Tech giant Google has reportedly unblurred several formerly secret Russian military sites on Google Maps. A self-driving car in San Francisco attempts to escape police. Long-running conspiracy site Infowars files bankruptcy as Alex Jones continues to fight Sandy Hook defamation charges in court. All this and more in this week's Strange News.
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 the stuff they don't want you to know. A
production of My Heart Grading. Hello, welcome back to the show.
(00:25):
My name is Mett, my name is Nol. They called
me Ben. We are joined as always with our super
producer Alexis code named Doc Holiday Jackson. Most importantly, you
are you. You are here, and that makes this the
stuff they don't want you to know. It's the top
of the week. We hope everybody had a great weekend,
and we hope that you are in the mood for
(00:47):
strange things and news, because that's what we do at
the top of the week, we explore strange news. Today,
we're going to see uh, some news that might strike
people as sad. I think it's a good thing. We're
going to see UH brief car chase that might surprise you.
(01:08):
We're also going to uh. We're also going to I think,
enter into a discussion that initially feels good but might
have some long range consequences. It's about the power of
private tech companies. But I was thinking quickly before you
jump in. Yeah, I think we need to make a
new kids show. We'll call it Blues and News. It
(01:30):
will feature some kind of blue little character, maybe a
cat this time that we explore news that gives us
the blues together. They we need do that that with
legal though. We don't want to risk copyright infringement. What
about what about a blue canoe? Right? Isn't that? I'm
just thinking in terms of rhymes here. Remember that that
(01:51):
cartoon from the like I think seventies the Herculoids. Wait no,
never mind that it's other herculoids. It was a weird offshoot,
like alternate reality version of the Flintstones, where there was
a character called the Schmoo. Do you guys remember the Shmoo?
He was a blobby ghost looking guy. He inexplicably existed
in the Flintstones universe and he was like just schmooing
(02:12):
around and they call him the Schmoo. You know what
blue new is? G n you. It's like the street
name for with the Wilder Beast. But I don't know
how good they would be at finding clues. A cat
might be better just because they're more They seem like
they have higher dress. Hey, yeah, so before we begin,
tell us what you think about that animal idea, what
(02:34):
would be what kind of animals should we go with
for our children's show? And don't think we're joking about
children's content, Folks can't spoil it too much, but we're
getting weird situations. I was thinking we could start today's
show and start off this week with a surprise announcement
to one of our long time conspiracy realist Phil g
(02:58):
Phil Happy birthday. If you're hearing this the day it
comes out, it's your birthday and turns out that your wife,
Amanda is top notch a real keeper. Amanda wrote to
us and said it would be a cool present for
you to get a shout out on air and even
a happy birthday. Illegally, we can't sing the song. It's
(03:20):
one of the most like dangerous songs to sing on
air on the planet. Did that one? Did that one
go back into public use? I thought it isn't that
something happened with that. I don't remember. I know there
was a the urban legend that Michael Jackson owned it,
or that Paul we bought it from Paul McCartney or something.
I just for some reason remember seeing a thing that
it was like back in the the fair to use zone.
(03:43):
But you know, I wonder let's see uh doing that. Phil,
I just want you to I want you to know
that we're aware that your birthday was on Sunday. Okay,
so it's cool, we get that. We just wanted to
wish you have a birthday today because it's the clue
sist we'd be able to wish you happy birthday exactly. Well.
Phil sounds like a great guy, him and Amanda both.
(04:05):
I don't think. I don't think you all send us
an angry letter about time and we're doing our best,
just like everybody else here in two But happy birthday, Phil,
Happy birthday indeed. And apparently we're safe to sing it
though we don't have to do that because in the
copyright claim was declared invalid. Warner Chapel Music had claimed
(04:27):
it previously, and they were ordered to pay back fourteen
million dollars in licensafe fees. Were in the clear. I
think we're both look at the same BBC article the
common song you can't sing in public? Right? Correct? Yeah?
So so Phil, Uh, here's to you man, Happy New Year.
I am relatively militant about the celebration birthdays. I think
(04:49):
they're the only real New Year a person gets every
other New Year is just my opinion here, um and
kind of an arbitrary thing based on the calendar. But
except for birthdays that one's yours. Take it, roll with it,
have an amazing day. In the meantime, no matter what
happens on Phil's birthday week, he is going to be
(05:12):
having a better week then. Alex Jones. Alex Jones, you'll
remember it was a long time Holst, the right wing
conspiracy theory thing called and Uh. Alex Jones and our
show have never spoken. We don't agree on a lot
(05:33):
of things, but he has done a lot in terms
of giving us a great opportunity to do impressions, uh,
which is sometimes similar to the nixed impression. Here's what's
going on. I'm Alex Jones into here more there we go? Yes,
uh So. Alex Jones is the creator and point man
for an outfit called info Wars. Back in the day,
(05:57):
info Wars and Above top Sea Grip were two great
websites to find alternative viewpoints and define weird out their
fringe news or conspiracy stuff. Over time, they both got
increasingly politicized and kind of weaponized, and they began focusing
more and more on the realm of US politics, and
(06:21):
this was a conscious decision on the parts of those forums.
They also became a little more antagonistic towards what we
call the mainstream media, and this started to reach ahead
in the case of Sandy Hook. For anybody who is unaware,
the Sandy Hook shooting was horrific event. In two thousand
(06:46):
twelve December fourteen, two thousand twelve, there was a shooting
by a twenty year old named Adam Lanza. It results
in the deaths of twenty eight people, and Sandy Hook
was an elementary school. It also just gotten the crosshairs
of people who believed that the whole thing was made up.
(07:07):
So they were going to parents whose children had literally
died out of school, and they were accusing them of
being part of some grand conspiracy that we looked at
back in the day, and there just wasn't much support
for the idea. It really it seemed like people were
forcing a narrative on on this tragedy, and it was
(07:30):
a narrative that had no no foundation, no supporting evidence. Uh,
and you can imagine this is traumatic beyond words for
the survivors. Wait, so you can't just say anything about
anybody at any time. Well, well, here's the thing, but
didn't didn't those lawyers like literally say he's an entertainer,
(07:50):
he's not to be taken seriously. Second, that was in
a different case too, with his like kids or something.
That's when he got high off chili. Yes, just just quickly.
In the case of Sandy Hook, there was real singling
out of individuals who were victims, like families in in
(08:14):
this case. And that's why it's really messed up when
you compare it to other instances of a conspiracy, where
you know, it's more of a general statement about government
agents did this, or you know, crisis actors in general. Right,
But there were specific there were specific allegations against people,
and it was yeah, and here's what's happening. So freedom
(08:37):
of speech is different from something called defamation. He was
in court for defamation and this lawsuit has been going
back and forth. Originally he offered to pay a hundred
and twenty grands per plaintiff in this group lawsuit by
relatives of the shooting victims who said he was defaming
(08:58):
them by saying this massacre never actually happened. They rejected
the money uh Connecticut judge found him liable for damages
in that case, and it goes into what you were mentioning, Matt,
not just harassment, but death threats from Jones's followers. Well,
info Wars may not be around much longer, at least
(09:22):
not in the its present form, because the news just broke,
just broke yesterday or today, as we record on April eighteen,
two thousand twenty two, when taxes are due and UH
info Wars has filed for bankruptcy. They have filed for bankruptcy,
and in court records they call themselves a conspiracy oriented
(09:45):
website media company. UH. They said they have fifty grander
lesson assets US dollars and somewhere between one million to
ten million dollars worth of liabilities. There were also two
other holding companies that are pleading this Chapter eleven bankruptcy.
The filing within for Wars said there's a quote substantial
(10:07):
likelihood that once damages are determined in the Texas case,
there I should mention there are multiple court cases in
play now that they will not have the money to
pay the Connecticut plaintiffs because they'll just they'll be straight
up out of cash, and right now it's unclear what
(10:29):
the bankruptcy, what the permanent effect of it will be.
On Info Wars, you can read a time about this.
It made the New York Times, made MPR, it made
Wall Street Journal. But right now everybody is trying to
figure out what exactly is going to happen here. And
there are people who are saying, look, this guy is
(10:51):
exercising free speech, he's exercising his opinion. But if you
can make the case that there is defamation, or you
can make the case that someone is encouraging violence against
other people, that's that's a very different thing. Like in
this country, it's legal to go out and a spouse
(11:13):
crazy crazy views, Like it's legal to go out on
your favorite street in anywhere USA and say whatever ridiculous
stuff you want. In general, like if you go out
and you say it is my opinion that the Welsh
are the supreme version of human beings and everybody else
is terrible, well you'll be wrong first because there's not
(11:36):
really any basis to any kind of supremacist argument. But
then also what you're doing is legal, and if you
make a protest that is like for Welsh supremacy, I'm
just picking Welsh people here. I've never run into these views.
But if you make if you make a protest for
that there are a rally or whatever, then all you
have to have is the right permits to do so,
you know, because then it's just like a public safety thing.
(11:59):
By the conversation changes. If you say, I like, encourage
violence against all people who are not Welsh, right, or
you say we're going to take whales back by attacking
Buckingham Palace or something, then that's closer to a terroristic threat, right,
And this is what this is what people are arguing
(12:21):
about right now. I wanted to look deeper into this guy,
so I went to info Wars, which is still up,
and I just want to read this headline to you
because I thought you'd like to hear this. Did Alex
Jones slash info Wars declare bankruptcy? Tune in to learn
the capital letters truth. They don't write out capital letters,
(12:42):
it's just you know, we're an audio podcast, so putting
that in there. Um. Their idea is that there this
is a takedown because somebody is speaking truth to the
power of the globalist agenda. Uh, and they're defending the
First Amendment. What do you guys think of that. Yeah,
chuckle there. Uh yeah, I mean I don't know, man,
(13:05):
Like it's all theater. I mean, you know you mentioned
Above top Secret is not the name the other side. Yeah,
and Info Wars sort of following a similar trajectory. I
wonder if that if they're sort of following the Fox
News model where they realize they can sell a lot
(13:26):
of like um, you know, advertising and make money if
they rile people up and become more of like a
sort of rabble rouser and sort of create contentious debate
and U stir misinformation as supposed to disinformation well whatever anyway,
But do you think that has to do with it?
