychic powers and government conspiracies. History is
riddled with unexplained events. You can turn back now or
learn this stuff they don't want you to know. A
production of Iheartrading.
Speaker 2 (00:24):
Hello, welcome back to the show. My name is Matt,
my name is.
Speaker 3 (00:28):
No, they call me Bed.
Speaker 4 (00:30):
We're joined with our guest superproducer Max the Free Train Williams.
Most importantly, you are here. That makes this the stuff
they don't want you to know. Congratulations, folks, As you
hear this, some of us are on the road. Hopefully
you are having adventures as well. In this August of
twenty twenty four. We're gonna hear from High Top One.
(00:54):
We're gonna hear from Frederick, not our guy Matt, different
Frederick kind of multiverse there. Uh, we're gonna get a
clarification from our pal Jason j a little bit of
Alpha flight stuff. Uh, we're gonna we're gonna have a
weird conversation about Stockholm Centrum and I can't wait to
hear how it goes. Uh. Also before like because we're
(01:14):
doing the cold open things now, guys, thank you for
putting up with this last meal subsession.
Speaker 5 (01:21):
Kidding, it's a fascinating subject area. I think it says
a lot about an individual. It's like way more revealing
than like what's your favorite color or comic book or
music artist.
Speaker 3 (01:33):
I think, you know, I don't know.
Speaker 4 (01:35):
I like it. I like how it could be. It's
such an intense icebreaker. Like if we have to go
to these networking things and someone says, hey, say three
fun facts about yourself and just hit them with the
last meal.
Speaker 2 (01:49):
Yeah, that's a lot.
Speaker 5 (01:51):
I mean, you know what I would compare it to you, guys,
Desert Island media, desert is Oh, that's good to give
you that.
Speaker 3 (01:58):
It's it's a last final, it's a thing whatever.
Speaker 5 (02:01):
You can only have this one thing for the rest
of your life, which in this case isn't very long.
Speaker 2 (02:07):
I want to know the last meals of the most
dangerous large land animals.
Speaker 4 (02:12):
Are all back.
Speaker 3 (02:15):
I like it.
Speaker 4 (02:17):
The last meals are the most dangerous land animals. Folks,
send us your takes on this.
Speaker 3 (02:23):
Tune in.
Speaker 4 (02:24):
We've got an episode on our different show, our peer show,
Ridiculous History, all about last meals. In the meantime, this
is one of our favorite evenings of the week. We
are going to hear from you. No funny story. A
number of years ago, I was doing a pilot with
some friends of the show called School of Humans, and
(02:46):
I tried to let I tried to pitch them on
a show about dumb inventions. And I had all these
inventions that I thought were cool, but we're kind of dumb.
And one of them was a thing that someone else
already invented, a plastic top on bottles that remained detached
so you could screw it back on.
Speaker 3 (03:07):
Nah.
Speaker 2 (03:08):
By the way, is this let's start a coup? No,
this is way okay, this.
Speaker 4 (03:13):
Is actually let's follow up off airic because I'm embarrassed
to say the show that was a pilot, but I
think you know about it well.
Speaker 5 (03:20):
And also I mean speaking of a coup, there might
be one of brewing over this very invention over in
the EU.
Speaker 3 (03:29):
We'll be right back.
Speaker 5 (03:38):
And we're back with a message from Frederick. Not Matt Frederick,
just Frederick. They call me, he says, dear sirs. Two
days ago, I was waiting outside of the local pharmacy
when an elderly lady approached me with a plastic bottle
of soda. I agreeted the lady with a smile and
accepted the bottle into my hand, while agreeing to the
(03:58):
fact that they are unnecessary tough to open, especially for
a woman of her age.
Speaker 3 (04:02):
She was old.
Speaker 5 (04:04):
I screwed open her soda bottle slowly and carefully, but
yet with the precision and focus I put into the unscrewing.
The softer plastic of the cap had some short strings
or unhandy leftover parts sticking out from the soft plastic circle.
The circle that cracks when you crack open a plastic bottle.
Speaker 3 (04:22):
We all know it.
Speaker 5 (04:23):
Please see the picture I attached for reference. Now, I
personally don't drink sodas. I rarely even drink from plastic bottles.
I reuse a glass bottle as I prefer my balls
to be plastic free.
Speaker 3 (04:34):
They're not when another one, you can do about it.
It's everywhere, it's micro you can't see it. It's in
the air. Uh yeah, it's a bummer.
Speaker 5 (04:43):
But I tried this before lately, several times. In fact,
every single time I have opened a plastic bottle in
twenty twenty four, I have made this mess. I never
opened plastic bottles so poorly before. Has my ability to
open plastic bottles decreased so I googled it and I
found this a Reddit thread titled why are all the
(05:05):
plastic bottle caps attached?
Speaker 3 (05:08):
Lately?
Speaker 5 (05:09):
It has been Bowland to blame for this with his
enterprising mind. Well curious folks want to know. Apparently there
has been some EU regulation regarding plastic caps put into
place to control the plastic waste betterly.
Speaker 3 (05:24):
I like that.
Speaker 5 (05:25):
I like betterly. My grammar check on Google doc doesn't
like it, but I like it. For example, a lot
of milk carton caps are now attached to the bottle.
You cannot screw it off like we used to. I
think the initiative is rather stupid, as it complicates drinking
straight from the carton, one of the few delights I
have left in my life. I live alone, don't worry
not a pig, and the plastic is still different from
(05:48):
the rest of the carton material, so it doesn't exactly
make sorting and separating it easier.
Speaker 3 (05:53):
It is to be assumed.
Speaker 5 (05:55):
That the same regulation has worsened the quality of screw
caps on plastic bottles across Europe. Is it really to
have a better grasp on the plastic waste or are
the screw cap manufacturers deliberately lowering the quality of the
caps to save money on the bottom line.
Speaker 3 (06:11):
This is the conspiracy.
Speaker 5 (06:13):
I'm at the edge of the rabbit hole, and I
would love it if you could do the rest. How
are screw caps in the US here? They all used
to be fairly different. Sometimes I'd find a crappy one,
but now they are all, in fact crappy. One great
regard from the dynamic Dane they call me Frederick ps.
The two strings sticking out from the cap usually stick
out from the circle on the neck of the bottle.
Speaker 3 (06:35):
Making drinking from the bottle a risky affair.
Speaker 5 (06:38):
Please let me know if you wish for further documentation
of the issue at hand.
Speaker 3 (06:41):
Frederick, my guy.
Speaker 5 (06:43):
This one stood out to me because, you know, more
than two years now, I ventured out of the United States.
