May 27, 2024 • 55 mins
At a recent conference for high-dollar investors, a prominent retired Colonel bluntly states "non-human intelligence" is real, world governments know, and they've been interacting with it for a long time. An update on Karen Reed. A statement about Baby Reindeer. A horrific arson prompts questions about surveillance and the law. All this and more in this week's strange news 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 iHeartRadio.
Speaker 2 (00:24):
Hello, welcome back to the show. My name is Matt,
my name is Nolan.
Speaker 3 (00:27):
They call me Ben. We're joined as always with our
super producer Alexis code named Doc Holliday Jackson. Most importantly,
you are you. You are here. That makes this the
stuff they don't want you to know. It is the
top of the week as we hurd ale headlong into
a terrible crime against humanity known as Summer in Atlanta.
(00:48):
We we've got some stories that we're totally not gonna
get to. We're gonna you know, there was a study
that found microplastics are in every single human testicle. So
that's great.
Speaker 4 (01:01):
You love to hear it, guys, hear it.
Speaker 3 (01:03):
Yeah, there was an anomaly as it's phrase discovered beneath
it's called the Egyptian Pyramids, but really they're talking about
the graveyard that's part of the larger compound. It may
be the resting place of the pharaoh Kufu. No doubt
study emerging due to our recent republishing of famous lost tombs.
(01:26):
I'm kidding. The former president of Iran and several other
luminaries died in a helicopter crash. But we have more
stories to get to. There's controversy about baby reindeer. There
is a revenge story that we're going to learn about
with several other updates. We may add more along the way,
(01:47):
but before we do anything, we might need to talk
about intelligence, but not the artificial and not the human kind.
And we're off to the races folks here here, we'd
(02:09):
like to start with a brief clip from a conversation
with investors that took place in New York. This is
called the Salt Eye Connections Conference.
Speaker 2 (02:21):
Here's the million dollar question.
Speaker 4 (02:23):
Do you believe that a higher form of non human
intelligence has visited this planet?
Speaker 5 (02:30):
Right? So, non human intelligence exists. Non human intelligence has
been interacting with humanity. This interaction is not new, and
it's been ongoing, and they're unelected people in the government
that are.
Speaker 4 (02:45):
Aware of that.
Speaker 3 (02:46):
And we'll stop at their initial reactions before we continue.
Pretty confident.
Speaker 2 (02:51):
Yeah, he just goes down and says it just like
it's fact. Just this is what it is, guys.
Speaker 3 (02:56):
Pretty explicit, not a whiff of a comp in that statement.
This is where we introduce you to a gentleman named
Carl Nell, who I am currently attempting to befriend on LinkedIn.
Not too proud to say it, but this is something
(03:16):
that we heard a lot about very recently. This conference
occurred in May of twenty twenty four, and that that
single statement non human intelligence, the idea that it's an
ongoing interaction with humanity, that there is some sort of
(03:37):
deep state, likely a faction of intelligence or international affairs,
that is aware of this, and they decided to keep
it all secret. What why?
Speaker 2 (03:48):
How?
Speaker 3 (03:49):
Huh?
Speaker 4 (03:50):
I mean, given the rhetoric around in the sort of
like types and I guess quality of individual I mean,
maybe qualities the wrong words in terms of like their positions,
you know, foreign positions and government who are saying similar stuff.
It doesn't really surprise me. I don't really know what
(04:11):
to what to call it, or like what we're talking
about here exactly in terms of like what this type
of life looks like, what it might be, what they
might be seeking, what kind of encounters have been had,
or what evidence might exist. But I do feel like
it's starting to feel like a foregone conclusion a little bit.
Speaker 3 (04:30):
Yeah, And we know in our previous investigations on the
jam yesterday, jam tomorrow, never jam today situation of UAP
or UFO disclosure, we know that a lot of people
have come forward in recent years, some career government employees,
some pilots which I guess is also a career government employee.
(04:53):
But you know military employees, and they often are a
little bit less explicit in their statements. Right, they're speaking
to Congress like Grush does, and they're saying, Hey, I
saw this information. I tried to get it out through
the appropriate chain of command and process, and because I
(05:15):
could not, I was ethically bound to be a whistleblower.
But I will be careful to only say the things
that I know and I can prove, right. I will
not make hyperbolic conclusions or assumptions, et cetera. This guy,
just that sound white alone absolutely rocked the world of
(05:37):
UAP study. And he didn't in that statement use the
word UAP. So the first thing we want to do
is learn about retired Colonel Nell's biography. All Right, this
dude has his bona fides, he his cv is legit
looked into it verified it through a couple of different sources.
(05:58):
In addition to being an ivy LEA graduate, he studied
at the War College. He's worked with multiple Fortune five
hundred firms like Bell Telephone, lots of defense industry stuff,
Lockheed Martin and so on. He has also been he's
been with Jaysock. He had was a colonel. As we said,
(06:20):
his military career culminated as the Army director supporting the
Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena Task Force. And very important to note
this is not, from my understanding, this is not a
job he actively sought out. This is a job he
was assigned to do, and so he just had to
(06:43):
He had to do his job. And it's very odd
for someone of this reputational caliber to go out and
say something like this so explicitly, especially when we know
that given the sensitivity around clearances, he might have had
to have someone coside him saying that.
Speaker 2 (07:05):
I don't know, unless he was going on orders, because
he had to say it because it's part of a
bigger thing.
Speaker 4 (07:11):
Man. Well, I like to throw people a bone or
something or throw off because you know they're up there
planning Project Bluebeam.
Speaker 2 (07:20):
Come on, guys, And.
Speaker 3 (07:21):
Also what is a non human intelligence. Technically a dolphin
is a non human intelligence. Technically a helephant or an
octopus is a non human intelligence.
Speaker 4 (07:32):
I mean, bro, if we're going by the Douglas Adams
model of the universe, the dolphins are the most important thing,
you know, They're the center of it all.
Speaker 3 (07:42):
Yeah, don't break up with the dolphins. We need you.
We also looked into I mean, like I said, the
UFO community was set a buzz by this. The idea
everybody is assuming that non human intelligence doesn't mean just
like a terrestrial order of animal, right, like an elephant,
(08:02):
an octopus, a corvid. Sorry for all the corvids in
the audience, I forgot to mention you all. It means
that there is something that is in some way, whether
technologically or cognitively, in some way superior to what we
think of as human intelligence. And the idea that it's
(08:23):
been around for a very long time is naturally going
to set some of the more skeptical of us into
immediate opposition. Right, How would a civilization of billions of
people that can't reach a good decision when there's just
twelve of them?
Speaker 2 (08:40):
Right?
Speaker 3 (08:40):
How would a species that can't for the life of it,
agree on what kind of pizza to order, agree to
keep a secret of this magnitude for this amount of time.
That's where the context comes in, because some of the
more skeptical in the audience tonight will be saying, well, Ben,
why aren't you telling us about what the Salt Conference is.
(09:02):
The Salt Conference is not a legal proceeding. It is
not a congressional hearing. It is a I'm going to
read from their website, it is a quote curated networking
event for asset allocators and investment managers. You're talking to
(09:25):
the money when you talk at the Salt Conference.
Speaker 2 (09:28):
It reminds me of the contact in the desert thing
we were talking about internally going to that's happening, I
think this week, right as this episode comes out, but
about money instead of UFOs. That's weird.
Speaker 3 (09:42):
Yeah, it's very I don't want to quite say off putting.
But we do need to know further context too, because
this is not the first time by far that this individual,
this retired kernel and specific has spoken on this subject.
Five months ago, back in twenty twenty three, Nell was
(10:07):
calling for full disclosure and even someone called this bold
or ambitious. He even projected an ultimate timeline for full disclosure.
He said it will occur on October first, twenty thirty,
and he said it might fall behind, But this is
what I think would be the best possible scenario. I
(10:29):
still like, it escapes me here. Maybe we'll have him
on the show later, but it escapes me that the colonel.
Like why the colonel would make such an explicit statement
if he did not fundamentally feel that statement was accurate.
The accusation you'll always get in these kind of environments
(10:49):
of conversation is the idea that, oh, this guy's just
trying to sell a book, right, or oh, this guy
is attempting to pull a grift. But again, going back
to twenty twenty three and beyond, you can see his involvement.
You can see his military and private industry career. You
can see things like the Irish Star, which shout out
(11:11):
to the journalist Alana Loftus wrote a great article about this.
The Debrief has him mentioned in a pretty comprehensive investigative
report about whether or not these guys are legit. So,
with all this in mind, ask you, fellow conspiracy realist, everybody,
(11:31):
maybe maybe with a question mark, is it a maybe.
Speaker 4 (11:35):
That's a maybe from me, Doug, I'll give you a maybe.
Speaker 3 (11:40):
No, right, well maybe that way, you know what, I'm
gonna upgrade it to a soft yes.
Speaker 2 (11:45):
Soft, Yes, I'm going hard.
Speaker 3 (11:47):
Maybe that was the hard maybe in soft. Yes. Those
are both post rock bands from our pal Paul Decan.
Speaker 4 (11:54):
Not bad.
Speaker 3 (11:54):
Yeah, it was a concept double album. So this is
fascinating still because we have to wonder what is going
on right the level of attention put toward this in
the zeitgeist. Is it a feedback loop of journalists saying
this is what gets us clicks? Is it a slow
(12:19):
burn toward a blue beam or a great distraction? Is
it a sort of gradual dipping toes into the water
of some hidden reality behind civilization? And then, you know,
even more interesting, just to sci fi it for a
little bit, what would this non human intelligence be? Could
(12:41):
it be artificially created by some long gone predecessor and
it visited Earth and it's just a computer that never
stopped working.
Speaker 2 (12:49):
That's reptilions.
Speaker 4 (12:50):
Man.
Speaker 2 (12:50):
They survived a couple of them, and they made it
off Earth and now they're coming back.
Speaker 3 (12:55):
Oh, it's a return. So Earth is still the origin
point they have all fear they left, they came.
Speaker 2 (13:01):
Back Cilurian reptilian return, all.
Speaker 3 (13:05):
Right, and they're like, hey, we got to put you
guys on to some great inventions. You've heard of agriculture,
but what.
Speaker 2 (13:11):
About velcrow and corn nuts?
Speaker 3 (13:14):
And for Loco, right, the fundamental building breakfast champions, the
fundamental building blocks of all human civilization.
Speaker 4 (13:23):
You've heard of putting peanuts and Coca cola classic.
Speaker 3 (13:26):
Yes, it's very southern thing.
Speaker 4 (13:27):
It's a Southern thing. It's not tried it, but sounds
kind of yummy.
Speaker 2 (13:31):
To eat the peanuts or to drink the Coca cola.
Speaker 4 (13:33):
Well, you drink the Coca cola, Matt, and then you
eat the peanuts. What remain at the bottom once you're finished,
because now they're all they're all marinated, So you're so
coked up.
Speaker 3 (13:41):
That's a product of non human intelligence.
Speaker 4 (13:44):
I think very clearly that's the case, or a very specific,
a niche form of higher human intelligence, one could argue,
So what do.
