TIME CAPSULE - 034: Have the Nephilim Stolen our Birthright? w/ Timothy Alberino - Nephilim Death Squad

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:02):
What's up, guys, We're back again. I'm here with a
davely Cole. Well, he's gonna run us through this ad
read Go ahead, David.

Speaker 2 (00:08):
What's going on? Guys?

Speaker 3 (00:09):
Guys?

Speaker 2 (00:10):
Before we start the show, don't forget to go to
toplopsad dot com. Click on the upper hand left hand
corner on the menu and go to the drop down
that says brand. You'll find Nephilim Death Squad merch under
there where we've got all of our super dope designs.
A couple of my personal favorites are the red Heifer
End Times shirt. I think it's an appropriate shirt to

(00:31):
be wearing lately. How cool would it be if they're
sacrificing a red heifer on live TV and you're wearing
the shirt, Or if you're one of the couples that
listen to the show, because we do have couples that
listen to the show, there's an actual romantic element to
Nefilim Death Squad. So maybe then the best shirt for
you is Nephelim and chill. If you and the lady

(00:53):
are watching the show together, what a better shirt than that?
And if you're looking for a conversation, start my personal
choice would be the ask me about the Nephelim shirt.
If you really want to get into terribly awkward situations
where you suddenly have to explain, uh, the sons and
daughters of are the daughters of men having sex with

(01:17):
fallen angels and giving birth to Nephelim, then that's the
shirt for you. This one, you guys, don't forget this.

Speaker 1 (01:23):
One here will actually be at the Sam Tripley show.
I have a couple of these, so when you're out
there to see us, I'm bringing some merchants gonna be
scattered like some stickers, some of this stuff. I'm actually
gonna have some shepherd slings come through. Don't forget about you.

Speaker 2 (01:38):
You're gonna have shepherd slings.

Speaker 1 (01:39):
Don't listen, be professional. Join the Telegram, guys, we'll see
you in a minute. We're gonna start the show.

Speaker 3 (01:44):
All right. Be all be hypnotized.

Speaker 4 (01:51):
US readers, politicians, teachers, lectious.

Speaker 5 (01:55):
We are in the country and in a world that
he's being run by unbelievably sick people. The chasm between
what we're told he's going on he's really going on
is absolutely.

Speaker 3 (02:10):
Oh yeah, dude, based in Nephlim shit.

Speaker 2 (02:13):
It's like we all know what's going down, but no
one's saying shit, what happens to the Home of the
Brave because they controlling this now and no one's talking
about it. The pron of the place and everybody's.

Speaker 3 (02:24):
Just talking around out in the proton a wake up
and what down in the grave?

Speaker 2 (02:28):
But it's delay we needed to reston to raise Welcome
to the end of.

Speaker 3 (02:32):
Day, everybody.

Speaker 2 (02:37):
Welcome back to Nephil of Death Squad. I am David
Lee Corbo aka the Raven That's top Lobster, and today
we are joined by Timothy Alberino. Uh, mister Alberino, can
you tell the audience a little bit about what it
is that you do and where they can find your work.

Speaker 3 (02:54):
It's a very entertaining intro you have there. I'm an author,
researcher and explore lecturer, filmmaker and you can find my
work on YouTube. I'm on social media Twitter and Instagram.
I have a website, tim Fielwino dot com. I've made films.

(03:15):
I've written a book called Birthright. So I'm kind of
I'm all over the place and doing a lot of
different things.

Speaker 2 (03:24):
So but.

Speaker 3 (03:28):
I talk about I research topics related to biblical studies, UFOs, giants,
ancient civilizations, alternative theories, and alternative history, et cetera.

Speaker 1 (03:44):
You know, Tim, one of the questions I always have
is how did you? How does one get into this?
I know how I kind of got into it. We
kind of we kind of get pushed in by like
maybe circumstances in our lives where you start to notice
for us, the Christian religion more in a more intimate
way and a more real way. So I went down
this rabbit hole. But how does someone like you become
basically like Indiana Jones? Where do you start off on

(04:08):
your life going down this path?

Speaker 3 (04:10):
Well, I dropped out of high school when I was eighteen,
dropped dropped out slash, got kicked out of high school
when I was eighteen years old, and I moved to
the Amazon basin Peru, and that's kind of where things
began for me. I lived in Peru for a decade.
Then I came back to the States and I was

(04:31):
living in Cleveland, Ohio for a couple of years. That's
where I was born and raised, Cleveland, Ohio, And I
ended up interfacing with a gentleman named Steve Quail who's
also in this nepheleam space, you might say. And I
ended up moving out to Bozeman, Montana to work with Steve.
We created a company called Jen six Productions, and we

(04:52):
began to produce some documentary films and did some other
things conferences and and the like, and so that's kind
of what launched me. I would say, uh, in a
professional manner. I've always been interested in these kinds of topics,

(05:13):
but it became kind of a career for me when
I moved out to Bose, when it began to work
with Steve Quail.

Speaker 1 (05:20):
Interesting, you know, over the weekend I was I was
on Netflix and I kind of just put on Noah,
never seen it before with Russell Crowe, and it's I'm
just glad that there's people like you. We've got like
La Marzouli, and you know other people Gary Wayne who's
writing these books that are telling the story much closer
to what actually happened than you know, the Hollywood version

(05:42):
of it, where it's I watched a couple of minutes
and it seems like they're trying to depict the watchers
of the Fallen in a good light. It's almost like,
you know, like the classic inversion of what the truth
would be and I turned it off. But yeah, thank
you for covering this stuff. And you know, Shedden's knowledge
on on us because we have no idea what we're
doing here.

Speaker 3 (06:02):
It was a wasted opportunity they had. They had, they
had an opportunity to uh depict, depict the antidiluvian world
in a in a more realistic way and to tell
the story as it is written in Genesis sixth, Book
of Enoch and other extra biblical texts, and they chose
to do something completely fantasy, fantasy, uh fanciful, excuse me.

(06:29):
And it was a missed opportunity and and it ended
up being a you know, very lackluster film.

Speaker 1 (06:36):
Yeah, I think I wouldn't people call it a missed opportunity. Sorry, Yeah,
it's I feel like that is letting whoever is in
charge of these things off the hook. And uh, in
a way, also, as I was listening to some of
your previous interviews recently where we're talking about the government,
if we just kind of keep letting them off the hook,

(06:57):
as if like, oh, you know, they're just kind of
they're just trying to suppress as much as they can.
To me, it doesn't seem that way as a conspiracy
damage control. It's damage control. They know that they know
what the story is. Clearly, they've read it, and they
and they poured a pretty large budget into it and
decided to tell something that wasn't the story, in my opinion,
is what it seems like, because why would you avoid this?

(07:18):
It's the greatest story ever told? Why would I change it?

Speaker 3 (07:21):
Well, I I don't know that I would go down
a conspiratorial route with the Noah's story. I think they
make I mean, anyone who's been paying attention for the
last five years, ten years to Hollywood, They've been making
really bad decisions about a lot of stories, and many
stories that don't have anything to do with the biblical narrative.

(07:43):
There's just a lack of creativity. And you have you
always do. They always want to diverge from these from
the original narrative and try and create something unique and different.
And in this case, you right, they abandoned one of
those interesting, interesting stories ever told for a ridiculous concoction

(08:09):
that was that was frankly boring.

Speaker 2 (08:14):
He touched on it for a second. There this idea
that they had an opportunity to pant the paint this
era in time in a much more fascinating way. And
when people think of the story of Noah's ark, it's
kind of like from from the outside looking in. Uh,
if you're not really paying attention, I would say the

(08:35):
general consensus is, what, like, man was corrupt, and so
God chose, you know, one man in particular, to save
a bunch of animals, get them on an arc, and
then he punished the world for man's corruption. But there's
a lot more going on there. There's a lot more detail,
and it's a lot more interesting. And I think that

(08:56):
we've kind of had these stories. Maybe whitewashed isn't the
best term, but watered down, watered down for sure, they're
they're much less potent than they actually are. If you're
paying attention, what is your contention about maybe what it
looked like in the days of Noah.

Speaker 3 (09:13):
Well, you know, the story of Noah's very very old story.
It's it was present in ancient Mesopotamia. Of course, that
I believe, And depending on who you talk to, most
scholars would say that the biblical account of Noah is
a derivation of the more ancient Mesopotamian account. I would

(09:37):
actually take the opposite of view. I think that the
Mesopotamian count is a derivation from the original account, which
comes from the Antiediluvian world and was passed down from
Noah's sons and then and then became corrupted during the
rise of Sumer and Acadia. But it it's interesting because, uh,

(09:58):
you know that that that Noah figure in the Mesopotamian
account is ut Napichtine. And you find this Noah character
all over the world in many different mythologies of variegated
cultures across the globe, and and but it's always the
same kind of story. There's a there's a global cataclysm,

(10:19):
there's a there's a terrible cataclysm, and then there's a
remnant of mankind that survives and has to repopulate the earth.
It's amazing. There are there are hundreds and hundreds of
iterations of the Noah story. I subscribe to the biblical narrative,
and as I said, as I alluded to, I believe
that the Genesis account is the original narrative. Whether or

(10:44):
not the Book of Genesis was penned before or after
the Mesopotamian accounts is irrelevant. The oral tradition I believe
of Noah and his sons that we have in the
in the Genesis account is the original story. So I'm
sorry I lost the rest of the rest of your
question there.

Speaker 2 (11:05):
This actually does bring something to mind where it's like,
do you think that this is one man whose name
is changed throughout these stories, an event that took place
one time that is changed throughout all these different cultures.
Or we just had Vicki Joy Anderson, who is an

(11:27):
author who works with La Marzouli. She was just on
the show the other day and she said something that
I thought was really interesting. It was this idea that
the way that God sent the symbol of the rainbow
and promised not to flood the world again, the way
that she interpreted it, and she said it was just
something that she was kind of kicking around. This concept

(11:48):
of it.

Speaker 3 (11:49):
Struck her as.

Speaker 2 (11:51):
You wouldn't flood the world once and then just say, hey,
I'll never do it again. It was almost as if
like this is something that had happened. Do you think
that there's room for Noah almost being an arc type
like this may have happened several times and maybe for
some reason, there is just this formula almost where God

(12:14):
picks a man has the same thing happened again, and
then this time is like and like I said, this
isn't something that she was putting a lot of stock into.
It's just an interesting thing. And now that I'm hearing
you say, it's like, well, maybe there's room for this
is a multiple occurrence, which is why it echoes through
so many different cultures. And maybe it's not necessarily the
same man with different names from different cultures, but actually

(12:39):
different instances, different moments in time where this same thing
happened again. Do you think there's any room for that.

Speaker 3 (12:45):
I would say that all of these various stories around
the world have one original source. But I would also
concede that I do believe that the Earth had been
catastrophically destroyed previous, previous to the flood of Noah, and

(13:08):
indeed from in my estimation, previous to the creation of mankind.
So I believe in a preadamic cataclysm that rocked the Earth,
that something happened, something else is going on here before
the creation of mankind and the inception of mankind, and
that it was even it was, it was an even

(13:30):
greater cataclysm in that context, So I do subscribe to
multiple cataclysms going back into the past. I don't believe
that the flood of Noah was the first. Certainly, in
my mind, there was a preadamic cataclysm, and there's lots

(13:51):
of reasons why I believe that, and I detail why
I believe that my book Birthright.

Speaker 1 (13:56):
Well, they say, I don't know, I don't know the
exact number, but I think they attribute four thousand or
some odd years to when Adam would have been around.
How what's the time frame on that, You mean from
Adam to the flood, from Adam to now?

Speaker 3 (14:13):
Oh. Well, this is controversial because most Christians are under
the impression that when you go to the Genesis five genealogy,
which lists the genealogy of the pre flood pre flood
patriarchs beginning with Noah and ending rather beginning with Adam
and ending with Noah and his sons, most Christians will

(14:37):
read this genealogy as if it is a as if
it's linear, if it's written in a linear fashion, and
it there's there's a there's a lot of problems with
that that rendering of the text. First of all, the
first problem that we have to deal with is that
we have the massoretic text today we are all reading

(14:58):
the Massoretic text, and the mass the Mass Rights, they
for some reason decided to subtract one hundred years off
of each of the life spans of those patriarchs from
Adam to Noah, which significantly reduced that period of time
from Adam to Noah by some fifteen hundred years, twelve

(15:21):
hundred years or so. Well, we know that the mass
Rights sort of circumcised the lifespans of the patriarchs because
in the sept two agent, in the sept two agent,
you have, which I think is the original rendering, you
have one hundred additional years under the lives of each
one of those patriarchs. Why the Master Rights would have

(15:43):
done it, Who knows. They had their own They had
their own theological positions that they were wanting to reinforce.
There were certain theological topics and themes that they wanted
to suppress. And so that's the the first problem that
we run into when we try and make a linear

(16:03):
calculation from Adam to Noah. The second problem is that clearly,
I think what we have in that genealogy is what's
referred to as telescoping, and telescoping means that that you know,
you imagine a telescope, and that telescope will fold down

(16:23):
into into a smaller artifact.