So the first time since my childhood, I went to
Paris and found that all of the plastic bottles there
water bottles, specifically, not soda. We're already doing this. I'd
(07:05):
never encountered this before. They're like these little caps that
have these little plastic strings attached, so you flip it
up and it kind of goes out sort of like
a you know, a water bottle or a reusable maybe
coffee thermous or something like that.
Speaker 3 (07:18):
But they're unwieldy.
Speaker 5 (07:20):
They kind of hang in an odd angle when you're
drinking from them. I found that it would cause me
to spill the water embarrassingly down my cravat, you know,
because that's how I dressed when I was in Paris.
I wore a cravat and the puffy collar, and it
was really really embarrassing. We were in these beautiful locations
and here I am dribbling water like a small child.
(07:40):
And it turns out that they were just ahead of
the curve, because back in twenty eighteen it was announced
that this would be a new requirement in the European Union.
The idea is that oftentimes when people unscrew the bottle top,
(08:01):
it ends up separate it from the bottle.
Speaker 3 (08:03):
People either throw it.
Speaker 5 (08:04):
It's a separate opportunity for littering, it's a separate opportunity
for waste.
Speaker 3 (08:09):
If you're like me and hopefully.
Speaker 5 (08:12):
Most other civilized humans, you screw it back on before
you throw it away.
Speaker 6 (08:17):
You know.
Speaker 5 (08:17):
I always am very careful to keep my bottle tops
because I like the only positive thing about a bottle
you know, given the whole microplastics in the balls thing
is that you can reuse it. You can drink some
of it, cap it up, put it in the fridge
and save it for later. If it's carbonated, it won't
go it won't go flat. If it's got water in
it, it won't soak up any fridge smells or any weird
(08:39):
things like that. So you know, I do try to
keep it connected to the bottle, and then when I'm
done with it, I screw it back on.
Speaker 3 (08:44):
I don't just toss the cap separately. That's barbaric.
Speaker 5 (08:48):
But I found a clip in researching this from a
BBC Breakfast I guess segments from I can't. I thought
it posted somewhere else and I didn't really a date.
But I think it's relatively recent because it is talking
about this beginning to proliferate everywhere, because this is meant
to be in full effect by this year July of
(09:10):
this year, so because of the fact that like manufacturers
are sending their products wide in the European Union. Of course,
the UK is not part of the European Union anymore.
That does mean though they still they can't make one
for one market and one for the other since they
are all connected, so they have to just make the
one type of screwcap. And it is this weird, unpleasant
(09:32):
little pop top that sticks out of the side of
the bottle once you get it off.
Speaker 3 (09:36):
And here's a gentleman reacting to this development.
Speaker 4 (09:42):
And no only believe this. This at least this clip
we have was posted on August third of this year,
so pretty recently.
Speaker 6 (09:49):
I'm sure it can't be the only one who thinks
is and I'm all helping out the environment.
Speaker 2 (09:53):
But who ever came up with the idea of keeping.
Speaker 3 (09:59):
Lech connected to the bottle? It says, on't it?
Speaker 2 (10:04):
I am attached to recycled together. You can also recycle
it if you take the litter, and then you're screwp.
Speaker 6 (10:12):
It's just.
Speaker 4 (10:17):
Dangerous, is what it is. Who okay? That is that?
That is the clip. It goes goes out a little
bit longer, but then the rest is just newspeople.
Speaker 3 (10:36):
It's good though.
Speaker 5 (10:37):
The news discussion is really good because they bring up
some interesting points. First of all, we know that recycling
plastic is dubious at best in general, right, like like
does it get recycled?
Speaker 3 (10:50):
Like what material is it made into?
Speaker 5 (10:52):
We know how expensive it is for companies to use
recycled material, so oftentimes I don't know, you know, they're
certain types of plastics that can't be recycled, like those
plastic grocery bags that you get, because they're so thin
that it would be impossible to compact them into like
another usable material. The science of recycling, you know, plastic,
(11:14):
I think is is just it's not super great, and
different municipalities recycle things differently. Apparently the plastic top is
a higher density type of plastic, so in and of itself,
it's sort of when the cap is on in certain municipalities,
it renders the whole thing unrecyclable because it's on there.
Speaker 4 (11:38):
Yeah, check out our twenty twenty episode or September twenty third,
twenty twenty Plastics, microplastics and conspiracy, because here, at least
in the United States, recycling is unfortunately part of a
larger corporate conspiracy to move the burden of pollution onto
the consumer. And yeah, I agree with you from Rick.
(12:00):
First off, thank you again for writing to us.
Speaker 3 (12:02):
I agree with you.
Speaker 4 (12:04):
This is not solving the problem it purports to solve,
in part because of the material science that you're pointing
out there no, well.
Speaker 5 (12:13):
Yeah that and also, like I guess in theory it
could cut down on litter of like the caps just
being willingly thrown around and like being separated, and now
you've got a whole bunch of bottle caps. And there
is somebody that goes on this this BBC Breakfast you know, segment,
who talks about the whole disparity with like, Okay, if
(12:34):
the bottle caps are attached, you can't even recycle the
bottle anymore because these two different densities of plastic.
Speaker 3 (12:40):
So that definitely doesn't solve the problem.
Speaker 5 (12:41):
The other was the fact that it is technically a
problem that there are all these disconnected bottle caps that
are you know, causing litter and maybe getting you know,
stuck in storm drains or what have you. But they
do point out that they are really good for making art,
and there's a whole like bottle cap mural in the
(13:03):
UK that is made out of these plastic bottle caps.
So that's an interesting piece in the segment just in
and of itself, interesting for its own reasons. But yeah,
it is really odd because they don't thread. They kind
of pop, but they don't pop super well. And they
no longer make a very good seal. So once you've
(13:24):
popped it back on there, if you put the water
bottle on its side or something like that, it's just
gonna leak everywhere. So it's just not particularly logistically well designed. Ben,
I know, if you had been responsible for this, you
would have figured out a better solution.
Speaker 3 (13:37):
It would have been air tight.
Speaker 5 (13:39):
It would have like had enough thread that you could
like hang it off the side and get your mouth
around it and not be poking yourself in the eye
like this poor fellow, you know on the YouTube clip
that we played. But I was taken aback when I
saw them, and then I found, you know, in Spain
recently when I went there, they're everywhere.
Speaker 3 (13:56):
And this is something that is.
Speaker 5 (13:58):
Wide now, you know, as of the July third, which
was the deadline for this. So it is an example
of sort of like government mandates that make the require
changes that maybe don't actually do the thing they're purporting
to do. It's sort of like a talking point and
an inconvenience for manufacturers, but not necessarily something that is
solving the problem that it's setting out to solve.