Speaker 3 (13:53):
You like, back to that question, what do you think
of non human intelligence could be? Matt? You said Silurian
reptilian net that that was interesting.
Speaker 4 (13:59):
I mean, what like a like a real smart golden retriever,
like certain cats.
Speaker 2 (14:05):
I think in our discussions before this is just my take.
I think the most probable version of any of that
is kind of what you described. There have been some
form of intelligence that is no longer based in any
kind of biological creature. It's based in some kind of
system that uses power and processing that is not like
(14:28):
meat based, so you know, not in borg, right, but
something that is fully Oh what is the I can't
remember the name of the mass effect species, the death
that's all robot basically.
Speaker 3 (14:44):
All right, you know. Maybe there is also the argument
that human beings are becoming themselves increasingly cybernetic, at least
the way I have to find that academically.
Speaker 4 (14:54):
I was gonna ask you, Ben, do you think if
we're given the chance technology you will really start to
figure into evolution Once people start getting like, you know,
implants for example, is that gonna then become somehow a
factor in the way we continue to evolve?
Speaker 3 (15:16):
It is indeed inevitable. I follow, like many of us, closely,
the news of the first person to receive a neuralink implant.
He's doing fine. He crushes Mario Kart, by the way,
played a lot of legal legends. I believe too right.
Speaker 2 (15:31):
But the aren't the threads failing?
Speaker 3 (15:34):
He said, some of them. This is the weirdest part
the latest news, he said, some of them went back in.
Speaker 4 (15:42):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (15:42):
His name is Nolan Arbot and he's the first to
get this brain device that is attributed to Elon Musk,
but to be quite honest, was not designed for by.
Speaker 4 (15:53):
Them at all. He's never designed a thing in his life.
Speaker 3 (15:56):
Nolan is thirty years old and you can read a
great interview with him that came out just today as
we record the evening of May twenty second, twenty twenty four.
He said, look, I got a spinal cord injury while
swimming in a lake and after that I was paralyzed
from the neck down. And he was a college student
(16:17):
at this time, living arguably one of the best times
of a human's life. And he said, I had to
learn how to use a mouth held stick interface device
to get around. And the same year Ela Musk founded
or co founded Neurlink, this brain implants startup. A lot
of people were saying that you're not ready for this humanity.
(16:39):
There's no way you can no way you can like
function with these things in your head. And he went,
Nolan went through an extensive screening process. He had brain surgery,
which is always a serious and still no offense neurosurgeons
dodgy thing. Right, if you have to go in for
(16:59):
a brain surgery, you do yourself a favor and don't
look at the numbers or the statistics. Just let it
be a surprise. And he has he has said that
he didn't know it was possible that the threads of
this implant could fall out of place, you know what
I mean? Like, imagine getting braces on your teeth and
(17:21):
there's a non zero chance that some of those braces
might just pop off, right, and then how do you go,
Like what kind of dentists do you go to in
that situation?
Speaker 2 (17:31):
You guys, that's a really great question. I don't know
what kind of dentists you go to in that situation.
I just really quickly want to bring this up. Near
where I live, there is a I think it's called
braces now. It's like a brick and mortar store, right,
It's all windows on the front with a bunch of
different places for a human being to sit down and
get braces. I guess I was having a conversation with
(17:54):
my girlfriend about like, who does who would do that,
Just go and lay down in a place where there's
just windows and then get your teeth worked on. I
don't know that that to me just felt crazy, uncomfort
I don't know.
Speaker 3 (18:07):
Mental spa exhibitionist, maybe because of the window, maybe to
specializing in the teeths or a dental spa. That's another
thing that's a little more high end the last point,
because I think there's more to explore here, perhaps in
an episode. The last point on the implant story is first.
(18:28):
Noland is at the time of this recording alive and
well and seems to have As of his conversation with Wired,
he seems to have very few regrets. He seems to
have found the quality of his life overall improved at
the moment. If you'd like to breathe more, please go
(18:50):
to the excellent article or the interview by Emily Mullen
over at Wired quote Neurolink's first user is constantly multitasking
with his implant. We're gonna pause for a word from
our sponsors, and then we're going to go to another
strange story, the relationship between fact and fiction. A fringe festival,
(19:12):
a Netflix, perhaps some legal trouble, and.
Speaker 4 (19:22):
We've returned, Ben, you couldn't have set this one up better.
I have been really on the edge of my seat
watching the story. I have to admit when I first
heard of Baby Reindeer, the Netflix show that's kind of
become a overnight sensation, I was a little hesitant to
watch it. Some of the subject matter and it is
a little triggering for me. I've never had a stalker
(19:45):
per se, but I've certainly, you know, maybe had some
relationships that ended in what kind of felt like a
stalkery manner, or at the very least like someone not
taking being broken up with well and threatening suicide, know,
constantly calling, texting, just really abusive kind of harassment. So
(20:05):
I kind of put off watching it, but then I
watched it, and let me tell you, thirty minute show.
The first couple of episodes, I was covering my eyes.
It was so difficult to watch. It was, you know,
I guess the cringe is maybe a term, but not
in a comedic way, not in a Larry David style
of cringe. This is just everybody making the worst possible
(20:29):
choices leading to the worst possible outcomes. It's really a
story about two very lost kind of individuals. One is
a kind of failing stand up comedian named Donnie Dunn
who's played by the show's creator, Richard Gadd, and a
woman who comes into a bar where he works named Martha,
(20:51):
who becomes fixated with him and throughout the course of
the series begins to aggressively stalk and harass him, and
every way you could possibly imagine, the show goes all
kinds of different places and has all kinds of twists,
And according to the show itself and the titles and
the marketing from Netflix, it is not based on a
(21:12):
true story. It is a true story, and this is
a show that like a one man show that this guy,
Richard Gadd did at the Edinburgh Fringe Festival, and he
is he performed it, I believe as like a one
man show. For some times people were aware of this,
and it is an incredibly compelling story, but there are
(21:33):
some details in it that may or may not actually
be true. And when you stand behind as Netflix seems
to be doing, that claim of being a true story
and then things turn out to not be true, then
that certainly opens up people, especially people as potentially aggressive
as someone like the real life Martha, who has come
forward a woman by the name of Fiona Mirror leave.
(21:58):
Her parents had had a hyphen it name Harvey and
Harvey Dash Murror and then when her parents divorced, she
she'd dropped the Harvey and just goes no, drop the Mirror.
I believe it. This goes by Fiona Harvey. She went
on Piers Morgan. It's certainly pretty popular over here. He
that interview with Donald Trump back in the day, but
(22:20):
I think over in the UK he's even more popular.
She sought Peers Morgan out to air her side of
the story and it is a fascinating interview. If anyone's
watched the show and isn't aware this is out there,
which I'd be surprised, I highly recommend checking it out,
maybe even just watching the highlights. There are also some
very interesting dissections of her body language from some you know,
(22:44):
kind of body language type experts and psychiatrists on the internet.
It's really becoming a thing because she really comes off
exactly like the character in the show, portrayed by the
actor Jessica Gunning in Reinier. She's Scottish, She's you know,
kind of a heavy set woman with dark hair, but
(23:05):
she has these very specific mannerisms and kind of turns
of phrase and ways of speaking that Jessica Gunning absolutely nails.
It's the character of Martha. And in the show it
features some mentions of articles referencing this woman's past history
of stalking, one of which involves a British politician or
(23:29):
a British member of Parliament who presided over the area
in London where Martha lived. And this is a Labor
Party leader by the name kir Starmer who and this
is confirmed. You know, these receipts are out there. She's
supposedly beefed with pretty hard back around twenty twenty and
(23:53):
sent him whopping two hundred and seventy six emails over
the course of eight months. That, however, absolutely dwarfs the
number of emails she allegedly sent to Richard Gadd, which
was in the twenties of thousands and something like three
hundred and fifty hours of voicemails and all of these
(24:14):
tweets and all of that she vehemently denies. But the Sun,
which I know is not like the most, is a
little bit of a tabloidy kind of rag over there
in the UK. But they did acquire these emails and
they have released a bunch of them, and they are
incredibly threatening and they are very much in the voice
(24:36):
of what you see in Baby Reindeer. And I think
one of the problems if Netflix and gad can be
accused of anything other than fictionalize this stuff, which you're
going to get into in a minute, it would be
not doing their due diligence and hiding this woman's identity
because they reference the idea that she stalked a member
(24:56):
of parliament in some headlines that they referenced in the show.
There is another incident where she supposedly or allegedly stalked
the wife of another British politician, Laura Ray, the widow
of former Labor Member of Parliament Jimmy Ray, who came
(25:20):
out and spoke to several news articles saying that with
this platform that she's been given now, she's worried that
it's going to come back on her. You know, it's
going to be a resurgence of the horrors that she
claims to have experienced back in two thousand and two.
And this is another article that was referenced because this
woman actually has a disabled child who I believe is
(25:43):
hearing impaired. At least that was what was referenced in
the show, the idea of harassing a hearing impaired child.
So got the gist out of the way, let's get
to the question at hand. Does Fiona have a legal
case against Netflix, a legal case against this crew, this,
(26:04):
this gentleman.
Speaker 3 (26:07):
In the UK.
Speaker 4 (26:07):
Yes, I think that's right. I think technically depending on
the main thing that's in question here is like when
you watch the interview and you read the stuff, you
read the emails, you kind of get a sense of
this woman's vibe. I believe that he definitely has all
of these voicemails because the actor had to have been
using those as reference, because she's it's not just like
a shot in the dark portrayal of this woman. It's
(26:30):
you know, obviously God would have had memories of her
if these events, you know, were true, that he could
have communicated by the way of fact. I'm sure people
are known this, but he is the actual person who
this happened to, and the creative this television show where
he stars and plays sort of an alternate version of himself,
but again claims to be fully a true story, not
(26:50):
based on And then do you think if they had
said based on a true story, that would be different.
Speaker 3 (26:56):
Well, it's interesting because this originated as a one man
sh at the world famous Edinburgh Fringe Festival. There's hopefully
one in your deck of the Global Woods. Check it
out if you get a chance, maybe because that the
idea of inspired by or based upon can be somewhat
of a fig leaf in at least legal system of
(27:18):
the United States. However, as I mentioned, off air defamation
and libel and slander kind of rules are much more
strict in the Kingdom. Shout out to the royal family.
Speaker 4 (27:31):
That's right. It is a lot easier to the I
guess what's the word. The standard for defamation is a
little lower than it is over here. We pride ourselves
supposedly on freedom of speech, you know, freedom of the
press and all that. So the burden of proof for
defamation here in the United States is a lot tougher
(27:53):
to meet than it is over there. Fiona is actually
and as she's portrayed in the show, though in the
show it's really dubious. It's presented as like is she
is she really? Like it seems like she's making up
a lot of what she's saying, but you know, deside
for yourself. Watch the interview. Read the emails. They are
quite threatening and quite damning, and they're also all signed
(28:15):
off by scent from iphon or I you know, like
like it's hand typed to give the impression that is
being sent from an iPhone. And on the Piers Morgan interview,
weirdly enough, guys, she admits to having like five different
phones and six or seven different email addresses, which I
(28:36):
find really sketchy. I just she justifies it, tries to
justify it. She's like, no, everybody d everybody has that.