Like they realized it was a money maker to go
(13:47):
that rat, do you think it was something? Yeah, Okay,
I absolutely think so. It's a it's a profit driven enterprise,
not in it just for funzies. With Above Secret, though,
I remember we we talked some of those guys uh
a while ago, and it you know, I didn't get
that sense at the time at least. But I haven't
been back, honestly, and this is just full disclosure. I
(14:09):
haven't been back to Above Top Secret in a good while. Yeah,
if you go there now it's still online and it
isn't near as politically focused. I think what happened in
a lot of cases, especially as we get closer to
the recent presidential elections. Because Above Top Secret is like
(14:30):
a a community forum wherein anybody can post something, it's
easy for foreign agents of disinformation to start poisoning the well,
start tilting the conversation. This is happening every day on Twitter,
this is happening every day on Reddit. If if you
go to a place with community conversation ability, like the
(14:55):
capability to host community conversations, you're going to see people
trying to tilt a narrative, and they're gonna do it
in a dishonest way. And they are also for profit.
They're also paid by you know, Russia via proxies, China
via proxies, probably the US via proxies. Let's be honest,
everybody's into it. It just works super well. Um. But
(15:16):
if you go to Above top Secret right now, you'll
see posts that say things like Easter is a pagan holiday.
Whoever celebrates Easter is pagan and not Christian. That's a
that's one of the yeah, yeah we did uh and
it's prove me wrong. And then there's a lot of
you know, anti Ukraine stuff there. Um, they they are
(15:39):
heavily politicized, uh, saying things like oh, let me just
pick one here. There's some things that are interesting, like
complex life may have started on Earth much earlier than
we thought. But then there are other things like President
Biden sees or census people who are not now our dimension.
That's based on the recent gaff he had where he
(16:00):
wished the speech. He's like, I'm gonna stand up to
do this. So he finishes this speech and at the
end of it he turns around to like shake someone's hand,
but there's no one there, and so he improvs it
just turns the points to the people like, ha I
got you that really happened. That guy's a charge of
nuclear was But but anyway, that's like, that's a gaff
(16:23):
anybody can have. We know that if you're a public figure,
or if you're in the realm of divisive things like politics,
the quote unquote other side of your opponents are definitely
gonna latch onto anything you do and try to read
the tea leaves of it. Right, Like when um, former
President Donald Trump would trip on things. People made this
(16:45):
huge deal about how the guy was scared of stairs
or you know, it just goes on. And then stuff
for Hillary Clinton when she was running for president, speculation
about her health as well, Like, I mean, it was
all used to malign her, especially I mean those particularly
with her. It was like very kind of sexist rhetoric
around it as well. Yeah, it gets so silly. I mean,
(17:05):
consider also a speculation about health was treated with the
same level of importance as back during the administration of
former President Barack Obama. People would say, what kind of
elitist orders this mustard? He's too good for America? Why
is he wearing a suit that color communists? Stuff like that.
(17:26):
But so, any how, one to give you this update
here right now, there are still some things that have
to be cleared up, but this maybe the end of
info wars. We wouldn't know whether you think that's a
rightful consequence of their actions, whether that is instead as
some people are alleging, whether that is part of an
(17:46):
orchestrated conspiracy to take down people spetching truth to power.
Then was there ever a point where he could have
walked it back but instead down? I thought so if
that kind of thought, So, yeah, this was not his
this was not his first rodeo in this conversation. But
we're gonna pause for word from our sponsors. Can't wait
(18:08):
to hear your views conspiracy at i heeart radio dot
com one three three stuff they don't want you to know.
We'll be right back with more strange news. And we're
back and Ben you beautifully teased the story as a
(18:30):
somewhat short and underwhelming car chase, um and that that
is accurate. In San Francisco, uh sfp D pulled over
a car for a routine traffic stop. It was nighttime. Uh,
this car did not have its headlights on, which we
know is a no no. And uh police in San
Francisco stopped the car. And it happens to be an
(18:52):
autonomous car operated by a company called Cruise. And the
car is a General Motors designed drive or this car
And in this incredible video that it was posted on
April one, which I think maybe some people might have
thought that the audio was doctored or something because of
the date, you know, April fools. But you see the
you see the car getting pulled over, and then you
(19:14):
hear like just off on the side, like from the
Peanut Gallery like, ain't nobody in it? This is crazy.
It's crazy, we're living in the future. Uh. The funniest
part though, is to get back to the underwhelming car chase.
Is the car pulled over, you know as expected, um
for the flashing blue lights and all that stuff. And
then once the officer approached the vehicle, uh, and you know,
(19:38):
realized that there was nobody in the car, the car
like took off, which is the funniest part. Trevor Noah
did a bit on this and he was like, that
car took off like it had weed on it or
something like that. But to be fair, in San Francisco,
so that probably would have been okay. Um, it's like
be cool, man, be cool. But yeah, I mean then
it pulled over again, and U that's mainly the story. Uh.
(20:03):
There is a response from cruise personnel saying that our
A V yielded to the police vehicle then pulled over
to the nearest safe location. Um. An officer contacted cruise
personnel and no citation was issued. Okay, But I think
that the thing that I'm most interested in in this
story is obviously it's a it's a silly, goofy story,
(20:25):
but who gets the citation even if it was issued.
Like they say that the lights were in fact off
and that was due to human error, but like which human?
Like when they say human error, that they didn't go
into detail, does this mean someone back in mission control
like didn't turn the lights on? You think even cars
(20:45):
that you drive, like modern cars, they usually have sensors
on them that turned the lights on automatically at night.
You think a driverless car with the very least have that.
So like what human error? And and who gets the ticket?
And I know we've talked about this before terms of
like you know, if a driverless car were two kills
or injure somebody, that liability would be on the corporation
(21:07):
I guess or what it. I don't quite even remember
how far down that rabbit hole we went. But with
corporations being you know, for all I guess, at least
for political purposes, being treated as as humans. Like what
is the implication for this and the bigger picture? Um?
I think one take away from me is this technology
is still hilariously not ready for you know, mass rollout
(21:27):
because this is you know, San Francisco, it's ground zero
for this kind of stuff. Um, So they try things
out there. Um, but what's next and and and how
many more embarrassing autonomous vehicle stories are we going to
see over the example of years, We're going to see
a lot. Basically, short answer, I mean, it's something I
know that back in when the first at fault autonomous
(21:50):
car accident happened, it was a Google car. It was
a Google prototype and they ended up taking responsibility for this.
It was Alexis r X and it struck a public
transit bus. But it was only going like two miles
an hour, and there was there was human error involved,
(22:11):
but there was also software error involved because it was experimental.
But that was one of the first real world events
that prompts the conversation. It's still like going on now.
The legislation, like I always say, it is going to
take a while to catch up to the technology. In
this case, maybe it would be the the people who
own that car that tried to go on the LAMB briefly,
(22:35):
or the people who programmed it. If it's if it's
owned by a company, it's going to be the company,
right unless there is like a rogue human driver at
the wheel. It's it's tough because that that car doesn't
have a customer yet, right, this is an experimental car,
that's correct. Yeah, there's another company called way Mo that
has also gotten sort of like a trial permission to
(22:56):
deploy autonomous cars. But they have a thing where like
it's basically like a novelty at this point, where it's like, oh,
I want to get a lift and a driverless car,
and in order to participate, drivers have to apply in
advance to be on a wait list and then also
a sign non disclosure agreements in order to get early access.
And you've got to imagine too that if you're doing
(23:18):
that through an app. I mean, I'm sure there's um,
what's the word. I'm looking for waiver type situations even
when you're getting in lift, Like you can't necessarily sue
lift if you get into an accident. I don't know what.
I don't read the fine print on all that. But yeah, guys,
don't you think there's gonna be at some point a
terms of service agreement that you have to sign in
(23:39):
order to get a driver's license as there's more and
more automated vehicles on the road. Oh, good point. Just
even just by participating, just by driving around, you're like
in the mix yes, Yeah, by choosing to drive, to
actively drive a vehicle, you are like removing certain rights
to sue certain companies or whatever because their system is fine.
(24:01):
You make the human error. Driving is not a right,
it's a privilege. That's right. And then we've we've talked
on ridiculous history about the history of the pedestrian and
the term jay walker and jay walker was a term
of abuse that was applied to pedestrians at a time
where the the the almighty automobile was really just coming
(24:21):
into its prominence and the infrastructure was all designed around
roadways for cars with much less focus on pedestrians. So
there was almost this like active campaign to like malign pedestrians,
and the term jay walker was thrown around that way.
I wonder. I mean, obviously, ideally all cars would be
driverless or you know, on a track or something. It
(24:43):
would you know, big picture, if it was done correctly,
take forever, of course, it would you know, theoretically reduce
traffic deaths. But what about the last holdout. It's like, no, man,
I still want to drive my own car. Our human
operated cars going to at some point become illegal or
require some massive, high level of insurance that will that
(25:05):
will price people out gadagas style. Yeah, yeah, I bring
up the jaywalking thing. There's a great car stuff episode
we did about a few years back, but I bring
it up because it's one it's very effective propaganda. You're
a fan of this show, you'll be a fan of
that story. Second, it is illustrative of how these nationwide
conversations end up happening. Usually the consumers vastly outmatched in this.