Speaker 4 (14:18):
Yeah, Just so it's kind of like it's kind of
like making an inconvenient umbrella because you're saying rain is
a thing, so let me build a new kind of umbrella.
And everybody hates that umbrella, right, People also like the familiarity.
(14:39):
I think that I love that got that clip on there,
because since we're an audio show for now, when you're
drinking from this from this bottle, well as you as
as our poor clearly performatively distressed bottle guy points out
the bottle cap does make it more a difficult to
(15:01):
drink from. And you pointed, you said it was getting
on your cravat, your pants, your sleeves in front of
the French stockings. This is this is this is technically
I guess it's it's better than what it was, maybe,
but it kind of, you know what it kind of
reminds me of in a different way, was when former
(15:24):
New York City Mayor Bloomberg attempted to ban like large sodas.
Speaker 3 (15:31):
Or large like the big gulps. I believe big gulps.
Speaker 4 (15:34):
Yeah, just so, because obviously there is an issue with
nutrition in the United States. But that's the wrong way
to solve the problem, you know what I mean, That
doesn't fix food deserts. It's a it's a worse umbrella
than the umbrella before. I'm trying to come up with
the idea of the worst design for an umbrella.
Speaker 3 (15:54):
Here.
Speaker 5 (15:54):
Here's the thing too, Guys, if you're frustrated in the
first place, you can take the thing off.
Speaker 3 (16:03):
Guys.
Speaker 5 (16:03):
You can rip these pieces of threat power plastic threads.
You can rip it right off, Twist it right and
it'll come off. But when you're already frustrated, chances are
much more likely you're just gonna throw it on the
ground in protest. If it's a reasonably designed screw on cap.
First of all, don't know who these monsters are that
are throwing their screw on caps away separately from the bottle.
(16:24):
I just that doesn't compute for me.
Speaker 4 (16:27):
Well, it's like the trolley problem. I think that's a
better comparison to earn my way back from my terrible
umbrella comparison. I guess it should be called the grocery
cart problem here in the US. The grocery cart problem
is a very basic philosophical read on the character of
an individual. You go to a grocery store, use a
(16:49):
grocery cart or trolley whatever they would call it in
your neck of the global woods. And then there are
designated places where you return that little piece of equipment.
It cost you nothing but a few seconds to return it.
But many people don't. They simply don't. They will leave
it in the parking lot, they'll leave it willy nilly
(17:10):
somewhere else. And I, you know, I see there are
valid arguments. Maybe somebody is afraid for their safety to
return a grocery cart occasionally.
Speaker 5 (17:20):
Or there aren't enough what do you call them receptacles.
I guess maybe there's only like one and it's all
the way on the other side. Again, not an excuse,
it's something that you do. It's your job as a
citizen to do that. But Ben, I'm glad you brought
that up because it does remind me of another very
European solution.
Speaker 3 (17:34):
To that problem. The deposit.
Speaker 5 (17:36):
The deposit the or legal I think it is grocery stores,
which is European chain of grocery stores.
Speaker 3 (17:43):
You stick a quarter in it and it.
Speaker 5 (17:44):
Unlocks it from the trolley receptacle for lack of a
better word, and you don't get your quarterback until you
stick it back in that thing, and then it ejects
your quarter, so you're not losing the quarter. So it's
just kind of like a way of giving people accountability.
Speaker 3 (18:00):
Guess, but this doesn't seem like the right way to
do it, Matt. I know you've got thoughts.
Speaker 2 (18:05):
You know what I'm saying.
Speaker 4 (18:06):
What do you said?
Speaker 2 (18:07):
Let those caps be free, guys, Free.
Speaker 3 (18:11):
The bottle caps, Free the caps for the caps.
Speaker 5 (18:14):
Or you know, in a sufficiently apocalyptic enough future, they
could become our currency, like in the Fallout series.
Speaker 4 (18:21):
Maybe we need those metal caps.
Speaker 5 (18:23):
Yeah, metal, they have met fair enough. Well, this is
a bit of a light one, guys. I think we
were maybe in need of such. But Frederick, thank you
so much for writing in. And I really did I
do relate because I was you know, I thought I
was just a dumb American and didn't know how to
drink water from a fancy European bottle.
Speaker 3 (18:42):
But apparently I'm not the only one.
Speaker 5 (18:43):
So let's take a quick break here, aware from our sponsor,
and then come back with more messages from you.
Speaker 2 (18:56):
And we've returned, guys, I want to do something a
little long conventional from one of these listener mail episodes.
I want to start with something I discovered, and I
want to explore it with you in real time together.
If that's okay, would you mind experimenting with me for
a moment?
Speaker 3 (19:13):
Oh gosh, I love to experiment, Okay.
Speaker 2 (19:16):
I stumbled on something just scrolling through the old gram
mindlessly as I do now, because it exists in I
scroll perhaps, yep, I can't stop myself, but I'm really
trying to found a video, and it sent me down
a bit of a rabbit hole and I ended up
finding something from USA Today posted in twenty twenty in
(19:40):
July of that year, They'll want to talk to you
guys about so way back in the early COVID times.
In July twenty twenty, there is an Instagram user named
who do fck want to Go? The Number two Prison
posted a video that got a lot of heat, got
a lot of clicks and likes and scrolls or whatever.
(20:03):
And in this video there's a man holding an iPhone
back in twenty twenty. He opens the phone app on
that iPhone and then, as if he's dialing a phone number,
he keys in the following star pound two one pound,
and then he says, if you take these actions with
(20:23):
your phone, it will it will let you know if
this phone is compromised, and if it shows that the
features on the next screen after you do this are enabled,
then you should dump your phone immediately, get a new phone,
get a new SIM card. Guys, do you want to
run that test right now?
Speaker 3 (20:44):
Yes?
Speaker 2 (20:45):
Yes, because I just did, and I don't like what
I'm seeing and I kind of have gone down a
bit of a deep dark paranoia hole with this, and
everything I'm reading online is saying shouldn't be going down
this paranoia hole. But uh, it is kind of freaking
me out.
Speaker 3 (21:05):
Uh.
Speaker 2 (21:05):
We don't have to say who our carriers are, but
maybe right now, guys, let's bleep this part. So go
ahead and bleep this.
Speaker 3 (21:16):
All right, guys.
Speaker 2 (21:17):
So this is what we have to do. It's an
easy experiment, very simple. If you've got your phones on
you do. We all have our phones. Okay? Do you
do you mind playing along to Ben? Okay, so type
in Star like you're gonna type a number in okay,
Star Star pound pound two to one, one pound and
(21:41):
hit the call button.