No nobody has. That's that's unusual. Is that seems to
me to be the sign of someone that's trying to
live a double life, you know, keep things separate, have
multiple emails. You know, it's like having an instance, like
(28:57):
being kicked off of an Instagram account, band from somebody's account.
So what do you do? You start a Finstagram account,
which is like your fake Instagram account so you can
look at the accounts that you've been barred from. That
seems to me to be the only reason someone want
to have six, seven different emails. I don't know, Matt,
you've been quiet on this one. But I know that
this is interesting to you as well. Do you think
Fiona has a case? Do you think Gad has the receipts?
(29:22):
It seems like the easiest thing in the world to
prove twenty thousand plus emails, just present them. And why
do you think they're being so conspicuously quiet? Ah? The
Netflix side.
Speaker 2 (29:31):
Oh, it's a weird one for me, guys. I'm not
involved in either of these human beings lives and this
is a situation where both of their lives were personally impacted, right,
But I really enjoy the show that was created, very
good story that was still very good. So it's a
tough position for me to be like, Ah, this shouldn't
(29:53):
have happened to this, you know what, I don't know.
It feels like it needs to have been a court
case rather than a TV show first, right, so that
you could argue in a court of law what is
right and what's wrong. But I think we're just doing
that in the reverse order now.
Speaker 4 (30:08):
And part of the show too, in the story is
that God doesn't report this to the police for half
a year, and he's even implicates himself, you know, pretty
you know self awaredly I guess that that's a phrase
in kind of leading her on and in some ways
like getting something out of it, you know, like he
(30:29):
talks about how it made him see himself in a
different way, or because she was getting all this attention,
he fully admits to having these, you know, pretty significant
problems of self loathing. And I don't want to spoil
anything about the show, but I think that's that's fair
game there. So you know, he does implicate himself. Why
didn't I, Why didn't I report it? Why didn't I
(30:51):
give specifics? It's almost like he loved her in his
own way. It's very interesting.
Speaker 2 (30:58):
I mean we've talked about this before in different context,
but attention is kind of the currency of the day, right,
and when.
Speaker 4 (31:05):
For someone who's failed like attention seeker, like a comedian,
you know, or someone trying to be a celebrity and failing, right, well.
Speaker 2 (31:13):
Yeah, but I don't know, it's it's weird.
Speaker 5 (31:16):
Man.
Speaker 2 (31:16):
Even in personal relationships with friends or a significant other,
getting attention from that person is paramount. And even if
it's a stranger that you don't know, but it is
giving you crazy amounts of attention, it can sometimes feel nice.
So I'm just I'm assuming that's maybe what happened, But
again that's an assumption on my experience, so I have
(31:36):
no idea.
Speaker 4 (31:37):
We also know that sometimes people will seek whatever kind
of attention they can, even if it's negative attention, you know,
and that can be just as powerful and just as
intoxicating very much. So I think that they're preparing for
a court battle. I do think that they've been so,
you know, Gad said in a Hollywood Reporter interview that
he's not going to comment about it maybe ever again.
(31:58):
And Pierce Morgan, you know that his interview has been
viewed twenty million times on YouTube alone. He had like
a little postbortem about and he said, well, you know,
while for all intents and purposes, I've heard that Richard
Gad's a nice dude, it's kind of convenient for you
to say, well, now, I'm not going to talk about
it because if he did not do due diligence and
(32:19):
the accusation that's being made. Martha's denying a lot of
this stuff. Martha, You're sorry. Fiona is denying most of
this stuff. She's very weird the way she goes about it.
In the interview. You can really get a sense that
she's hiding something. But what it feels like she isn't
lying about is being incarcerated like they, you know, in
the show, she is accused of having been incarcerated not
(32:42):
once but twice. And that's also very provable. And even
if all the rest of the stuff is true and
they and she wasn't incarcerated, that alone might be grounds
for a legal action. So interesting case, interesting all around
because it's like, you know, this is the kind of
thing you would only see as a true crime documentary
(33:02):
instead of like a re enactment. I guess let's call
it with the actual person that happened to playing themselves.
It's very unusual, and we know how these things go.
People take liberties to do so, but inserting a whole thing,
presenting it as part of a true story that didn't
happen period, not just changing a line or two. That
(33:22):
seems to be crossing a line or two. So I
don't know, guys, I think we can probably take a
quick break, hear a word from our sponsor, and then
be back with one more piece of strange news.
Speaker 2 (33:39):
And we've returned. Before we get started, guys, I got
two quick things. The first one. Let's get a shout
out if we can to Mark. Hey, Mark, Hi, Ma.
Mark is the branch manager of a bank near where
I live, and he recognized the old voice in a
little conversation. He listens to the show very cool, very
(34:02):
very cool guys, and he wanted to say hey to
both of you guys.
Speaker 3 (34:04):
Hey, Mark, it's a pleasure to meet you.
Speaker 2 (34:06):
I'm well, we have hell mock well, he says, Hi Mark,
He just says, hi, mock.
Speaker 4 (34:16):
Well.
Speaker 2 (34:16):
Here you go, Hey, shout out to you, sir. The
other thing, do you guys remember a story from last July.
It's something we covered on Listener Mail. It was based
on a voicemail we received from Max Taut about the
death of a man named John O'Keefe who was a
Boston Police officer that was found dead in the snow
(34:36):
outside another police officer's house.
Speaker 4 (34:38):
Yes, I remember, yes, Okay, So not the not the
drinking partier snow or dead in the snow. Sorry, not
that one, similar though, crazy, Okay, go ahead.
Speaker 2 (34:49):
This is the Boston PD officer that's found outside the
home of a different police departments officer's house after a
night out drinking at the bar. So this one has
evolved quite a bit since then. I don't know if
you guys remember the specifics, but there was a conspiracy
alleged by a lot of people who were kind of
(35:09):
following it in the local news there, saying, hey, this
feels really fishy just that this. You know, it appears
that maybe something happened inside the house at this party
where he was. But everyone in the official investigation is
saying that the girlfriend of two years, Karen Reid, somehow
killed him with her vehicle.
Speaker 3 (35:29):
It felt kind of stonewalled two because everybody was telling
such a similar version of the story. I'm just going
to say, because I was on the more conspiratorial side
biases to one end, let's bracket those. Usually, when multiple
different witnesses are telling the truth about something, their stories
(35:51):
are still going to differ a little bit because of
the hazards of memory exactly.
Speaker 2 (35:56):
They're not going to be as though somebody wrote in
notes document exactly what happened that night and then shared
it with everybody, or maybe there was a text thread
with a bunch of people there that night, which is
what's happening right now in the court. So this is
why we're even talking about it again. John's girlfriend, Karen Reid,
currently on trial facing charges of second degree murder, motor
(36:20):
vehicle manslaughter while driving under the influence, and leaving the
scene of a collision causing injury and death. And she
has since this trial began, she has, you know, said hey, no,
I'm innocent. She pled not guilty. Her attorneys alleged that
she is being fully framed, that there's an actual conspiracy
(36:40):
and a cover up afoot that's being perpetrated by a
group of people who went to that party, who were
at that home, the same home where his body was
discovered the next morning. And my gosh, you guys, compelling stuff.
Everything is coming out about, you know, the Google searches
that occurred by a few different people, specific this person,
(37:00):
Jennifer McCabe, who is on the stand, I think, yeah,
today Wednesday, May twenty second, as we're recording this, you
know about a what the Google search was, how long
to die in cold? But how is misspelled as hos.
Speaker 3 (37:15):
Gee, yeah you type it or hurry it happens.
Speaker 2 (37:18):
Well, yeah, and there was some there are a bunch
of other like calls and texts that have been just
kind of gone over in this trial where it's people
who were at that party saying something about getting the
story straight. It's it's nuts.
Speaker 3 (37:34):
Let's make this right is the common trope in true
crime and procedurals, and unfortunately it's based in truth. It's
not necessarily the truth and tire of every case, but
it is not. This would not be an unprecedented thing
for a group of people to say, we have to
(37:56):
make this story right.
Speaker 2 (37:58):
You know.
Speaker 3 (37:58):
You'll also you'll also tell the professionals in those kind
of conversations because they don't speak, they're very careful about
how they speak in conditional phrasing, so they'll say when
they're saying, let's agree that this is what happened, then
they're saying, they'll speak it as though it is already
agreed upon. It's a little it's a clever thing, but
(38:18):
it works. If there's a microphone around you, which you
always assume there is.
Speaker 2 (38:22):
Oh there always are. Come on, look in your pocket, dude.
There are four in five in my media vicinity, which
is crazy to think about with all your devices that
you know of. Oh yeah, sure, wherever yours has been,
I'm not.
Speaker 3 (38:45):
I just always think about that too, man. That's part
of why I don't go to Airbnb's.
Speaker 2 (38:50):
A that's why I always go to airbnbs, just for
that of being in a cam show. But this is
this is all to say, check it out because there
is stuff directly what Ben is talking about there where
there's a text thread. One of the texts says, and
I'm paraphrasing here, tell them or him that he never
(39:11):
came in the house, as in like they're debating on
the stand whether or not that means to tell the
police that the guy never came in the house when
they're being interviewed, or it is to tell a person
specifically about oh, he never came in the house. It
just as a matter of fact. It's just that healthy. Yeah, yeah, yeah,
(39:32):
So we won't go into that. Check out all the
law Tube channels, check out all the social accounts, hundreds
of media outlets. They're all reporting on it every day
right now, in crazy detail. It's probably worth your time
because it does kind of show again, can you actually
get to the truth in a trial if one side
is just fully lying, even like is there a smoking
gun in this case? We shall see. Now let's go
(39:53):
to the actual story, ready, Yeah, Okay, this one comes
to us from NBC News on May eighteenth. I'm not
gonna say the title, but I'll tell you the title later,
just so we can learn the story as it goes.
Speaker 4 (40:06):
Here.
Speaker 2 (40:07):
Way back on August fifth, twenty twenty, at a home
in a suburban neighborhood of Denver, Colorado, there was a
house fire. This fire caused the deaths, unfortunately, of three
adults and two very small children. One was twenty two
months old and the other was only six months old.
(40:28):
All of the people who died were it was. It
was like a family and kind of family friends who
were all from Senegal. That's a country on the far
western coast of Africa, south of I'm going to say
it wrong, Mauritania and north of Guinea. We can go through.
I'll try and pronounce the victims' names. I'm not going
(40:48):
to do it perfectly. Is Jabriel Duol, who was twenty
nine years old, and the Deja Duol. They were a
couple that had a twenty two month old daughter whose
name was Kadija. They had a relative staying with them
named Hassanjiol who was twenty five, and she had the
six month old daughter named Hawa. Very very sad. There
(41:11):
were also three other human beings in that house that
escaped with injuries because they jumped from the second story.
Really horrifying, terrifying thing to be within a house fire.
It has yet to happen to me, so I don't
know personally what it's like, but I you know, I
remember going through fire safety like you guys probably did
(41:31):
when we're younger, Like experiencing flames up close like that,
and attempting to duck under the smoke and find an exit.