(25:30):
For the easy answer about who gets the ticket, this
is like, this is the very dumb answer. Okay in theory,
because driverless cars are designed to one never go over
the speed limit, to only be where they're supposed to be,
and three follow all traffic laws, your easiest, dumbest first
answer is that driverless cars will never get tickets while
(25:54):
they're driving themselves. Obviously that's not correct because they've got
a lot of bugs to work out. But I think
right now the legal consensus is if the owner or
the driver of the car is involved in some traffic
incident that results in a ticket and it's due to
the software, if you can prove it was due to
the software, then the manufacturers at fault, not not the
(26:16):
meat bag behind the wheel, got it, and this system,
you know, back to what I was driving at earlier,
would obviously be more efficient the fewer Sorry what happened
driving at you're driving at this thing? Sorry, yes, accidental
pun um, But you know what I was getting at
(26:39):
earlier was the idea that this system would obviously function
at the most at the highest level and the most
predictable level if it was like automated cars, and the
more variables that are introduced by you know, human driven
cars are going to throw all those calculations and systems
and sensors into a less idea fell kind of scenario. Yeah,
(27:02):
that's I mean, I agree, I've read this up like
in the past. To The issue is the infrastructure. If
every car is autonomous, or every vehicle is autonomous, then
barring some kind of uh coronal mass ejection event or
a widespread hack, then everything will be hunky dory, and
that would be a beautiful world for a lot of
(27:23):
people to live in, even though will probably mean the
end of an ownership society or further erosion of it. Uh.
The danger is yeah, the danger is clear. It's going
to be that transition period and there's gonna be a
you know I was thinking of. I never said this
on air, but there were There is the possibility that
there will be pockets wherein autonomous vehicles are not allowed,
(27:48):
and those will increasingly be known as almost like green
zones where humans can still drive. Like secret or secure
military installations might be part of that. Uh, there might
be some old relict populations of human driven cars in
in towns that have decided to ban things. I mean,
that's a possibility. There's a town in Michigan that bands
(28:11):
that still has banned cars. I believe it is. There
are all kinds of ways these things will play out,
and of course there's the looming possibility of large scale
cataclysmic war that will will make autonomous vehicles a way
lower priority. I hope that doesn't happen, but I I agree.
I would like to think that we're we're on the
(28:32):
same page with a lot of a lot of the
big thinkers in the automotive space now, which is that ultimately,
despite whatever incidents might occur, ultimately you can make a
really solid argument that streets are safer with autonomous vehicles.
But the big problem is, this is what keeps me
from going all aboard with it? Um, What if those
(28:54):
what if those cars all come with you know, kill
switches that can be activated by authority. Of course they're
all going to be tracked. They will essentially have to
with a large scale system. And then what if that
authority becomes an oppressive, you know, big brother regime. What
if what if we get an autonomous car system in
the US or maybe a European country, since it's so
(29:15):
much smaller, it probably be easier to do there. And
then they they get a dictator in power and someone
who breaks whatever democratic system they have, and now it's
impossible to protest, it might even become impossible to leave.
I mean that sounds really paranoid, because it kind of is,
But that doesn't make it something we shouldn't think about.
(29:38):
That's that's what freaks go. It's a good point, I mean,
because like you know, infrastructure like roads and street signs
and traffic lights and all that is owned essentially and
operated by the government. Uh and if that started to
get more and more high tech, um, I would imagine
they would also own that too and operate that too.
(29:58):
And if a bad actor were in place, not to
mention things like hackers and all that, like you said,
then they could just co opt the whole system and
make it, you know, to whatever ideological kind of direction
they wanted it to go in back wait wait, wait, no,
you guys, we have to talk about something really fast
where we jump away from here or in the segment.
(30:19):
You all ever had a vehicle that has when when
you look at your lights switches off auto on? Is
that familiar to you, guys? That's what I've had, That's
what I had in my That's what I was saying, Like,
I mean, most of the newer cars are like that.
Either they have like some kind of sensor which would
be auto. I imagine um off. Why does off even
(30:40):
need to exist in that situation? Is that what you want?
Do you guys? Trust your vehicle enough to leave it
on auto at all times, just hoping that everything works
out and your battery never dies because your lights stayed
on for one reason, or I probably more worried about
the battery. Yeah, no, I'm with you there, Matt. It's
a good meaning trust that never will cars news will
(31:04):
to be don't trust him. But yeah, you know that's
a good question. Yeah, cars are slowly becoming autonomous, you know,
like cars that can park themselves. Not just parallel park,
but like drop you off at the mall if you're
one of the people who still goes to the mall
and they can find a parking spot. Cruise control is
an early autonomous quality if you think about it, it's
(31:27):
on the way. See, I see what you're getting at
the The human error that the company copped too could
have been anything from like it could have been a
design flaw by human error and the human that designed
the thing screwed up and did a bad job, or
it was installed incorrectly or something and it's been corrected.
But I just that's you kind of answered my question
(31:49):
as to like who the human in that scenario might
have been. Yeah, when when Anders last was working on
the vehicle, he just he turned the lights to off
instead auto. You know. Problem there you go, So not
a design thing necessarily literally like someone that was, you know,
cleaning it out, and I don't think you know, I know,
I'm with you. There's there's a couple of options. But anyway,
(32:09):
it's interesting stuff and it's it's funny how a simple
little silly story like this can easily uh a bit
of conversation. But it's something that's going to keep generating
conversation for a long time to come as we watch
this kind of fumbling process unfold. But let's take a
quick break and then we'll be back with one more
piece of strange news. All right, we're back you guys.
(32:37):
I was thinking about buying Twitter. You guys want to
go in on that with me? Yeah, I got five
on it. I'm but but I like so you uh
that that? Let me ask you, so Twitter has always
struggled to turn or profit. Why are you why do
you want to buy it? Well, you know, it's mostly
because I've got several billion just lying around, lot of crypto.
(33:01):
I'm trying to find a way to offload some of that.
And just you know, people are kind of mean to
me on there. So I was gonna say, you don't
like the way they edit your tweets? Huh, yeah, exactly exact,
Just joking, just joking. Uh, And uh, that's it for
Elon Musk jokes for the day. Let's jump to this
next story, which I have to say is somewhat confirmed. Ben.
(33:26):
You were able to confirm this through via someone who
sent some messages to you. Do you want to shout
that person out? Just before you even got into Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Let's do a couple a couple of quick shoutouts, most
particularly right now to Dan See or Dan Underscore set
up over on Twitter. Dan, thanks so much as a
regular commentator on my on my Twitter and on conspiracy stuff.
(33:49):
And he hipped me to this story, and then you know,
we kind of group minded, the three of us, because
this is this is uh okay. At first, it's really good,
really good. All right, it seems good, I think, but
there's some implications. It's all about the implications for me. Uh.
(34:11):
Here's here's the story that's coming to us from the
Moscow Times. It was posted today as we record, April eighteenth, Monday,
or at least it was updated last at that time.
The title is Google Maps removes blurring for Russia's military sites.
And I'm just gonna read some of this to you
(34:32):
and just paraphrase a bit of it. Uh. Several Russian
strategic facilities were visible to users today on Google Maps,
revealing the details of Russia's military infrastructure. There are several
searches you can make on Google Maps right now to
find images of quote, military bases, intercontinental ballistic missile launchpads,
(34:57):
naval facilities and key command posts all across Russia. Some
of the newly available images, still quoting Moscow Times here,
include an aircraft carrier, a nuclear weapons store near Murmansk,
submarines in come Schata, and a military air base in
(35:18):
the western city of Kursk. And that right there, just
that alone, knowing that this is happening and it's existing
is kind of terrifying to me in a lot of ways.
Also neat nto, but also why why I mean, I mean,
(35:38):
if if it's true and they did that, the implication
would be that it would be to like help Ukraine
in the war effort. Well, but okay, we're gonna get
into the bigger thing here. Because you don't have to
necessarily use Google Maps satellite imagery to help Ukraine. There
are probably better But so like what it seems like
(36:03):
to me, Well, I know, I hear you, but when
I think, what I think is you by using Google
you're kind of skirting around having another country helping you
out or NATO helping you out. As Ukraine. You got
a private company within the United States, But they're private company.
We're not associated with the U s military alphabetic when
(36:26):
we are, they really are it's like started by okay, whatever,
right exactly. I mean it's like saying that man with
the iron fist was not associated Quentin Tarantino, like he
put his name on it, but he probably did other
stuff anyway, whatever, That's not the best analogy. It was
just around, you know, he was just non set a
(36:46):
little bit not it wasn't like him all. Yeah, but
the thing is, like, the thing here is that now
I'm so I'm so glad that you're interested in this
story as well, because yeah, you have to question the source.
There's clearly a bit of political calculus at play by
being able to say, hey, we various countries NATO, US, etcetera.
(37:09):
Just as you said, aren't explicitly helping who were not
turning up the boil on the pot of nuclear war
or the potential for it. But also, um, I don't
think doesn't this give a lot of power companies. I'm
just saying, like, we're getting close to the cyberpunk and
(37:30):
shadow run every every day. Are they supposed to know
where these sites are? Anyway? If they're like yeah, well again,
this is why it feels like military is involved in
some way or well, there's there are two things here.
This is kind of complicated. They've got satellites. Google has
(37:51):
satellites that they take images of the Earth all the day,
all the day, all day, just going to spin around
taking pictures of the Earth, and everything that is on
the Earth can be seen. Right. What happens is a country,
a um corporation, usually a government will communicate with Alphabet
(38:15):
or Google, whoever it is the folks who are running it,
and we'll say, hey, there is a there are some
coordinates that we need you to blur out because it's
a matter of national security for us in ex country.