Speaker 2 (16:28):
And so.

Speaker 3 (16:32):
Basically what scholars mean by telescoping is rather than rather
than account for all of the individuals in this family line,
they remove certain numbers of them so that they can
fit the genealogy in a nice neat number. And this
was this was reaching a particular numerical value was very

(16:57):
important to ancient writers, especially the writers of the Hebrew
Hebrew Testament. Numerologies was exceedingly important. The number itself was
part of the message. It was a part of the communication.
And so you find this, this is a known fact.
Scholars know that you find this phenomenon of telescoping in

(17:21):
other genealogies in the Bible. It's it's this isn't speculation,
this is happening. The writers, the the Hebrew writers would
routinely engage in this sort of thing, you know, remove
certain people from a genealogy in order to in order
to reach particular number. Again, because this numerology was very

(17:43):
important to them. So I think we we we have
some telescoping going on in the account of in the
genealogy of the pre floed patriarchs. There are probably more
where we assume that that genealogy represents the father to
the firstborn son and so on, all the way down

(18:05):
through the line the genealogical record. But that I think
it is an assumption at best, and I think that
in reality we're probably looking at a whole lot longer
period of time than Christians are accustomed to accounting for

(18:26):
or to contemplating in regard to the Antidiluvian world. From
the creation of Adam to the Flood of Noah, I
would say thousands of years transpired, perhaps many thousands of years.
I think that the Flood of Noah probably took place
sometime around ten thousand BC. Now this is a modification

(18:53):
to my own view, even the view I put forward
to my book Birthright. I have since the publishing of
that book modified my view, altered my view based on
new information that I was only slightly aware of at
the time, and there was an event that took place.
There was clearly some sort of a cataclysm that happened

(19:14):
around ten thousand BC. Indeed, when you look at the
megaliths all around the world, so many of them seemed
to point to that very period of time. Based on
their alignments with celestial phenomena. And this is of course
the field of archaeo astronomy, looking at an archaeological ruin
and then using the time piece, that celestial time piece

(19:39):
to figure out when this let's say, megalithic site aligned
with a particular sign, zodiacal sign, or particular constellation, and.

Speaker 2 (19:59):
The same thing that they used for the sphinx facing
the constellation of Leo. Yes, that would be precise Okay, precisely.

Speaker 3 (20:07):
This works because of axial procession, because the earth is
tilted and wobbles, and so this this was known to
the ancients, and they all used the same they all basically,
they all used the same timepiece, and that we call
that the zodiac, and the Hebrews called that the matsarov,
And it's the same thing, it's the same signs. It's

(20:30):
the The zodiac is of course divide into twelve houses,
and each house is represented by a different sign. And
this is how the ages were measured and by many
many different cultures including this may be going.

Speaker 2 (20:48):
In a different direction, but it's something that I was
actually thinking about very recently, so it's interesting that we're
here talking about it. But there was a time when
I came to understand that a thirteenth zodiac had been introduced,
and it was oh fucus, a man struggling with a
serpent and or wrestling with a serpent. And then that

(21:08):
kind of just fell out of the kind of you know,
zeitgeist of awareness. I wonder if if you know anything
about that or how that applies, because there was this,
I think around maybe two thousand and twenty and thirteen,
twenty and fourteen. Suddenly there was the introduction of this
thirteenth constellation for a brief time that never seemed to

(21:29):
really stick around or be anything of any significance. But
I do remember it was called O Fucus, and I
do remember it was a man wrestling with a serpent.

Speaker 3 (21:37):
I don't recall that. I've only been away of twelve
and this is this certainly understand the ancient understanding is twelve.
There's twelve ages, and those ages correspond to the what's
called a great year, which is the completing the full
wobble of the earth, actual procession. And again, all the

(22:01):
ancients knew this, So I don't know, I'm not sure
how we got onto zodiac that was.

Speaker 2 (22:09):
That's all right, That might have just been be if
we were already lost in the woods. I made sure
to derail USTs got it. We were talking about the
Sphinx being aligned to the to Leo and and that
you know that was sometime around ten thousand BC. And
not only the Sphinx and in Egypt, but also in Peru.

(22:34):
I believe that that the city of.

Speaker 3 (22:36):
Cusco, for example, and this this is was confirmed through
the research of my my friend and colleague Andresadasme who's
an archae astronomer, who figured out that the city of
Cusco was founded in ten thousand BC based on the
alignment of the megaliths. I think there. I think that

(22:58):
ten thousand b C is probably when that the cataclysm occurred,
So you're looking at some twelve thousand years ago, which
of course aligns with the Younger Dryest impact hypothesis that
Graham Hancock has made famous in Randall Carlson and The
Younger Dryes impact hypothesis posits that twelve thousand years ago,

(23:21):
around ten thousand BC, there was an earth shattering cataclysm
and that resulted from an asteroid impact on the North
American ice sheets, the Laurentide ice sheet to be specific.
And perhaps other locations in North America, was in fact

(23:42):
not just one impact, but a series of impacts, because
there was a large asteroid that broke up, that broke
up and broke up in orbit, and fragments of it
bombarded the Earth. And that was that precipitated this, this cataclysm,

(24:04):
that that annihilated humanity, that destroyed much of the life
on Earth, the megafauna, certainly the megaphon extinction, and and
and almost entirely eradicated the human species. I think that
that that is the cataclysm, uh, the Noaic flood. I

(24:30):
believe that that is the cataclysm that all of these
other ancient civilizations refer to, and that it and that
it in fact did happen sometime around ten thousand BC.
So I would push the flood and Noah back to
ten thousand BC. And again, the only contention that Christians

(24:50):
can can make in regard to this this timeframe is,
but the Genesis five genealogy only allows for how many
years it is I don't remember off the top of
my head. Basically to thirty three hundred BC thereabouts would
have been the flood of no according to that calculation.
And uh, it's just it's it's very it's not a

(25:17):
it's a tenuous position because again the Massoretic text for
some reason subtracted one hundred years off of the life
spans of the patriarch. So you have to start there.
I'm gonna I'm gonna, I'm going to fall back to
the Septuagint before I'm going to the septuo Agent, as
I said, has one hundred additional years on the lifespans

(25:37):
of those patriarchs. And I'm I'm going to put more
confidence in the in the reckoning of the septuogen than
in the mass Eoretic text. So that's again the first problem.
Then the second problem is this issue of telescoping. So
it's not as concrete as most Christians think it is.
It's just not at all. It's completely up for debate.

(26:01):
And and again you have to take into account the
the megaliths are I think the remnant. They're there. It's
all that's left from the Antiediluvian world. That's all that
could have survived, are these massive megalithic foundations. And so
you have to take into account the archaeoastronomical alignments of

(26:25):
these megaliths, because they're they're very precisely aligned. You can't
just discount that data because you know, your massoretic Bible
says there were this many years from Noah to from
Adam to Noah. No, you have to take the compendium
of evidence and and use the correct measurements. And the

(26:48):
correct measurement of time is the zodiacal ages. So so anyway,
ten thousand BC, that's when I would I would push
the floodback. And this is this is an amendment to
the way I used to think years ago. I've i've
as I said, since I published my book, I've I've
amended this position.

Speaker 1 (27:10):
Well, you know, good on you, man, because a lot
of what a lot of what is wrong with humanity now,
or at least the current civilization is people kind of
pick aside and then they get married to it. Can't
let that die. So good on you for having, you know,
continuing your research and changing your mind. I wanted to ask, so,

(27:30):
after this flood, how do these guys survive? Because I
know that there's there's accounts. There's definitely one that I
I'm pretty sure is verifiable. We're talking about the giant
from Afghanistan. This is just one, but we know that
they are still nefheling around.

Speaker 3 (27:49):
You know, this is an ongoing debate how did the
nephele survive the flood? And the older I get, the
more irrelevant it seems. It depends on how you view
the flood. First of all, there's a lot of good
scholarship in regard to the flood of Noah not being global.

(28:14):
And what I mean by global is not every single
mountain on planet Earth was submerged in water. There are
several I would there are basically three positions on the
Flood of Noah. You have what might be considered the
traditional position, at least the traditional Protestant position, which would

(28:34):
be that the flood of Noah was global and that
every mountain peak was covered in water all over the Earth.
That would be the traditional view. Then I would say
another view would be a local flood theory, in which
the levant the Fertile Crescent was flooded and it was

(28:56):
a local phenomenon cataclysm, and that was the known world
to the people at the time, and so that's you know,
that's the local flood hypothesis. And then there's one that
I think is kind of in between, and this is
the one that I subscribe to, which is a global

(29:17):
cataclysm hypothesis. In other words, the entire Earth was rocked
by cataclysm. Every continent was affected by this cataclysm, and
it had dire effects all over the Earth, not just
not just in regard to flooding. By the way, if
indeed we're talking about an asteroid impact or a series

(29:41):
of asteroid impacts on the ice sheets, on the North
American ice sheets, then obviously you would have flooding for sure,
but you would also have you would also have raging
forest fires everywhere all over the Earth as the fragments,

(30:02):
the molten hot fragments of the impacts are discharged for miles,
perhaps even thousands of miles and landing in forests and
setting those forests ablaze. So you would have mass burning
of the of the forests on Earth, all over the Earth.

(30:22):
And you would also obviously have floods, you would have earthquakes,
you would have there would be there would be The
fallout would be considerable, and it would manifest in many
different ways, not just flooding, and it would affect the
whole Earth. These the the temperature and what's the word

(30:43):
I'm looking for here, saltiness, salinity of the oceans would
would be altered. It would probably have launched the Earth
into something like a nuclear winter, something approximating a nuclear winter.
So you would have a you would have this, you
would have.

Speaker 2 (31:04):
The the.

Speaker 3 (31:07):
Massive forest fires, and you would have a super heating
of the atmosphere around the impact area, so you would
have like things would be vaporized. But then right after
all of this, you would the Earth would be plunged
into a deep freeze because of all of the debris
that's thrown up into the atmosphere, blocking the sun and
creating creating a kind of nuclear winter. So it would

(31:33):
have been absolutely devastating. The entire globe would have been
devastated by the cataclysm. So I subscribe to this view
that the entire world was affected by the cataclysm. Civilization,
especially in an ancient context, was founded. The great cities

(31:57):
were usually founded on the banks of rivers, or or
on the or in the coastal areas, and these are
precisely the areas that would have been submerged. There would
have been you know, mile high tidle waves generated from
these impacts, and from the all of that ice, the
melt of the ice water rather the uh the freshwater

(32:18):
melt from the from the glaciers. You would have had
you would have had just devastating flooding. If if you
lived anywhere near the sea, your city would be underwater.
But if you're more inland you would have perhaps been
more affected by the wildfires and the earthquake.

Speaker 1 (32:42):
Economic I mean to think that there wasn't you know,
kind of some some sort of advanced economics and trade
going on, agriculture going on back then. All that stuff
is even today, if that's slightly disrupted, you're looking at
a you know, mass depths. They were talking about if
the Internet goes down, people are gonna die in problem. Yeah,
it's you know, it's just the tiniest little, you know,

(33:04):
push of a button.

Speaker 2 (33:06):
Still in our nature, right, we're doing the same thing.
All of our cities are still coastal, you know what
I mean. It's like all we are is one oceanic
cataclysm away from destroying these coastal cities.

Speaker 3 (33:18):
And what happens when the animals die because you have
a mass you have a mass die off of the fauna,
and you're talking about you're talking about an extinction level
event that's unfolding in the world. And then you know,
all of the repercussions, it would be very, very difficult

(33:42):
to survive, very difficult to survive under those circumstances. So
again I subscribe to that view, which is kind of
in the middle of the local flood and the global flood.
And people, of course will raise contentions immediately in saying,
doesn't the Bible say every mountain was underwater and so
on and so forth, and the waters cover the whole earth.