It's just horrified.
Speaker 3 (41:41):
Stop, drop roll and check the tech, the temperature under
the door, all the hits, all the good stuff. I'm
so glad we have fire extinguishers in our cars now
just in case.
Speaker 2 (41:52):
Oh yeah, and everywhere in my house. But horrifying thing
that occurred. Right, All that is known after this fire happened,
you know, because when a house fire occurs, if you're
investigating it, you're going to check to see if they're
the fire started in the house by accident.
Speaker 4 (42:09):
Right.
Speaker 2 (42:10):
We've talked about several homes that have gone up in
flames because of a gas leak that caused either an
explosion or a slow leak. Then there was an ignition
at some point through a match, or through lighting, you know,
a gas stove or something like that.
Speaker 3 (42:24):
Even an electrical short can do it exactly.
Speaker 2 (42:26):
Oh, there are so many ways a house can catch fire.
In this case, the investigators found a surveillance video of
three suspects who were wearing full face masks and dark
hoodies just before the fire started.
Speaker 3 (42:42):
Like scar like a balaklava like this kind of thing.
Speaker 2 (42:45):
Oh, very similar. Very cool that you have that right
by you as a recording. Bent, yeah at all. Don't
be suspicious, don't be suspicious.
Speaker 3 (42:55):
But just so everybody can get the reference kind of
like a ski mask.
Speaker 2 (42:58):
I'm so glad you had that on bro. So there's
a fairly large Senegalese population that lives out there in
this specific area of Denver, and it was known then
like this was a Senegalese family that seems to have
been targeted for some reason unknown at this point, So
(43:21):
a lot of other Senegalese immigrant families and were installing
security cameras just to see, like to check basically for
their own safety, hoping that this would not happen to them.
Because the investigation had been dragging out for quite a
while months, no leads. All they knew is these masked
individuals decided this house needed to go up in flames,
(43:42):
and it killed a bunch of people. Until you, guys,
the police decided to go a different route use technology
a little bit, which is why it made me think
about the Karen Reid thing. They obtained a search warrant
for Google basically for alphabet or however it goes. They
wanted to know which IP addresses, any IP addresses, had
(44:04):
searched that home specific address within the last fifteen days
just before the fire. Right, was anybody wanting to come
out here for any reason or maybe searched on how
to get here or even potentially used Google Maps or
something similar to get to that address. Well, there were
five IP addresses that were based in Colorado, and the
(44:28):
police obtained search warrants for all of those named people
and began investigating them, and through their investigations found that
there were three, in fact individuals that seemed to be
full on suspects in this case, and they were all
arrested roughly five months after this home went up in
flames and those five people were killed. So before we
(44:52):
even get to what happened after that, let's just talk
really quickly. Google searches or searching through any you know,
any search function through any app or whatever you're using.
Should that be something that can be used in an investigation?
Because it's happening in Karen Reid's case and it just
happened in this one too.
Speaker 3 (45:11):
Yeah, well the jurisprudence says yes. So legally, legally that's true.
I mean, if we again, if we just think through
the cold logic of it, the best attempt as civilian
would make is to conduct that sort of search through
a VPN or if you could, you know, do the
(45:34):
library trick and hope you're disguised enough not to be
on camera. But there's not I personally in this case,
and not to talk too much about myself, but I
think a lot of us can agree in this case
it makes sense to do that. It's the right thing
to do. People are dead, Innocent people are dead. And
(45:55):
then it becomes a question of to what degree are
we okay with this kind of with this kind of strategy, right?
What what happens when it becomes, you know, a tool
of the corrupt, Like you know how the NSA got
their fingers kind their knuckles kind of wrapped because some
(46:17):
of their some of their employees were collecting news. You know,
like the technology can be abused, and in this case
it feels like it is not abuse. It is smart
to do this because we don't know whether they We
don't know if or how long it would have taken
them to arrive at these suspects.
Speaker 2 (46:38):
Otherwise, well, yeah, it seems like a really smart move
to me. Like, let's at least see if anybody was
checking on this house before it got caught fined.
Speaker 3 (46:47):
We know how many other IP addresses pinged.
Speaker 2 (46:50):
I have no idea. I haven't seen like a list
or anything like that. Who knows? And can you imagine
like how many people on planet Earth? So for that
specific street address, right, I imagine there would be some
that like share the same number and street, but in
like seventeen different places on the planet.
Speaker 3 (47:09):
You know, it'd be interesting to see if any ips
into car ping did as well the capital of senecal Ben.
Speaker 4 (47:17):
You were talking about the library trick, Yeah, right, like
like in seven so you mean like where you see
what kinds of books have been checked out and you
narrow down a list and oh.
Speaker 3 (47:28):
I know what you're talking about. This one that that
would is something it's.
Speaker 4 (47:32):
A similar type of overreach, you could argue, but if used,
you know, to crack a case, you might have a
greater good argument. But then it's a bit of a
slippery slope just to in seven. They look and they
have an insider with the I believe it's the FBI
who they're able to see who's been checking out books
like Paradise Lost Things connect to the seven Deadly Sins,
(47:53):
and they get a short list, and on that list,
one of the guys they go visit turns out to
be you know, the perpetrator.
Speaker 3 (47:58):
Sorry, Ben, no, no, no, Right, that's a that's a
smart trick to know that is a possibility if you
use the US library system. That's a library trick. Another
one that I'm referencing is that if you don't want
to have too many pings on you, right, the library
trick is where you go into a library which has
(48:21):
a much lower burden of proof of ID and you
use their computers to do some research.
Speaker 4 (48:26):
Oh, as long as it.
Speaker 3 (48:29):
You know, I mean, don't do it in.
Speaker 4 (48:31):
Terms of protecting your yeahay, in terms of protecting here, yeah,
of course, but protecting your search history.
Speaker 2 (48:37):
Well, let's stay on pings for a second guys. Yeah,
So there were three suspects that they found and after
a long investigation, after a court decision, the Colorado Supreme
Court's decision to uphold those Google searches for the keyword
history to use it in the court of law against
these guys. Right, one of the suspects, I guess, came
(48:58):
forward with what happened, and it has to do with pings.
He at least acording to his story, he was robbed
of his iPhone in the pretty recent past to I
guess the summer of twenty twenty, and he used the
find my app Right, I hope everybody's used to that
(49:18):
or knows what that is. That's where you can if
you're an Apple user specifically, I think you can find
other devices everything from another iPad, air pods, yeah, air tags,
all kinds of things. It will find pretty close to
where it is using Bluetooth, Wi Fi and any other
(49:40):
means to connect to the device. Well, this person, his
name is Kevin Bui Bui. He was a teenager at
the time. He had been robbed of his cell phone
and he used find by to somewhat locate the last
known location of his device, and he made some determination.
Nobody knows it exactly why or how that this was
(50:03):
the home. This specific home is where his iPhone was,
and he got some friends and they decided to set
the house on fire in an act of revenge, at
least according to their stories. And that's according to the
stories of a person named Dylan Siebert, who was fourteen
years old when he and his friends set fire to
(50:25):
that house. He pleaded guilty and was sentenced to three
years in juvenile detention and seven years in a state
prison program for young inmates because he pleaded guilty to
second degree murder under a deal. Again, because I think
he talked and he basically gave up what had occurred.
(50:46):
There's one other person, Gavin Seymour, who was nineteen at
the time of sentencing, so I guess he was a
teenager as well. He was sentenced to forty years in
prison after pleading guilty to one count a second degree murder.
And the reason why we're even talking about is because
the first person, Kevin Bue, also pleaded guilty very recently.
(51:07):
I LO know, guys, this is a really sad one.
I just thought it was interesting, this concept of just
using the basic things we do every day with our
phones as potentially being used against us in a court
of law. The thing that freaks me out is if
you actually didn't do anything wrong and had nothing to
do with it, but whatever, you know, whatever combination of
(51:27):
keywords and timed stamps and all that stuff happens to
match up, you could be at least looked at by
a police officer sitting somewhere in Denver just checking out
your ip's history.
Speaker 3 (51:39):
A troubling conversation, or at least an uncomfortable one. Right,
So check out our earlier episodes on interrogation techniques. And also,
you know, Matt, it's gone too far for us, but
we our search histories are basically a digital version of
face tattoos, you know what I mean?
Speaker 2 (51:56):
Guys?
Speaker 4 (51:57):
Aren't there still certain protections where you don't have to
give over your phone? I mean that are encrypted and
they can't just go through your phone without your consent? Right?
I mean, isn't that sort of the idea? And weren't
there even situations where, you know, in murder cases, Apple
would not decrypt someone's phone to help find the perpetrator.
Speaker 3 (52:18):
In some cases, it often depends on this might be
a future episode just the digital hygiene, but it often
depends upon what other evidence the law enforcement authorities can
give to that private industry. What's happening here is legislation
is reacting to technology instead of laying out rules because
(52:41):
we don't know the full field or the full theater
of engagement. So I would not be surprised if this
comes back to haunt people in this case. To your pointment,
it does seem very much like this was the appropriate strategy,
the appropriate use to bring justice to But then we
(53:01):
have to ask about countries with political activism. We have
to ask about increasingly authoritarian government. Shout Out Project twenty
twenty five. Remember your Internet history never really goes away.
Speaker 2 (53:12):
Oh yeah, shout out to Russia. Congrats on the recent
tactical nuclear weapon drills.
Speaker 3 (53:18):
Yeah, but they also they also deleted their statement about
redrawing the Baltic Sea territories. Come on, guys, stop vague booking.
Speaker 2 (53:28):
I just don't like I don't like tactical nuclear weapons.
Speaker 3 (53:31):
Yeah, they're Jack Ray not cool, But you know who
is cool? Everyone who tunes into this show is all right.
That's like my most awkward segue of twenty twenty four.
I couldn't agree more I couldn't agree more with you, Noel,
with you Matt, and with you fellow conspiracy realists. We
can't wait to hear your takes. As we said at
the top, one of the most beautiful things about Strange
(53:54):
News is we are never going to get to everything,
but with your help, we're going to find new, intriguing,
sinister stuff. They don't want you to know, so sign
up for our next listener mail program. If you have
a suggestion for a future episode or reactions to this,
give us your thoughts. We try to be easy to
find online.
Speaker 4 (54:13):
Conspiracy Stuff is how you can find us on Facebook, YouTube,
and x fka Twitter. You can find this at the
handle Conspiracy Stuff Show on Instagram and TikTok.
Speaker 2 (54:25):
Hey, we have a phone number. Call it one eight
three three std WYTK. When you call in, give yourself
a cool nickname and let us know if we can
use that name and your voice on the air. If
you've got more to say they can fit in that
three minute message. Why not instead send us a good
old fashion email.
Speaker 3 (54:42):
We are the folks who read every single email we get.
The well aware friends sometimes avoid writes back. Conspiracy at
iHeartRadio dot com.
Speaker 2 (55:10):
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 iHeartRadio.
Speaker 2 (00:24):
Hello, welcome back to the show. My name is Matt,
my name is Nolan.