I've got a couple of examples here. You guys can
pull them up if you want to. You can actually
see them on Google Maps. May be hard as we're
running our recording streaming recording because it messes with bandwidth.
(38:38):
Google Maps does that, by the way, if you didn't
know that. Uh, But there are a couple I pulled
up where you can look at place in Greece that's right,
and I think it's in Athens, is a military base
and it is fully blurred out, huge swath of land
that you can tell their buildings there and roads, but
you can't tell what anything is. It's full blurred out, Yes, exactly.
(39:04):
There's another one that's in France that is another military
base completely blurred out huge. It's like it looks like
a city, like almost I don't know a good portion
of a city that is fully blurred out. It's intense stuff.
But then if you look at the tweet that was
sent out by Ukrainian Armed Forces or Armed Forces Ukraine,
(39:27):
you can see some of the actual images. You can
find that right now if you search for it. You
can just take a look at the satellite imagery and
there are clear pictures of submarines that should probably not
be seen, pictures of again military bases in Russia that
probably should not be seen, um at least by regular
old folks. Yeah, I'm glad you mentioned this, because there
(39:48):
are also things that show an army in not batt
already shape, honestly, like cannibalizing stuff for parts, just trying
to try and to keep the larger engine of a
military running. So if any if at the very least,
it's kind of effective propaganda, right, But there's there's not
(40:12):
a real I would say, there's not any real actionable
value that's given to Ukraine from doing this, because they
would have already had access to military satellite intelligence. Um.
But there is there is one fun thing this is
related to that I want to remind you off at
the end of this, isn't it also public knowledge or
(40:33):
agreed upon that we are helping them with intel to
some degree or is that still up in the air
as to whether that's true or not. I don't know
the answer to that today on April eighteenth, I don't
know officially if NATO or the United States is helping
with military intelligence. Um well, they're definitely helping with hardware
(40:54):
and logistics, so intelligence would go kind of hand in
hand with that. The big red lines are things like
sending in NATO troops to fight or sending for US
troops to fight. But giving them toys is um well,
and intelligence or feel like very different things to me.
Giving them giving them arms versus like tracking enemy troop movements,
(41:19):
you know, that feels like very different. I honestly don't
know if the United States or any allies are doing that.
There was some high level, high ranking official, maybe retired,
that came out and said that we're almost definitely doing that.
Um And now I'm having a hard time finding it.
But I swear I heard it was. It was probably
someone who has now been relegated to like a you know,
(41:41):
high value talking head. But but someone didn't come out
and say, I think that we're doing that most likely. Well,
earlier in February Google Google shut down some of the
location tracking services within Ukraine and some of the areas
of conflict there on purpose in order to try and
pro vent people from tracking civilian movements, uh and like
(42:03):
where civilians were hiding and going. I know, the Wall
Street Journal said about five days ago that the Biden
administration just said they're expanding the intelligence the US is giving.
And I know, back in March, NATO said they're stepping
up intelligence sharing, specifically on cyber attacks. So it might
(42:24):
be an uneven application of stuff, because you know, it's
still even when countries have common enemies, they don't have
they're not friends, they're just their coworkers for a second,
and they're they're not going to automatically give up everything
they have because that will bite them in the ass later. Well,
and there's always obviously a line that we're not willing
(42:45):
to cross publicly anyway, in order to maintain some semblance
of like, yeah, we're not like all in, but we're
definitely helping. They're not hiding that. And the rhetoric sure
as he did, you know with Biden calling um Putin
a wark, him at all In a butcher and all
that stuff. So it's certainly no mincing words. But there
there must be a line. Once you cross, then you
(43:07):
are now in the same line of fire as as
the country that's being attacked, and those lines shift sometimes.
Uh and Russia and the US, to be fair, have
both done that in the past. They've changed what counts
as a red line. Uh in you know, one direction
or another. I do oh. I do want to say though,
(43:28):
just as a quick tangent, this reminds me of something
while we're talking about satellite blurry. You know, you, if
you're listening now as a private citizen, you don't have
to be a military. You don't have to be a
government or a state level actor to ask Google to
blur some stuff for you. You could get them to
blur your house a Google street view, and I think
you should unless you ever want to sell it, which
(43:51):
you shouldn't. Which you shouldn't blur it because Zillo and
all these other places linked directly to a street view
on often then I want to take it back to
actionable intelligence. What good, seriously does a Google Maps satellite
view do for any anybody when it comes to intelligence.
(44:12):
Let's say you're looking at a satellite image on Google
Maps of of nuclear submarines or nuclear capable submarines docked
somewhere in Russia or let's say even off the coast
of the Crimean Peninsula. You're looking at those on Google Maps.
What does that do for you? Those submarines could be
docked there. Still by the time that image is updated
(44:33):
and you get a new satellite image of that area,
those submarines could very well be gone, and probably would
be gone. There may be a hangar that has a
lot of airplanes or something that are you know, parked
their temporarily, but are they going to be there the
next time that satellite updates or by the time you
reach that area. I don't know. Possibly it feels like
(44:55):
um almost like a boast or a pr push or
just like hey, yeah, we we see your subs, We
know your subs are there, and we're gonna show everybody
like as I don't know, some kind of play that
just that isn't actually military it's more hearts and minds
kind of thing. Yeah, that's why. That's why again I
think the primary, the most apparent push here is propaganda.
(45:19):
As you nailed it, the subs A good sub is
not stationary, right, Uh. And so there's also but there's
there's also you know, the issue of the time interval
on the observation here. So Google is going to have
a delay at least for what the public can see.
But the most valuable satellite data lets you factor that
(45:41):
into upcoming attacks or operations. So if you if you
hear claims about some you know, kick ass new kind
of jet fighter, and then you're able to have other
It's all about jigsaw puzzling up different pieces of intelligence, right,
So you have signals intelligence telling you what thing is
it confirmed by human intelligence or asset on the ground.
(46:03):
And then can you look at this like real time
picture of a hangar, which the US can do by
the way, and a lot of NATO can as well. Uh,
And can you see that real time picture and then
have that moment where you go, uh, well, gee willakers
Uh these guys might attack us with some new super plane,
but it looks like they've got two of them. That
(46:24):
could actually fly or something like that, for example, and
then you could allocate your resources to a more worthwhile endeavor.
I mean, that's that's the goal. But with this, you know,
we don't know how old the Google street View stuff
is or Google Maps excuse me, uh we again. Yeah,
that's why. That's why I'm on the same page. That's
(46:45):
why I want to kick it off like it's I
think it's propaganda. I mean, sure, it feels like none
of us were able to confirm many examples of it. Actually, no, no,
we were the person we shout it out in the beginning.
You can actually, I mean I could give you the
I don't know how to read it, Ben, I'm sorry,
I thought I thought that wasn't wasn't that a reference
to another type of installation that was blurred, But we
(47:06):
weren't able to confirm the Russian stuff. Those were examples
of that. But the person we shout it out in
the beginning sent us some actual coordinates on Google that
seemed to show specific locations where we're stuff Russian stuff
is going down that we're not supposed to see. Yes,
you can, you can head over on Twitter and check
(47:28):
that stuff out, but just realize that by the time
this comes out, those if the Russian forces don't want
you to see a particular thing, then, like Matt said,
they're just going to move their stuff if they know
what they're doing. Except some of these are installations that
would be pretty difficult to move because they are, you know,
built into the ground. Specifically, thinking about some of their
(47:50):
missiles that are in uh silos and stuff. Well, that's
a weird one. Guys. Google is always going to exist,
I think at this point. I'm not sure how that
thing isn't too big to fail. Uh So Google will
always be watching everybody, including you right now because you're
holding a phone or it's in your pocket, or watching
(48:11):
your pants. It's there's very little light in there. But
they get is that a euphemism? I like, how long?
How long before private tech company gets openly involved in
a hot conflict? How far away are we? Do you
think it's in our lifetime? Thing? And who watches the
(48:32):
pants watchers? You know? That's what I want to know.
It'll be a meta war, and it will take place
within the metaverse, and it will be an uprising that
occurs against metal. Can we have a sick robot avatars
with like grabby claw hands and like laser cannons. It'll
be it'll be a lot like Ready Player one. I think,
just cool. It tired the metaverse. All right, Well, I'm
(48:57):
gonna stick with Alden Ring for now. I guess this
els as long as I don't have to play that online.
Uh yes, yes, uh, this is this is crazy stuff.
Everything we've talked about is leading to bigger situations. You know,
we want to hear from you, folks, because at least
(49:18):
like every story we talked about here is either at
the beginning or still unfinished. They haven't been resolved. We
can't wait to hear your take. You are the most
important part of this show. We can't wait to hear
from you. We try to be easy to find online,
not just there, but we have like so many ways
you can talk to us. Yeah, not all the ways,
(49:38):
but a good many of them. You can find us
on Facebook, you can find us on Twitter. You can
find us on YouTube under the handle Conspiracy Stuff on
Instagram or Conspiracy Stuff Show. But wait, there's more. Yes,
call our number one eight three three std w y
t K. You will hear Ben's voice than a beep.
(49:58):
Then you've got three minutes in the beginning. Please give
yourself a cool nickname, let us know if we can
use your voice and message on the air, and then
say whatever. Give us comments on this episode, tell us
an episode you want us to cover anything, and just
tell us about a weird thing we need to search.
Maybe not on Google, probably on something else, but we'll
search for it. We don't care whatever. Our bosses know
(50:20):
that we have weird search. It's on our computers. Uh.
If you don't want to use your phone to talk
to us instead, why not send us an email. We
are conspiracy at iHeart radio dot com. Stuff they don't
(50:51):
want you to know. Is a production of I heart Radio.