(34:03):
The answer is yes and no, there are Again, the
scholarship is when if you read the papers on the
on the on the extent the extent of the flood,
you're going to find various opinions by many different scholars
based on the terminology. So no, it's not it's not

(34:24):
black and forth. It's not black and white as people suppose,
just like the genealogy, the pre flood patriarchal genealogy. You know,
we want for some reason, we we so many Christians,
and I'm a Christian, we have this need for things
to be uh, for things to be simplified and and concrete,

(34:47):
black and white, and and we for some reason people
need it to be that way. But the but the
reality is it's not. It's not, so many things that
we think are concrete are not in regard to the
Old Testament. And again, there's a lot of scholarship on
the Flood of Noah, and there's a lot of different positions,

(35:11):
or at least a few different positions, with a lot
of commentary, and you could if you take the text.
And I'm not a scholar, I'm not an ancient language expert,
but if you but I've read the work by I've
read a lot of the scholarly articles, and you could.
We have a particular rendering in our Bibles in regard

(35:31):
to the Flood of Noah, but you could easily derive
a different rendering and based on the based on the
way the words that are used in Hebrew and air
may and so forth. So it's it's just not as
simple as people think. So that's a very long answer

(35:51):
to your original question, which was, how could have let's say,
the Nepheleem survived. Well, there's there's a variety of answers,
and it depends on it depends on where you fall
in terms of the extent of the flood. If you
believe that the flood of Noah was in fact global,
and every Mountain was underwater. Mount Everest was underwater. If

(36:14):
that's if that's what you believe, you have to you
have to come for some things if that's what you believe, Like,
how how did the how did the aquatic life survive?
It wasn't on the arc. And if you take salt
if you take creatures who are equipped to live in
the ocean and that saltwater environment and you suddenly dilute
that salt water environment, those creatures are going to die.

(36:38):
So you have to account for the oceanic life, the
aquatic life surviving in those circumstances. And the ecosystem is
intricately connected. You know, you can't have one ecosystem survive
and all the other ones collapse.

Speaker 1 (36:54):
So be it might be just uh speaking out of
my my ass here, but uh, what's the salinity like?
I linity like in the ocean as you go deeper,
because when you start to get to like deep sea fishing,
you're pulling stuff up that looks historical.

Speaker 3 (37:07):
I mean, yeah, I don't know. I just know that
the ecosystem is very delicate. It's very delicate. It cannot
you know, you can destroy an ecosystem by just modifying
a few factors you can devastate an ecosystem. It's very delicate.
So and if you're talking about a global flood where

(37:28):
every square inch of the ground is covered with water,
there's it's just there's no way. I mean, what are
these sea creatures really going to survive on when the
ecosystem on land has collapsed is gone. It's just it's
really untenable if you think about it. So, so again,

(37:49):
if you subscribe to this notion that every single mountain,
every square inch of planet Earth was underwater, then you're
really only left with a couple of options. In regard
to how the nepheline. We know how no and his
family made it through the flood. They were divinely providentially protected.
They were they were carried through the flood, and we

(38:10):
know that. But what about the nepheline, Well, you you
had you you have to subscribe to really one of
two scenarios. One is that there was another incursion, what
was called the second incursion. That the that the what
happened to Genesis sixth, that Genesis six affair reoccurred. It

(38:30):
happened again. I have a problem with that because the
consequence was so severe. The punishment was so severe after
the first incident that it's hard to imagine a group
of watchers getting together and repeating it right away. It
just was so severe, and the judgment against the watchers

(38:53):
was was evident, it was seen by the rest of
the heavenly hosts. So it's very difficult for me to
imagine that's just it just happened again. And there is
no account of a second occursion. Why would there be
such a detailed acount of the first one but not
the second one. Where's the second incursion? Show me in
any biblical or extra biblical text, where's the second occursion?

(39:16):
It's just not there. It's non existent. So I don't.

Speaker 1 (39:20):
Subscribe you quick question. So, after the watchers are judged
and some are locked up, how many are locked up?

Speaker 3 (39:28):
How many are are two hundred watchers and they're all
condemned and imprisoned, all of them? Even Lucifer, Well, he
wasn't a part of those watches. That's a different scenario.
So returning to this to finish this thought answer, to
finish the answering your previous question. So there's the second

(39:50):
incursion and then the other the other hypothesis. If you
subscribe to every square inch of the Earth being underwater.
Is that the genet markers of the giants of the
nepheline made it through the flood via the genomes of
Noah's sons, or more specifically Noa's son's wives and even

(40:14):
more specifically Ham and his wife and their offspring. So, okay,
that's a possibility. I that is plausible, certainly. But if
you subscribe to my position a local flood, or to
my position, which would be a global cataclysm, then the

(40:37):
answer is actually even even simpler. There were places on
Earth that were less affected, that were more survivor survivable.
Although nearly all of humanity was destroyed, indeed nearly all

(40:58):
of the animals, there might have been pockets places on
Earth where the Nepheline, the offspring of the Watchers and
other kinds of creatures might have been able to survive
that where the ecosystem was still intact and it and
it was much less devastated by the cataclysm. So that's

(41:22):
a very simple answer. And again everyone's going to want
to go back to the massoretic text and say, but
it says, you know, they're gonna in the comments of
your video, and they're going to say. It says, and
you know this verse and this verse that everything that
had breath and every mountain. And I'm just telling everyone
right now that it's not as cut and dry as
you think. You see, I'm not a scholar. I'm assuming

(41:44):
you guys are not scholars. We are casual Bible readers.

Speaker 1 (41:48):
How could you tell.

Speaker 3 (41:51):
We are casual Bible readers, and including myself, but we
have access to scholarship, to the individuals whose careers are
to learn these dead languages and understand the different meanings
and potential meanings of things, and to avail ourselves of
their work. And when you do that, you realize it's

(42:12):
just as I said, not as cut and dry as
you think. There's a lot of possibility. There's a lot
of flexibility in these stories. Now, lest anyone accuse me
of not believing in the Bible, I absolutely subscribe to
the biblical narrative. And I don't think there's any leeway
as it pertains the Gospel of Christ that is cut

(42:34):
and dry. So don't think that I'm extending this flexibility
in the biblical flood narrative or the genealogy of the
pre flood patriarchs to the Gospel of Christ. Certainly not.
That's a completely different situation for many reasons. So and

(42:54):
you asked the question that I don't recall yet another
questions ever, Oh, that's right, And that's a good question,
because there is some confusion here, and people might be
wondering where I'm deriving some of my understanding of this

(43:15):
material from. Everyone knows that the Genesis six account is
like two sentences, right, The Genesis account is not the
full account obviously of the pre flood world. There was
one that precedes it from which the Genesis account is drawing.

(43:36):
And that's clear. That's evident for many reasons. And I
believe that, among other manuscripts, the Book of Enoch, I
think is central here to understanding the first Enoch, specifically
the reality and the historic the historicity of the Antiediluvian world.

(44:00):
And so when you talk about the watchers and how
many watchers were there, you can't reference anything in the
biblical text. You have to go to the Book of Enoch.
They aired, but that could be who knows well the
Biblical text. You know, it makes us reference to a
third of the angels. There's a lot of contention around this.
Some people think that that's a future thing. So that's

(44:24):
a separate that's a separate issue. When you talk specifically
about Genesis six and the watchers, you are referencing specifically
two hundred watchers who descended to the earth in the
days of Jared. Two hundred.

Speaker 2 (44:38):
And all.

Speaker 3 (44:38):
Two hundred of those watchers are bound in chains and darkness,
as Peter and Jude allude to, and will be in
this condition to the Great Judgment. And this is another
misconception here. There is no indication either in the Biblical text,
and certainly not in the Book of Noch, that any
of these watchers are going to be released at the

(44:59):
end of the age. They are They are bound until
the as the Book of not puts it, are bound
into the age is fully consummated until the Great Judgment.
So there is no release of the watchers. Those two
hundred watchers are bound in tartarus, as Peter says so,

(45:24):
and in regard to the in regard to this this
character that we in the West uh call Satan, indeed,
the New Testament also references him as Satan. This character
is not necessarily directly involved in the sin of the watchers.

(45:48):
Now he may be indirectly involved and there, but we
would have to speculate about that. He may be indirectly involved,
and there is some some indication in First d Not
that that may be the case, but that's also questionable
for other reasons.

Speaker 1 (46:01):
Does that mean sorry to interrupt, but does that mean
that he he didn't he didn't take part in in
bearing offspring with the with the men, the daughters of men?

Speaker 3 (46:12):
Is that what you're saying, No, he did not, unless
unless you want to associate sem Jaza slash as as
L with Satan, and some some scholars do. I personally
do not, But you'll find scholars who will say that

(46:35):
Semjaza or as as L are in fact Satan. That's that,
that's this Satanic figure that we find in the New Testament.
I do not believe that. There's several reasons why I
don't believe that. But it's important to understand because now
we're debbling into the Book of Enoch from which the
the story of the Watchers is derived. Primarily, I mean,

(46:59):
there's it's the narrative in First Knock is a composite.
It's very clearly a composite narrative. It's not one narrative.
There were perhaps a handful of oral traditions or manuscripts
that were combined together. And I'm not even talking about
second and thirdy Knock, that's a completely different topic. I'm
just talking about within first Nock. And this becomes evident

(47:22):
when you realize that as you're reading through First Enoch,
sometimes Semjaza or he has different renderings of his name
based on which edition you're reading Book of be Not.
Sometimes sim Jaza is depicted as the or Semi Jazza.
Sometimes his name is rendered is depicted as the ringleader,

(47:43):
and sometimes as Azel, this other watcher as as L.
And then also there's the possibility that these are distinct figures,
and I think they are. I don't think they're the
same person. I think these are two distinct watchers, Sem
Jazz and as Azel, and I don't think either of
them are this figure of Satan that we have in

(48:03):
the New test And I think that he's the original rebel.
His defection from the kingdom happened long before the episode
with the Watchers. In fact, you know, he is that
serpent of old, the dragon and the devil who was
an Eden, and so he was a rebel and a
defector before the Watchers, because he was in Eden, the

(48:27):
Garden of God. So there is and I would argue
that there was already a group of defected let's call
them defected sons of God, apostate sons of God, inhabiting
the earth before the advent of the Watchers. In other words,

(48:47):
these two hundred watchers. This was a completely separate episode
of defection of rebellion. And so you know, sometimes all
of these different bad actors in the biblical narration of
are conflated. But I think that we can see different
episodes in different characters involved. However, I will say that

(49:08):
I do believe that whereas this figure we call Satan
was not directly involved in the sin of the watchers,
I do think he was indirectly involved. In other words,
he may have been involved in tempting the watchers, convincing
them to do what they did, but he did not
himself copulate with a human female and thereby progenerate human

(49:36):
hybrid offspring. That is evident because all of the Watchers,
some jas Azazel and the rest of them were all condemned.
They were all bound in chains and are awaiting the day,
the day of judgment, the final judgment, and if that

(49:57):
were the case, if Satan we're involved in that group,
then he would also be bound in chains. And that
does not correlate to certainly the New Testament, where we
read that Satan goes around like a roaring lion seeking
who he might devour. Right, this idea that the devil

(50:17):
is still very much active in the world and is tempting,
and I mean he's with Jesus in the desert, in
the wilderness, tempting the son of God. So he's clearly
not in chains in Tartarus in its hades and you know,
the underworld what have you. So, but that's an important clarification,

(50:43):
I think.

Speaker 1 (50:43):
And it makes you know, it actually makes a lot
of sense because there's rules, there are spiritual rules that
these beings must play by, even the devil himself. If
you read the Book of Job, it's constantly he's constantly
getting consent. Can I do this?

Speaker 3 (50:58):
Can I then do that?

Speaker 1 (51:00):
And it's like, yeah, but he's asking first, he's not
just doing, so he's he's he's a you know, he's
a clever fellow. And yeah, wow, that's a that's actually
a very interesting way to look at it. He's the worst,
he's not the worst of the of these fallen angels.
He's just the well he might.

Speaker 3 (51:15):
Be, but he's not. He wasn't condemned with the Watchers,
he wasn't involved in their episode directly. And and and
in regard to the accountant job, you know, there's again
going back to the scholarly material, there is contention there
as well in regard to who that figure is, if

(51:36):
that is in fact Satan with a capital S or
a Satan, because Satan is not a it does not
really become a proper title until the New Testament. In
the Old Testament there are multiple Satan's and so it's

(51:56):
it's it's it's all very nebulous in the Old Testament.
So but I do believe that it's clear. It's clear
if you read in the biblical narrative that this original
rebel Satan with the capital S is permitted to tempt.

(52:21):
That that is his role, that is, you may you
might consider it to be his his obligation at this point,
that he is that he is permitted to tempt. And
and again he clearly does so with with Jesus, and
he wanted to sift Peter, if you recall. So that's

(52:45):
an that's an ongoing function of of the devil with
the capital D, Satan with the capital S. And I
keep saying that because those who are familiar with some
of the scholarship in the Old Testament will understand that
there are devils and Satan's that's not always referencing just
one particular individual, not.

Speaker 2 (53:03):
Being more of a descriptive. That means the adversary.

Speaker 1 (53:09):
Somebody said, Satan, Christ's job titles and angels as well.