Speaker 3 (00:27):
They call me Ben. We're joined as always with our
super producer Alexis code named Doc Holliday Jackson. Most importantly,
you are you. You are here. That makes this the
stuff they don't want you to know. It is the
top of the week as we hurd ale headlong into
a terrible crime against humanity known as Summer in Atlanta.
(00:48):
We we've got some stories that we're totally not gonna
get to. We're gonna you know, there was a study
that found microplastics are in every single human testicle. So
that's great.
Speaker 4 (01:01):
You love to hear it, guys, hear it.
Speaker 3 (01:03):
Yeah, there was an anomaly as it's phrase discovered beneath
it's called the Egyptian Pyramids, but really they're talking about
the graveyard that's part of the larger compound. It may
be the resting place of the pharaoh Kufu. No doubt
study emerging due to our recent republishing of famous lost tombs.
(01:26):
I'm kidding. The former president of Iran and several other
luminaries died in a helicopter crash. But we have more
stories to get to. There's controversy about baby reindeer. There
is a revenge story that we're going to learn about
with several other updates. We may add more along the way,
(01:47):
but before we do anything, we might need to talk
about intelligence, but not the artificial and not the human kind.
And we're off to the races folks here here, we'd
(02:09):
like to start with a brief clip from a conversation
with investors that took place in New York. This is
called the Salt Eye Connections Conference.
Speaker 2 (02:21):
Here's the million dollar question.
Speaker 4 (02:23):
Do you believe that a higher form of non human
intelligence has visited this planet?
Speaker 5 (02:30):
Right? So, non human intelligence exists. Non human intelligence has
been interacting with humanity. This interaction is not new, and
it's been ongoing, and they're unelected people in the government
that are.
Speaker 4 (02:45):
Aware of that.
Speaker 3 (02:46):
And we'll stop at their initial reactions before we continue.
Pretty confident.
Speaker 2 (02:51):
Yeah, he just goes down and says it just like
it's fact. Just this is what it is, guys.
Speaker 3 (02:56):
Pretty explicit, not a whiff of a comp in that statement.
This is where we introduce you to a gentleman named
Carl Nell, who I am currently attempting to befriend on LinkedIn.
Not too proud to say it, but this is something
(03:16):
that we heard a lot about very recently. This conference
occurred in May of twenty twenty four, and that that
single statement non human intelligence, the idea that it's an
ongoing interaction with humanity, that there is some sort of
(03:37):
deep state, likely a faction of intelligence or international affairs,
that is aware of this, and they decided to keep
it all secret. What why?
Speaker 2 (03:48):
How?
Speaker 3 (03:49):
Huh?
Speaker 4 (03:50):
I mean, given the rhetoric around in the sort of
like types and I guess quality of individual I mean,
maybe qualities the wrong words in terms of like their positions,
you know, foreign positions and government who are saying similar stuff.
It doesn't really surprise me. I don't really know what
(04:11):
to what to call it, or like what we're talking
about here exactly in terms of like what this type
of life looks like, what it might be, what they
might be seeking, what kind of encounters have been had,
or what evidence might exist. But I do feel like
it's starting to feel like a foregone conclusion a little bit.
Speaker 3 (04:30):
Yeah, And we know in our previous investigations on the
jam yesterday, jam tomorrow, never jam today situation of UAP
or UFO disclosure, we know that a lot of people
have come forward in recent years, some career government employees,
some pilots which I guess is also a career government employee.
(04:53):
But you know military employees, and they often are a
little bit less explicit in their statements. Right, they're speaking
to Congress like Grush does, and they're saying, Hey, I
saw this information. I tried to get it out through
the appropriate chain of command and process, and because I
(05:15):
could not, I was ethically bound to be a whistleblower.
But I will be careful to only say the things
that I know and I can prove, right. I will
not make hyperbolic conclusions or assumptions, et cetera. This guy,
just that sound white alone absolutely rocked the world of
(05:37):
UAP study. And he didn't in that statement use the
word UAP. So the first thing we want to do
is learn about retired Colonel Nell's biography. All Right, this
dude has his bona fides, he his cv is legit
looked into it verified it through a couple of different sources.
(05:58):
In addition to being an ivy LEA graduate, he studied
at the War College. He's worked with multiple Fortune five
hundred firms like Bell Telephone, lots of defense industry stuff,
Lockheed Martin and so on. He has also been he's
been with Jaysock. He had was a colonel. As we said,
(06:20):
his military career culminated as the Army director supporting the
Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena Task Force. And very important to note
this is not, from my understanding, this is not a
job he actively sought out. This is a job he
was assigned to do, and so he just had to
(06:43):
He had to do his job. And it's very odd
for someone of this reputational caliber to go out and
say something like this so explicitly, especially when we know
that given the sensitivity around clearances, he might have had
to have someone coside him saying that.
Speaker 2 (07:05):
I don't know, unless he was going on orders, because
he had to say it because it's part of a
bigger thing.
Speaker 4 (07:11):
Man. Well, I like to throw people a bone or
something or throw off because you know they're up there
planning Project Bluebeam.
Speaker 2 (07:20):
Come on, guys, And.
Speaker 3 (07:21):
Also what is a non human intelligence. Technically a dolphin
is a non human intelligence. Technically a helephant or an
octopus is a non human intelligence.
Speaker 4 (07:32):
I mean, bro, if we're going by the Douglas Adams
model of the universe, the dolphins are the most important thing,
you know, They're the center of it all.
Speaker 3 (07:42):
Yeah, don't break up with the dolphins. We need you.
We also looked into I mean, like I said, the
UFO community was set a buzz by this. The idea
everybody is assuming that non human intelligence doesn't mean just
like a terrestrial order of animal, right, like an elephant,
(08:02):
an octopus, a corvid. Sorry for all the corvids in
the audience, I forgot to mention you all. It means
that there is something that is in some way, whether
technologically or cognitively, in some way superior to what we
think of as human intelligence. And the idea that it's
(08:23):
been around for a very long time is naturally going
to set some of the more skeptical of us into
immediate opposition. Right, How would a civilization of billions of
people that can't reach a good decision when there's just
twelve of them?
Speaker 2 (08:40):
Right?
Speaker 3 (08:40):
How would a species that can't for the life of it,
agree on what kind of pizza to order, agree to
keep a secret of this magnitude for this amount of time.
That's where the context comes in, because some of the
more skeptical in the audience tonight will be saying, well, Ben,
why aren't you telling us about what the Salt Conference is.
(09:02):
The Salt Conference is not a legal proceeding. It is
not a congressional hearing. It is a I'm going to
read from their website, it is a quote curated networking
event for asset allocators and investment managers. You're talking to
(09:25):
the money when you talk at the Salt Conference.
Speaker 2 (09:28):
It reminds me of the contact in the desert thing
we were talking about internally going to that's happening, I
think this week, right as this episode comes out, but
about money instead of UFOs. That's weird.
Speaker 3 (09:42):
Yeah, it's very I don't want to quite say off putting.
But we do need to know further context too, because
this is not the first time by far that this individual,
this retired kernel and specific has spoken on this subject.
Five months ago, back in twenty twenty three, Nell was
(10:07):
calling for full disclosure and even someone called this bold
or ambitious. He even projected an ultimate timeline for full disclosure.
He said it will occur on October first, twenty thirty,
and he said it might fall behind, But this is
what I think would be the best possible scenario. I
(10:29):
still like, it escapes me here. Maybe we'll have him
on the show later, but it escapes me that the colonel.
Like why the colonel would make such an explicit statement
if he did not fundamentally feel that statement was accurate.
The accusation you'll always get in these kind of environments
(10:49):
of conversation is the idea that, oh, this guy's just
trying to sell a book, right, or oh, this guy
is attempting to pull a grift. But again, going back
to twenty twenty three and beyond, you can see his involvement.
You can see his military and private industry career. You
can see things like the Irish Star, which shout out
(11:11):
to the journalist Alana Loftus wrote a great article about this.
The Debrief has him mentioned in a pretty comprehensive investigative
report about whether or not these guys are legit. So,
with all this in mind, ask you, fellow conspiracy realist, everybody,
(11:31):
maybe maybe with a question mark, is it a maybe.
Speaker 4 (11:35):
That's a maybe from me, Doug, I'll give you a maybe.
Speaker 3 (11:40):
No, right, well maybe that way, you know what, I'm
gonna upgrade it to a soft yes.
Speaker 2 (11:45):
Soft, Yes, I'm going hard.
Speaker 3 (11:47):
Maybe that was the hard maybe in soft. Yes. Those
are both post rock bands from our pal Paul Decan.
Speaker 4 (11:54):
Not bad.
Speaker 3 (11:54):
Yeah, it was a concept double album. So this is
fascinating still because we have to wonder what is going
on right the level of attention put toward this in
the zeitgeist. Is it a feedback loop of journalists saying
this is what gets us clicks? Is it a slow
(12:19):
burn toward a blue beam or a great distraction? Is
it a sort of gradual dipping toes into the water
of some hidden reality behind civilization? And then, you know,
even more interesting, just to sci fi it for a
little bit, what would this non human intelligence be? Could
(12:41):
it be artificially created by some long gone predecessor and
it visited Earth and it's just a computer that never
stopped working.
Speaker 2 (12:49):
That's reptilions.
Speaker 4 (12:50):
Man.
Speaker 2 (12:50):
They survived a couple of them, and they made it
off Earth and now they're coming back.
Speaker 3 (12:55):
Oh, it's a return. So Earth is still the origin
point they have all fear they left, they came.
Speaker 2 (13:01):
Back Cilurian reptilian return, all.
Speaker 3 (13:05):
Right, and they're like, hey, we got to put you
guys on to some great inventions. You've heard of agriculture,
but what.
Speaker 2 (13:11):
About velcrow and corn nuts?
Speaker 3 (13:14):
And for Loco, right, the fundamental building breakfast champions, the
fundamental building blocks of all human civilization.
Speaker 4 (13:23):
You've heard of putting peanuts and Coca cola classic.
Speaker 3 (13:26):
Yes, it's very southern thing.
Speaker 4 (13:27):
It's a Southern thing. It's not tried it, but sounds
kind of yummy.
Speaker 2 (13:31):
To eat the peanuts or to drink the Coca cola.
Speaker 4 (13:33):
Well, you drink the Coca cola, Matt, and then you
eat the peanuts. What remain at the bottom once you're finished,
because now they're all they're all marinated, So you're so
coked up.
Speaker 3 (13:41):
That's a product of non human intelligence.
Speaker 4 (13:44):
I think very clearly that's the case, or a very specific,
a niche form of higher human intelligence, one could argue,
So what do.
Speaker 3 (13:53):
You like, back to that question, what do you think
of non human intelligence could be? Matt? You said Silurian
reptilian net that that was interesting.
Speaker 4 (13:59):
I mean, what like a like a real smart golden retriever,
like certain cats.
Speaker 2 (14:05):
I think in our discussions before this is just my take.
I think the most probable version of any of that
is kind of what you described. There have been some
form of intelligence that is no longer based in any
kind of biological creature. It's based in some kind of
system that uses power and processing that is not like
(14:28):
meat based, so you know, not in borg, right, but
something that is fully Oh what is the I can't
remember the name of the mass effect species, the death
that's all robot basically.