For more podcasts from my heart Radio, visit the i
heart Radio 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 the stuff they don't want you to know. A
production of My Heart Grading. Hello, welcome back to the show.
(00:25):
My name is Mett, my name is Nol. They called
me Ben. We are joined as always with our super
producer Alexis code named Doc Holiday Jackson. Most importantly, you
are you. You are here, and that makes this the
stuff they don't want you to know. It's the top
of the week. We hope everybody had a great weekend,
and we hope that you are in the mood for
(00:47):
strange things and news, because that's what we do at
the top of the week, we explore strange news. Today,
we're going to see uh, some news that might strike
people as sad. I think it's a good thing. We're
going to see UH brief car chase that might surprise you.
(01:08):
We're also going to uh. We're also going to I think,
enter into a discussion that initially feels good but might
have some long range consequences. It's about the power of
private tech companies. But I was thinking quickly before you
jump in. Yeah, I think we need to make a
new kids show. We'll call it Blues and News. It
(01:30):
will feature some kind of blue little character, maybe a
cat this time that we explore news that gives us
the blues together. They we need do that that with
legal though. We don't want to risk copyright infringement. What
about what about a blue canoe? Right? Isn't that? I'm
just thinking in terms of rhymes here. Remember that that
(01:51):
cartoon from the like I think seventies the Herculoids. Wait no,
never mind that it's other herculoids. It was a weird offshoot,
like alternate reality version of the Flintstones, where there was
a character called the Schmoo. Do you guys remember the Shmoo?
He was a blobby ghost looking guy. He inexplicably existed
in the Flintstones universe and he was like just schmooing
(02:12):
around and they call him the Schmoo. You know what
blue new is? G n you. It's like the street
name for with the Wilder Beast. But I don't know
how good they would be at finding clues. A cat
might be better just because they're more They seem like
they have higher dress. Hey, yeah, so before we begin,
tell us what you think about that animal idea, what
(02:34):
would be what kind of animals should we go with
for our children's show? And don't think we're joking about
children's content, Folks can't spoil it too much, but we're
getting weird situations. I was thinking we could start today's
show and start off this week with a surprise announcement
to one of our long time conspiracy realist Phil g
(02:58):
Phil Happy birthday. If you're hearing this the day it
comes out, it's your birthday and turns out that your wife,
Amanda is top notch a real keeper. Amanda wrote to
us and said it would be a cool present for
you to get a shout out on air and even
a happy birthday. Illegally, we can't sing the song. It's
(03:20):
one of the most like dangerous songs to sing on
air on the planet. Did that one? Did that one
go back into public use? I thought it isn't that
something happened with that. I don't remember. I know there
was a the urban legend that Michael Jackson owned it,
or that Paul we bought it from Paul McCartney or something.
I just for some reason remember seeing a thing that
it was like back in the the fair to use zone.
(03:43):
But you know, I wonder let's see uh doing that. Phil,
I just want you to I want you to know
that we're aware that your birthday was on Sunday. Okay,
so it's cool, we get that. We just wanted to
wish you have a birthday today because it's the clue
sist we'd be able to wish you happy birthday exactly. Well.
Phil sounds like a great guy, him and Amanda both.
(04:05):
I don't think. I don't think you all send us
an angry letter about time and we're doing our best,
just like everybody else here in two But happy birthday, Phil,
Happy birthday indeed. And apparently we're safe to sing it
though we don't have to do that because in the
copyright claim was declared invalid. Warner Chapel Music had claimed
(04:27):
it previously, and they were ordered to pay back fourteen
million dollars in licensafe fees. Were in the clear. I
think we're both look at the same BBC article the
common song you can't sing in public? Right? Correct? Yeah?
So so Phil, Uh, here's to you man, Happy New Year.
I am relatively militant about the celebration birthdays. I think
(04:49):
they're the only real New Year a person gets every
other New Year is just my opinion here, um and
kind of an arbitrary thing based on the calendar. But
except for birthdays that one's yours. Take it, roll with it,
have an amazing day. In the meantime, no matter what
happens on Phil's birthday week, he is going to be
(05:12):
having a better week then. Alex Jones. Alex Jones, you'll
remember it was a long time Holst, the right wing
conspiracy theory thing called and Uh. Alex Jones and our
show have never spoken. We don't agree on a lot
(05:33):
of things, but he has done a lot in terms
of giving us a great opportunity to do impressions, uh,
which is sometimes similar to the nixed impression. Here's what's
going on. I'm Alex Jones into here more there we go? Yes,
uh So. Alex Jones is the creator and point man
for an outfit called info Wars. Back in the day,
(05:57):
info Wars and Above top Sea Grip were two great
websites to find alternative viewpoints and define weird out their
fringe news or conspiracy stuff. Over time, they both got
increasingly politicized and kind of weaponized, and they began focusing
more and more on the realm of US politics, and
(06:21):
this was a conscious decision on the parts of those forums.
They also became a little more antagonistic towards what we
call the mainstream media, and this started to reach ahead
in the case of Sandy Hook. For anybody who is unaware,
the Sandy Hook shooting was horrific event. In two thousand
(06:46):
twelve December fourteen, two thousand twelve, there was a shooting
by a twenty year old named Adam Lanza. It results
in the deaths of twenty eight people, and Sandy Hook
was an elementary school. It also just gotten the crosshairs
of people who believed that the whole thing was made up.
(07:07):
So they were going to parents whose children had literally
died out of school, and they were accusing them of
being part of some grand conspiracy that we looked at
back in the day, and there just wasn't much support
for the idea. It really it seemed like people were
forcing a narrative on on this tragedy, and it was
(07:30):
a narrative that had no no foundation, no supporting evidence. Uh,
and you can imagine this is traumatic beyond words for
the survivors. Wait, so you can't just say anything about
anybody at any time. Well, well, here's the thing, but
didn't didn't those lawyers like literally say he's an entertainer,
(07:50):
he's not to be taken seriously. Second, that was in
a different case too, with his like kids or something.
That's when he got high off chili. Yes, just just quickly.
In the case of Sandy Hook, there was real singling
out of individuals who were victims, like families in in
(08:14):
this case. And that's why it's really messed up when
you compare it to other instances of a conspiracy, where
you know, it's more of a general statement about government
agents did this, or you know, crisis actors in general. Right,
But there were specific there were specific allegations against people,
and it was yeah, and here's what's happening. So freedom
(08:37):
of speech is different from something called defamation. He was
in court for defamation and this lawsuit has been going
back and forth. Originally he offered to pay a hundred
and twenty grands per plaintiff in this group lawsuit by
relatives of the shooting victims who said he was defaming
(08:58):
them by saying this massacre never actually happened. They rejected
the money uh Connecticut judge found him liable for damages
in that case, and it goes into what you were mentioning, Matt,
not just harassment, but death threats from Jones's followers. Well,
info Wars may not be around much longer, at least
(09:22):
not in the its present form, because the news just broke,
just broke yesterday or today, as we record on April eighteen,
two thousand twenty two, when taxes are due and UH
info Wars has filed for bankruptcy. They have filed for bankruptcy,
and in court records they call themselves a conspiracy oriented
(09:45):
website media company. UH. They said they have fifty grander
lesson assets US dollars and somewhere between one million to
ten million dollars worth of liabilities. There were also two
other holding companies that are pleading this Chapter eleven bankruptcy.
The filing within for Wars said there's a quote substantial
(10:07):
likelihood that once damages are determined in the Texas case,
there I should mention there are multiple court cases in
play now that they will not have the money to
pay the Connecticut plaintiffs because they'll just they'll be straight
up out of cash, and right now it's unclear what
(10:29):
the bankruptcy, what the permanent effect of it will be.
On Info Wars, you can read a time about this.
It made the New York Times, made MPR, it made
Wall Street Journal. But right now everybody is trying to
figure out what exactly is going to happen here. And
there are people who are saying, look, this guy is
(10:51):
exercising free speech, he's exercising his opinion. But if you
can make the case that there is defamation, or you
can make the case that someone is encouraging violence against
other people, that's that's a very different thing. Like in
this country, it's legal to go out and a spouse
(11:13):
crazy crazy views, Like it's legal to go out on
your favorite street in anywhere USA and say whatever ridiculous
stuff you want. In general, like if you go out
and you say it is my opinion that the Welsh
are the supreme version of human beings and everybody else
is terrible, well you'll be wrong first because there's not
(11:36):
really any basis to any kind of supremacist argument. But
then also what you're doing is legal, and if you
make a protest that is like for Welsh supremacy, I'm
just picking Welsh people here. I've never run into these views.
But if you make if you make a protest for
that there are a rally or whatever, then all you
have to have is the right permits to do so,
you know, because then it's just like a public safety thing.
(11:59):
By the conversation changes. If you say, I like, encourage
violence against all people who are not Welsh, right, or
you say we're going to take whales back by attacking
Buckingham Palace or something, then that's closer to a terroristic threat, right,
And this is what this is what people are arguing
(12:21):
about right now. I wanted to look deeper into this guy,
so I went to info Wars, which is still up,
and I just want to read this headline to you
because I thought you'd like to hear this. Did Alex
Jones slash info Wars declare bankruptcy? Tune in to learn
the capital letters truth. They don't write out capital letters,
(12:42):
it's just you know, we're an audio podcast, so putting
that in there. Um. Their idea is that there this
is a takedown because somebody is speaking truth to the
power of the globalist agenda. Uh, and they're defending the
First Amendment. What do you guys think of that. Yeah,
chuckle there. Uh yeah, I mean I don't know, man,
(13:05):
Like it's all theater. I mean, you know you mentioned
Above top Secret is not the name the other side. Yeah,
and Info Wars sort of following a similar trajectory. I
wonder if that if they're sort of following the Fox
News model where they realize they can sell a lot
(13:26):
of like um, you know, advertising and make money if
they rile people up and become more of like a
sort of rabble rouser and sort of create contentious debate
and U stir misinformation as supposed to disinformation well whatever anyway,
But do you think that has to do with it?