Speaker 3 (21:42):
Oh buddy, I'm scared.
Speaker 2 (21:44):
It should run. It should run a script.
Speaker 3 (21:46):
It is running a script. Please wait setting interrogation six.
What the crap?
Speaker 2 (21:52):
This is an interrogation code. Okay. It's a coded script
that runs on your phone, and it should be checking
your call forwarding settings on your phone if you're doing this,
if you're playing.
Speaker 3 (22:03):
Along at home, all disabled for me.
Speaker 2 (22:06):
Excellent, all disabled Okay. Now Noel has a different carrier
than I've got. My script is still running. I did
it at the same time as you, guys. Mine comes
up error performing request unknown error setting interrogation, failed voice
call forwarding on all calls, setting interrogation, failed data call
(22:29):
forwarding on all calls, SMS call forwarding on all calls,
sync data circuit calls forwarding on all calls, and it
goes on and on and on to packet access call
forwarding on all calls as though.
Speaker 4 (22:45):
So it's not followed up. For a lot of people,
they're seeing disabled yes on all calls, but you are
not seeing yes.
Speaker 2 (22:51):
To be clear, I am not seeing that at all.
There are other people who are getting this exact result
of settings on their phones, and it may have to
do with a carrier. I'm not gonna say which carrier
it is on air here, but check which carrier you
have and maybe check the message boards. If this makes
you nervous, Free.
Speaker 4 (23:10):
Train says that he received in all clear or similar
to NOL, so.
Speaker 5 (23:14):
It says on all calls, but then followed by a
single line item that says disabled.
Speaker 3 (23:18):
Right, that's OK.
Speaker 2 (23:21):
And online. I don't know if you guys can see this,
but it does say on all calls.
Speaker 4 (23:26):
Right, you're missing. So it's a center text or it's
a centered text that has three different lines, and then
if that stuff is disabled, then you have a fourth
line that says disabled. And Matt has no disabled message
on any of those parts of the search.
Speaker 2 (23:46):
It looks it looks as though I went through and
set up call forwarding for all of the functionality of
my phone's phone features, which I did not. And this
is the this is the thing you have to know.
My particular carrier offers call forwarding as a service that
(24:06):
you have to I guess, sign some documentation for before
you want to gain access to it. So if I
go in my phone's settings, I don't even have call
forwarding as an option on this particular phone, which is
very strange to me, but it also just made me
super nervous. But the whole point to talk about this
(24:27):
is to see, Ben, did you try it? Did you
see if yours does.
Speaker 4 (24:30):
The same thing all disabled on this phone.
Speaker 2 (24:33):
Okay, got it. So I think maybe it is just
my carrier, because, as we've discussed off air, that is
the one variable that we can confirm, at least here
in this moment.
Speaker 5 (24:44):
Well, can you tell us a little bit more about
what this even means. I don't think I even understand
the necessity or why one would want to use this feature.
Speaker 2 (24:53):
So the person who made potential compromise right, Yes, but
the person who made that video said, basically, you've got
a tapped phone if these settings are on, because someone
is forwarding your calls to somewhere else. That would make
it seem as though they are listening in to your calls.
But technically, call forwarding would actually forward every time let's
(25:14):
say an SMS, text message or a call was sent
to that device. Instead of going directly to that device,
it forwards that signal, essentially that instance, to another device
that you are choosing to forward it to, like a
Google Voice number back in the day, at least for me,
or you know, another void phone number or something like that.
That is not the same.
Speaker 4 (25:35):
Thing for some Internet protocol.
Speaker 2 (25:37):
Yes, that's not the same thing as somebody listening into
all your phone calls via you know, actually hacking into
your phone or.
Speaker 4 (25:45):
Something or like a like the cut. Yeah, it's not
like a criminal or fed wire tap or it's not
even it's not similar to the kind of things that
private investigators would use.
Speaker 2 (25:56):
No, not at all, not at all, but it was.
But it's present this way in social media videos as though.
Here's how to know if the FBI is listening to
your calls. Do this basically and there. I just want
to point this out because I saw these videos happening
in my feed yesterday as we're recording. So it's still
something people are talking about. It's still something people are
(26:19):
scared about, but in a way that maybe they don't
need to be worried about in my case at least
I hope. But it is very, very weird to see it.
If you do want to go down that rabbit hole,
as far as you wish to go, look up that
phrase interrogation code. They are a bunch of different codes
you can type into your phone app, no matter who
(26:41):
your carrier is, no matter what kind of phone you have,
And these are just interesting things and ways to look
at your phone's settings through your phone app. Very cool, Okay, guys.
Now that that's past, thank you for playing that game
with me. Let us hear from High Top One.
Speaker 6 (27:00):
Hey, what's so guys, pro time listener, first time caller.
If you use this, call me the High Top One.
So I've just seen this. It's old, but I just
saw it, and I don't know if you guys spoke
about it, but cenerently, that's a firm called Blackstone has
purchased the DNA ancestry.
Speaker 3 (27:22):
That's kind of weird.
Speaker 6 (27:23):
I believe you guys are talking about that before, like
talking about how it's kind of not cool. It kind
of would be a good idea to put your DNA
into one of those DNA ancestry things, because you never
know who can have access to information. But yeah, what
does an investment firm want to do with all that DNA?
(27:45):
That's kind of questionable. But yeah, thank y'all. Cool, that's awesome.
Speaker 4 (27:51):
Take yourself.
Speaker 2 (27:52):
Thank you so much, High Topped One. I said High
Top One. It's High Top to One. Guys, that's my fault.
Speaker 4 (27:58):
Thank you, High Top One.
Speaker 2 (28:00):
There we go. The reason why we're we're talking about
this and thinking about this is because this is something
you guys we talked about this four years ago during
birthday season. Yes, yeah, that's correct, because it is true.
(28:22):
The investment firm Blackstone did, in fact acquire ancestry dot Com.
They paid four point seven billion dollars for it, which
is a crap ton of money for something that must
have four point seven billion dollars worth of value.
Speaker 3 (28:37):
Right, Not always right, pretty speculative.
Speaker 2 (28:42):
Well, I mean yes, but in this case it is
ancestry dot com, which is in the DNA business, which
seems super fishy and weird, right, And when we talked
about it, we were trying to understand why the heck
would they want to do that? Why would they do
that if if they can't gain access to all of
(29:04):
that user data, the all of the people that have
ever paid in and got their DNA tested or at
least created an account, why would they pay that much
money unless they were getting a treasure trove of something
or some kind of potential future use for that data
that currently is either illegal to do or just there's
(29:26):
no laws. You know, there's no regulations and laws around
whatever they want to do in the future. Guys anything,
do you have any thoughts on this? Before we move
forward with what we've found at least lately in the news.