Speaker 3 (14:44):
All right, you know. Maybe there is also the argument
that human beings are becoming themselves increasingly cybernetic, at least
the way I have to find that academically.
Speaker 4 (14:54):
I was gonna ask you, Ben, do you think if
we're given the chance technology you will really start to
figure into evolution Once people start getting like, you know,
implants for example, is that gonna then become somehow a
factor in the way we continue to evolve?
Speaker 3 (15:16):
It is indeed inevitable. I follow, like many of us, closely,
the news of the first person to receive a neuralink implant.
He's doing fine. He crushes Mario Kart, by the way,
played a lot of legal legends. I believe too right.
Speaker 2 (15:31):
But the aren't the threads failing?
Speaker 3 (15:34):
He said, some of them. This is the weirdest part
the latest news, he said, some of them went back in.
Speaker 4 (15:42):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (15:42):
His name is Nolan Arbot and he's the first to
get this brain device that is attributed to Elon Musk,
but to be quite honest, was not designed for by.
Speaker 4 (15:53):
Them at all. He's never designed a thing in his life.
Speaker 3 (15:56):
Nolan is thirty years old and you can read a
great interview with him that came out just today as
we record the evening of May twenty second, twenty twenty four.
He said, look, I got a spinal cord injury while
swimming in a lake and after that I was paralyzed
from the neck down. And he was a college student
(16:17):
at this time, living arguably one of the best times
of a human's life. And he said, I had to
learn how to use a mouth held stick interface device
to get around. And the same year Ela Musk founded
or co founded Neurlink, this brain implants startup. A lot
of people were saying that you're not ready for this humanity.
(16:39):
There's no way you can no way you can like
function with these things in your head. And he went,
Nolan went through an extensive screening process. He had brain surgery,
which is always a serious and still no offense neurosurgeons
dodgy thing. Right, if you have to go in for
(16:59):
a brain surgery, you do yourself a favor and don't
look at the numbers or the statistics. Just let it
be a surprise. And he has he has said that
he didn't know it was possible that the threads of
this implant could fall out of place, you know what
I mean? Like, imagine getting braces on your teeth and
(17:21):
there's a non zero chance that some of those braces
might just pop off, right, and then how do you go,
Like what kind of dentists do you go to in
that situation?
Speaker 2 (17:31):
You guys, that's a really great question. I don't know
what kind of dentists you go to in that situation.
I just really quickly want to bring this up. Near
where I live, there is a I think it's called
braces now. It's like a brick and mortar store, right,
It's all windows on the front with a bunch of
different places for a human being to sit down and
get braces. I guess I was having a conversation with
(17:54):
my girlfriend about like, who does who would do that,
Just go and lay down in a place where there's
just windows and then get your teeth worked on. I
don't know that that to me just felt crazy, uncomfort
I don't know.
Speaker 3 (18:07):
Mental spa exhibitionist, maybe because of the window, maybe to
specializing in the teeths or a dental spa. That's another
thing that's a little more high end the last point,
because I think there's more to explore here, perhaps in
an episode. The last point on the implant story is first.
(18:28):
Noland is at the time of this recording alive and
well and seems to have As of his conversation with Wired,
he seems to have very few regrets. He seems to
have found the quality of his life overall improved at
the moment. If you'd like to breathe more, please go
(18:50):
to the excellent article or the interview by Emily Mullen
over at Wired quote Neurolink's first user is constantly multitasking
with his implant. We're gonna pause for a word from
our sponsors, and then we're going to go to another
strange story, the relationship between fact and fiction. A fringe festival,
(19:12):
a Netflix, perhaps some legal trouble, and.
Speaker 4 (19:22):
We've returned, Ben, you couldn't have set this one up better.
I have been really on the edge of my seat
watching the story. I have to admit when I first
heard of Baby Reindeer, the Netflix show that's kind of
become a overnight sensation, I was a little hesitant to
watch it. Some of the subject matter and it is
a little triggering for me. I've never had a stalker
(19:45):
per se, but I've certainly, you know, maybe had some
relationships that ended in what kind of felt like a
stalkery manner, or at the very least like someone not
taking being broken up with well and threatening suicide, know,
constantly calling, texting, just really abusive kind of harassment. So
(20:05):
I kind of put off watching it, but then I
watched it, and let me tell you, thirty minute show.
The first couple of episodes, I was covering my eyes.
It was so difficult to watch. It was, you know,
I guess the cringe is maybe a term, but not
in a comedic way, not in a Larry David style
of cringe. This is just everybody making the worst possible
(20:29):
choices leading to the worst possible outcomes. It's really a
story about two very lost kind of individuals. One is
a kind of failing stand up comedian named Donnie Dunn
who's played by the show's creator, Richard Gadd, and a
woman who comes into a bar where he works named Martha,
(20:51):
who becomes fixated with him and throughout the course of
the series begins to aggressively stalk and harass him, and
every way you could possibly imagine, the show goes all
kinds of different places and has all kinds of twists,
And according to the show itself and the titles and
the marketing from Netflix, it is not based on a
(21:12):
true story. It is a true story, and this is
a show that like a one man show that this guy,
Richard Gadd did at the Edinburgh Fringe Festival, and he
is he performed it, I believe as like a one
man show. For some times people were aware of this,
and it is an incredibly compelling story, but there are
(21:33):
some details in it that may or may not actually
be true. And when you stand behind as Netflix seems
to be doing, that claim of being a true story
and then things turn out to not be true, then
that certainly opens up people, especially people as potentially aggressive
as someone like the real life Martha, who has come
forward a woman by the name of Fiona Mirror leave.
(21:58):
Her parents had had a hyphen it name Harvey and
Harvey Dash Murror and then when her parents divorced, she
she'd dropped the Harvey and just goes no, drop the Mirror.
I believe it. This goes by Fiona Harvey. She went
on Piers Morgan. It's certainly pretty popular over here. He
that interview with Donald Trump back in the day, but
(22:20):
I think over in the UK he's even more popular.
She sought Peers Morgan out to air her side of
the story and it is a fascinating interview. If anyone's
watched the show and isn't aware this is out there,
which I'd be surprised, I highly recommend checking it out,
maybe even just watching the highlights. There are also some
very interesting dissections of her body language from some you know,
(22:44):
kind of body language type experts and psychiatrists on the internet.
It's really becoming a thing because she really comes off
exactly like the character in the show, portrayed by the
actor Jessica Gunning in Reinier. She's Scottish, She's you know,
kind of a heavy set woman with dark hair, but
(23:05):
she has these very specific mannerisms and kind of turns
of phrase and ways of speaking that Jessica Gunning absolutely nails.
It's the character of Martha. And in the show it
features some mentions of articles referencing this woman's past history
of stalking, one of which involves a British politician or
(23:29):
a British member of Parliament who presided over the area
in London where Martha lived. And this is a Labor
Party leader by the name kir Starmer who and this
is confirmed. You know, these receipts are out there. She's
supposedly beefed with pretty hard back around twenty twenty and
(23:53):
sent him whopping two hundred and seventy six emails over
the course of eight months. That, however, absolutely dwarfs the
number of emails she allegedly sent to Richard Gadd, which
was in the twenties of thousands and something like three
hundred and fifty hours of voicemails and all of these
(24:14):
tweets and all of that she vehemently denies. But the Sun,
which I know is not like the most, is a
little bit of a tabloidy kind of rag over there
in the UK. But they did acquire these emails and
they have released a bunch of them, and they are
incredibly threatening and they are very much in the voice
(24:36):
of what you see in Baby Reindeer. And I think
one of the problems if Netflix and gad can be
accused of anything other than fictionalize this stuff, which you're
going to get into in a minute, it would be
not doing their due diligence and hiding this woman's identity
because they reference the idea that she stalked a member
(24:56):
of parliament in some headlines that they referenced in the show.
There is another incident where she supposedly or allegedly stalked
the wife of another British politician, Laura Ray, the widow
of former Labor Member of Parliament Jimmy Ray, who came
(25:20):
out and spoke to several news articles saying that with
this platform that she's been given now, she's worried that
it's going to come back on her. You know, it's
going to be a resurgence of the horrors that she
claims to have experienced back in two thousand and two.
And this is another article that was referenced because this
woman actually has a disabled child who I believe is
(25:43):
hearing impaired. At least that was what was referenced in
the show, the idea of harassing a hearing impaired child.
So got the gist out of the way, let's get
to the question at hand. Does Fiona have a legal
case against Netflix, a legal case against this crew, this,
(26:04):
this gentleman.
Speaker 3 (26:07):
In the UK.
Speaker 4 (26:07):
Yes, I think that's right. I think technically depending on
the main thing that's in question here is like when
you watch the interview and you read the stuff, you
read the emails, you kind of get a sense of
this woman's vibe. I believe that he definitely has all
of these voicemails because the actor had to have been
using those as reference, because she's it's not just like
a shot in the dark portrayal of this woman. It's
(26:30):
you know, obviously God would have had memories of her
if these events, you know, were true, that he could
have communicated by the way of fact. I'm sure people
are known this, but he is the actual person who
this happened to, and the creative this television show where
he stars and plays sort of an alternate version of himself,
but again claims to be fully a true story, not
(26:50):
based on And then do you think if they had
said based on a true story, that would be different.
Speaker 3 (26:56):
Well, it's interesting because this originated as a one man
sh at the world famous Edinburgh Fringe Festival. There's hopefully
one in your deck of the Global Woods. Check it
out if you get a chance, maybe because that the
idea of inspired by or based upon can be somewhat
of a fig leaf in at least legal system of
(27:18):
the United States. However, as I mentioned, off air defamation
and libel and slander kind of rules are much more
strict in the Kingdom. Shout out to the royal family.
Speaker 4 (27:31):
That's right. It is a lot easier to the I
guess what's the word. The standard for defamation is a
little lower than it is over here. We pride ourselves
supposedly on freedom of speech, you know, freedom of the
press and all that. So the burden of proof for
defamation here in the United States is a lot tougher
(27:53):
to meet than it is over there. Fiona is actually
and as she's portrayed in the show, though in the
show it's really dubious. It's presented as like is she
is she really? Like it seems like she's making up
a lot of what she's saying, but you know, deside
for yourself. Watch the interview. Read the emails. They are
quite threatening and quite damning, and they're also all signed
(28:15):
off by scent from iphon or I you know, like
like it's hand typed to give the impression that is
being sent from an iPhone. And on the Piers Morgan interview,
weirdly enough, guys, she admits to having like five different
phones and six or seven different email addresses, which I
(28:36):
find really sketchy. I just she justifies it, tries to
justify it. She's like, no, everybody d everybody has that.
No nobody has. That's that's unusual. Is that seems to
me to be the sign of someone that's trying to
live a double life, you know, keep things separate, have
multiple emails. You know, it's like having an instance, like
(28:57):
being kicked off of an Instagram account, band from somebody's account.