Like they realized it was a money maker to go
(13:47):
that rat, do you think it was something? Yeah, Okay,
I absolutely think so. It's a it's a profit driven enterprise,
not in it just for funzies. With Above Secret, though,
I remember we we talked some of those guys uh
a while ago, and it you know, I didn't get
that sense at the time at least. But I haven't
been back, honestly, and this is just full disclosure. I
(14:09):
haven't been back to Above Top Secret in a good while. Yeah,
if you go there now it's still online and it
isn't near as politically focused. I think what happened in
a lot of cases, especially as we get closer to
the recent presidential elections. Because Above Top Secret is like
(14:30):
a a community forum wherein anybody can post something, it's
easy for foreign agents of disinformation to start poisoning the well,
start tilting the conversation. This is happening every day on Twitter,
this is happening every day on Reddit. If if you
go to a place with community conversation ability, like the
(14:55):
capability to host community conversations, you're going to see people
trying to tilt a narrative, and they're gonna do it
in a dishonest way. And they are also for profit.
They're also paid by you know, Russia via proxies, China
via proxies, probably the US via proxies. Let's be honest,
everybody's into it. It just works super well. Um. But
(15:16):
if you go to Above top Secret right now, you'll
see posts that say things like Easter is a pagan holiday.
Whoever celebrates Easter is pagan and not Christian. That's a
that's one of the yeah, yeah we did uh and
it's prove me wrong. And then there's a lot of
you know, anti Ukraine stuff there. Um, they they are
(15:39):
heavily politicized, uh, saying things like oh, let me just
pick one here. There's some things that are interesting, like
complex life may have started on Earth much earlier than
we thought. But then there are other things like President
Biden sees or census people who are not now our dimension.
That's based on the recent gaff he had where he
(16:00):
wished the speech. He's like, I'm gonna stand up to
do this. So he finishes this speech and at the
end of it he turns around to like shake someone's hand,
but there's no one there, and so he improvs it
just turns the points to the people like, ha I
got you that really happened. That guy's a charge of
nuclear was But but anyway, that's like, that's a gaff
(16:23):
anybody can have. We know that if you're a public figure,
or if you're in the realm of divisive things like politics,
the quote unquote other side of your opponents are definitely
gonna latch onto anything you do and try to read
the tea leaves of it. Right, Like when um, former
President Donald Trump would trip on things. People made this
(16:45):
huge deal about how the guy was scared of stairs
or you know, it just goes on. And then stuff
for Hillary Clinton when she was running for president, speculation
about her health as well, Like, I mean, it was
all used to malign her, especially I mean those particularly
with her. It was like very kind of sexist rhetoric
around it as well. Yeah, it gets so silly. I mean,
(17:05):
consider also a speculation about health was treated with the
same level of importance as back during the administration of
former President Barack Obama. People would say, what kind of
elitist orders this mustard? He's too good for America? Why
is he wearing a suit that color communists? Stuff like that.
(17:26):
But so, any how, one to give you this update
here right now, there are still some things that have
to be cleared up, but this maybe the end of
info wars. We wouldn't know whether you think that's a
rightful consequence of their actions, whether that is instead as
some people are alleging, whether that is part of an
(17:46):
orchestrated conspiracy to take down people spetching truth to power.
Then was there ever a point where he could have
walked it back but instead down? I thought so if
that kind of thought, So, yeah, this was not his
this was not his first rodeo in this conversation. But
we're gonna pause for word from our sponsors. Can't wait
(18:08):
to hear your views conspiracy at i heeart radio dot
com one three three stuff they don't want you to know.
We'll be right back with more strange news. And we're
back and Ben you beautifully teased the story as a
(18:30):
somewhat short and underwhelming car chase, um and that that
is accurate. In San Francisco, uh sfp D pulled over
a car for a routine traffic stop. It was nighttime. Uh,
this car did not have its headlights on, which we
know is a no no. And uh police in San
Francisco stopped the car. And it happens to be an
(18:52):
autonomous car operated by a company called Cruise. And the
car is a General Motors designed drive or this car
And in this incredible video that it was posted on
April one, which I think maybe some people might have
thought that the audio was doctored or something because of
the date, you know, April fools. But you see the
you see the car getting pulled over, and then you
(19:14):
hear like just off on the side, like from the
Peanut Gallery like, ain't nobody in it? This is crazy.
It's crazy, we're living in the future. Uh. The funniest
part though, is to get back to the underwhelming car chase.
Is the car pulled over, you know as expected, um
for the flashing blue lights and all that stuff. And
then once the officer approached the vehicle, uh, and you know,
(19:38):
realized that there was nobody in the car, the car
like took off, which is the funniest part. Trevor Noah
did a bit on this and he was like, that
car took off like it had weed on it or
something like that. But to be fair, in San Francisco,
so that probably would have been okay. Um, it's like
be cool, man, be cool. But yeah, I mean then
it pulled over again, and U that's mainly the story. Uh.
(20:03):
There is a response from cruise personnel saying that our
A V yielded to the police vehicle then pulled over
to the nearest safe location. Um. An officer contacted cruise
personnel and no citation was issued. Okay, But I think
that the thing that I'm most interested in in this
story is obviously it's a it's a silly, goofy story,
(20:25):
but who gets the citation even if it was issued.
Like they say that the lights were in fact off
and that was due to human error, but like which human?
Like when they say human error, that they didn't go
into detail, does this mean someone back in mission control
like didn't turn the lights on? You think even cars
(20:45):
that you drive, like modern cars, they usually have sensors
on them that turned the lights on automatically at night.
You think a driverless car with the very least have that.
So like what human error? And and who gets the ticket?
And I know we've talked about this before terms of
like you know, if a driverless car were two kills
or injure somebody, that liability would be on the corporation
(21:07):
I guess or what it. I don't quite even remember
how far down that rabbit hole we went. But with
corporations being you know, for all I guess, at least
for political purposes, being treated as as humans. Like what
is the implication for this and the bigger picture? Um?
I think one take away from me is this technology
is still hilariously not ready for you know, mass rollout
(21:27):
because this is you know, San Francisco, it's ground zero
for this kind of stuff. Um, So they try things
out there. Um, but what's next and and and how
many more embarrassing autonomous vehicle stories are we going to
see over the example of years, We're going to see
a lot. Basically, short answer, I mean, it's something I
know that back in when the first at fault autonomous
(21:50):
car accident happened, it was a Google car. It was
a Google prototype and they ended up taking responsibility for this.
It was Alexis r X and it struck a public
transit bus. But it was only going like two miles
an hour, and there was there was human error involved,
(22:11):
but there was also software error involved because it was experimental.
But that was one of the first real world events
that prompts the conversation. It's still like going on now.
The legislation, like I always say, it is going to
take a while to catch up to the technology. In
this case, maybe it would be the the people who
own that car that tried to go on the LAMB briefly,
(22:35):
or the people who programmed it. If it's if it's
owned by a company, it's going to be the company,
right unless there is like a rogue human driver at
the wheel. It's it's tough because that that car doesn't
have a customer yet, right, this is an experimental car,
that's correct. Yeah, there's another company called way Mo that
has also gotten sort of like a trial permission to
(22:56):
deploy autonomous cars. But they have a thing where like
it's basically like a novelty at this point, where it's like, oh,
I want to get a lift and a driverless car,
and in order to participate, drivers have to apply in
advance to be on a wait list and then also
a sign non disclosure agreements in order to get early access.
And you've got to imagine too that if you're doing
(23:18):
that through an app. I mean, I'm sure there's um,
what's the word. I'm looking for waiver type situations even
when you're getting in lift, Like you can't necessarily sue
lift if you get into an accident. I don't know what.
I don't read the fine print on all that. But yeah, guys,
don't you think there's gonna be at some point a
terms of service agreement that you have to sign in
(23:39):
order to get a driver's license as there's more and
more automated vehicles on the road. Oh, good point. Just
even just by participating, just by driving around, you're like
in the mix yes, Yeah, by choosing to drive, to
actively drive a vehicle, you are like removing certain rights
to sue certain companies or whatever because their system is fine.
(24:01):
You make the human error. Driving is not a right,
it's a privilege. That's right. And then we've we've talked
on ridiculous history about the history of the pedestrian and
the term jay walker and jay walker was a term
of abuse that was applied to pedestrians at a time
where the the the almighty automobile was really just coming
(24:21):
into its prominence and the infrastructure was all designed around
roadways for cars with much less focus on pedestrians. So
there was almost this like active campaign to like malign pedestrians,
and the term jay walker was thrown around that way.
I wonder. I mean, obviously, ideally all cars would be
driverless or you know, on a track or something. It
(24:43):
would you know, big picture, if it was done correctly,
take forever, of course, it would you know, theoretically reduce
traffic deaths. But what about the last holdout. It's like, no, man,
I still want to drive my own car. Our human
operated cars going to at some point become illegal or
require some massive, high level of insurance that will that
(25:05):
will price people out gadagas style. Yeah, yeah, I bring
up the jaywalking thing. There's a great car stuff episode
we did about a few years back, but I bring
it up because it's one it's very effective propaganda. You're
a fan of this show, you'll be a fan of
that story. Second, it is illustrative of how these nationwide
conversations end up happening. Usually the consumers vastly outmatched in this.