Speaker 3 (53:12):
Angels. It's kind of what you're doing right the The
the word satan means adversary, and a couple of other
words as well that that you might use, but adversary
is basically what it boils down to. So and again
in the New Testament we have the identification of like

(53:35):
a capital S Satan, who's the chief of the rebels,
the angelic rebels. And that certainly is true. And I
make this very strong case for that my book Birthright,
and I subscribe to that notion. I think he is
the the the the principal rebel, and and perhaps even
the first, probably the first and and and he is

(54:00):
involved in this narrative very very intimately. In fact, I
would say, there again a lot of contention around this
statement as well, But I would say that it is
that individual, that very individual, the dragon who I used
the Dragon Moniker in my book more than any other.
That this capitalist satan figure was in fact the beguiler

(54:25):
of Eve in Eden. He was the serpent. It's not
a talking snake. I think we all understand that at
this point that it was him, and he was permitted
to do that for very particular reasons. But I would
also say that Eden is largely the Eden story is
largely in allegory.

Speaker 2 (54:45):
So anyway, I wanted to touch on something I've heard
you discussed before, and I always wanted the opportunity to
cure you elaborate if there was any elaboration to be made.
But I believe it was actually on the podcast Blurry Creatures,
which is a tremendous show. I highly recommend everybody go

(55:06):
check out those guys. You were discussing your conversations with
people in Peru, and you said that the government of
Peru had become very touch and go with visitors of
your nature because of the series Ancient Aliens. Basically, they

(55:31):
had become upset with this idea that you or any
other potential visitor might be there to try to paint
some picture that would be you know, adapted to a
History Channel series. And because of this you you found
some resistance in trying to do a lot of the

(55:54):
things that you set out to do while you were there.
And you mentioned that the narrative you will get from
the government of Peru on how their megalithic structures were
made would be one thing, but that if you asked
someone who was more local and more native, and I

(56:17):
suppose their family's genealogy, what the origin of these megalithic
structures would have been, they would tell you that a
race of giants built the megalithic structures, but who at
some point became cannibalistic in nature and then were punished

(56:41):
by being wiped out with a series of or a floodwater.
And I wonder if I'm sure I butchered that to
some degree, if you could add some clarification to that
the nature of these giants who they were in relation
to the Peruvian people, just maybe a little bit more
fleshing out of what it is that they believe the

(57:04):
origins of their megalithic structures truly were.

Speaker 3 (57:07):
Okay, Yes, the Ministry of culture in Peru is very
irritated with the ancient aliens narrative. I don't really subscribe
to the ancient aliens narrative, although I always say that
the premise of the theory is true. But that's about it.

(57:32):
The tendency in Peru among archaeologists and historians is to
attribute many of the most in fact of the megaliths
that you find throughout that land and the Andes to
the Inca. That they were these master masons, that the

(57:55):
Inca built the megaliths. And whether it be sack Saiwaman
and cusco O, Gente Tambo or Machu Picchu, the foundations
of Manchu Picchu are indeed megalithics. So the conventional narrative
is that the Inca built all of this. And it's

(58:16):
true that if the guides and the archaeologists and the
historians overhear you discussing an alternative view, whether you're walking
around with your own group or you're just standing there
talking to somebody observing the walls, it's not uncommon for

(58:38):
them to display some degree of hostility. I encountered such
hostility in Manchu Pichu. In fact, we were very close
My group was very close to getting thrown out of
Manchu Picu last time we were there. And the reason
why is because there's a particular stone structure in Machu

(59:01):
Picchu called the Inti Watana, and the Inti Watana is
basically a time piece. It's a solar time piece and
it's it's got very intricate cuts in it. It's I
believe it's granite, and it it's it's devised to make

(59:23):
calcula calculations based on the shadows that are cast from
the sun. And they call it the there it is.
They call it the hitching post of the Sun because
it was it was a solar time piece. And I

(59:43):
became aware before I went to Peru with this. I
took a group to Peru with by the way Blurry
Creatures it was. We did a Peru trip last year.
I went with Nate and Luke from Blurry Creatures and
A and A and a group of about forty people
went with us, and we were touring Machia Picchu and

(01:00:05):
and I was I was talking, Me and me and
my colleague andres Adasmi who I previously mentioned were kind
of guiding our group around Macha Pichu and I had
become aware previous to this trip that it appears apparently

(01:00:26):
they have discovered I believe it's in Turkey another inti watana,
but it's it's it's very similar. I've seen pictures of it,
and it's very similar to the one in Machu Pichu,
and it appears to have the same function. It looks
like a solar device, a device that's that was used

(01:00:50):
to make calculations based on the movements of the sun.
So that obviously is very intriguing because if if it's
true that there's an inti watana in Turkey, then that
is proof positive that the INCA did not build much Pichu,
because they weren't around in Turkey. As far as I know,

(01:01:13):
there were no Inca in Turkey. So I was discussing
this with my group and we weren't we weren't they
For some reason, they they close off the area where
the intiwatana is at Macha Pichu now in the afternoon.
It's only opened the morning for whatever reason, and we
couldn't go up there because we were in the afternoon,

(01:01:34):
and so we were sort of standing at a different
part of the of the citadel, and I was pointing
up to it, talking and discussing the Intiwatana, the anti
Wadna and the in the one in Turkey, and there
happened to be a guide standing there. Wasn't He was
not part of our group. He was a what would

(01:01:58):
you call him? I mean, he was he He was
a one of the official guides. But he was also
there to kind of like in like in a guard capacity,
also walking around making sure people aren't climbing around on
the megaliths, and and and also eavesdropping and listening to
what's being said because they do that at Macha Pichu.

(01:02:20):
But he's an official, an official employee. And he heard
me talking about this, and I was speaking English. He
spoke English and and making some commentary in Spanish as well,
and he literally walked up to us and started waving
his hands and saying, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait a minute.

(01:02:42):
You can't say that. You can't say that. Who are you?
What gives you the authority to say something like that?
Are you a guide? Do you have permission to to
basically to say the things you're saying? And I looked
at him and I said, I don't think I need
permission to express an opinion about these stones. And I

(01:03:07):
even said to my I said, what what what are
we in North Korea? I mean, I'm not allowed to
have my own thoughts about this and what I'm saying.
He didn't like it at all that we were that
that I was saying, that I that I was suggesting
that there was a there was an ine Indi Watana

(01:03:28):
artifacts somewhere other than Machu Pichu or Peru, and and
and suggesting thereby that that Machu Picchu was not in
fact built by the Inca, that it was built by
some other more ancient civilization, a loss civilization. And and
it clearly and it clearly was not built by the Inca.

(01:03:48):
The foundations of Manchu Pichu are megalithic. And then you
see where the Inca repaired those foundations and built on
top of them, and it's obviously inferior. So they found
Machu Pichu and they built it up again. And Machu Pichu,
by the ways, that's not the original name. The natives
called it i Jumpu and Ijampu means the abode of

(01:04:10):
the gods or the dwelling of the gods. And why
would they say that, why would they call this the
Abode of the gods because of the megalithic ruins. So
the Inca, I think very clearly found Machu Pichu in
a ruined state, saw the megalithic foundations and assumed that

(01:04:32):
the gods had built this place and had inhabited it.
And so obviously they were the offspring of the gods,
the Inca in their minds, and so this was their legacy,
this was their heritage, and so of course they're going
to rebuild it and reoccupy it, being the offspring of
the gods. And I think the name, the original name
for the site reflects that he jumpu the abode of

(01:04:54):
the gods. So but long story short, this individual became
very hostile with us, me and Andres and threatened to
kick us out and ban us for life, and was
basically pushing us out of the complex just because we
were saying to suggesting that you know the things I

(01:05:15):
had I've said, so there, this.

Speaker 2 (01:05:19):
Is not something that they're doing because somehow what you're
saying is is dangerous, but more so because they're so
sick and tired with this potential like ancient aliens narrative
and the West coming over and turning, you know, their
culture into a history. That's what this derives from.

Speaker 3 (01:05:39):
This that's part of it, certainly, it's certainly part of it.
But also there's a sanction narrative, and it's you know,
in this day and age, they accuse you of racism
if you say that the Inca didn't build this, you
know you, they'll tell you you're stripping us, You're why
are you trying to strip us of our heritage? Which

(01:05:59):
is funny because the Peruvians are not the descendants of
the Inca. They're not, so when they say this is
our heritage, it's really not their heritage. The Inca subjugated
their people. The Inca were a blood line, they were
they looked different. I mean, you look at a picture
of Alta Wapa on pull up an image of Alta

(01:06:20):
Walpa on Google. He was the the Sapa Inca, the
the Inca emperor when the Spanish arrived, when when Francisco
Pisado arrived to Peru during the conquest of Peru. He
has a mustache and he's described by the chroniclers as
being more fair skin and taller than the This is

(01:06:41):
not a This is not commentary on race. This is
just historical fact, and so the Inca were a bloodline.
It is not accurate to call all of the inhabitants
of the Inca Empire as as Inca, to to denominate
them all as Inca. Rather, all of these different tribes

(01:07:03):
were subjugated by the Inca, and the Inca were a
very particular bloodline. They were. It was the royal family.
Only the royal family were the Inca, and everyone else
was whatever the tribe they happened to be. In fact,
the city of Cusco, the city of Cusco is divided
into four quarters, just like the empire at large, the Tawantinsuyu,

(01:07:25):
which had four sectors, and and and those sectors, by
the way, correspond to the way that the city of
Cusco is divided. And I had this whole. There's a
lot you could say there, but and in each sector,
each tribe that lived in the city of Cusco subjugated

(01:07:46):
the Inca had to live and were confined to their
sector of the city, and by law they had to
dress in their tribal garb, so they had to dress
the way their tribal people traditionally dressed and had to
stay in their sector. They were not Inca. They were
subjugated by the Inca. The Inca lived in the palaces.

(01:08:06):
So and some people believe that the Inca, that at
least some of the Inca had elongated skulls, that that
particular race was an elongated skull race. I don't know.
I haven't personally seen evidence of this. The images of
the Inca kings, of the Inca princess and King's kind

(01:08:30):
of negates that theory because none of them depict any
of the Inca with elongated skulls. However, there are some
indications that that might be true. And I saw you
pulled up some pictures about the Waldba. There's a couple
in particular where he has he has a mustache, and

(01:08:51):
somewhere he doesn't, but there's a couple where he has
a mustache. And I saw one of Wascar that you
pulled up. Wascuar doesn't have a mustache, but was half brother.

Speaker 2 (01:09:01):
There is a little little dust, have a little mustache.
What ultimately became of the actual Inca bloodline.

Speaker 3 (01:09:09):
There were now they were completely annihilated genocide. The Inca
were genocided. So this is a false notion in Peru
that you know the Peruvians hail from the Inca. They don't.
They come from the other tribes that were subjugated by
the Inca, and and and that's not to disparage the

(01:09:29):
Peruvian people at all. These were all of these other
tribes were remarkable in their own way. But the Inca Empire,
the Inca lineage is gone. It was. It was very
purposely eradicated by the Spanish. So I don't know why
I went down that path.

Speaker 2 (01:09:47):
But were originally going in this direction. Of whether or
not there is I guess it would have been the
stories from the Inca that the megalithic site that they
built upon were actually built by of giants.

Speaker 3 (01:10:08):
The Inca have no commentary. Well, they don't have any writing.
They don't have any writing. They have what's called keep boots,
and they have yupana as well. Yupana was there was
their system, their mathematical system. A key bus was there.
You might call a writing, but it's not writing. It's
it's you've probably seen it. It's like knots its strings

(01:10:29):
with knots in it. And this was a very very
very sophisticated form of communication. And only the Inca priests
and and the and the royal bloodline were privy to
keep us. They're the only ones who could read it,
and so there was no writing. So we don't know

(01:10:53):
what the Incas say about anything. We can't read keep us,
so we don't know. We do know, however, what the
Amata people who are up in the north by South
rather they're south of Cusco by Puno. They inhabited that
area very very ancient people. The Amata people and the
Ketchra people. The Keutchua were the inhabitants around the Cusco

(01:11:19):
Uh and the Keutchewans say that before the Inca cane,
that the walls of Soaksaie woman and the megalithic sites
that you find in the andes were constructed by the
offspring of the gods, the giants. They'll say that the
giants built them.

Speaker 2 (01:11:38):
That's what they say, the offspring of the gods.

Speaker 3 (01:11:40):
Right, So the so Sosie woman, for example, if you ask,
and you can still find them in Cusco. The older
Ketchuan people, some of them don't even speak Spanish. They know,
let's be Ketchua. And if you were to ask them
who built these megalithic walls, they would tell you that
there are built by giants. So that's the lore of

(01:12:05):
the pre Inca people. The and again the Inca never
actually claimed that they built them. So all of the
walls around Machu Pichu, all of the rather what am
I saying here, all of the megalithic foundations of Cusco

(01:12:26):
when you're actually walking in the city. I'm not talking
about Saksaiwama now, which is a mile outside of the city,
it's kind of really part of Cusco. But when you're
walking downtown, in downtown Cusco, in the middle of the city,
and you're walking through the streets, which is really remarkable
because as you're walking through the streets, you are bounded
by massive, exquisite megalithic walls, and they're the majority of them,

(01:12:55):
if not all of them. The largest ones are made
of green diarte. And I know that the original megalithic
foundations of Cusco are green diarite. I know that for
a fact. So somebody was building there long before the Inca.
The Inca, what they received was a legacy. They received

(01:13:19):
information and knowledge from an older culture. Now, the Inca
were very sophisticated masons. They were excellent masons. I always
called the Inca, the Romans of South America, they very
much liked. The Romans were incredible masons and they they were.
They built amazing aq aqueducts just like the Romans, different

(01:13:41):
kinds of aqueducts. So they were they were ingenious. They
were ingenious farmers. I mean they they invented some some
absolutely incredible agricultural technologies, and they were a very sophisticated,
remarkable civilizations. I'm not trying to take anything away from

(01:14:02):
the Inca.