Speaker 4 (29:40):
Sure. Yeah, Back in the previous I think it was
an episode. It may have been strange needs our listener, mel.
I think it was an episode we talked about the
danger of private investment firms purchasing this, and how even
if the data is anonymous, meaning that it can't be
traced to a specif individual of their name, it still
(30:02):
poses a certain danger. From my understanding, High Top to one,
there's at least an aspect of exaggeration or perhaps even
alarmism going around now in the current day. But even
(30:22):
with that, and I know you're going to tell us
about it, Matt, even with that, I would say the
concern about private insurance firms or private insurance entities leveraging
that data do remain a clear and present danger. Potentially.
That's like the most fair I could be about it.
Speaker 2 (30:43):
Oh No, that's really good man. You're absolutely correct the
recent fears about this. And I'm assuming the reason why
you called in about this, high Top to one is
because there are a ton of social videos just like
the one I just mentioned about that weird little code
you can put in your phone. They're going around saying,
oh Man Blackstone purchased ancestry dot com. They've got access
(31:06):
to all our DNA. We have to be worried. We
need to think about this. It's got the conspiratorial tone
when it comes to the music. You know, often there's
an AI generated voice that is, you know, telling you
basically to be afraid that this has happened, and to
be nervous about it, and you know, maybe get angry
about it. Even I've seen several of them, and it
is something that happened in twenty twenty. So the thing
(31:29):
that's being purported as like breaking news for you is
something that happened forty years ago.
Speaker 4 (31:34):
It was.
Speaker 2 (31:37):
Scrutinized pretty heavily in the news because it was a
weird move, I think, to a lot of people. But
at the same time, it was a giant corporate move
by an investment firm that also good Lord, I mean
right now, I guess we could list some of the
things that Blackstone has its tendrils in, but there's there's
so much. Again, go to our episode. I think it's
(31:58):
a Blackstone.
Speaker 3 (31:59):
Episode that we did. Ben yes, right, and.
Speaker 2 (32:04):
They have investments in all kinds of things. In this case,
they bought seventy five percent of ancestry dot com, and
it's you know, look, if you trust Snopes, and I
know we do sometimes, but we also know there can
be some weirdness with the website. But there was a
(32:25):
twenty seventeen investigation that concluded, at least according to WRC
dot com, that's ABC Channel eight News, the conclusion of
Snopes was that customers must license their DNA data to
ancestry dot com through those TOS things Ben you just
(32:46):
mentioned the other day, the terms of service and all
of the things that you sign when you sign up
for an account. But the person who is licensing their
DNA retains ownership and they can request that their data
be removed from the database.
Speaker 4 (33:03):
They can opt out. Very important distinction because you are
opted in. And I think also, isn't there a if
I'm remembering this correctly, ancestry dot com, which still functions
autonomously as a subsidiary, they they of course have some
legal term in there about how they're not liable if
(33:28):
there's a security breach or something like that. Yes, is
that a yes?
Speaker 3 (33:31):
Yes?
Speaker 2 (33:32):
And they also state that they do not ancestry dot
com does not share genetic personal information with third parties
without consent. Also, customers, you own your DNA. Now, is
the let's say corporate owner of a company a third party?
(33:54):
That's a that's an interesting question. What do you think, guys?
Speaker 3 (33:57):
Is alphabet? Google?
Speaker 4 (33:58):
Is Google alphabet? Yeah?
Speaker 2 (34:00):
Is it the same entity? Or legally would it be
a third party?
Speaker 5 (34:05):
Hmmm?
Speaker 4 (34:06):
Well they don't I think it again, not a lawyer here,
but I would if we're thinking through it logically, then
it would depend upon whether Blackstone owns ancestry dot com
in entirety or whether they have a stake in that company, right.
Speaker 3 (34:24):
And how big that steak is. It's well, that's practically yeah.
Speaker 4 (34:30):
But it's not owning the whole thing, so it's still qualify.
Speaker 1 (34:34):
No, I know.
Speaker 5 (34:34):
I'm just saying like, for all intents and purposes, it's
it just seems to be.
Speaker 3 (34:38):
Like almost like a loophole amount that they don't own,
you know.
Speaker 2 (34:42):
Yeah, I don't know that it's.
Speaker 4 (34:45):
We who owns the other? Who owns the remaining percentage?
Speaker 6 (34:50):
Oh?
Speaker 2 (34:50):
Yeah, I do not know the answer that question. What
I want to know who owns the rest? Oh, we're
gonna do it right now, owns the rest of ancestry
dot com. Uh, let's see Blackstone group, fishirt.
Speaker 5 (35:12):
It's been a minute black Blackstone being just like this
massive investment.
Speaker 4 (35:16):
Yes, but different from black Rock.
Speaker 5 (35:18):
Yeah, yes, yes, I do. I do remember the episode.
I was just making sure that I wasn't getting it twisted.
Speaker 2 (35:23):
Oh crud, is it a black Rock episode and I'm
confusing it with black I.
Speaker 5 (35:28):
Know we discussed Blackstone guys, like in Strange News. It's
come up, but it's certainly likely that we get a
black Rock series, maybe not a full deep dive on
black Stone.
Speaker 4 (35:38):
Well, here's the thing before we get in the weeds here.
Oh god, just just to stay on mission before we
get in the weeds here. We want, I think. But
we're all sane and hopefully you're you're playing along with
us at home, fellow conspiracy realists. Black Rock and Blackstone
are both super duper sketchy.
Speaker 2 (35:55):
Yes, yeah, black Mineral.
Speaker 3 (36:00):
Is it a zone?
Speaker 2 (36:01):
Yeah? But the whole point is that investment firm did
not outright pay four point seven billion dollars for that
DNA information. They bought a company as an investment right,
as one of their assets in their portfolio. Right that theoretically,
as of right now, is not about buying everybody's DNA,
(36:22):
but it is creepy that it happened, and it's not
fun and we don't like it. In conclusion, no conclusion,
We'd love to hear what you think about all this.
We'll be right back with more messages from.
Speaker 4 (36:35):
You, and we have returned. This is going to be
mini sandwich Matroshka of the Deli sandwich within a sandwich.
Dear friends, our first is a letter from home. Then
(36:55):
we'll have an email. We might end with another letter
from home, depending on how everybody feels about a very
weird vibe. Our first thing breaking news freight train. Can
we get a like a breaking news sound? Yeah, that's good,
that's good. Some of that won't get a suit, Our pal,
Jason J. Writes in with a mission critical clarification. Drums
(37:20):
as served at chicken wing spots are technically part of
the wing.