(25:30):
For the easy answer about who gets the ticket, this
is like, this is the very dumb answer. Okay in theory,
because driverless cars are designed to one never go over
the speed limit, to only be where they're supposed to be,
and three follow all traffic laws, your easiest, dumbest first
answer is that driverless cars will never get tickets while
(25:54):
they're driving themselves. Obviously that's not correct because they've got
a lot of bugs to work out. But I think
right now the legal consensus is if the owner or
the driver of the car is involved in some traffic
incident that results in a ticket and it's due to
the software, if you can prove it was due to
the software, then the manufacturers at fault, not not the
(26:16):
meat bag behind the wheel, got it, and this system,
you know, back to what I was driving at earlier,
would obviously be more efficient the fewer Sorry what happened
driving at you're driving at this thing? Sorry, yes, accidental
pun um, But you know what I was getting at
(26:39):
earlier was the idea that this system would obviously function
at the most at the highest level and the most
predictable level if it was like automated cars, and the
more variables that are introduced by you know, human driven
cars are going to throw all those calculations and systems
and sensors into a less idea fell kind of scenario. Yeah,
(27:02):
that's I mean, I agree, I've read this up like
in the past. To The issue is the infrastructure. If
every car is autonomous, or every vehicle is autonomous, then
barring some kind of uh coronal mass ejection event or
a widespread hack, then everything will be hunky dory, and
that would be a beautiful world for a lot of
(27:23):
people to live in, even though will probably mean the
end of an ownership society or further erosion of it. Uh.
The danger is yeah, the danger is clear. It's going
to be that transition period and there's gonna be a
you know I was thinking of. I never said this
on air, but there were There is the possibility that
there will be pockets wherein autonomous vehicles are not allowed,
(27:48):
and those will increasingly be known as almost like green
zones where humans can still drive. Like secret or secure
military installations might be part of that. Uh, there might
be some old relict populations of human driven cars in
in towns that have decided to ban things. I mean,
that's a possibility. There's a town in Michigan that bands
(28:11):
that still has banned cars. I believe it is. There
are all kinds of ways these things will play out,
and of course there's the looming possibility of large scale
cataclysmic war that will will make autonomous vehicles a way
lower priority. I hope that doesn't happen, but I I agree.
I would like to think that we're we're on the
(28:32):
same page with a lot of a lot of the
big thinkers in the automotive space now, which is that ultimately,
despite whatever incidents might occur, ultimately you can make a
really solid argument that streets are safer with autonomous vehicles.
But the big problem is, this is what keeps me
from going all aboard with it? Um, What if those
(28:54):
what if those cars all come with you know, kill
switches that can be activated by authority. Of course they're
all going to be tracked. They will essentially have to
with a large scale system. And then what if that
authority becomes an oppressive, you know, big brother regime. What
if what if we get an autonomous car system in
the US or maybe a European country, since it's so
(29:15):
much smaller, it probably be easier to do there. And
then they they get a dictator in power and someone
who breaks whatever democratic system they have, and now it's
impossible to protest, it might even become impossible to leave.
I mean that sounds really paranoid, because it kind of is,
But that doesn't make it something we shouldn't think about.
(29:38):
That's that's what freaks go. It's a good point, I mean,
because like you know, infrastructure like roads and street signs
and traffic lights and all that is owned essentially and
operated by the government. Uh and if that started to
get more and more high tech, um, I would imagine
they would also own that too and operate that too.
(29:58):
And if a bad actor were in place, not to
mention things like hackers and all that, like you said,
then they could just co opt the whole system and
make it, you know, to whatever ideological kind of direction
they wanted it to go in back wait wait, wait, no,
you guys, we have to talk about something really fast
where we jump away from here or in the segment.
(30:19):
You all ever had a vehicle that has when when
you look at your lights switches off auto on? Is
that familiar to you, guys? That's what I've had, That's
what I had in my That's what I was saying, Like,
I mean, most of the newer cars are like that.
Either they have like some kind of sensor which would
be auto. I imagine um off. Why does off even
(30:40):
need to exist in that situation? Is that what you want?
Do you guys? Trust your vehicle enough to leave it
on auto at all times, just hoping that everything works
out and your battery never dies because your lights stayed
on for one reason, or I probably more worried about
the battery. Yeah, no, I'm with you there, Matt. It's
a good meaning trust that never will cars news will
(31:04):
to be don't trust him. But yeah, you know that's
a good question. Yeah, cars are slowly becoming autonomous, you know,
like cars that can park themselves. Not just parallel park,
but like drop you off at the mall if you're
one of the people who still goes to the mall
and they can find a parking spot. Cruise control is
an early autonomous quality if you think about it, it's
(31:27):
on the way. See, I see what you're getting at
the The human error that the company copped too could
have been anything from like it could have been a
design flaw by human error and the human that designed
the thing screwed up and did a bad job, or
it was installed incorrectly or something and it's been corrected.
But I just that's you kind of answered my question
(31:49):
as to like who the human in that scenario might
have been. Yeah, when when Anders last was working on
the vehicle, he just he turned the lights to off
instead auto. You know. Problem there you go, So not
a design thing necessarily literally like someone that was, you know,
cleaning it out, and I don't think you know, I know,
I'm with you. There's there's a couple of options. But anyway,
(32:09):
it's interesting stuff and it's it's funny how a simple
little silly story like this can easily uh a bit
of conversation. But it's something that's going to keep generating
conversation for a long time to come as we watch
this kind of fumbling process unfold. But let's take a
quick break and then we'll be back with one more
piece of strange news. All right, we're back you guys.
(32:37):
I was thinking about buying Twitter. You guys want to
go in on that with me? Yeah, I got five
on it. I'm but but I like so you uh
that that? Let me ask you, so Twitter has always
struggled to turn or profit. Why are you why do
you want to buy it? Well, you know, it's mostly
because I've got several billion just lying around, lot of crypto.
(33:01):
I'm trying to find a way to offload some of that.
And just you know, people are kind of mean to
me on there. So I was gonna say, you don't
like the way they edit your tweets? Huh, yeah, exactly exact,
Just joking, just joking. Uh, And uh, that's it for
Elon Musk jokes for the day. Let's jump to this
next story, which I have to say is somewhat confirmed. Ben.
(33:26):
You were able to confirm this through via someone who
sent some messages to you. Do you want to shout
that person out? Just before you even got into Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Let's do a couple a couple of quick shoutouts, most
particularly right now to Dan See or Dan Underscore set
up over on Twitter. Dan, thanks so much as a
regular commentator on my on my Twitter and on conspiracy stuff.
(33:49):
And he hipped me to this story, and then you know,
we kind of group minded, the three of us, because
this is this is uh okay. At first, it's really good,
really good. All right, it seems good, I think, but
there's some implications. It's all about the implications for me. Uh.
(34:11):
Here's here's the story that's coming to us from the
Moscow Times. It was posted today as we record, April eighteenth, Monday,
or at least it was updated last at that time.
The title is Google Maps removes blurring for Russia's military sites.
And I'm just gonna read some of this to you
(34:32):
and just paraphrase a bit of it. Uh. Several Russian
strategic facilities were visible to users today on Google Maps,
revealing the details of Russia's military infrastructure. There are several
searches you can make on Google Maps right now to
find images of quote, military bases, intercontinental ballistic missile launchpads,
(34:57):
naval facilities and key command posts all across Russia. Some
of the newly available images, still quoting Moscow Times here,
include an aircraft carrier, a nuclear weapons store near Murmansk,
submarines in come Schata, and a military air base in
(35:18):
the western city of Kursk. And that right there, just
that alone, knowing that this is happening and it's existing
is kind of terrifying to me in a lot of ways.
Also neat nto, but also why why I mean, I mean,
(35:38):
if if it's true and they did that, the implication
would be that it would be to like help Ukraine
in the war effort. Well, but okay, we're gonna get
into the bigger thing here. Because you don't have to
necessarily use Google Maps satellite imagery to help Ukraine. There
are probably better But so like what it seems like
(36:03):
to me, Well, I know, I hear you, but when
I think, what I think is you by using Google
you're kind of skirting around having another country helping you
out or NATO helping you out. As Ukraine. You got
a private company within the United States, But they're private company.
We're not associated with the U s military alphabetic when
(36:26):
we are, they really are it's like started by okay, whatever,
right exactly. I mean it's like saying that man with
the iron fist was not associated Quentin Tarantino, like he
put his name on it, but he probably did other
stuff anyway, whatever, That's not the best analogy. It was
just around, you know, he was just non set a
(36:46):
little bit not it wasn't like him all. Yeah, but
the thing is, like, the thing here is that now
I'm so I'm so glad that you're interested in this
story as well, because yeah, you have to question the source.
There's clearly a bit of political calculus at play by
being able to say, hey, we various countries NATO, US, etcetera.
(37:09):
Just as you said, aren't explicitly helping who were not
turning up the boil on the pot of nuclear war
or the potential for it. But also, um, I don't
think doesn't this give a lot of power companies. I'm
just saying, like, we're getting close to the cyberpunk and
(37:30):
shadow run every every day. Are they supposed to know
where these sites are? Anyway? If they're like yeah, well again,
this is why it feels like military is involved in
some way or well, there's there are two things here.
This is kind of complicated. They've got satellites. Google has
(37:51):
satellites that they take images of the Earth all the day,
all the day, all day, just going to spin around
taking pictures of the Earth, and everything that is on
the Earth can be seen. Right. What happens is a country,
a um corporation, usually a government will communicate with Alphabet
(38:15):
or Google, whoever it is the folks who are running it,
and we'll say, hey, there is a there are some
coordinates that we need you to blur out because it's
a matter of national security for us in ex country.
I've got a couple of examples here. You guys can
pull them up if you want to. You can actually
see them on Google Maps. May be hard as we're
running our recording streaming recording because it messes with bandwidth.