So what do you do? You start a Finstagram account,
which is like your fake Instagram account so you can
look at the accounts that you've been barred from. That
seems to me to be the only reason someone want
to have six, seven different emails. I don't know, Matt,
you've been quiet on this one. But I know that
this is interesting to you as well. Do you think
Fiona has a case? Do you think Gad has the receipts?
(29:22):
It seems like the easiest thing in the world to
prove twenty thousand plus emails, just present them. And why
do you think they're being so conspicuously quiet? Ah? The
Netflix side.
Speaker 2 (29:31):
Oh, it's a weird one for me, guys. I'm not
involved in either of these human beings lives and this
is a situation where both of their lives were personally impacted, right,
But I really enjoy the show that was created, very
good story that was still very good. So it's a
tough position for me to be like, Ah, this shouldn't
(29:53):
have happened to this, you know what, I don't know.
It feels like it needs to have been a court
case rather than a TV show first, right, so that
you could argue in a court of law what is
right and what's wrong. But I think we're just doing
that in the reverse order now.
Speaker 4 (30:08):
And part of the show too, in the story is
that God doesn't report this to the police for half
a year, and he's even implicates himself, you know, pretty
you know self awaredly I guess that that's a phrase
in kind of leading her on and in some ways
like getting something out of it, you know, like he
(30:29):
talks about how it made him see himself in a
different way, or because she was getting all this attention,
he fully admits to having these, you know, pretty significant
problems of self loathing. And I don't want to spoil
anything about the show, but I think that's that's fair
game there. So you know, he does implicate himself. Why
didn't I, Why didn't I report it? Why didn't I
(30:51):
give specifics? It's almost like he loved her in his
own way. It's very interesting.
Speaker 2 (30:58):
I mean we've talked about this before in different context,
but attention is kind of the currency of the day, right,
and when.
Speaker 4 (31:05):
For someone who's failed like attention seeker, like a comedian,
you know, or someone trying to be a celebrity and failing, right, well.
Speaker 2 (31:13):
Yeah, but I don't know, it's it's weird.
Speaker 5 (31:16):
Man.
Speaker 2 (31:16):
Even in personal relationships with friends or a significant other,
getting attention from that person is paramount. And even if
it's a stranger that you don't know, but it is
giving you crazy amounts of attention, it can sometimes feel nice.
So I'm just I'm assuming that's maybe what happened, But
again that's an assumption on my experience, so I have
(31:36):
no idea.
Speaker 4 (31:37):
We also know that sometimes people will seek whatever kind
of attention they can, even if it's negative attention, you know,
and that can be just as powerful and just as
intoxicating very much. So I think that they're preparing for
a court battle. I do think that they've been so,
you know, Gad said in a Hollywood Reporter interview that
he's not going to comment about it maybe ever again.
(31:58):
And Pierce Morgan, you know that his interview has been
viewed twenty million times on YouTube alone. He had like
a little postbortem about and he said, well, you know,
while for all intents and purposes, I've heard that Richard
Gad's a nice dude, it's kind of convenient for you
to say, well, now, I'm not going to talk about
it because if he did not do due diligence and
(32:19):
the accusation that's being made. Martha's denying a lot of
this stuff. Martha, You're sorry. Fiona is denying most of
this stuff. She's very weird the way she goes about it.
In the interview. You can really get a sense that
she's hiding something. But what it feels like she isn't
lying about is being incarcerated like they, you know, in
the show, she is accused of having been incarcerated not
(32:42):
once but twice. And that's also very provable. And even
if all the rest of the stuff is true and
they and she wasn't incarcerated, that alone might be grounds
for a legal action. So interesting case, interesting all around
because it's like, you know, this is the kind of
thing you would only see as a true crime documentary
(33:02):
instead of like a re enactment. I guess let's call
it with the actual person that happened to playing themselves.
It's very unusual, and we know how these things go.
People take liberties to do so, but inserting a whole thing,
presenting it as part of a true story that didn't
happen period, not just changing a line or two. That
(33:22):
seems to be crossing a line or two. So I
don't know, guys, I think we can probably take a
quick break, hear a word from our sponsor, and then
be back with one more piece of strange news.
Speaker 2 (33:39):
And we've returned. Before we get started, guys, I got
two quick things. The first one. Let's get a shout
out if we can to Mark. Hey, Mark, Hi, Ma.
Mark is the branch manager of a bank near where
I live, and he recognized the old voice in a
little conversation. He listens to the show very cool, very
(34:02):
very cool guys, and he wanted to say hey to
both of you guys.
Speaker 3 (34:04):
Hey, Mark, it's a pleasure to meet you.
Speaker 2 (34:06):
I'm well, we have hell mock well, he says, Hi Mark,
He just says, hi, mock.
Speaker 4 (34:16):
Well.
Speaker 2 (34:16):
Here you go, Hey, shout out to you, sir. The
other thing, do you guys remember a story from last July.
It's something we covered on Listener Mail. It was based
on a voicemail we received from Max Taut about the
death of a man named John O'Keefe who was a
Boston Police officer that was found dead in the snow
(34:36):
outside another police officer's house.
Speaker 4 (34:38):
Yes, I remember, yes, Okay, So not the not the
drinking partier snow or dead in the snow. Sorry, not
that one, similar though, crazy, Okay, go ahead.
Speaker 2 (34:49):
This is the Boston PD officer that's found outside the
home of a different police departments officer's house after a
night out drinking at the bar. So this one has
evolved quite a bit since then. I don't know if
you guys remember the specifics, but there was a conspiracy
alleged by a lot of people who were kind of
(35:09):
following it in the local news there, saying, hey, this
feels really fishy just that this. You know, it appears
that maybe something happened inside the house at this party
where he was. But everyone in the official investigation is
saying that the girlfriend of two years, Karen Reid, somehow
killed him with her vehicle.
Speaker 3 (35:29):
It felt kind of stonewalled two because everybody was telling
such a similar version of the story. I'm just going
to say, because I was on the more conspiratorial side
biases to one end, let's bracket those. Usually, when multiple
different witnesses are telling the truth about something, their stories
(35:51):
are still going to differ a little bit because of
the hazards of memory exactly.
Speaker 2 (35:56):
They're not going to be as though somebody wrote in
notes document exactly what happened that night and then shared
it with everybody, or maybe there was a text thread
with a bunch of people there that night, which is
what's happening right now in the court. So this is
why we're even talking about it again. John's girlfriend, Karen Reid,
currently on trial facing charges of second degree murder, motor
(36:20):
vehicle manslaughter while driving under the influence, and leaving the
scene of a collision causing injury and death. And she
has since this trial began, she has, you know, said hey, no,
I'm innocent. She pled not guilty. Her attorneys alleged that
she is being fully framed, that there's an actual conspiracy
(36:40):
and a cover up afoot that's being perpetrated by a
group of people who went to that party, who were
at that home, the same home where his body was
discovered the next morning. And my gosh, you guys, compelling stuff.
Everything is coming out about, you know, the Google searches
that occurred by a few different people, specific this person,
(37:00):
Jennifer McCabe, who is on the stand, I think, yeah,
today Wednesday, May twenty second, as we're recording this, you
know about a what the Google search was, how long
to die in cold? But how is misspelled as hos.
Speaker 3 (37:15):
Gee, yeah you type it or hurry it happens.
Speaker 2 (37:18):
Well, yeah, and there was some there are a bunch
of other like calls and texts that have been just
kind of gone over in this trial where it's people
who were at that party saying something about getting the
story straight. It's it's nuts.
Speaker 3 (37:34):
Let's make this right is the common trope in true
crime and procedurals, and unfortunately it's based in truth. It's
not necessarily the truth and tire of every case, but
it is not. This would not be an unprecedented thing
for a group of people to say, we have to
(37:56):
make this story right.
Speaker 2 (37:58):
You know.
Speaker 3 (37:58):
You'll also you'll also tell the professionals in those kind
of conversations because they don't speak, they're very careful about
how they speak in conditional phrasing, so they'll say when
they're saying, let's agree that this is what happened, then
they're saying, they'll speak it as though it is already
agreed upon. It's a little it's a clever thing, but
(38:18):
it works. If there's a microphone around you, which you
always assume there is.
Speaker 2 (38:22):
Oh there always are. Come on, look in your pocket, dude.
There are four in five in my media vicinity, which
is crazy to think about with all your devices that
you know of. Oh yeah, sure, wherever yours has been,
I'm not.
Speaker 3 (38:45):
I just always think about that too, man. That's part
of why I don't go to Airbnb's.
Speaker 2 (38:50):
A that's why I always go to airbnbs, just for
that of being in a cam show. But this is
this is all to say, check it out because there
is stuff directly what Ben is talking about there where
there's a text thread. One of the texts says, and
I'm paraphrasing here, tell them or him that he never
(39:11):
came in the house, as in like they're debating on
the stand whether or not that means to tell the
police that the guy never came in the house when
they're being interviewed, or it is to tell a person
specifically about oh, he never came in the house. It
just as a matter of fact. It's just that healthy. Yeah, yeah, yeah,
(39:32):
So we won't go into that. Check out all the
law Tube channels, check out all the social accounts, hundreds
of media outlets. They're all reporting on it every day
right now, in crazy detail. It's probably worth your time
because it does kind of show again, can you actually
get to the truth in a trial if one side
is just fully lying, even like is there a smoking
gun in this case? We shall see. Now let's go
(39:53):
to the actual story, ready, Yeah, Okay, this one comes
to us from NBC News on May eighteenth. I'm not
gonna say the title, but I'll tell you the title later,
just so we can learn the story as it goes.
Speaker 4 (40:06):
Here.
Speaker 2 (40:07):
Way back on August fifth, twenty twenty, at a home
in a suburban neighborhood of Denver, Colorado, there was a
house fire. This fire caused the deaths, unfortunately, of three
adults and two very small children. One was twenty two
months old and the other was only six months old.
(40:28):
All of the people who died were it was. It
was like a family and kind of family friends who
were all from Senegal. That's a country on the far
western coast of Africa, south of I'm going to say
it wrong, Mauritania and north of Guinea. We can go through.
I'll try and pronounce the victims' names. I'm not going
(40:48):
to do it perfectly. Is Jabriel Duol, who was twenty
nine years old, and the Deja Duol. They were a
couple that had a twenty two month old daughter whose
name was Kadija. They had a relative staying with them
named Hassanjiol who was twenty five, and she had the
six month old daughter named Hawa. Very very sad. There
(41:11):
were also three other human beings in that house that
escaped with injuries because they jumped from the second story.
Really horrifying, terrifying thing to be within a house fire.
It has yet to happen to me, so I don't
know personally what it's like, but I you know, I
remember going through fire safety like you guys probably did
(41:31):
when we're younger, Like experiencing flames up close like that,
and attempting to duck under the smoke and find an exit.
It's just horrified.
Speaker 3 (41:41):
Stop, drop roll and check the tech, the temperature under
the door, all the hits, all the good stuff. I'm
so glad we have fire extinguishers in our cars now
just in case.
Speaker 2 (41:52):
Oh yeah, and everywhere in my house. But horrifying thing
that occurred. Right, All that is known after this fire happened,
you know, because when a house fire occurs, if you're
investigating it, you're going to check to see if they're
the fire started in the house by accident.