Speaker 3 (37:25):
Thank you everyone. It's like the forearm of the wing.
Speaker 5 (37:28):
Yes, like if if my arm were a wing that
have a leathery bit attached to it, the drum, and
then this part here with the bone split in the
middle would be the would be the flat.
Speaker 4 (37:38):
M You're gonna have some weird dreams tonight, my friend.
Speaker 3 (37:41):
I know I always do manion envision envision.
Speaker 4 (37:47):
No, I've kidded wonderful dreams. Everything's a dream man, so
you only get the wake up once, as they say.
But Jason j thank you very much. We appreciate you
getting the truth out to the people and other members
of the audience. We are going to go now to
(38:09):
someone who wants to who's throwing throwing some really interesting
words at us, and I'd love to hear you, guys
thoughts on this. Someone called severe Gas s v E
R I g E S. We are not native speakers
of this language. Please pardon our pronunciation. Sverguez. You say
halla h A L l a uh. Longtime listener, first
(38:32):
time emailer, You could call me Sverguez. You may use
this email on air. I recently discovered the A P A.
That's the American Psychiatric Association does not recognize Stockholm syndrome
as a real diagnosis, nor is it included in the
Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. The DSM, most popularly known
(38:54):
here in the US as the d S M four
ED puts in some sound cues which I love not
included in the DSM. Digging into this a bit further,
says our fellow conspiracy realist. It seems the entire phenomena
may be a sort of Tulpa name dropping. This because
I learned about Tulpa's on your show. As pop culture
(39:16):
willed this condition into existence, the term is so ubiquitous,
I think you'd be hard pressed to find someone who
hasn't heard of Stockholm syndrome. Yet the APA says it
does not exist, So where did it come from? I
am no expert researcher, but I've found some interesting tidbits
(39:38):
that may shed some light on the controversy. It appears
several police blunders put the lives of the hostages in
danger and at times cause them more discomfort, terror and
harm than their captors. The reason the victims quote unquote
took the side of the criminals is because they were
more scared of what law enforcement might do to them. Unfortunately,
(40:01):
an understandable thing here in the United States and abroad.
Our pal continues. Neils Beasure wrote, the psychiatrist responsible for
creating Stockholm syndrome never spoke to the hostages directly. Another
sound effect. Oh it's a double gasp. They wrote a
(40:21):
double gasp. Okay, so people in the medical community believe
quote Stockholm syndrome became a way of silencing an indignant, angry, exhausted,
courageous young woman. It seems like there are some things
here some people in Swedish law enforcement may not want
us to know. I mean other than the death of
(40:42):
or disappearance of Carl Eric right. I think your listeners
might find this story captivating and possibly make them more
fun at parties. Anyway, maybe this is good father for
an episode, or at least an interesting discussion over a
few beers. I love your show. Make more episodes, please,
and I think I've listened to them all at this point.
Speaker 3 (41:04):
They should get a prize for that.
Speaker 4 (41:06):
Yeah, thank thank you.
Speaker 3 (41:07):
Sevirgis.
Speaker 5 (41:08):
Yeah, Tulpa a Tulpa trophy exactly just as he get
into existence. This is stemming from a particular incident though,
right this this bank robbery.
Speaker 4 (41:18):
The description of Stockholm syndrome comes from August twenty third,
nineteen seventy three, Stockholm bank robbery. Everybody at a place
called Sverge's Credit Bank were up in arms with this.
We want to shout out something you sent us to
Veggi's a great article by Rebecca Armitage published in August
(41:42):
of twenty twenty three, right around this time last year,
over ABC dot Net out of Australia, and here's their description.
The guy, the Robert, is a safecracker named Jan Eric Olsen.
He comes into this bank with a submachine gun, a knife,
a transistor radio, some rope and explosives and he is
(42:05):
dressed in a brown wig and fake glasses. He walks
in super cinematic, fires a few rounds into the ceiling
and then yells the party is just begotten. This is
not what a normal day in Sweden is like.
Speaker 3 (42:20):
Yeah, I think it's mainly pretty chill of good techno.
Speaker 5 (42:24):
I love sweetish technol, Swedish electronicys some of my favorite artists.
But yeah, you know the thing about a term like this, though,
I get that it's not in the DSM five five
four five, but it describes a circumstance that I think
a lot of people can relate to that maybe there
isn't another better, more psychologically accurate term, you know, the
(42:48):
idea of identifying with an abuser.
Speaker 4 (42:51):
Sure, yes, and we'll get to that, And I'm really
glad you brought that up. I want to get to
the origin of this as well. To answer the question
here the row he turned into a siege. It was
a six day standoff, and this is the result because,
like you said, it happened in Stockholm, so it's named
after Stockholm. It's called Stockholm syndrome. And it's a phrase
(43:13):
that gets thrown around a lot in conversation. The idea,
and I think you're onto something there and old with
the idea of the complexity of relationship that can occur
between abusers and the abused, even with just you know,
like if you have to hang out with bullies all
(43:33):
the time, you try to get along with them even
when they're you know, terrible. The or the idea of
people caught in you know, horrible domestic situations or romantic
things gone awry, fraught family relations between parents and children.
I think really onto us something. The issue with Stockholm syndrome,
(43:55):
the origin of this particular phrase is that it's coined
by this guy we mentioned earlier, the psychiatric advisor who
is working with police during the standoff at the credit bank,
and he is the guy who goes to the press
and says, look, one of these hostages, a younger woman
has formed an emotional bond with the bank robber. Her
(44:18):
name Kristin Enmark. She's twenty three at the time, and
she's sort of like the patient zero we could call
it for the idea of Stockholm syndrome. But this guy
Kneels is heavily implying in his earlier statements that the
connection she has, the emotional bond between Kristin and Mark
(44:39):
and Jan Eric Olsen, is somehow sexual. So now it's like,
is the guy courting the press.
Speaker 3 (44:47):
A little bit?
Speaker 4 (44:48):
Was some juicy red meat, you know? Or what is
he basing this on? Because it turns out our conspiracy
realist here is correct. We can't find a record of
this psychiatrist speaking directly to like every hostage. Uh he
he said, Uh, this is essentially like, well, he talks
(45:12):
about this on the news after the captives get released,
and he brings up the idea of brainwashing, and we're
familiar with brainwashing, you know.
Speaker 5 (45:20):
Well that's and that's that's what. Yeah, it occurs to me.