Speaker 1 (01:14:03):
Would you say invented or imparted?

Speaker 3 (01:14:07):
I would say that the Inca were in possession of
unusual knowledge. That's evident. But they didn't build the megaliths.
And let's take one example in particular, the walls of
sox Sie Woman. You go to Peru Acustco rather go

(01:14:28):
to the walls of Soxsie Woman, some of the most
impressive megalithic walls, maybe the most impressive megalithic walls on Earth,
and everybody says they were built by the Inca. Where's
the proof that they were built by the Inca? None?
There is no proof the doorways at socks Sie Woman.
And this is not always the case with megaliths. By
the way, but the doorways that Socksi Woman are immense.

(01:14:49):
They're built for nine You could a nine foot tall person,
even a ten foot tall person in some cases can
pass with those doorways. And you'll notice the steps apps
that go up through the citadel of Saksi Woman are
are spaced unusually far apart. So I'm six foot one

(01:15:10):
my stride, those stairs were not built for a guy
of my size. If those stairs were built the way
we built stairs, where you sort of take a stride
on each step, then you're looking at a nine foot
tall guy, which would correspond to the doors. And I

(01:15:31):
think Sockxsi Women is unique in this aspect that it
looks like it was built for very large people, whereas
Oh John Tai Tambo doesn't, by the way, which is
also an exquisite megalithic site. But in the case of
Saxsi Woman, it does. And what's really important is to
understand that there is no direct evidence that the INCA

(01:15:53):
built Sosie Woman none. In fact, there is direct evidence
to the contrary that's never never been published officially. I
have a friend, a good friend of mine named Anselm
p Romblo, who's a Spanish explorer and has has has
done archaeology. He's not an archaeologist, but he's worked with archaeology.
He's had archaeologists on his team. And they were given

(01:16:15):
permission to excavate around Socksi Woman and it's all documented.
And when they were they were digging into the foundations
of Soaksi Woman. And when they went deep into the foundations,
because a lot of that citadel is still buried, when

(01:16:37):
they dug down deep into the foundations, he discovered pre
inc In artifacts. That's it. That's it. That's conclusive evidence
that the Inca didn't build socks I Woman, that somebody
else did, because you have pre Inca artifacts at the foundation,

(01:16:59):
which means that those walls were standing when a pre
Incan civilization occupied that area before the Inca.

Speaker 2 (01:17:10):
So what happens when their historical centers get ahold of
that sort of information, Well, they'll.

Speaker 3 (01:17:15):
Never they'll never concede that in Peru because their whole,
the whole industry, the tourism industry, is established on the
Inca Empire. So they want all of these major sites
to be Inca, not everything. You know, you have the
Moche civilization, you have the Perrocasi of you have all
different kind civilizations that have their own ruins. But as

(01:17:37):
it pertains to Cusco in the in the Andes Mountains,
it's the Inca, It's the Inca Empire. And to attribute
the walls of Saksi Woman to a pre Incan culture,
it's almost sacrilegious to them, and it deflates their narrative.
And I'm not saying that an inferior pre Inca culture

(01:18:00):
built those walls. What I'm saying is that an inferior
pre Inca culture inhabited that area while those walls were standing.
Those walls, in my estimation, were built in the Antediluvian
h by a remarkable civilization that was destroyed in the cataclysm,
and and they were using the same kind of technology

(01:18:21):
and knowledge scene all over the world, on every continent.
So the point is that there's artifacts. Anselm documented the artifacts,
he took pictures, there are archaeologists on the scene, there
are pot there's pottery shards, there's artifacts of pre inc
And civilizations down when you dig down into the strata

(01:18:42):
and you get down to the foundations. So that right
there is evidence that the Inca didn't build those walls.
But you'll never see that you'll never hear that. In fact,
here in the United States, I'm probably the only person knows.

(01:19:03):
But Anselm Piama has documented it and and and and
did great work over there. And I could talk for
hours about about Anselm Piambla. But so that just gives
you an idea of how misconstrued some of these megalithic
sites are in regard to their in regard to the
conventional narrative that's that's literally just concocted to explain their existence.

(01:19:29):
And there's so there's so much you could you could
say about these megalithic sites. I do believe that there
there there was a post flood culture that could still
build megaliths. On a smaller scale, there was one, the Phoenicians.
But aside from the Phoenicians, by the way, who built
Solomon's Temple, the Phoenicians who circumvented circumnavigated Africa, the Phoenicians

(01:19:58):
who built theattleships in the in the uh and the
and the so much of the great palaces and in Egypt.
The Phoenicians, the Venetians are are an important key to
unlocking some of the mysteries of the post flood ancient world.
But the Phoenicians, they were the only ones in a
in a post flood context as far as I can tell,

(01:20:20):
who could approximate the skill the abilities of the Masons
that that preceded them in the in the Antiediluvian world.
And and also by the way, the Phoenicians there were
giants among the Phoenicians and they had a cult of
giant worship.

Speaker 1 (01:20:40):
Now do you think uh so that was That was
the question I was actually gonna ask, is it h
was it? Is it the people or is it the
knowledge that they then are imparted by their predecessors or
their lowercase G gods because it kind of does draws
some overlaps with for me, with what's been going on
with the UFO narrative, where where reverse engineering some of

(01:21:03):
this stuff that has been left behind crashed here purposefully,
or whatever you'd like to think about it. We are
working with this technology. It's it's of my opinion that
we're using it right now to talk because I don't
know exactly where you are, but David's about two hours
from where I am, and this is a miracle. None
of this stuff is even connected with with wire. It's

(01:21:23):
kind of going through the air somehow, Where do where
do aliens fall into this for you?

Speaker 3 (01:21:29):
Or at least you mean specifically, are you talking about
in an ancient context or you're talking about like.

Speaker 1 (01:21:34):
In general, Yeah, the current well whatever, whatever the narrative
is today.

Speaker 3 (01:21:40):
Okay, let me put that. Let me let me address
both both of both of those things. First, in an
ancient context, I said that the the premise of ancient
aliens is true. The premise, the premise of ancient aliens
is that mankind has been in contact with extraterrestrial beings
since the beginning. That's a that is a biblical fact.

(01:22:02):
That's a biblical fact. That's not ancient astronaut theory. That
is a biblical fact. Now they get off, they get
off into the weeds after that. But but I but
I want everyone to realize that that is indeed true.
Now that that does not mean that aliens built the pyramids,
or aliens built this or that. No, No, that I

(01:22:22):
think is ridiculous. So I'll leave that there. But in
regard to the phenomenon today, I think it's it's evident
that there is an alien presence. And I use the
word alien very purposely. Alien simply means, let's make it.

(01:22:50):
Let's make it specific to sentient beings, okay, because you
can have an amoeba on Mars, that's technically an alien species.

Speaker 2 (01:22:58):
Right.

Speaker 3 (01:23:00):
In regard to conscious beings, alien is simply a race
of conscious beings that is not us, that is not
the human species. So any conscious beings that inhabit the
Earth that are not the human race are alien to

(01:23:24):
the human race. Now, that applies whether those creatures, whether
those entities are from Mars, or whether they're from the Earth,
or whether they're from some extra dimensional reality. Right, so
that term applies. Extraterrestrial is much more definitive. Extraterrestrial is

(01:23:46):
a being whose provenance is not planet Earth. So that's different.
So an extraterrestrial is not from here. Now, you could
have extraterrestrial beings who have been inhabiting the Earth longer
than the human species. Right, they would still be extra
terrestrial if they did if they didn't originate here, even

(01:24:09):
if they've been inhabiting the planet longer than us. That's
an important thing to keep in mind when you when
you when you are exposed to all the many, many
different theories of in in the in euphology. In regard
to these entities in regard to these the alien presence,

(01:24:29):
as I call it. So there is an alien presence,
there's no question that there's an alien presence. The nature
of that presence, the provenance of those beings that can
be debated, and I don't know if I'm answering your question,
but you know, there's a whole lot of them. I'm
sure in the in the in the comments of these
kinds of discussions, you're going to get the usual fair

(01:24:52):
You're gonna you're gonna get the people who say not
that the aliens are just extra terrestrial extra dimensionals, or
not extraterrestrial extra dimensional, or aliens are just demons, blah
blah blah. Those are very easy, simple explanations for something
that's very complex, and therefore those are very inaccurate explanations.

(01:25:14):
So there's this contention that this alien presence, these entities
with whom humanity is interacting and interacting today in a
very physical way. We're talking about physical craft, reverse engineering

(01:25:37):
of tangible technology, interfacing with physical beings. That's the kind
of interaction I'm talking about, not like psychic interaction or
something like that. I'm talking about physical interaction. There's this
notion that people want to write off what's called the
extraterrestrial hypothesis completely write it off and say no, no, no,

(01:25:58):
these are extra dimensionals, are all tra terrestrials, or you
know again, they come from the inner Earth. Whatever. The
problem is that we know that the craft, their craft
is capable of traversing outer space, and obviously I'm going
to be triggering all the flat earthers here, but that

(01:26:22):
their craft is capable of of of traversing through our
upper atmosphere and in in in outside of the atmosphere
of Earth. We know that because there have been credible,
legitimate video evidence, in photographic evidence evidence of of UFO
craft including saucers out there. So so for me, I'm

(01:26:46):
going to say that the alien presence is at least extraterrestrial.
Why do I say that, Because if they can fly
around in the in in in the in outer space,
then what's going to inhibit them from flying Mars, or

(01:27:07):
having a base on Mars, or originating from Mars or
any of the other planets in our Solar system. Nothing
is the answer. Nothing, absolutely nothing. So I think at
least we're dealing with extraterrestrials in the sense that they're
not originally from the Earth. Now are they inhabiting the Earth?
And you know there could be very various groups here,

(01:27:30):
but are they inhabiting the Earth? I think the answer
there is also clearly yes, because I think it's if
you do, if you delve into deep into eupology, you're
going to encounter I think sufficient evidence to deduce that.
Let's be specific to gray aliens. For example, gray aliens

(01:27:50):
have bases in the Earth and under the sea. I
think that's evident. So they're here and they're both inhabiting
the Earth and also have the capability to go elsewhere,
presumably in the Solar System. So you see, you have
a very complex picture here. There are no easy answers

(01:28:13):
in regard to extra and I know you didn't ask
me this question, but this is where my brain went
for whatever reason, in regard to extra extra dimensional hypotheses.
I'm open to this. Certainly. I do believe there are
more than I subscribe to the extra spatial hypothesis. In

(01:28:35):
other words, that there are more than three dimensions physical dimensions,
something like string theory, where there's ten different dimensions to
our reality that we currently reside in that we just
can't perceive. So I do subscribe to that. I don't
subscribe to alternate world theory. I don't subscribe to the
notion that there are a multiverse, which obviously to you,

(01:29:00):
and so many of the popular movies that have come
out in the last ten years have have made made
great use of this multiverse idea.

Speaker 2 (01:29:11):
And that premise really caught fire.