Speaker 4 (42:09):
Right.
Speaker 2 (42:10):
We've talked about several homes that have gone up in
flames because of a gas leak that caused either an
explosion or a slow leak. Then there was an ignition
at some point through a match, or through lighting, you know,
a gas stove or something like that.
Speaker 3 (42:24):
Even an electrical short can do it exactly.
Speaker 2 (42:26):
Oh, there are so many ways a house can catch fire.
In this case, the investigators found a surveillance video of
three suspects who were wearing full face masks and dark
hoodies just before the fire started.
Speaker 3 (42:42):
Like scar like a balaklava like this kind of thing.
Speaker 2 (42:45):
Oh, very similar. Very cool that you have that right
by you as a recording. Bent, yeah at all. Don't
be suspicious, don't be suspicious.
Speaker 3 (42:55):
But just so everybody can get the reference kind of
like a ski mask.
Speaker 2 (42:58):
I'm so glad you had that on bro. So there's
a fairly large Senegalese population that lives out there in
this specific area of Denver, and it was known then
like this was a Senegalese family that seems to have
been targeted for some reason unknown at this point, So
(43:21):
a lot of other Senegalese immigrant families and were installing
security cameras just to see, like to check basically for
their own safety, hoping that this would not happen to them.
Because the investigation had been dragging out for quite a
while months, no leads. All they knew is these masked
individuals decided this house needed to go up in flames,
(43:42):
and it killed a bunch of people. Until you, guys,
the police decided to go a different route use technology
a little bit, which is why it made me think
about the Karen Reid thing. They obtained a search warrant
for Google basically for alphabet or however it goes. They
wanted to know which IP addresses, any IP addresses, had
(44:04):
searched that home specific address within the last fifteen days
just before the fire. Right, was anybody wanting to come
out here for any reason or maybe searched on how
to get here or even potentially used Google Maps or
something similar to get to that address. Well, there were
five IP addresses that were based in Colorado, and the
(44:28):
police obtained search warrants for all of those named people
and began investigating them, and through their investigations found that
there were three, in fact individuals that seemed to be
full on suspects in this case, and they were all
arrested roughly five months after this home went up in
flames and those five people were killed. So before we
(44:52):
even get to what happened after that, let's just talk
really quickly. Google searches or searching through any you know,
any search function through any app or whatever you're using.
Should that be something that can be used in an investigation?
Because it's happening in Karen Reid's case and it just
happened in this one too.
Speaker 3 (45:11):
Yeah, well the jurisprudence says yes. So legally, legally that's true.
I mean, if we again, if we just think through
the cold logic of it, the best attempt as civilian
would make is to conduct that sort of search through
a VPN or if you could, you know, do the
(45:34):
library trick and hope you're disguised enough not to be
on camera. But there's not I personally in this case,
and not to talk too much about myself, but I
think a lot of us can agree in this case
it makes sense to do that. It's the right thing
to do. People are dead, Innocent people are dead. And
(45:55):
then it becomes a question of to what degree are
we okay with this kind of with this kind of strategy, right?
What what happens when it becomes, you know, a tool
of the corrupt, Like you know how the NSA got
their fingers kind their knuckles kind of wrapped because some
(46:17):
of their some of their employees were collecting news. You know,
like the technology can be abused, and in this case
it feels like it is not abuse. It is smart
to do this because we don't know whether they We
don't know if or how long it would have taken
them to arrive at these suspects.
Speaker 2 (46:38):
Otherwise, well, yeah, it seems like a really smart move
to me. Like, let's at least see if anybody was
checking on this house before it got caught fined.
Speaker 3 (46:47):
We know how many other IP addresses pinged.
Speaker 2 (46:50):
I have no idea. I haven't seen like a list
or anything like that. Who knows? And can you imagine
like how many people on planet Earth? So for that
specific street address, right, I imagine there would be some
that like share the same number and street, but in
like seventeen different places on the planet.
Speaker 3 (47:09):
You know, it'd be interesting to see if any ips
into car ping did as well the capital of senecal Ben.
Speaker 4 (47:17):
You were talking about the library trick, Yeah, right, like
like in seven so you mean like where you see
what kinds of books have been checked out and you
narrow down a list and oh.
Speaker 3 (47:28):
I know what you're talking about. This one that that
would is something it's.
Speaker 4 (47:32):
A similar type of overreach, you could argue, but if used,
you know, to crack a case, you might have a
greater good argument. But then it's a bit of a
slippery slope just to in seven. They look and they
have an insider with the I believe it's the FBI
who they're able to see who's been checking out books
like Paradise Lost Things connect to the seven Deadly Sins,
(47:53):
and they get a short list, and on that list,
one of the guys they go visit turns out to
be you know, the perpetrator.
Speaker 3 (47:58):
Sorry, Ben, no, no, no, Right, that's a that's a
smart trick to know that is a possibility if you
use the US library system. That's a library trick. Another
one that I'm referencing is that if you don't want
to have too many pings on you, right, the library
trick is where you go into a library which has
(48:21):
a much lower burden of proof of ID and you
use their computers to do some research.
Speaker 4 (48:26):
Oh, as long as it.
Speaker 3 (48:29):
You know, I mean, don't do it in.
Speaker 4 (48:31):
Terms of protecting your yeahay, in terms of protecting here, yeah,
of course, but protecting your search history.
Speaker 2 (48:37):
Well, let's stay on pings for a second guys. Yeah,
So there were three suspects that they found and after
a long investigation, after a court decision, the Colorado Supreme
Court's decision to uphold those Google searches for the keyword
history to use it in the court of law against
these guys. Right, one of the suspects, I guess, came
(48:58):
forward with what happened, and it has to do with pings.
He at least acording to his story, he was robbed
of his iPhone in the pretty recent past to I
guess the summer of twenty twenty, and he used the
find my app Right, I hope everybody's used to that
(49:18):
or knows what that is. That's where you can if
you're an Apple user specifically, I think you can find
other devices everything from another iPad, air pods, yeah, air tags,
all kinds of things. It will find pretty close to
where it is using Bluetooth, Wi Fi and any other
(49:40):
means to connect to the device. Well, this person, his
name is Kevin Bui Bui. He was a teenager at
the time. He had been robbed of his cell phone
and he used find by to somewhat locate the last
known location of his device, and he made some determination.
Nobody knows it exactly why or how that this was
(50:03):
the home. This specific home is where his iPhone was,
and he got some friends and they decided to set
the house on fire in an act of revenge, at
least according to their stories. And that's according to the
stories of a person named Dylan Siebert, who was fourteen
years old when he and his friends set fire to
(50:25):
that house. He pleaded guilty and was sentenced to three
years in juvenile detention and seven years in a state
prison program for young inmates because he pleaded guilty to
second degree murder under a deal. Again, because I think
he talked and he basically gave up what had occurred.
(50:46):
There's one other person, Gavin Seymour, who was nineteen at
the time of sentencing, so I guess he was a
teenager as well. He was sentenced to forty years in
prison after pleading guilty to one count a second degree murder.
And the reason why we're even talking about is because
the first person, Kevin Bue, also pleaded guilty very recently.
(51:07):
I LO know, guys, this is a really sad one.
I just thought it was interesting, this concept of just
using the basic things we do every day with our
phones as potentially being used against us in a court
of law. The thing that freaks me out is if
you actually didn't do anything wrong and had nothing to
do with it, but whatever, you know, whatever combination of
(51:27):
keywords and timed stamps and all that stuff happens to
match up, you could be at least looked at by
a police officer sitting somewhere in Denver just checking out
your ip's history.
Speaker 3 (51:39):
A troubling conversation, or at least an uncomfortable one. Right,
So check out our earlier episodes on interrogation techniques. And also,
you know, Matt, it's gone too far for us, but
we our search histories are basically a digital version of
face tattoos, you know what I mean?
Speaker 2 (51:56):
Guys?
Speaker 4 (51:57):
Aren't there still certain protections where you don't have to
give over your phone? I mean that are encrypted and
they can't just go through your phone without your consent? Right?
I mean, isn't that sort of the idea? And weren't
there even situations where, you know, in murder cases, Apple
would not decrypt someone's phone to help find the perpetrator.
Speaker 3 (52:18):
In some cases, it often depends on this might be
a future episode just the digital hygiene, but it often
depends upon what other evidence the law enforcement authorities can
give to that private industry. What's happening here is legislation
is reacting to technology instead of laying out rules because
(52:41):
we don't know the full field or the full theater
of engagement. So I would not be surprised if this
comes back to haunt people in this case. To your pointment,
it does seem very much like this was the appropriate strategy,
the appropriate use to bring justice to But then we
(53:01):
have to ask about countries with political activism. We have
to ask about increasingly authoritarian government. Shout Out Project twenty
twenty five. Remember your Internet history never really goes away.
Speaker 2 (53:12):
Oh yeah, shout out to Russia. Congrats on the recent
tactical nuclear weapon drills.
Speaker 3 (53:18):
Yeah, but they also they also deleted their statement about
redrawing the Baltic Sea territories. Come on, guys, stop vague booking.
Speaker 2 (53:28):
I just don't like I don't like tactical nuclear weapons.
Speaker 3 (53:31):
Yeah, they're Jack Ray not cool, But you know who
is cool? Everyone who tunes into this show is all right.
That's like my most awkward segue of twenty twenty four.
I couldn't agree more I couldn't agree more with you, Noel,
with you Matt, and with you fellow conspiracy realists. We
can't wait to hear your takes. As we said at
the top, one of the most beautiful things about Strange
(53:54):
News is we are never going to get to everything,
but with your help, we're going to find new, intriguing,
sinister stuff. They don't want you to know, so sign
up for our next listener mail program. If you have
a suggestion for a future episode or reactions to this,
give us your thoughts. We try to be easy to
find online.
Speaker 4 (54:13):
Conspiracy Stuff is how you can find us on Facebook, YouTube,
and x fka Twitter. You can find this at the
handle Conspiracy Stuff Show on Instagram and TikTok.
Speaker 2 (54:25):
Hey, we have a phone number. Call it one eight
three three std WYTK. When you call in, give yourself
a cool nickname and let us know if we can
use that name and your voice on the air. If
you've got more to say they can fit in that
three minute message. Why not instead send us a good
old fashion email.
Speaker 3 (54:42):
We are the folks who read every single email we get.
The well aware friends sometimes avoid writes back. Conspiracy at
iHeartRadio dot com.
Speaker 2 (55:10):
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. The Podium
The Podium: An NBC Olympic and Paralympic podcast. Join us for insider coverage during the intense competition at the 2024 Paris Olympic and Paralympic Games. In the run-up to the Opening Ceremony, we’ll bring you deep into the stories and events that have you know and those you'll be hard-pressed to forget.
2. In The Village
In The Village will take you into the most exclusive areas of the 2024 Paris Olympic Games to explore the daily life of athletes, complete with all the funny, mundane and unexpected things you learn off the field of play. Join Elizabeth Beisel as she sits down with Olympians each day in Paris.
3. iHeartOlympics: The Latest
Listen to the latest news from the 2024 Olympics.