I mean like it comes from a place of empathy.
I think many times where people are how key I
love this person and yet they're treating me horribly, you know,
Or it doesn't even have to be as as serious
as love. It could just be like, I want to
understand this person, and yet they treat me horribly, and
yet through my own empathy, I will I will endure
(45:44):
this in the hopes that maybe I can change them.
I think it's I think it's something that exists very much.
And and is there a better term, ben, Is there
another term that is in the DSM that would be
more appropriate than this very mysterious term.
Speaker 4 (46:01):
It's a good question. I think they're a kissing cousin terms,
maybe that apply, and perhaps a Venn diagram sort of
way to some of the tendencies we're outlining here, I mean,
speaking empathy. We have to realize that obviously, and this
is vastly oversimplifying a lot of people who are abusive
(46:22):
or bullies or have toxic traits up to an including
robbing banks. They don't see themselves as the bad person,
you know what I mean? They they have somehow self
rationalized their own things, right, because everybody's the hero of
their story. The fascinating thing, though, is up until this.
Speaker 2 (46:44):
Well, unless they have a disorder that unless allow them
to do that, which is also in five.
Speaker 4 (46:51):
Yes, yeah, yeah, and I earlier just to get in
front of the email, I did say DSM four to
be sure, DSM five is the current iteration, and that
there's a whole bag of badgers about what can or
cannot be included in the DSM, and many of the
choices made by the creators of the DSM remain controversial today.
(47:13):
But as I was saying, I didn't know Stockholm syndrome
as a concept was so controversial, nor did I.
Speaker 3 (47:19):
It's just it gets thrown around so much.
Speaker 5 (47:21):
But I think a lot of psychological terms like armchair
diagnoses and whatnot, get thrown around outside of the realm
of maybe what their original intents are. But I had
no idea that it just straight up isn't in there,
because we all know what it means, and I think
it's a helpful term for a thing that does certainly exist.
Speaker 4 (47:40):
Or something like it, right, or aspects of it. Yeah,
and the thing is a lot of times so people
ignore women, right, especially the media. It's just true, and
it's terrible. It seems like a lot of times the
media was running to this psychiatrist and they were ignored
the statements of actual hostages, including Kristen and Mark. Because
(48:05):
she's the one who pointed out the police were acting
incompetently from what she experienced. And she said these police
were forcing hostages to negotiate for their own lives with
the assailants. And they said, the hostages looked at the
way the police were behaving and the way the robbers
were behaving, and they trusted the robbers more because the robbers'
(48:29):
actions were more rational and therefore predictable. And Mark said
police were pointing firearms at the hostages. And she said
one of the people who helped drop the bank while
the high screw tried to protect the hostages from being
caught in gunfire with law enforcement. So it seems that
there's much more to this story than we originally might
(48:53):
have assumed, or at least you know that I had assumed.
Speaker 5 (48:56):
I mean, that's a real specific situation too. It's very
different from what we think of Stockholm syndrome as describing,
like I there are two sides here. I'm scared of
the person that's supposedly trying to help me, and I
trust the person that's supposedly trying to hurt me. But
in reality, maybe that's actually rational in this situation, right,
(49:18):
Whereas Stockholm syndrome, as we think of it is irrational.
Speaker 4 (49:21):
Yeah, maybe it's kind of a devil you know situation.
And again, think about the sample size. We can say
this off the cuff, most people have not been involved
in bank robberies on either side. Got an affirmative nod
from Matt there, so that counts as fact checking.
Speaker 5 (49:37):
What is most likely to get you killed in a
bank robbery being a hero getting caught in the crossfire
by the cops, because it does not behoove bank robbers
to murder people.
Speaker 3 (49:50):
It just doesn't. And the money is ensured.
Speaker 5 (49:54):
So if everybody knows that, which most people do, it's
I'm not saying it's a victimless crime. That's maybe overstated
in the case a little bit, but it behooves everyone
to just keep their mouths shut. And if cops come
in shooting, I would be more scared of the cops
than I would are the bank robberts.
Speaker 4 (50:08):
Well, everybody who's ever worked as a bank teller or
in some aspect of like retail banking, Yeah, you comply,
and you know that bank robbers we had a brain
stuff video about this year, So no, they don't make
a lot of money at all. I still I loved
that episode it was real eye opener. But I would argue,
(50:33):
then I will posit. I would say to our palace,
ferygas over here, and again, apologies for this pronunciation. I
would argue that Stockholm syndrome becomes a description in that
nineteen seventy three Stockholm bank robbery, but it becomes cemented
in popular culture a year later with the abduction of
(50:55):
Patty Hurst in nineteen seventy four, Sure the Symbionese Liberation
Army right the SLA, because she begins denouncing her family
as she's taken. She's held hostage. She is super wealthy
American aristocrat, granddaughter of William Randolph Hurst, the paper tycoon,
(51:16):
newspaper tycoon, and she is talked to trash about her family.
And then later after she's captured, supposedly held hostage, she's
seen working with this organization, the SLA, to rob banks
in California, in San Francisco in particular, and she says, look,
I've talked with these people.
Speaker 3 (51:35):
I get it. I'm on board. They're right.
Speaker 4 (51:38):
Fast forward a year later, nineteen seventy five, when she
is arrested, she basically pleads something like Stockholm syndrome, and
the question is is that genuine?
Speaker 3 (51:53):
Is that.
Speaker 4 (51:55):
A play on the part of the defense. I don't know,
what do you guys think. I'm sure there's so many,
so much discourse about this.
Speaker 2 (52:04):
Some really interesting quotations from this piece from ABC dot
net dot AU. I I don't know if it's from
it's a quote from someone named doctor Wade. She is
a really interesting quote, and I think it makes sense
here says the ideal hostage is a woman who keeps
(52:24):
her mouth shut and thinks that the police are going
to protect her. And when someone pops up like me
who says the opposite, you have to call it being
unhealthy insane, instead of looking at what the police did,
because that was one of the big questions there in
that case, right about how the police reacted to the
hostage taker and some very dangerous actions that were taken
(52:47):
on the on the part of the police. And so
it's just very interesting to me that it then becomes
this one guy's thing that could potentially make him famous.
Speaker 4 (52:58):
It reminds me of that of that Weasley little academic
in Silence of the Lambs.
Speaker 3 (53:06):
You know that's been laid great Hannibalekta late great.