Speaker 3 (01:29:12):
Huh yeah, way too much too, because if they're conflating
a bunch of different theories, the multiverse is different than
than an alternative world theory. It's it's not the same,
and it's not the same as hyperspace theory, which is
what I said that extra there are extra spatial dimensions
to the reality that we inhabit. That's called hyperspace. And

(01:29:34):
I believe in hyperspace. I think that's I think that's
part of the fundamental reality of our world that we inhabit.
But but this idea of multiverse that's completely different, That
is a totally different idea. And then obviously alternate realities,
alternate worlds are our worlds that are not within our

(01:29:59):
are are not within the known universe. They're like they're
outside of the known universe. These are all different ideas
they really are. They're different theories that movies just they
just compress them all together and they confuse the hell
out of everybody. And so when someone says, oh, these
are extra dimensional beings, well, what exactly do you mean

(01:30:24):
by extra dimension? Are you saying that they're coming from
a multiverse? Are you saying they're coming from like an
alternate universe like Narnia? Are you saying that they're able
to access the full spectrum of hyperspace of our hyperspatial reality.
But that's still our universe, mind you thats still our universe?
What are you saying? And the reality is that most

(01:30:47):
people who use that term don't have any idea what
they're saying, And so they take this, and forgive me
for the rant here, but they take this very plausible
rational explanation, the extra terrestrial hypothesis, and they throw it
in the garbage in favor of an extra dimensional hypothesis,

(01:31:08):
which they do not understand and nobody really does. Because
we've never seen another dimension. We have no idea what
another dimension looks like, or what entities coming from another
dimension would look like, or Hollywood act or Hollywood operate,
We have no idea because all bets are off. When
you talk about a multiverse, for example, you could be

(01:31:29):
talking about a plane of existence where all of the
laws of physics are different. I do not subscribe to that.
I do not believe that's real. That is fantasy as
far as I'm concerned. So if that's the case, then
all this is a realm of speculation that requires imagination. Really,
and I'm not discounting that there's maybe something to this

(01:31:53):
extra dimensional hypothesis, not multiverse and not alternative world theory.
Reject those two on biblical grounds, and that's another conversation
hyperspatial reality. Yes, and so these are It's very important
that people don't try and simplify something that's very complex

(01:32:15):
because you lose the granularity of it. It's a very
low resolution perspective. And so in regard to who these
entities are, well, there's things that we know about I'm
not sure if this was even your question. There's things
that we know about them. We know that they have
nuts in bolts technology that we can recover in reverse engineer.
And people might say, well, what makes you think you

(01:32:36):
know that we know that, And you can spend three
hours explaining why it's really conclusive that that's the fact,
that that's the reality. We know their physical beings, at
least some of them. We know that they're using technology.
We know that they die and it can be killed

(01:32:56):
in fact, so we're dealing with a physical reality, and
they are are abiding by at least some of what
we understand as the laws of physics. They're not entering
into our reality and doing whatever they want, like like
like the genie from a Latin. So we know these things,

(01:33:18):
and so the the extra and as I said before,
we also know that their capabilities are such that they
can easily maneuver outside of our atmosphere. And just as
they have bases on the Earth, it seems rational to
conclude that they have bases elsewhere in the Solar System.

(01:33:38):
They certainly have the technology, apparently to traverse the air
in the same way that they traverse the water. This
is apparent, and even in the documentation that's been released
by the government, when a saucer goes into the sea,
when it goes into the water, it moves through the

(01:34:00):
water in the same way moves through the air. In
other words, the water there is no impedance or the
water whatsoever, because it's not moving.

Speaker 1 (01:34:10):
It starts like the technology is kind of like actually
dragging it forward rather than propelling it forward. That's at
least what I've understood from Bob Blazar and what he said.

Speaker 3 (01:34:19):
The space time, space time, it's not moving. It's it's
not moving through matter. It's moving space time around it.
So that's why it's moving the atmosphere around it. It's
moving space. It's bending space time. So water and air

(01:34:42):
it doesn't matter because it's literally bend resistance.

Speaker 2 (01:34:47):
There's no resistance, there's no friction.

Speaker 3 (01:34:49):
Right, it's not moving through the air. It's not actually
moving through the water. It's moving that matter around it.

Speaker 1 (01:34:56):
Mister Alberino before because I want to respect your time,
and we've actually gone five minutes over them.

Speaker 3 (01:35:01):
Sorry, I apologize for this.

Speaker 2 (01:35:03):
This rants Hey, we're just doing this for your sake.

Speaker 1 (01:35:07):
I got time for it. I don't I wonder spec
it's it's amazing that you came on here to talk
with us to begin with. So I do thank you
for that, tremendous thank you. Where do you put the
idea sorry, just before you know you have to go
or anything, Where do you put the idea of accounts
saying when people are being abducted or experiencing sleep paralysis,

(01:35:28):
the name of Jesus Christ breaks that that occurrence from happening.

Speaker 3 (01:35:33):
I would never discount that, and I would never I
would never accuse somebody of lying they tell me that
that that that has happened. However, the problem is that
we have a lot of data from abductees accrued over
decades by confident researchers, and within this body of data

(01:35:56):
there are many, many, many accounts. I shouldn't say many, many, many.
There are numerous accounts in which in which Christians are
enthusiastically rebuking their abductees abductors rather in the name of Jesus,
to no effect and interesting and in fact, there are

(01:36:17):
some very interesting scenarios in which one case, for example,
I believe this is in the work Carla Turner, the
late doctor Carla Turner, in which an individual is rebuking
the abductors in the name of Jesus vociferously, enthusiastically, and
the gray simply disappear from it and come back with Jesus,

(01:36:39):
and Jesus says, it's okay. They're with me. Obviously not Christ,
but but a a a In other words, they saw
that the act the abductee was distraught, was rebuking them
in the name of Jesus. So they wanted to diffuse
this abductees panic and fear, and so they bring in

(01:37:01):
a Jesus like figure, probably a hybrid that with and
I believe this figure had blonde here and a beard
and bright blue eyes, and and was was comforting this abductee, saying, no,
it's okay, they're with me. They're not here to harm you.
They work for me, that sort of thing. So there's

(01:37:22):
all kinds of stuff like that I've heard. I'm saying
that was Jesus. I'm saying that was that was a
I heard.

Speaker 1 (01:37:27):
That was a deception, even from one of our members.
I believe stories similar to that where they will have
it almost seems like it's within the rules for them
to uh replicate or deceive, just so long as they
can get the consent to do so.

Speaker 3 (01:37:43):
Well, I've got you know. So that's and that's what
I told you there. And there may be some what
you just said, but there's there's what I just cited
is stuff that is a particular story that comes out
of the data that comes out of out of the
abduction material. But then then I I also have plenty
of people who I know personally, people who I can

(01:38:03):
attest to that are genuine, sincere believers in Christ to
abductees and who rebuke and so forth, and and to
no avail to get abducted. But but here's here's the
main thing, Okay, and this is what people this gets
lost in the conversation. Most abductees are already incapacitated before

(01:38:25):
the Grays arrive. You don't even have an opportunity to rebuke.
You're already incapacitated in most cases. In fact, if the
Grays are going to come abduct you, in most cases
not always, but in most cases, before they arrive, you're
out of it. You're already ready to go, so to speak.
They come and they collect you, they've already incapacitated you,

(01:38:47):
most likely through the implants. So this notion that the
Grays show up and you have all this energy to
be able to you know, rebuke and this and that
and see wait, you just likely most likely through the implant.

Speaker 1 (01:39:02):
What are you saying?

Speaker 3 (01:39:03):
The implants that the Grays implant the abductees with very
small about the size of pill technological device and I
think that part of it could have many functions, but
one of the most obvious functions would be to control
the nervous system and and other functions of the human
body and mind, and to render the abductee in a

(01:39:25):
state of in a state of compliance right or or
or incapacitation. In other words, you show up, the grays
show up, and the abductee is just out of it,
ready to go, and they come and collect the abductee.
And that's not always the case, and it depends, by
the way, the proximity of the craft has a lot

(01:39:49):
to do with this. So can we hold that thought
for a minute? Can I take it one minute?

Speaker 2 (01:39:55):
Rightly?

Speaker 3 (01:39:55):
All right? Talk amongst yourselves.

Speaker 1 (01:39:59):
All right, toss up our ad. This is yeah, we'll
toss up the add. This is a great episode so far.
Not I just want to ask him like one more thing.
But we're going to play a quick the dough ad
and then we'll be back.

Speaker 2 (01:40:11):
So everyday's episode is brought to you by Nideau Shave Cood.
Big Shave has been sy opping the American people for
decades with their multi blade razor scam eliminate razor burn,
irritation and ingrown hairs caused by deep penetrating multi blade cartridges.
You don't need expensive plastic replacement cartridges. The dough shave
Code applies you with a single stainless steel blade like

(01:40:32):
your grandfather used to use, high quality razor blades for
a precise and clean shave. The chrome plated Swedish stainless
steel blades made of electro plated brass. The twist to
open handle found on our traditional safety razors make changing
blades a snap, whether you're shaving your entire face or
just edging up your beard. Our single blade provides a

(01:40:52):
barber grade shave for a fraction of the price. Our
standard issue includes one traditional safety raiser and a box
of one h hundred stainless steel razor blades plastic free,
one hundred percent recyclable and seventy five dollars allows you
to shave for an entire year. And for those who
like to use a brand new blade for each shave,
sign up for our quarter Shave Club. Members receive a

(01:41:14):
major discount and pay twenty five cents per shave. Take
down Big Shade and visit nadoshavecode dot com to get
yourself their traditional safety razor veteran owned family operate and
be sure to use promo code Nephilim for fifteen percent
off your entire order. That's n ep hil Im for

(01:41:35):
fifteen percent off your entire order.

Speaker 1 (01:41:41):
You know what, Jacob, I will say, you're correct, But
we're not sub one hundred. We have over one hundred
on Rumble and from Twitter to total count probably count
right now five hundred something whatever. So it's spread out
among a couple of places. Mister Alberino's back.

Speaker 3 (01:41:58):
I'm back.

Speaker 2 (01:42:00):
Trains this and that was perfect timing. We had the
opportunity of run an ad And so what were we
talking about before we dismounted here we were we were talking.

Speaker 1 (01:42:07):
About rebuking aliens the name of Jesus. I think that's
right the question I had here. So what do you
in your opinion, what is their intention? Because it every
time I look at it does seem malicious in some
sort of way, like being being abducted in general is malicious.
It kind of goes against quote it's it's kidnapping, goes

(01:42:28):
against our code of ethics. So what are these things
doing in your opinion?

Speaker 3 (01:42:31):
Well, I would subscribe to doctor Jacob's final analysis, which
is planetary acquisition. I believe that the grades are interested
in planetary acquisition and and that is their ultimate goal.
And I always likened them to the antithesis of the
Borg from Star Trek, So, in other words, the opposite

(01:42:51):
of the Borg. And if the Trek is out there
will understand what I'm saying. The Borg where this, where this,
There were cyberorg and and they would they would they
would subdue and assimilate other civilizations into their own collective.
So they would take all of the civilizational knowledge and

(01:43:14):
technology and incorporate it into their cyborg collective and do
so overtly hostile, overt takeover. Right, Well, the Grays are
the opposite of that. The Grays do the very opposite.
The Grays assimilate themselves into your civilization and take over
in a subversive way, a covert way by by and

(01:43:39):
when I say, similate themselves into your civilization. Also they
assimilate themselves into your genome. So they create hybrids that
are advanced hybrids, that are that are nearly indistinguishable from
from from regular human beings. And for what purpose, I mean,
we could speculate maybe some of the some of the

(01:44:04):
why they might why they might do this many different reasons,
but ultimately, ultimately, I think the overarching objective here is
planets her acquisition. So and that is the grace.

Speaker 1 (01:44:18):
No, it does, it does overlap with I mean, what
were the intentions of the falling of the original Watches
when they intermingle with men. It was to taint a
gene pool. It was for dominion over earth, to take
our birthright. It's like these these motives seem to overlap.
Would you consider the current aliens extraterrestrials to be some

(01:44:39):
sort of nephilin.

Speaker 3 (01:44:41):
No, I don't think so. No, because I mean, that's
kind of an interesting question, but it's a loaded question.
I'm sorry, I'll be back one second. I can I
can say that with confidence that aliens the grace. Let's
be specific, so the Grays. So when I say aliens,
I mean I'm talking about the great Aliens are not demons.

(01:45:05):
That is a that is a false equivalency. They are
not demons, and and and and the reason why people
get all up in arms about that statement is because
they have they have a westernized perspective of what a
demon is and and and it's very it's very ambiguous.
It's a it's an amorphous thing, evil, malevolent, grotesque creature.

(01:45:29):
That's what it means to the Western in the Western
Christian mind. But that's invented, that is that, that is
the product of medieval Christianity. If you're going to in
your statement aliens are demons, if if what you mean
by demons is the biblical sense of demon, then then
you're only then you're only talking about the the disembodied

(01:45:54):
spirits of dead giants, the spirits of the Nephilene, which
are the unclean spirits of the New test that's it.
And those are the inhabiting spirits, those are the possessing spirits.
And we know how those spirits manifest in the world.
We know when those spirits inhabit somebody, that person is

(01:46:15):
lost to madness. They have epilsy. How did you say that,
They're throwing themselves in the New Testament of the fire,
rolling around, foaming from the mouth, screaming, breaking chains. These
are unhinged. These individuals are unhinged when they're inhabited by
these demons. And so you know, all you have to

(01:46:36):
really do is analyze the disposition of the gray alien
over and against the disposition of an unclean spirit in
the New Testament, And you tell me, do these things
look similar? And the answers, no, they couldn't be. They
couldn't be more dissimilar. Gray aliens are dispassionate and robotic
and very very much much controlled beings who do not

(01:47:05):
display their not emotive, They don't display emotion. On the
other hand, you have unclean spirits in the New Testament, demons,
which are, as I said, unhinged and ravenous and screaming
and writhing. And people say, well, the gray aliens are
the meat suits for the demons. But that doesn't make
any sense either, because you're dealing with the same problem.

(01:47:26):
Why would these unclean spirits manifest in one way a
human being and in a completely opposite way in a
gray alien. Somebody explained that to me, Look, if you're
going to concoct a theory, fine, but the theory's got
to be rational. I mean it's got to Could it
be because.

Speaker 2 (01:47:46):
If these were to be a sort of a biotech
meat suit, that they are limited in their capacity for
expression in comparison to God's creation? Why uh?

Speaker 3 (01:48:01):
And the number one? Why number two? Why do they
want to be in there? And I don't think they do.
Why would they want to be in there? Great at
least sell the sexual organs.

Speaker 2 (01:48:10):
So theory would go, they are there, I suppose, entrapped
in this realm, right Tartarus, and that they cannot almost
like al Capone controlling the mob from prison, uh, where
he can't be on the outside, but he can still
kind of pull the strings. And so the idea is

(01:48:30):
that al Capone, I suppose, would be like the Fallen, right,
and so that through some technological means, no, like the
Fallen that are locked in Chartaris. So yeah, the Watchers,
I'm sorry, uh. And so the idea would be that
they can enter this realm through some limited technological means

(01:48:53):
outside of just inhabiting a person possessing a person, that
they can I suppose get here through technology. Right. Sometimes
top and I talk about how it seems as though
if you go back through history, there are always these
moments where society is pushed pushed forward a little bit
through some sort of technological advancement, and that oftentimes it

(01:49:16):
comes in the form of like some lowercase G God
teaching you agriculture, teaching a people agriculture, or you know,
fast forward to the Roswell crash. Whether or not, like
Top alluded to earlier, that was on purpose or not,
isn't really the point. The point is we recovered some
technology from that, and that maybe that entire that technology

(01:49:38):
informs the technology that we use today. And so if
you're going this is obviously theory, right, we have no
tangible evidence to support this theory, but the idea is
that maybe there has always been a push to get
society to a technological level advanced enough that something on
the other side of the veil could utilize this technolog Uh.

(01:50:01):
You know, you look at situations like stargates and I
know I'm dragging you into the weeds here and kind
of unprovable. Welcome to the jargon, welcome to the show, right.

Speaker 1 (01:50:11):
But regulating myself so uh so, you know, I have
a hard time I have a hard time putting, uh
like biblically putting where these these aliens would fall, because
they're certainly important in how the next couple of years
are going to play out. Like there's a there's just
been too much like in the past one hundred years,
too much back and forth and like like just dangling

(01:50:33):
around this UFO Extra Extra Terrestrial extra dimensional. It seems
like we're being prepared for something, something's about to happen
in that and it seems big.

Speaker 3 (01:50:44):
How vivid would your portrait of reality be if you
were limited to three crans crayons to color in that reality?

(01:51:09):
Say you were coloring a portrait of reality, trying to
be as accurate as possible, but you're limited to three,
let's say, markers, three different colors. Okay, that's what we're
dealing with right now. So we the Christian community because

(01:51:31):
and rightly so, we are based, we are anchored into
the Biblical narrative. We assume that everything that happens around
us in the universe has a direct explanation inside of
this text, the sixty six books of the Bible. So

(01:51:52):
every kind of being that one might encounter in the
universe therefore would have to be an angel, a demon,
a human, or God basically, right, And so that's what
I'm talking about. So you've got like four colors here
that you can use to color in this portrait of reality,

(01:52:14):
and it's just it's just woefully inaccurate.

Speaker 2 (01:52:18):
So we have this.

Speaker 3 (01:52:22):
Desire and we feel that we are constrained to explain everything,
all of reality the compendium of reality using four terms,
let's be more specific, the compendium of all consciousness in

(01:52:43):
the universe. We feel constrained to describe all of it
with four words angel, demon, human, God, and I'm saying
that is woefully inaccurate. I think we can we can
disabuse ourselves of this constraint. We can take the word

(01:53:03):
demon and we can apply it accurately to where we
see demons in the New Testament, the Old Testament, New
Testament really and understand that that's a thing. And then
we can take this term angel, not fallen angel, by
the way. That's I understand the term means, but that's
not a biblical term. So we take this term angel
or sons of God, and we can slot that over

(01:53:24):
here where it's approappropriate because we can understand it in
regard to the biblical narrative God. Obviously, that's an easy one, right,
And then human beings that's easy too. We can put
all of those in their places and then allow for
all whole panoply of other things to exist also, And uh,

(01:53:47):
I think that we have to do that. So we
There is no reason in my mind, there's no there's
no rational, no justifiable rationale in my mind to to
associate a New Testament unclean spirit, which is a demon,
with a gray alien. I don't have to make that association.

(01:54:09):
I'm not compelled to make that association. What is a
gray alien? A gray alien is a gray alien. That's
what it is. Now. Is it entirely biological? Probably not.
Is it entirely mechanical or the product of artificial intelligence?
Probably not. It's probably a composite. I would say it's

(01:54:30):
likely a composite. It's it's some sort of a cybernetic
biological creature. Possibly there's an AI hive mind there. Maybe,
I don't know. Nobody does it is physical? Is it
a meat suit? Is it just a suit for something? Well,
I don't know, as maybe, but that's just I mean,

(01:54:52):
there's there's no way to answer that question definitively one
way or another. But what we can what we can
understand stand is the disposition of the gray What is
it like? What does it do? Can you kill it?
So we can answer those three questions definitively. It's dispassionate

(01:55:13):
and robotic. The grays are are occupied for the most
part with processing abductees, and yes, you can kill them
now are you going to be able to know? But
yes you can, because they die. So I have a
friend who is an abductee who reached out and grabbed

(01:55:34):
a gray by the neck and squeezed its neck to
choke it. But she went unconscious, which is always going
to be the case. But let's assume that maybe this gray,
for whatever reason, could not incapacitate her. Could she have
choked that thing to death or snapped its neck. I'm
sure she could have. So so these are things we

(01:55:55):
know if and when I say we know, I'm of
course referencing theduction material and people who are being abducted
who continue to talk.

Speaker 2 (01:56:03):
So it feels like, tim if we just turned this
corner within the scientific community and we started dedicating resources
to being able to resist the mechanism that they use
to cast us into a hypnosis state or put you know,
put us into a paralysis state, whatever it is, that
we could head kick the little ones, leg kick the tall,

(01:56:26):
skinny ones and end this entire situation. That if they
just didn't have that one, because everything is like they
are weak and thin and frail, and oftentimes when people
come to I've heard stories where they seem worried they
seem frantic. They want to make you go back to Oh, yes,
I've heard it to sleep.

Speaker 3 (01:56:46):
Yes, there's there's there's historical accounts of that, and then
I've also heard several counts of that from from modern
DA abductees. You could resolve this whole problem with the
shotgun if you could. If you could, if you could
interrupt their technol if when they came to get you,
rather than you being which is almost always the case incapacitate,

(01:57:06):
laying on your bed, can't move, rather than that they
come in and you're I mean, if you if you could,
if you could interfere with the control mechanism. Problem is
part of it is telepathic control. But but but let's
say if you could interfere with this mechanism, because part
of it, I think is I think a big part
of it. The majority of the control mechanism is the implant,

(01:57:27):
but also that there's telepathic control exerted on the abduct
as well. Let's say you were impervious to the telepathic
control and you've been able to disrupt that technological interference
you canna you could, you could, you could dispatch with
the grays until they deploy whatever technology they have from
their craft and you know, and incinerate you. But you could,

(01:57:51):
you could blow the heads off of these things, Yes,
I have no doubt. And now would they bleed red blood?
Probably not. Uh, they're not They're not like us in
that sense, you know. So these are probably clones. Okay,
so they're biological cybernetic clones. And and the real I

(01:58:17):
think organic creatures are the insectalins. Those are probably organic ones.
Maybe those things bleed a little more.

Speaker 2 (01:58:23):
Like we do, but those seem a little bit more formidable.

Speaker 1 (01:58:27):
And like reptilians. Possibly, would you consider reptilians in the
same category.

Speaker 3 (01:58:31):
No, I think reptilian is something else. But it's so crazy, dude.

Speaker 1 (01:58:34):
It's like, because you're you're right, I want to put
this in a nice little box, right, I want to
put them. Okay, these are demons. We can deal with
it now, let's move forward.

Speaker 3 (01:58:43):
But I want to shot the box quantum physics in
a nice little box. No, exactly exactly, I don't know.

Speaker 2 (01:58:50):
It depends on if you're looking on the box, looking
in the box, or noting what.

Speaker 1 (01:58:54):
I'm What I'm saying is putting God in a box.
You absolutely cannot And you've kind of broke down that
wall for us again, thank you for that. Just can't
There's just infinite possibilities of what is going on, and
it's way worse than we think.

Speaker 3 (01:59:09):
So my slogan has embraced the complexity. Don't try and
simplify it. Don't be a reductionist. Don't try and simplify it.
Don't don't take these few words that you have at
your disposal for the biblical narrative and try to and
try to explain everything going on with them. That's infantile
and there's no there's no commandment to do such a thing.

(01:59:29):
There's there's no there's there's no reason why someone who
subscribes to the Gospel of Christ should feel constrained to
do such a thing. I certainly don't. A gray alien
is a gray alien, and why does it have to
have anything to do whatsoever with a demon number one
or with watchers number two?

Speaker 1 (01:59:52):
It?

Speaker 3 (01:59:52):
Now can we understand? Can we can we make an
evaluation in regard to their to there, let's say morality,
And that's probably not the best word that I'm looking
for here, but but yes we can. What what they're

(02:00:13):
doing is nefarious, and what they're doing they're not asking
our permission to do it. I mean, not each individual abductee.
They're not. Apparently, nothing they're doing is beneficial to us.
It's it's invasive, it's intrusive. There isn't There aren't any

(02:00:33):
real abductees, not contact these abductees who want to be
abducted that I know or have ever heard of, you know,
it's it's people are being taken against their will. And
and and obviously this is nefarious. Obviously this is an enemy.
This is an enemy. And and that's it. I mean,

(02:00:57):
there's not a whole lot more we can know. Then,
this is what they act like, this is what they do.
And based on what they what they act like, their
disposition and what they do, we can we can make
certain determinative, determinative statements like their physical And they're nefarious.

(02:01:19):
And again we're referencing specifically the grace. So they're deceptive. Certainly,
they're deceptive. They they create screen memories in the minds
of the abductees, so they can't remember the abduction episodes. Uh.
They so they're screwing with your mind. They're screwed. They're
they're implanting their fetuses into the wombs of our females.

(02:01:40):
That's pretty dastardly, if you ask me, that's that's that's
you know, that's pretty uh uh cunning and and certainly
certainly infringes on any any notion of human freedom, and
and you know, it's contrary to our will certainly, so

(02:02:05):
it's not difficult to draw that. What I think is
the obvious conclusion that the Grays are a little evil bastards.
And I would say, more specifically, the insectulns are evil
baskets because the Grays. I'm not sure if the Grays
are even conscious. They may be they very well. Maybe
I don't know, but I'm pretty sure the insectulents are

(02:02:28):
so for those who don't know, the insectulons are the
managers of the abduction program. If you're abducted, brought onto
a craft, sometimes you'll encounter them, but they are the managers.
They're the ones controlling the Grays. Now somebody controlling the
insectlins may maybe maybe the Nordics are I don't know,
but I think we're dealing with at least four kinds

(02:02:51):
of beings, probably more. But I think I can say
pretty concretely that we're dealing with four, and I was
pleased that my friend Richard Dolan actually has the same
we're dealing with insectulens, we're dealing with grays, and the
gray faction really does include the insectlones. But let's for
the sake of clarity, the insectlons, the Grays, the Reptilians,

(02:03:14):
and the Nordics. And I happen to believe that the
Nordics are the Angelic race. Could be wrong, but that's
what I think. So these things are very likely real,
the Grace. It's a stone cold fact. They're an angelic race.
Are you saying, like, what exactly does that mean?

Speaker 1 (02:03:37):
And then that that also does that lend itself to
these other things being possibly like like like I was
saying before, h influenced by something that's not angelic. I'm
not sure I follow the question if so, If if
one is an angelic race, what do you mean by that?

Speaker 3 (02:03:55):
Well, of these beings says the elder race. In other words,
they're older than the human species. These will be the
sons of God. And if you read my book you'll
understand why I say this. They look like us, rather
we look like them, because there we're sons of God
as well. We're supposed to be, so we're part of
the same family. Now, there are apostate sons, many apostate

(02:04:18):
human sons, and certainly a lot of apostate angelic sons. Now,
because I use the word angelic, that doesn't mean ethereal.
So it's and people say, well, aren't they spiritual beings?
Just fine? But what is spiritual? Because spiritual is not supernatural.
By the way, supernatural is a contrivance. There is no

(02:04:41):
such word in the Hebrew Bible or in the New Testament.
Doesn't exist word supernatural is not a biblical term. Much
like fallen angel. These are not biblical terms. Now, I
get what people mean by both supernatural and fall and angel,
but these are not biblical terms. Supernatural means above or
beyond nature, and I don't think that. I don't think.
I think there's one being who's above and beyond nature,

(02:05:03):
and that's God. Everything else is within the universe and
has to abide by the laws, the same laws of physics,
and is all connected synergistically. That's Collagins one fifteen, by
the way. So so these are these are a race

(02:05:23):
of beings who exist in the in the universe, who
are not human, but are are affiliated with the human
race because they are members of the family. And what
I mean by that, I mean they're members of the
divine family. This is a biblical concept. They're called sons
of God. We're also called sons of God who we're

(02:05:45):
giving power to become sons of God. According to Jesus,
that's called the resurrection. So we're on the path to
being returned to the Father's house and becoming sons of
God of God again like Adam was, and being reunited
with our family.

Speaker 5 (02:05:58):
I e.

Speaker 3 (02:05:59):
Are older siblings, sorry, older siblings, the elder race. But
that's not to say that all of these older siblings
are good. No, they're clearly not. A lot of them
are apostate. It's just like a lot of human beings
are trash okay and apostate and evil. So this is
when you there are some very unhelpful terms I think

(02:06:20):
that have you know, cause a lot of confusion and
and and one of those terms is supernatural. I don't
I don't. I don't take issue if people use the
term supernatural, as I know what they mean, but I
think that word is engenders a lot more confusion than
it does clarity. So don't misunderstand me. When I say
an angelic race, I'm not talking about some ethereal, supernatural

(02:06:45):
genie thing. I'm talking about a race, a bona fide
race of beings who pre exist us and who have
and who hail from a civilization that is much more
advanced in ours. Indeed, I would say this is the
Kingdom of Heaven. So they're in play and have been

(02:07:06):
in place since the beginning. That's why the premise of
ancient ancient aliens is in fact accurate. So they're in play.
There's no question. If you subscribe to the Bible, then
you know they're in play. The Grays, the Reptilians, the Sectolens.
I think the evidence is very is overwhelming, really in

(02:07:27):
regard to the existence of the Grays. In regard to
the existence of the Reptilians, not so much, although I
do subscribe to the notion that such a race exists.
Now where are they from? Are they extraterrestrial or are they?
Are they a primordial terrestrial race that's been here always,

(02:07:49):
These these these Reptilians, I don't know. I suspect that
that might be true. So you know, it's complex and
It's like, there's no way you can really simplify something
so complex. You just have to deal with it and
embrace the complexity, and then, you know, stop trying to

(02:08:09):
stop limiting yourself to three markers, three crayons. Uh when
when attempting to color in the contours of reality.

Speaker 1 (02:08:21):
Excellent, absolutely excellent. I like I like doing our show
where we can go off the rails, but I like
it even more when somebody can come on and really, uh,
you know, give me something that's going that I'm going
to think about for the next week, probably a month
or so, and really chew on this. Thank you for
thanks for doing that, man, and thank you for coming on.

(02:08:43):
I think I want to respect your time again. We
said it like an hour and a half before we started,
and we're like two ten March. Hope you didn't have
anything to do.

Speaker 3 (02:08:50):
That was my own doing. And let me let me
let me make it clear by the way that I
do believe that I do believe that nepheline was still around. Jihnes.
You mentioned earlier the Kandahar Giant story. I'm telling you
that's that that story is one hundred percent true, or
at least at least the the the elements of that

(02:09:15):
story are one hundred percent. Try let's say, so, I
do believe that Nephiline is still around. It's not that
I don't that I don't believe in Nephiline. And I
do believe that that the unclean spirits, that the the
these the spirits of dead Nephiline are still around and
still demon possession is is actually real, although I don't
think it occurs as much people think. But because there's

(02:09:36):
a limited amount of these things, So, yes, all of
that's real. So I'm not saying, no, that's not really real,
and only aliens are real. No, no, no, that's not
what I'm saying. At all those things are real, and
they have their place in their category. There's no reason
to assume that these other things are even directly associated
with those. Might they be maybe maybe I haven't heard

(02:09:57):
any compelling theories though, however, or again, to just highlight
this last thing, I do believe. Now, if you want
to say, are aliens fallen angels? Now that's an interesting question.
That's different than the question are are aren't angels our
aliens just demons? That that's an irrational that's that's.

Speaker 1 (02:10:18):
A question I would I would pose it would it
would be more our aliens, uh nephelin being product of
the product of fallen angels and.

Speaker 3 (02:10:27):
Sea product somehow, Well, I mean so so so this
is part of this what I was about to say. So, so,
are uh what some of what we're calling aliens and extraterrestrials.
Are those quote unquote fallen angels? I think the answer
to that question is absolutely yes. Not the grays though.

(02:10:47):
Are the grays created by manufactured by the quote unquote
fallen angels? Very possibly? Very possibly?

Speaker 2 (02:10:57):
Uh?

Speaker 3 (02:10:57):
Are the insectolens the fallen angels?

Speaker 2 (02:11:00):
No?

Speaker 3 (02:11:02):
No, that's something else. Are they created or controlled by
quote unquote I hate the term following angel. I'm using
it for clarity's sake. Are they controlled by or created
by the fallen angels? Potentially? That's absolutely a plausible theory,
and I think there may be some truth there. I

(02:11:22):
don't know, but but so so hopefully this this is
making sense to people. I just don't think that aliens
are demons in the biblical sense doesn't make any sense.

Speaker 1 (02:11:34):
It's important And again, so the last sentence that you said, there,
we we this is what we've been talking about.

Speaker 3 (02:11:41):
We completely agree.

Speaker 1 (02:11:43):
The only thing that we've been doing is explaining it
like a bunch of retards. It's it's important to differentiate
because it's true, my drink. If we're going to be battling,
what is like a bunch of retards. I mean, that's
what I special. I mean, you got no ideas nine
of our things.

Speaker 3 (02:12:03):
Not people are going to fixate now. People are gonna
they're gonna discount everything we said and just fixate on
the fact that we use the term retard. No I said,
not tim.

Speaker 1 (02:12:13):
But if you're going to like like you were saying,
they're certainly an enemy or an adversary, it should we
should be specific about what they are if there indeed
is some kind of a culmination coming to a head
or a battle or something with them. Mixing them up
doesn't really help being specific about what they are, what
they do, their intentions, their motives, they're very they're all

(02:12:35):
very different. So yeah, we should for the listener base,
take that into account. Swallow your ego or whatever you
were thinking before, take into account what he's saying.

Speaker 3 (02:12:44):
There's a lot of things out there, you know, bigfoots
out there somewhere, so you know, I mean, we're not.
We're not the only players in the game. Okay, we're
not the only conscious beings in the universe. That doesn't
change the narrative of the Bible, and it absolutely does
not change or alter the Gospel of Christ at all,

(02:13:07):
And for some reason people think think it does. It
does not at all. I mean, there's something called sons
of God angels that doesn't change the gospel. They're non human, extraterrestrial,
sentient beings, full stop. They are. There's no no one
could I don't care who you are, how many letters

(02:13:27):
do you have in front of your name, There's no
getting around the fact that angels in the biblical sense
are extraterrestrial. That is a that is a fact. So
and I think I think, you know, put a little
bit of thought into it. Most peopleoul would would would

(02:13:47):
agree obviously that that's the case. Angels were not created
on planet Earth, and anyone who thinks they were is
just I don't know where they I don't know where
they would where they would draw that from that that
that that that would be a very that would be

(02:14:07):
a very extra biblical conclusion. Certainly, to think that angels
derive or or were are earthborn creatures they clearly are
not right. So there it is. I mean, that's that
class of beings breaks that paradigm immediately. So if you

(02:14:30):
people who say, well, wait a minute, if aliens exist,
then what about this or what about that, Well, you
already have that problem with angels.

Speaker 2 (02:14:40):
You already have it.

Speaker 3 (02:14:42):
Alien The existence of other beings doesn't, doesn't is not
a new problem. You already have that problem with the
angelic race. So and it's very clear that that Jesus
did not die for the angels. He died for the

(02:15:02):
human species, for the sons and daughters of Adam. So
that that's a imagined obstacle here, and even the Catholic
churches is uh wrestling with it, with this imagined obstacle.
It's it's it's it's irrelevant really because we've we've been
we've been unintentionally, unconsciously grappling with this very same problem

(02:15:28):
for many centuries. There are other extraterrestrial sentient beings in
the universe period. There are no one, no, no, no
Bible literate Christian could ever ever contend with that statement.

Speaker 1 (02:15:46):
And to further your point, I like, like you said,
it doesn't weaken the narrative of the Bible.

Speaker 3 (02:15:50):
I think it.

Speaker 1 (02:15:51):
It actually strengthens it because there is something about our
birthright and what we're given and what everything else in
play here wants, because every want, everything that you've been
describing seems to want one thing, this similar thing, and
it's been given to us, and then even further consecrated,
given to us even further by sending his son to

(02:16:13):
die for us. So it's it's it's, as man, a very.

Speaker 3 (02:16:18):
Interesting thing to realize. I would encourage people to read
my book Birthright. If you're confused, if you're wondering, if
you think I'm a heretic or whatever, go read Birthright.

Speaker 4 (02:16:27):
I I.

Speaker 3 (02:16:29):
I take great pains in that book too to describe
as as articulately as I possibly can my thought process here.
And I think, you know, for people who are confused,
I think it would help a lot if you really

(02:16:50):
want to understand where I'm coming from here, because I
provide all.

Speaker 2 (02:16:53):
Of the.

Speaker 3 (02:16:55):
All of the scriptural references and and you'll see you'll
see what I mean. Well, you can get on Amazon.

Speaker 1 (02:17:03):
By the way, Yeah, we actually have your links in
the in the description for all the videos here, So
I have the book right here. Please go pick that up.
You're probably working on other stuff. Tell the people where
they could find you, and anything else that you want
to let them know.

Speaker 3 (02:17:22):
I have a website, timothyabrino dot com, YouTube channel, Timothy Albrino,
Instagram at Timothy Albreno, and X at Timothy Albrino. Those
are the places you can find me. Subscribe to my
mailing list, my email list, on my website. I've got

(02:17:42):
some stuff coming out soon, some some new stuff. I've
been working on a lot of stuff and uh, I've
got some exciting projects that I'm I'm concluding and that
are going to be released before long. So subscribing to
my YouTube channel is also a great way to all
of it, the social media stuff and the email list.
If if you want to follow.

Speaker 1 (02:18:02):
Me, absolutely yeah, guys, please do I know I get
a lot of I get a lot of worth out
of following you and what you're doing. And I'm glad
to see that you're like even more active on X.
I feel like that's where a lot of the new
dialogue is going to be taking place. And again, thank
you for coming and talking to us. You probably shouldn't have.

Speaker 3 (02:18:26):
I knew I liked you guys immediately when I saw
your intro. Hell yeah, yeah, we like Vinnie Pad but.

Speaker 2 (02:18:32):
We always we always trick people on the way in.

Speaker 3 (02:18:36):
It's my pleasure. Thanks for having me on at any time.
I mean, if you have anything new.

Speaker 1 (02:18:42):
Hopefully we can grow the show to a point where
it's even more respectable for someone like you to come on,
and maybe we can introduce you to people that don't
know you for some reason that if they know us
and not you. But anytime again, guys. End of the month,
catch us with We're doing a show with Sam Tripoli.
Go to top lobster dot com. Follow us on social
media's David Anything.

Speaker 2 (02:19:04):
Yeah, don't forget to go to Sam Tripley dot com.
Click on March thirtieth, come see us in Summerfield and uh,
don't forget to go to our patreon dot com backslash
Nephlum Death Squad. Sign up for our super secret show,
which is going to be we have to announce when
that's going to happen. Super Secret Show on Patreon only
and also our telegram. Come hang out with us. We've

(02:19:25):
developed quite an awesome community there. I love that little group.
It's growing every day and it's really cool. So if
you want to be a part of the conversation, come
hang out with us in telegram.

Speaker 1 (02:19:34):
That's it, absolutely all right, guys, peace out, all right.

Speaker 3 (02:19:38):
Flash is a block box in the corner of the room.

Speaker 2 (02:19:43):
It is to be is real.

Speaker 4 (02:19:47):
It's you to persuasion that what they see with their
eyes is what there is to see, because they'll lash
of an explanations that portrays the bigger picture of what's happening.

Speaker 5 (02:20:00):
They have

Speaker 2 (02:20:03):
M

All Episodes

TIME CAPSULE - 034: Have the Nephilim Stolen our Birthright? w/ Timothy Alberino

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Stuff You Should Know

Law & Order: Criminal Justice System - Season 1 & Season 2

Dateline NBC

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}TIME CAPSULE - 034: Have the Nephilim Stolen our Birthright? w/ Timothy Alberino