(38:38):
Google Maps does that, by the way, if you didn't
know that. Uh, But there are a couple I pulled
up where you can look at place in Greece that's right,
and I think it's in Athens, is a military base
and it is fully blurred out, huge swath of land
that you can tell their buildings there and roads, but
you can't tell what anything is. It's full blurred out, Yes, exactly.
(39:04):
There's another one that's in France that is another military
base completely blurred out huge. It's like it looks like
a city, like almost I don't know a good portion
of a city that is fully blurred out. It's intense stuff.
But then if you look at the tweet that was
sent out by Ukrainian Armed Forces or Armed Forces Ukraine,
(39:27):
you can see some of the actual images. You can
find that right now if you search for it. You
can just take a look at the satellite imagery and
there are clear pictures of submarines that should probably not
be seen, pictures of again military bases in Russia that
probably should not be seen, um at least by regular
old folks. Yeah, I'm glad you mentioned this, because there
(39:48):
are also things that show an army in not batt
already shape, honestly, like cannibalizing stuff for parts, just trying
to try and to keep the larger engine of a
military running. So if any if at the very least,
it's kind of effective propaganda, right, But there's there's not
(40:12):
a real I would say, there's not any real actionable
value that's given to Ukraine from doing this, because they
would have already had access to military satellite intelligence. Um.
But there is there is one fun thing this is
related to that I want to remind you off at
the end of this, isn't it also public knowledge or
(40:33):
agreed upon that we are helping them with intel to
some degree or is that still up in the air
as to whether that's true or not. I don't know
the answer to that today on April eighteenth, I don't
know officially if NATO or the United States is helping
with military intelligence. Um well, they're definitely helping with hardware
(40:54):
and logistics, so intelligence would go kind of hand in
hand with that. The big red lines are things like
sending in NATO troops to fight or sending for US
troops to fight. But giving them toys is um well,
and intelligence or feel like very different things to me.
Giving them giving them arms versus like tracking enemy troop movements,
(41:19):
you know, that feels like very different. I honestly don't
know if the United States or any allies are doing that.
There was some high level, high ranking official, maybe retired,
that came out and said that we're almost definitely doing that.
Um And now I'm having a hard time finding it.
But I swear I heard it was. It was probably
someone who has now been relegated to like a you know,
(41:41):
high value talking head. But but someone didn't come out
and say, I think that we're doing that most likely. Well,
earlier in February Google Google shut down some of the
location tracking services within Ukraine and some of the areas
of conflict there on purpose in order to try and
pro vent people from tracking civilian movements, uh and like
(42:03):
where civilians were hiding and going. I know, the Wall
Street Journal said about five days ago that the Biden
administration just said they're expanding the intelligence the US is giving.
And I know, back in March, NATO said they're stepping
up intelligence sharing, specifically on cyber attacks. So it might
(42:24):
be an uneven application of stuff, because you know, it's
still even when countries have common enemies, they don't have
they're not friends, they're just their coworkers for a second,
and they're they're not going to automatically give up everything
they have because that will bite them in the ass later. Well,
and there's always obviously a line that we're not willing
(42:45):
to cross publicly anyway, in order to maintain some semblance
of like, yeah, we're not like all in, but we're
definitely helping. They're not hiding that. And the rhetoric sure
as he did, you know with Biden calling um Putin
a wark, him at all In a butcher and all
that stuff. So it's certainly no mincing words. But there
there must be a line. Once you cross, then you
(43:07):
are now in the same line of fire as as
the country that's being attacked, and those lines shift sometimes.
Uh and Russia and the US, to be fair, have
both done that in the past. They've changed what counts
as a red line. Uh in you know, one direction
or another. I do oh. I do want to say though,
(43:28):
just as a quick tangent, this reminds me of something
while we're talking about satellite blurry. You know, you, if
you're listening now as a private citizen, you don't have
to be a military. You don't have to be a
government or a state level actor to ask Google to
blur some stuff for you. You could get them to
blur your house a Google street view, and I think
you should unless you ever want to sell it, which
(43:51):
you shouldn't. Which you shouldn't blur it because Zillo and
all these other places linked directly to a street view
on often then I want to take it back to
actionable intelligence. What good, seriously does a Google Maps satellite
view do for any anybody when it comes to intelligence.
(44:12):
Let's say you're looking at a satellite image on Google
Maps of of nuclear submarines or nuclear capable submarines docked
somewhere in Russia or let's say even off the coast
of the Crimean Peninsula. You're looking at those on Google Maps.
What does that do for you? Those submarines could be
docked there. Still by the time that image is updated
(44:33):
and you get a new satellite image of that area,
those submarines could very well be gone, and probably would
be gone. There may be a hangar that has a
lot of airplanes or something that are you know, parked
their temporarily, but are they going to be there the
next time that satellite updates or by the time you
reach that area. I don't know. Possibly it feels like
(44:55):
um almost like a boast or a pr push or
just like hey, yeah, we we see your subs, We
know your subs are there, and we're gonna show everybody
like as I don't know, some kind of play that
just that isn't actually military it's more hearts and minds
kind of thing. Yeah, that's why. That's why again I
think the primary, the most apparent push here is propaganda.
(45:19):
As you nailed it, the subs A good sub is
not stationary, right, Uh. And so there's also but there's
there's also you know, the issue of the time interval
on the observation here. So Google is going to have
a delay at least for what the public can see.
But the most valuable satellite data lets you factor that
(45:41):
into upcoming attacks or operations. So if you if you
hear claims about some you know, kick ass new kind
of jet fighter, and then you're able to have other
It's all about jigsaw puzzling up different pieces of intelligence, right,
So you have signals intelligence telling you what thing is
it confirmed by human intelligence or asset on the ground.
(46:03):
And then can you look at this like real time
picture of a hangar, which the US can do by
the way, and a lot of NATO can as well. Uh,
And can you see that real time picture and then
have that moment where you go, uh, well, gee willakers
Uh these guys might attack us with some new super plane,
but it looks like they've got two of them. That
(46:24):
could actually fly or something like that, for example, and
then you could allocate your resources to a more worthwhile endeavor.
I mean, that's that's the goal. But with this, you know,
we don't know how old the Google street View stuff
is or Google Maps excuse me, uh we again. Yeah,
that's why. That's why I'm on the same page. That's
(46:45):
why I want to kick it off like it's I
think it's propaganda. I mean, sure, it feels like none
of us were able to confirm many examples of it. Actually, no, no,
we were the person we shout it out in the beginning.
You can actually, I mean I could give you the
I don't know how to read it, Ben, I'm sorry,
I thought I thought that wasn't wasn't that a reference
to another type of installation that was blurred, But we
(47:06):
weren't able to confirm the Russian stuff. Those were examples
of that. But the person we shout it out in
the beginning sent us some actual coordinates on Google that
seemed to show specific locations where we're stuff Russian stuff
is going down that we're not supposed to see. Yes,
you can, you can head over on Twitter and check
(47:28):
that stuff out, but just realize that by the time
this comes out, those if the Russian forces don't want
you to see a particular thing, then, like Matt said,
they're just going to move their stuff if they know
what they're doing. Except some of these are installations that
would be pretty difficult to move because they are, you know,
built into the ground. Specifically, thinking about some of their
(47:50):
missiles that are in uh silos and stuff. Well, that's
a weird one. Guys. Google is always going to exist,
I think at this point. I'm not sure how that
thing isn't too big to fail. Uh So Google will
always be watching everybody, including you right now because you're
holding a phone or it's in your pocket, or watching
(48:11):
your pants. It's there's very little light in there. But
they get is that a euphemism? I like, how long?
How long before private tech company gets openly involved in
a hot conflict? How far away are we? Do you
think it's in our lifetime? Thing? And who watches the
(48:32):
pants watchers? You know? That's what I want to know.
It'll be a meta war, and it will take place
within the metaverse, and it will be an uprising that
occurs against metal. Can we have a sick robot avatars
with like grabby claw hands and like laser cannons. It'll
be it'll be a lot like Ready Player one. I think,
just cool. It tired the metaverse. All right, Well, I'm
(48:57):
gonna stick with Alden Ring for now. I guess this
els as long as I don't have to play that online.
Uh yes, yes, uh, this is this is crazy stuff.
Everything we've talked about is leading to bigger situations. You know,
we want to hear from you, folks, because at least
(49:18):
like every story we talked about here is either at
the beginning or still unfinished. They haven't been resolved. We
can't wait to hear your take. You are the most
important part of this show. We can't wait to hear
from you. We try to be easy to find online,
not just there, but we have like so many ways
you can talk to us. Yeah, not all the ways,
(49:38):
but a good many of them. You can find us
on Facebook, you can find us on Twitter. You can
find us on YouTube under the handle Conspiracy Stuff on
Instagram or Conspiracy Stuff Show. But wait, there's more. Yes,
call our number one eight three three std w y
t K. You will hear Ben's voice than a beep.
(49:58):
Then you've got three minutes in the beginning. Please give
yourself a cool nickname, let us know if we can
use your voice and message on the air, and then
say whatever. Give us comments on this episode, tell us
an episode you want us to cover anything, and just
tell us about a weird thing we need to search.
Maybe not on Google, probably on something else, but we'll
search for it. We don't care whatever. Our bosses know
(50:20):
that we have weird search. It's on our computers. Uh.
If you don't want to use your phone to talk
to us instead, why not send us an email. We
are conspiracy at iHeart radio dot com. Stuff they don't
(50:51):
want you to know. Is a production of I heart Radio.
For more podcasts from my heart Radio, visit the i
heart Radio 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
United States of Kennedy
United States of Kennedy is a podcast about our cultural fascination with the Kennedy dynasty. Every week, hosts Lyra Smith and George Civeris go into one aspect of the Kennedy story.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com