Speaker 4 (53:10):
So he just wants to you know, he's looking to
establish his reputation. Now, we haven't spoken with Kristin Enmark,
and we're quoting Endmark there in that excellent article. Yeah,
in that excellent article. But I do think there's an
episode in this. We want to hear your thoughts, folks,
because we're raising some questions here that we're hoping to
(53:31):
answer in the future. Now, as of twenty twenty three,
Kristin Enmark was alive in her seventies and has always
been on record about the way she feels this situation
was mischaracterized and then became sort of a pop culture
troupe or as we as one of us said earlier
(53:52):
in Armchair Psychology thing, we want to know your thoughts.
We're intensely interested in this. We are not going to
to a lovely if somewhat provocative series of quizzes by
our pal Alpha Flight. Shout out to that comic book,
so that may be something in the future.
Speaker 3 (54:12):
But we also quickly with his Alpha Flight. You're throwing
this around like I should know what this is. I
gotta know.
Speaker 4 (54:17):
It's the Stockholm syndrome. A comic books. Bro Okay, cool, No,
it's an Alpha Flight is a team I called them
like the off Mic. I called them the Canadian Avengers.
Maybe they're more like the Canadian X Men. But they're
a team of Canadian superheroes. Uh, and they're they actually
come about because they're part of uh the origin story
(54:41):
of James Howlett or Wolverine as he's more popularly.
Speaker 3 (54:45):
Oh, I thought his name was Logan.
Speaker 4 (54:49):
His original name spoilers is James.
Speaker 3 (54:52):
Howett like Howland Wolf, Helen h O W L E. T. T. Howlette.
Speaker 4 (54:59):
He doesn't Alon, Yeah, he doesn't go by low. It's
an assumed identity.
Speaker 3 (55:03):
You. I mean, I had no idea.
Speaker 4 (55:05):
Because of the because of weapon X WEX.
Speaker 3 (55:08):
Got it nice?
Speaker 2 (55:10):
What was the thing? It was like the Great Lakes Avengers?
Is that or the great.
Speaker 4 (55:14):
Like the Great Lakes Avengers, the West Coast Avengers. Yeah,
and then the actual Avengers. Yeah yeah, Great Lakes Avengers
probably one of my favorites, but not for the right reasons.
Speaker 2 (55:26):
What about Batman and the Outsiders?
Speaker 4 (55:28):
Man, I don't know, Okay, look, outside of Batman, they
don't really have superpowers, which I know is a threshold.
But Batman has.
Speaker 3 (55:37):
Kind as a superpower.
Speaker 5 (55:39):
Yeah, if you're like really good.
Speaker 4 (55:43):
So maybe maybe if you're really good. Let us know
if you have a superpower, and do check out our
previous episodes of real life Superpowers Alpha Flight. I can
either confirm nor deny your question, but do appreciate your interest.
We can't wait to hear from you. Thank you to
High Top One, thank you to Frederick, thank you to
(56:04):
Jason j. Thank you to Saveraga's. Thank you to everybody's
tuning in join us. Give us your take on everything
we talked about, especially leads for new episodes. We can't
wait to hear from you. We try to be easy
to find online.
Speaker 5 (56:19):
Find us online at the handle Conspiracy Stuff where we exist,
on Facebook, where we have our Facebook group Here's where
it gets Crazy, on x FKA, Twitter, and on YouTube
with video content galore.
Speaker 3 (56:30):
You can also find us.
Speaker 5 (56:31):
On Instagram and TikTok at the handle Conspiracy Stuff show guys.
Speaker 2 (56:35):
Ben I just remembered I found it in my notes.
It was a guy called doorman.
Speaker 4 (56:40):
Yes, yeah, because he has a very specific type of
phasing teleportation, but.
Speaker 2 (56:46):
It sounds so much worse and also flat man, very flat.
Speaker 4 (56:52):
There's a lot of creativity going into names.
Speaker 3 (56:55):
Right under the door.
Speaker 4 (56:58):
Actually they can bind their.
Speaker 5 (57:01):
Doorman is also intensely polite, and he just holds the
door for everybody.
Speaker 3 (57:05):
That's his sort.
Speaker 4 (57:06):
Man, is kind of cool. It's a very specific power,
but if you need it, it's helpful.
Speaker 3 (57:11):
Oh man.
Speaker 2 (57:12):
And we won't even get into squirrel girl. That's a
whole other thing.
Speaker 4 (57:15):
No, mcu is going to do a squirrel girl thing later.
Speaker 3 (57:18):
I'm sure, and really quickly, guys. I just clocked this
on the on the internet. Stockholm the movie in theaters.
Let's see is this old?
Speaker 4 (57:29):
Yeah, but there's no doorman in it.
Speaker 3 (57:31):
No, that's true, but there is ethan hawk flatman.
Speaker 5 (57:36):
No, no, but this is literally the Stuart and Naomi
Repas and Mark Strong. It looks I don't think this
kind of came and went, guys, But this is the
story of that very bank robbery in question. So if
you want to see a dramatized version of the Stockholm
syndrome origin story, check out Stockholm.
Speaker 4 (57:55):
And also shout out to the most effective member of
Great Lakes Avengers, mister Mortal. Mister Immortal, if you are
hearing this and you are not fictional, and you'd like
to give us a phone call, we'd love to hear
from you.
Speaker 2 (58:06):
That feels like a legit superhero to me, mister Immortal.
Speaker 5 (58:10):
Yeah, that's like one of the best superpowers, never dying.
Speaker 4 (58:13):
That's pretty he dies, he just can come back, so
it's still kind of their good. Good superpowers always have
a drawback. Otherwise you just you're kind of boring.
Speaker 2 (58:25):
You know what. There's a one drawback to calling us,
and that is that you only have three minutes. If
you do want to call us, it's one eight three
three STDWYTK When you call in, give yourself a cool
nickname and let us know if we can use your
message on the air. If you got more to say
than can fit in three minutes, one out. Instead, send
us a good old fashioned email.
Speaker 4 (58:45):
We are the entities that read every single email we receive.
Tell us your favorite three superpowers or your ideal ones.
Tell us your ideal last meals, because we'll get out
of this phase eventually. Be well aware, yet on afraid.
Sometimes the void writes back conspiracy at iHeartRadio dot com.
Speaker 2 (59:22):
Stuff they Don't Want You to Know is a production
of iHeartRadio. For more podcasts from iHeartRadio, visit the iHeartRadio app,
Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to your favorite shows.
Stuff They Don't Want You To Know News
Hosts And Creators
Matt Frederick
Ben Bowlin
Noel Brown
Show Links
RSSStoreAboutLive ShowsPopular Podcasts
1. Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
2. Stuff You Missed in History Class
Join Holly and Tracy as they bring you the greatest and strangest Stuff You Missed In History Class in this podcast by iHeartRadio.
3. Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations.