May 27, 2025 • 35 mins
Hour 3 of A&G features...
- President Trump's anger towards Putin...
- How a 13 yr old girl defended herself against an assailant...
- A Crypto-Guy-on-Crypto Guy-Crime...
- Notes from the world of science!
Stupid Should Hurt: https://www.armstrongandgetty.com/
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:01):
Broadcasting live from the Abraham Lincoln Radio Studio, the George
Washington Broadcast Center, Jack Armstrong, Joe Getty, arm Strong and
Getty and he Armstrong and Yetty.
Speaker 2 (00:24):
Hopes to cease fire in Ukraine are fading fast after
days of deadly Russian air strikes. President Trump declaring Vladimir
Putin has gone absolutely crazy in response, the Kremlin suggesting
Trump maybe suffering an emotional overload.
Speaker 1 (00:39):
See, I'm hoping that sort of talk from Putin gets
Trump all fired up, and he takes it personally, and
that makes him want to arm Ukraine because I think
that's the right thing to do. I know some of
you don't, but him saying yeah, I think Putin's saying
I think Trump's suffering from emotional overload. You know, hey,
Trump get his angry Putin as you get at Rosie O'Donnell.
Speaker 3 (01:02):
I find it incredibly troubling that the President having to
take it personally is what's required to motivate policy of
American foreign policy.
Speaker 1 (01:13):
But it is what it is. I think you're right.
So let's do this in chronological order. So last week,
the news broke several days after it happened that Trump
had told European journalists. While he was in the Middle East,
he had said, this isn't my war. We got ourselves
(01:36):
entangled in something we shouldn't have been involved with. Now
that was in the for some reason made the news
several days after he said it. But a lot a
lot of people, including me, to believe that the direction
he was headed was just staying out of it. We
shouldn't be involved. We shouldn't have been involved in this. Ever,
we shouldn't be involved in it now. And without the
US is a Ukraine is going to be in a
(01:56):
tight spot. And Europe will step along up a lot,
but they don't have a lot of the abilities that
we have, even no matter how much they step up,
especially around intelligence. Now, over the weekend, Trump having pushed
this ceasefire. Remember Trump ran on I can solve this
in twenty four hours. If you took that literally, then
(02:17):
you have not been following Trump for the past ten years.
I just I don't understand how people don't get this.
He says things like that, that's not what he means. Okay,
I get what you could say. Well, he said it,
what am I supposed to do? But he believed he
(02:37):
could solve this I believed he I suppose he thought,
like with a lot of things, he thought, with his
personality and everything like that he could just push these
two people to come to an agreement. He's pushed Zelensky
really hard. He hasn't really pushed Putin. But over the weekend,
while Trump's talking about a ceasefire, Putin launched the biggest
attack on Ukraine yet, which is like three times in
(03:01):
the last week that he has set a new record
for the number of drones set into well all kinds
of civilian areas, killing lots of people.
Speaker 4 (03:09):
This.
Speaker 1 (03:09):
Trump was asked about this yesterday and this is what
he said.
Speaker 5 (03:12):
Not happy with what Putin's doing. He's killing a lot
of people. And I don't know what the hell happened
to Putin. I've known him a long time, always gotten
along with him. But he's sending rockets into cities and
killing people, and I.
Speaker 1 (03:25):
Don't like it at all.
Speaker 5 (03:26):
Okay, we're in the middle of talking and he's tuning
rockets into Kiev and other cities. I don't like it
at all. Whether what do you want to do about
I'm surprised. I'm very surprised. We'll see what we're gonna say,
what am I gonna tell you? Well, you're the fake news,
aren't you? You're totally fake? Any other questions. I don't
like what Putin is doing, not even a little bit.
(03:47):
He's killing people. And something happened to this guy, and
I don't like it.
Speaker 3 (03:53):
Something happened to this guy. Well, I was tempted to respond,
nothing happened to the guy. You never had a relationship
with him. He was manipulating you. Grow up. He's just
flattering you, and it worked. Although I will concede that
it's it's pretty well documented that during COVID, Putin dug
(04:14):
deep into a couple of radical Russian thinkers, historians who
are convinced him that he really owes it to the
soul of the Russian people to, you know, to conquer
all of the territories that have ever been under Russian sway,
blah blah blah. So he has changed in that way.
But Trump thinking that they were buddies and something crazy
(04:37):
has happened to him now, or that he a cag be,
a crocodile he's always been, or he wasn't the kind
of guy that was gonna bomb civilians indiscriminately, well, right,
and That was the other part I objected to. He's
killing people and civilians. Yeah, he knows. He feeds his
men by the hundreds of thousands in front of the
(04:58):
machine guns.
Speaker 1 (04:59):
He doesn't care. Here's Britt Hume's analysis. He's the senior
political guy on Fox of what Trump just said.
Speaker 4 (05:08):
The President has always had a very odd conception of
Vladimir Putin. I think he's thought that he and Putin
could be kind of friends and partners and could make
deals together and so on. But I don't think Putin
has changed. I don't know what the president's talking about it.
This is the way Putin has always been. He's always
been a particularly brutal dictator, willing to take whatever measures
(05:28):
he thought necessary to advance his interest, whatever he thought
he could get away with. He thought he could get
away with invading Ukraine. He thought he could. He thought
he could could conquer Ukraine in no matter of days.
He failed to do that, and he has been spending
his own people's bloodshed, blood and treasure for as long
as he's needed to. After that, and now he seems
more intent than ever. He's the same old Vladimir Putin.
(05:49):
So I hope the president has had a real moment
of truth about him and will proceed accordingly.
Speaker 3 (05:57):
Is Trump surrounded by eighty vance types who are trying
to convince him that, no, Putin's not a bad guy,
He's just a NATO push too far and we just
need to be nice to him and be buddies. And
he's actually defending traditional Christianity and the just that whole
kind of new right fantasy.
Speaker 1 (06:17):
The Wall Street Journal writing today, Trump is tiring of
the peace negotiations and is considering abandoning them all together
if a final push doesn't work. People familiar with his
thinking said that would be a remarkable change for a
leader who campaign on his ability to end the conflict
on his first day in office. It is unclear what
would happen if the US retreats from the peace process,
(06:39):
and whether Trump would continue to provide military support to Ukraine.
That last part is really important. I think us being
in the peace process. I don't know if that's important
or not. I'm not sure if it has any role.
But we pull, particularly our intelligence. That's huge. Also this yesterday,
German Chancellor Fridrick Mertz said that the US, Germany, France
(07:01):
and the UK would no longer impose range restrictions on
Ukraine's use of weapons supplied by Western allies, meaning it
could target military positions deep into Russia, including Moscow. To date,
Ukraine has only been able to use long range missiles
supplied by those countries against Russian troops within a certain range.
The Biden administration. The Wall Street General reminds US had
(07:24):
opposed removing range limits foring it could escalate the war.
The White House, when I ask about this, declined to comment.
So Trump didn't say, I mean, because Germany doesn't get
to say the United States is removing restrictions, right, And
they and the Wall Street Journal asks the White House
(07:44):
is Trump on board with this or not? And they
didn't answer.
Speaker 3 (07:47):
And this is the most common ye White House in history.
They comment on everything. It's incredibly transparent.
Speaker 1 (07:53):
Uh yeah. Two things.
Speaker 3 (07:56):
Number one that would indicate to me that that they
agreed to it, but they didn't expect merits to come
out and say anything about it.
Speaker 1 (08:05):
I hope you're right. I hope you're right. Germany has
got the longest range missiles that they're supplying Ukraine, even
more so than ours. Right, because Biden didn't want to
give them missiles. They could shoot very far in case
they ignored his rules. But Germany's given him missiles that
go way into Russia, easily into Moscow, and they have
said shoot, shoot wherever you gotta shoot. Yeah.
Speaker 3 (08:27):
Interesting, that is a huge thing going forward, if I
might unleash this screed. Several times, whether in the audio
or our discussions, we've used the term the phrase the
peace process. There is no peace process. There has never
been a peace process. There's been this charade which Putin
(08:48):
and Lavrov barely even bothered to play their part. So
I can call my dog a lion, but if I
go around town talking about how I have a lion,
that makes me a crank. There's been peace process.
Speaker 1 (09:01):
Yeah, to the only extent they participated it at all
is when they were able to buy a little more
time by pretending they were going along with it.
Speaker 3 (09:09):
And what's really notable and interesting, and this is getting
into the weeds that we can get back to what's
actually happening. But they weren't even pretending to care enough
to convince anybody they cared. It was like the barest minimum,
low level guys who couldn't didn't have the authority degree
to anything, And it was obvious that they were snubbing
(09:30):
the process, so they didn't even care enough to pay
it fake respect. Don't talk to me about the peace process.
I won't get sidetracked with this. I'll go with this first.
Speaker 1 (09:43):
David Ignatius to the Washington Post, who writes a lot
about the wharn Ukraine knows a lot about this stuff,
has really good sources, says, I think the obvious it's
about to get ugly. I think this war is.
Speaker 6 (09:54):
About to get a lot dirtier. Ukraine has drones that
are able to penetrate get to of Moscow and its environs,
and they also have the capability to wage on the
ground a dirty war of sabotage, of assassination. I've met
with leaders of Ukrainian military intelligence. They are very, very
tough at and they have networks inside Russia, as Russia
(10:18):
has networks inside Ukraine that can do a lot of damage.
So as bad as this war has been, it could
tip into a much nastier phase of dirty war.
Speaker 1 (10:28):
And that's the main reason I want to spend this
much time talking about it today. Even though it's not
on the hasn't been on, you know, hasn't been hasn't
been on the front burner for a while. It's about
to get crazy ugly. Ukraine starts firing missiles into Moscow,
regularly targeting Putin or his people or his house. Putin's
(10:51):
going to respond right best he can. And it's who
knows where this is headed? Mushroom clouds. We don't know. Trump,
Are you serious about that? You think Putin would use
a He wouldn't use a regular nuke, I don't think.
Speaker 3 (11:05):
But yeah, one of your smaller tactical ones. Yeah, just
to make the point, Yeah, I could absolutely see that.
I certainly hope not. I'm not, you know, taking taking
it lightly, but you know, Ukraine and this, I was
just going to say. You know, Trump was critical of
Zelensky in his tweet, saying Zelensky is doing his country
no favors by talking the way he does. That there
at risk of being.
Speaker 1 (11:25):
Wiped off the map, right.
Speaker 3 (11:27):
His animosity towards Zelensky. And I don't want to theorize
we've probably annoyed Trump fans enough already, but I don't
get that when you're fighting for the very existence of
your country, you're you're criticizing the guys, the guy for
talking tough or being demanding or whatever.
Speaker 1 (11:46):
I don't get it well. And Putin's absolutely going to
try to kill Zelensky. Yeah, oh yeah, yeah, Well do
whatever damage he will.
Speaker 3 (11:55):
He will be the proverbial guy who will turn, who
will destroy Ukraine so he can rule over the Ashes.
Speaker 1 (12:03):
We would absolutely do that, right Illinois, More people here then.
Tucker Carlson tweeted out over the weekend and did a
long podcast about it. Do Americans have any idea that
Zolensky has declared war on Christianity in Ukraine? It's ridiculous,
It is absolutely ridiculous. The Orthodox Church, the Russian Orthodox
(12:23):
the Russian Orthodox Church is an arm of Putin. Yeah,
Zolensky trying to get rid of them. He's trying to
get rid of spies in his country or people that
are working with Putin. It's not a war on Christianity.
Speaker 3 (12:37):
Yeah, the Russian Orthodox Church agreed with Putin. We will
give you the cover of the moral authority of the church.
Speaker 1 (12:44):
We will be absolutely in bed with you.
Speaker 3 (12:46):
You protect the power and money of the church.
Speaker 1 (12:49):
Putin said a deal about to get a lot more ugly,
it's been.
Speaker 3 (12:53):
War on Christianity. Tucker's lost his effing mind. Or he's
intentionally lying.
Speaker 1 (12:58):
It's already been a pretty damn ugly warrant to get
a lot ugly. We will cover it for you. Stay here,
you're coming up. We now know why Miley Cyrus skanky, skanky,
Miley Cyrus sounds the way she sounds. Stay tuned. She's
(13:19):
a chainsmoker, isn't she. It's beyond that, Joe oh my.
Speaker 3 (13:23):
Also, perhaps the most amazing breakthrough in what your dog
is actually thinking studies in the history of studying what
your dog is thinking?
Speaker 1 (13:33):
Is this one of those things you buy that reads.
Speaker 3 (13:35):
Its bar No, no, no, I don't traffic in that
sort of crap, sir, This is science, So stay tuned. First, though,
here is the story of a thirteen year old girl
in Carmel by the Sea, California, which is a very
pretty part of California, but it's still cal Unicornia.
Speaker 1 (13:52):
So you got some scumbag.
Speaker 3 (13:54):
On drugs or drunk or crazy steps out from behind
between a couple of park cars and is going to
assault this thirteen year old girl. Luckily, though, she's been
taking jiu jitsu classes with sense A Blackburn, And here's
his description of what this thirteen year old girl did
(14:15):
the junkie boy.
Speaker 7 (14:16):
Halfway home, a gentleman was standing in between two cars
and he stepped out to punch her in the face.
She punched him, she wrapped it, got him in the headlot,
and need him a couple of times him around, threw
him on the ground, and she had stepped on his
foot doing all this, And when she threw him to
the ground, she broke his ankle. I told her we
(14:37):
were proud of her, and she did exactly what she
was supposed to do.
Speaker 1 (14:42):
Yeah, that's a great story and a great ending. But
the kind of guy that's gonna punch a thirteen year
old girl in the face to rob her freaking lock
him up forever or whatever else, save his head in
with a brick.
Speaker 3 (14:54):
Yeah, no kidding, no kidding, just sickening. Oh my god, Yes,
she went medieval on him. They're still looking for this guy,
he says, limping wherever he is.
Speaker 1 (15:03):
But oh my god, that's horrifying. Yeah, I know it is.
I've always referred to Miley Cyrus as skanky. I realize
she's trying to present as sexy sexy. I feel like
she presents a skanky, But anyways, she sounds like this
and we've been talking about for years. Says, she's twenty
one years old, and she's sounds like she's an eighty
year old truck driver. Right. She announced yesterday that her
(15:27):
signature voice, she called it, is because of a medical
condition she's got called rankies an edema. She's got polyps
on her vocal cords. It's she says, she did too
much singing for too long in her life. The New
(15:49):
York Post fills in that it's very common with people
who have a long term history of smoking, starting at
a young age. So it wasn't just your singing that
caused it was your your smoking also. But she have
on her vocal cords which gives me a lot of
the tone and texture which has made me who I am,
She says. So she doesn't want to get an operation
because she's afraid she'd wake up and not sound like
(16:09):
who she is.
Speaker 3 (16:10):
Ah, she probably would. Yeah, wow, she's so she's leaving
the polyps.
Speaker 1 (16:16):
She did say that staying up and drinking and smoking
and partying after every show, starting very young is probably
didn't help any Yeah, probably didn't.
Speaker 3 (16:24):
Are they the sort of polyps that can turn into cancer?
Or I would assume not or she'd get something done.
I don't know you would think so. Yeah.
Speaker 1 (16:31):
One other popular woman note in celebrities, Caitlin Clark, who
has played like one hundred and ninety straight games, four
years of college and a year in the WNBA without
ever being hurt, is hurt and going to be out
for two weeks for a team that is uh well,
it doesn't matter how the team was going to do it.
That's all the ratings on the wa NBA is hurt.
(16:52):
The revenue, yeah, lots of revenue involved.
Speaker 3 (16:55):
Watch your dog wag's tail or her tail carefully. There's
a hidden signal there. We'll tell you all about it
next half hour.
Speaker 1 (17:06):
So body language dog body language segment, among other things
armstrong and geddy.
Speaker 8 (17:16):
Excuse me, I have to ask who did you vote
for it? I voted for Trump. Surprise, surprise.
Speaker 9 (17:20):
Another privileged white man who voted for the fashions Well,
excuse me, I'm sorry man, whoa what.
Speaker 8 (17:25):
Are you talking about?
Speaker 9 (17:26):
Did you just assume my gender? So you're telling me
you're a woman, I'm a trans bisexual paleontolligence PI.
Speaker 8 (17:32):
What wow, I'm speechless. I'm sorry. Is that too much
for you? Is my existing too much for you to handle. No, really,
that's not it at all.
Speaker 9 (17:40):
Okay, look, I just miss, I am so sorry for
offending you, Like, I'm sorry.
Speaker 8 (17:44):
What's wrong? Did you just assume that I was offended?
Speaker 1 (17:47):
Offended?
Speaker 8 (17:48):
No? I didn't assume you did you totally did?
Speaker 9 (17:49):
You said I'm sorry for offending? You just assumed I
was offended. You just assumed I didn't know that I'm
a little bit.
Speaker 1 (17:56):
Is that it?
Speaker 8 (17:57):
I would never assume that I don't have thick skin?
Is that what?
Speaker 9 (17:59):
You just know? I didn't.
Speaker 8 (18:00):
Let's just track this up so we can both go
our separate ways.
Speaker 9 (18:02):
Okay, well, miss, I hope you have a wonderful afternoon.
Speaker 1 (18:05):
What's wrong?
Speaker 8 (18:06):
I'm sorry?
Speaker 2 (18:07):
What?
Speaker 8 (18:07):
No afternoon afternoon?
Speaker 9 (18:10):
Just assume you you just.
Speaker 8 (18:13):
Said I will give a good afternoon.
Speaker 9 (18:15):
Really, it's the afternoon I identify as it always being
the morning.
Speaker 3 (18:22):
How tiring is that high speed comedy for people with
attention deficit disorder?
Speaker 1 (18:27):
Yeah? I love that though, flip in the script? Yeah please?
Did you just assume?
Speaker 3 (18:34):
Oh?
Speaker 1 (18:34):
I can't believe soft heads fell.
Speaker 3 (18:36):
For that technique for so long. Oh well, more on
that to come, et cetera. So oh, including your dog's
tail wagging. There are different wags. You don't know about
the wags.
Speaker 1 (18:50):
What if your dog has a stub because somebody took
a pair of clippers and cut.
Speaker 3 (18:54):
It off, then you bought a weird, freaky dog anyway.
But if your kids love it, that's the dog for them.
So this story is crazy. You've probably heard part of it,
but there are details that you have to have. This
is the arrest of one crypto guy for allegedly kidnapping
(19:15):
and torturing a different wealthy crypto guy.
Speaker 1 (19:19):
And held him for weeks.
Speaker 3 (19:21):
We had a really nice townhouse in Manhattan.
Speaker 1 (19:24):
Thank you. This is a very nice place you're holding me.
Speaker 3 (19:26):
Yeah, it's you know, if I'm going to be held
in torture for my crypto passwords, at least it's in
this lovely neighborhood. So here's here's one of the crazy
aspects of it. The suspect, John Woltz, he's some sort
of Kentucky crypto king. He's said to be worth at
(19:47):
least one hundred million dollars.
Speaker 1 (19:49):
Wow.
Speaker 3 (19:49):
The perpetrator, Wow has a private jet and a chopper.
Speaker 1 (19:55):
You got one hundred million dollars and you're going to
risk committing a crime why not just enjoy your life.
Good lord, you won, you win. Yeah, I can't even imagine.
Speaker 3 (20:06):
But so he kidnapped this other guy who was I
think Italian, who's said to be worth like thirty million
dollars Michael Valentino, Teo Frosto Cartron. So one hundred million
wasn't enough. He needed thirty million, maybe to for jet
fuel or something like that. So he and his is,
(20:29):
you know, cohort his henchmen, and there are going to
be more arrests and questioning in this case. They lured
this guy to this Soho townhouse and held him captive
while they tortured him for his Bitcoin password. He was
tied to a chair, tasered while his feet were in
(20:50):
a bucket of water. I don't know if like that
makes it worse or if you just have wet feet.
He was urinated on. I feel like they were guessing
on that one. I don't you'reinated on now, it's a
freak off. Pistol pistol whipped, had his arms and legs
cut with a chainsaw. He was also allegedly dangled from
(21:11):
the top of a staircase.
Speaker 1 (21:13):
I feel like you need to do these in some
sort of order like building up because I'm not really
that worried about my wet feet. If you're gonna use
a chainsaw on my arms and.
Speaker 3 (21:23):
Legs, I'm going to chainsaw your arms and legs and also.
Speaker 1 (21:27):
Pee on you. I'm like, well, let the pan begin
exactly changing. I don't like it, but I mean race.
Once they fired up that chain neighbors to pee on me,
I don't care. Leave the chainsaw in the case. Once
they fired up that chainsaw, man, you would be if
you've ever seen scarface, you'd be having some bad thoughts.
Speaker 3 (21:49):
Here is my question. You assumed they fired up the chainsaw.
Curds elon Musk there if you need him, because you
can definitely cut somebody with a chainsaw that's not on.
If the chainsaw had been on, I think that would
be the headline, wouldn't it Unless they just barely.
Speaker 1 (22:11):
Nipped him with it. That seems odd.
Speaker 3 (22:14):
Yeah anyway, uh so there is a story to be
told here as more details.
Speaker 1 (22:20):
Before you get some more details, I want to that
is all. I have no more details, not a single one.
Those are all the details. How many details did you need?
I saw the video of the guy running down the
street barefoot, So how did he get loose? How is
he not dead?
Speaker 3 (22:35):
How was he The only account I heard was that
he escaped when they were distracted.
Speaker 1 (22:41):
How do you get this chainsaw started? I keep pulling
it and pulling it. Hey, where did he go? I
thought you were supposed to watch him. His feet were
in a bucket of water. He's covered in urine. Can
you get me some lemonade? Because I just don't feel
like I could go. Yeah, I don't know what distract
I went before I got here, You went before you
got here. We discussed this yesterday. We're gonna pee on him,
(23:03):
I know, But I was leaving a house and I
thought there might be traffic. So and some.
Speaker 3 (23:08):
Second the crypto big wig is uh is about to
be arrested to or was going to turn themselves in
today it was a half a freak.
Speaker 1 (23:18):
Off, though it really was. You added a little sex
and it's a ditty party. Yeah. So thinking this over,
I think I get any indication. I mean, I get
tased once, and there's any indication of like chainsawing or
(23:38):
any other Here's here's my password. I'll walk there with you,
walk where wherever I gotta go to help you. I'll
do whatever you gotta do. What do you want me
to do?
Speaker 3 (23:49):
I'll do it. It's it's on the laptop right there. Okay, yeah,
so you do it, But then you're broke.
Speaker 1 (23:56):
He's committed a crime. I hope that the authorities can
catch them and figure it out. But I'm not gonna
sit there and get chainsawed to death. Well the guy's alive.
He just had a rough couple of weeks. Well he's
alive because he escaped. I might think, I hear you
absolutely wouldn't you just give it? I mean, well, it's
like the thing, you know, somebody stops you on the
street with a knife and says, give me your watch.
(24:18):
I'm probably just gonna handle my watch, get into a
knife fight for the best.
Speaker 3 (24:26):
It's possible. This guy just like didn't have the passwords
handy or.
Speaker 1 (24:31):
Yeah, if you could, you could torture me for a
very long time to try to get into my bank account.
I don't have the slightest idea what my password is.
I had another question around this, what was it?
Speaker 5 (24:43):
Oh?
Speaker 1 (24:43):
Uh, I suppose there's a chance I would think, well,
they're gonna kill me after I type in the password,
because they're not gonna just let me go and finger
them for this crime. Yes, so he might have decided
that was the only thing keeping him alive. Yeah, that
that could have been his calculation, which is probably a
(25:04):
pretty good calculation. Yeah. Yeah.
Speaker 3 (25:07):
Anyway, I think the greater story here, and we hit
on this last week, is that cryptocurrency is so easily
transferred and then is gone forever, and there are so
few I mean, if you if you were to, you know,
put my feet in a pan of water and hold
half a freak off and fire up the chainsaw whatever
(25:28):
and say, all right, Joe, I want your entire net worth,
I would tell you this is gonna take a while.
I've got like six to eight different financial institutions I've
got to get in touch with. They've got like three
step verification crap to do. Then we're gonna have to
email them, and this is gonna take quite some time.
Whereas with crypto, you just click and you click in
(25:50):
your password. There you go, have access to the account,
it's transferred, and it's gone. I mean, it could be
five minutes.
Speaker 1 (25:56):
So I asked chat GPT, Yes, if you tase someone
while their feet are in a bucket of water, would
it hurt more? I wondered, what you're dictating into your phone? Yes,
while you're talking. The problem is the voice texting isn't
very well. So the first time it said, would chasing
someone while their feet are in a bucket of water
(26:17):
hurt more? Yes, being chased while your feet are in
a bucket of water would hurt because it would be
hard to run. Okay, that's not what I asked for that,
so I did it again and emphasized it more. Would
tasing someone hurt more if their feet were in water?
And it said teasing someone while their feet are in
water wouldn't hurt more, but it could amplify the emotional discomfort.
(26:41):
You're fat, You're fat. Stop it. My feet are went out,
I'm fat. So I still don't have the answer. I
still don't have the answer to that question. I will
try to figure that out. For some reason, I feel
like they were really just winging it on the whole
torture thing, like they hadn't thought this through right. They
(27:01):
didn't bring in a massad agent or something. This guy
looks to be quite young too. I don't recall he's
like barely thirty years old.
Speaker 3 (27:11):
The already one hundred millionaire who decided he really needed
another thirty million dollars. Yeah, craziness, but you're gonna see
more of this stuff. So the dog thing actually interesting,
not crap. Really enjoyed it as a dog lover myself.
Speaker 1 (27:30):
And I will get the answer in case you ever
need to do it. On whether they're tasing someone while
their feet are in a bucket of water hurts more barbaric.
We'll have that all for you coming up. Stay here.
So a little tip, I guess if you're ever gonna
(27:51):
try to torture the crypto codes out of someone who's
got a bunch of money, tasing them while their feet
are in a bucket of water, according to chat GPT,
would likely hurt quite a bit more, causing the electrical
current to spread more unpredictably or intensely through the body,
especially if both feeders submerged, which they were in this case.
(28:13):
We've all learned something handy these case's great. Yeah, I'm
sure chat GPT, which is owned by whoever is sending,
is now monitoring all my stuff as they think I'm
some sort of job, some sort of crypto stealing lunatic.
Speaker 3 (28:26):
Yeah yeah, So a much more life affirming note came
across this piece and will post it under hot links
at Armstrong eyetdy dot com.
Speaker 1 (28:34):
But it's about a couple.
Speaker 3 (28:36):
Of people, a professor and a grad student who were
doing separately then together studies on dogs and dog behavior
and dog emotional responses and stuff like that. And during COVID,
the grad student Gal filmed her dog playing with her
father in several different situations. And this is kind of
(28:59):
a two part revelation here. Some were positive, like giving
him a treat. Some were more negative, like showing him
his nemesis, Saffron. The housecats. Oh, they did not get along.
They got along like dogs and cats anyway. So then Holly,
who's this grad student Gal edited the videos so they
(29:19):
only showed Oliver the dog against a black backdrop. All
you could see was the dog and how he reacted,
not what.
Speaker 1 (29:28):
The stimulus was.
Speaker 3 (29:30):
And the videos were shown to hundreds of people who
were asked how is Oliver feeling? And a key finding
was that people could not say how the dog was
feeling without context. They were absolutely terrible in saying, Oh,
that dog is happy, that's interesting, or that dog is
mad or sad or threatened or whatever. It was really
(29:50):
kind of disturbing, and I took the little quiz that
they have and I was pretty good at it.
Speaker 1 (29:55):
But so we're filling in the blanks on that when
we look at a dog.
Speaker 3 (29:58):
Yeah, precisely, Yeah, we see the context and so interpreted.
My buddy Greg, the professional dog trainer, taught me a
long time ago that a wagging tail does not necessarily
mean happy.
Speaker 1 (30:11):
It does not, so don't assume.
Speaker 3 (30:13):
That, especially if it's in a situation where there could
be aggression. But anyway, then when people were given the context,
they nailed it, of course. But but they're terrible at decoding
you know, how dogs, what dogs were thinking, what they
were feeling. And they go into a little bit more
of the study. But the most interesting revelation to me
(30:36):
was they used what they learned with a study from
Italy from a little earlier. They put dogs in a
box just so they could film their tails, with a
camera in front of them and a window in front,
and the cameras were trained on the dog's wagging tails. Well,
the researchers presented things to look at through the window,
(30:57):
like they would show the dogs an owner. It's uh
old Joe, come to see Baxter with a predictable reaction,
or they'd show them an unfamiliar person who would come
up right in front of them, or an unfamiliar dog,
and the dogs showed a strong, consistent bias to wag
their tails to the right when shown their owner or
(31:21):
an unfamiliar human, but a left bias toward an unfamiliar dog.
So if it was, and they traced it to the
centers of the brain, which, just like in a human being,
if something happens on the left side of the brain,
it manifests on the right side of the body. Well,
the left side of a dog's brain is more specialized
for approach and I'm happy, let's meet each other and so,
(31:47):
and the right side for withdrawal and fear responses and
that sort of thing. So there is a bias in
dogtail wagging if it's toward the right. And being politically conservative,
this is easy for me to remember. To the right
is good, to the left is not good.
Speaker 1 (32:04):
What if the dog is sitting in the passenger seat
while you drive with its arms crossed looking out the
window and refuses to respond to anything you say, even
if you ask it what's wrong. Your dog is angry
with you.
Speaker 3 (32:15):
Trust me, you should apologize to your dog, whether you're
in the wrong or not.
Speaker 1 (32:21):
What if you don't know what you're apologizing for.
Speaker 3 (32:24):
And here's a pro tip, don't give the dog a bone.
The dog doesn't want it, maybe not for a couple
of days. Dog is not looking for a bone at
this point. Yes, yes, don't even bring it up. I
thought that was super interesting. So in a follow up study,
(32:44):
the researchers connected dogs to heart monitors heart rate monitors
and show them videos of other dogs wagging their tails.
If the dog saw a left wagging tail, that's the
more hostile one, their heart rate revealed that they were
more anxious than when they watched a right wag tail.
Speaker 1 (33:02):
So the dog knows.
Speaker 3 (33:04):
The dog's like, ooh, left tail wag All right, hey brother,
no thread here, that's not I'm not looking for trouble
because the dog sensed it. And then they point out
that people and dogs have been living together for more
than fifteen thousand years.
Speaker 1 (33:20):
Yeah, it's really quite amazing, but we're still not.
Speaker 3 (33:23):
Great at recognizing the emotional state of dogs.
Speaker 1 (33:26):
I like to think for most of that period, we
probably didn't care. We were just happy with the relationship
that we built, where you lightly sleep and bark. If
anybody approaches, I will continue to feed you and give you.
Speaker 3 (33:39):
Water when when yeah, yeah, yeah, anyway, there you go. Right,
tail wag, good, left tail wag beware.
Speaker 1 (33:49):
Right and that whole double untondra thing earlier we can
just ignore.
Speaker 3 (33:56):
I enjoyed it. Also from the world of science for this,
that's right science. Oh you know what this deserves more
time came across this one is choosing your passion over
a paycheck worth it.
Speaker 1 (34:12):
Do what you love and the money will follow. Micro's
big on. Nah, that's dumb. Yeah, find a way to
make a living and make that your hobby. Learn to
love it or tolerate it. Yeah, and then do what
you love at home when you get home, yeah, or
on the weekend. Yeah, not even close. Depends.
Speaker 3 (34:31):
I mean, if you happen to really enjoy what you do,
or you're one of those people. And see that's the problem.
There's an exceptionality bias. It happens in the news if
something is rare that makes it interesting. That means they
will show it to you. That convinces people. It happens
all the time. But it's the opposite. It's the paradox
(34:52):
of exceptionality for us because we have done that.
Speaker 1 (34:56):
I wanted to be in radio long before I ever
thought I'd make any money at it to a large extent. Yeah,
it does help you with the like the ten thousand
hours problem of takes you that long to be really
good at something if you really like doing it. Yeah.
Speaker 3 (35:09):
Some days, do I want to throw myself off a
cliff and beaten by sharks instead of doing this one?
Speaker 1 (35:13):
Working?
Speaker 3 (35:14):
Yes?
Speaker 1 (35:15):
Yes, but most days no. Are you hoping the dog
is using the left side of its brain to elite
your face off so you don't have to go to work? Yeah?
If you miss a segment, get the podcast Armstrong and
Getty on demand Armstrong and Getty
Broadcasting live from the Abraham Lincoln Radio Studio, the George
Washington Broadcast Center, Jack Armstrong, Joe Getty, arm Strong and
Getty and he Armstrong and Yetty.
Speaker 2 (00:24):
Hopes to cease fire in Ukraine are fading fast after
days of deadly Russian air strikes. President Trump declaring Vladimir
Putin has gone absolutely crazy in response, the Kremlin suggesting
Trump maybe suffering an emotional overload.
Speaker 1 (00:39):
See, I'm hoping that sort of talk from Putin gets
Trump all fired up, and he takes it personally, and
that makes him want to arm Ukraine because I think
that's the right thing to do. I know some of
you don't, but him saying yeah, I think Putin's saying
I think Trump's suffering from emotional overload. You know, hey,
Trump get his angry Putin as you get at Rosie O'Donnell.
Speaker 3 (01:02):
I find it incredibly troubling that the President having to
take it personally is what's required to motivate policy of
American foreign policy.
Speaker 1 (01:13):
But it is what it is. I think you're right.
So let's do this in chronological order. So last week,
the news broke several days after it happened that Trump
had told European journalists. While he was in the Middle East,
he had said, this isn't my war. We got ourselves
(01:36):
entangled in something we shouldn't have been involved with. Now
that was in the for some reason made the news
several days after he said it. But a lot a
lot of people, including me, to believe that the direction
he was headed was just staying out of it. We
shouldn't be involved. We shouldn't have been involved in this. Ever,
we shouldn't be involved in it now. And without the
US is a Ukraine is going to be in a
(01:56):
tight spot. And Europe will step along up a lot,
but they don't have a lot of the abilities that
we have, even no matter how much they step up,
especially around intelligence. Now, over the weekend, Trump having pushed
this ceasefire. Remember Trump ran on I can solve this
in twenty four hours. If you took that literally, then
(02:17):
you have not been following Trump for the past ten years.
I just I don't understand how people don't get this.
He says things like that, that's not what he means. Okay,
I get what you could say. Well, he said it,
what am I supposed to do? But he believed he
(02:37):
could solve this I believed he I suppose he thought,
like with a lot of things, he thought, with his
personality and everything like that he could just push these
two people to come to an agreement. He's pushed Zelensky
really hard. He hasn't really pushed Putin. But over the weekend,
while Trump's talking about a ceasefire, Putin launched the biggest
attack on Ukraine yet, which is like three times in
(03:01):
the last week that he has set a new record
for the number of drones set into well all kinds
of civilian areas, killing lots of people.
Speaker 4 (03:09):
This.
Speaker 1 (03:09):
Trump was asked about this yesterday and this is what
he said.
Speaker 5 (03:12):
Not happy with what Putin's doing. He's killing a lot
of people. And I don't know what the hell happened
to Putin. I've known him a long time, always gotten
along with him. But he's sending rockets into cities and
killing people, and I.
Speaker 1 (03:25):
Don't like it at all.
Speaker 5 (03:26):
Okay, we're in the middle of talking and he's tuning
rockets into Kiev and other cities. I don't like it
at all. Whether what do you want to do about
I'm surprised. I'm very surprised. We'll see what we're gonna say,
what am I gonna tell you? Well, you're the fake news,
aren't you? You're totally fake? Any other questions. I don't
like what Putin is doing, not even a little bit.
(03:47):
He's killing people. And something happened to this guy, and
I don't like it.
Speaker 3 (03:53):
Something happened to this guy. Well, I was tempted to respond,
nothing happened to the guy. You never had a relationship
with him. He was manipulating you. Grow up. He's just
flattering you, and it worked. Although I will concede that
it's it's pretty well documented that during COVID, Putin dug
(04:14):
deep into a couple of radical Russian thinkers, historians who
are convinced him that he really owes it to the
soul of the Russian people to, you know, to conquer
all of the territories that have ever been under Russian sway,
blah blah blah. So he has changed in that way.
But Trump thinking that they were buddies and something crazy
(04:37):
has happened to him now, or that he a cag be,
a crocodile he's always been, or he wasn't the kind
of guy that was gonna bomb civilians indiscriminately, well, right,
and That was the other part I objected to. He's
killing people and civilians. Yeah, he knows. He feeds his
men by the hundreds of thousands in front of the
(04:58):
machine guns.
Speaker 1 (04:59):
He doesn't care. Here's Britt Hume's analysis. He's the senior
political guy on Fox of what Trump just said.
Speaker 4 (05:08):
The President has always had a very odd conception of
Vladimir Putin. I think he's thought that he and Putin
could be kind of friends and partners and could make
deals together and so on. But I don't think Putin
has changed. I don't know what the president's talking about it.
This is the way Putin has always been. He's always
been a particularly brutal dictator, willing to take whatever measures
(05:28):
he thought necessary to advance his interest, whatever he thought
he could get away with. He thought he could get
away with invading Ukraine. He thought he could. He thought
he could could conquer Ukraine in no matter of days.
He failed to do that, and he has been spending
his own people's bloodshed, blood and treasure for as long
as he's needed to. After that, and now he seems
more intent than ever. He's the same old Vladimir Putin.
(05:49):
So I hope the president has had a real moment
of truth about him and will proceed accordingly.
Speaker 3 (05:57):
Is Trump surrounded by eighty vance types who are trying
to convince him that, no, Putin's not a bad guy,
He's just a NATO push too far and we just
need to be nice to him and be buddies. And
he's actually defending traditional Christianity and the just that whole
kind of new right fantasy.
Speaker 1 (06:17):
The Wall Street Journal writing today, Trump is tiring of
the peace negotiations and is considering abandoning them all together
if a final push doesn't work. People familiar with his
thinking said that would be a remarkable change for a
leader who campaign on his ability to end the conflict
on his first day in office. It is unclear what
would happen if the US retreats from the peace process,
(06:39):
and whether Trump would continue to provide military support to Ukraine.
That last part is really important. I think us being
in the peace process. I don't know if that's important
or not. I'm not sure if it has any role.
But we pull, particularly our intelligence. That's huge. Also this yesterday,
German Chancellor Fridrick Mertz said that the US, Germany, France
(07:01):
and the UK would no longer impose range restrictions on
Ukraine's use of weapons supplied by Western allies, meaning it
could target military positions deep into Russia, including Moscow. To date,
Ukraine has only been able to use long range missiles
supplied by those countries against Russian troops within a certain range.
The Biden administration. The Wall Street General reminds US had
(07:24):
opposed removing range limits foring it could escalate the war.
The White House, when I ask about this, declined to comment.
So Trump didn't say, I mean, because Germany doesn't get
to say the United States is removing restrictions, right, And
they and the Wall Street Journal asks the White House
(07:44):
is Trump on board with this or not? And they
didn't answer.
Speaker 3 (07:47):
And this is the most common ye White House in history.
They comment on everything. It's incredibly transparent.
Speaker 1 (07:53):
Uh yeah. Two things.
Speaker 3 (07:56):
Number one that would indicate to me that that they
agreed to it, but they didn't expect merits to come
out and say anything about it.
Speaker 1 (08:05):
I hope you're right. I hope you're right. Germany has
got the longest range missiles that they're supplying Ukraine, even
more so than ours. Right, because Biden didn't want to
give them missiles. They could shoot very far in case
they ignored his rules. But Germany's given him missiles that
go way into Russia, easily into Moscow, and they have
said shoot, shoot wherever you gotta shoot. Yeah.
Speaker 3 (08:27):
Interesting, that is a huge thing going forward, if I
might unleash this screed. Several times, whether in the audio
or our discussions, we've used the term the phrase the
peace process. There is no peace process. There has never
been a peace process. There's been this charade which Putin
(08:48):
and Lavrov barely even bothered to play their part. So
I can call my dog a lion, but if I
go around town talking about how I have a lion,
that makes me a crank. There's been peace process.
Speaker 1 (09:01):
Yeah, to the only extent they participated it at all
is when they were able to buy a little more
time by pretending they were going along with it.
Speaker 3 (09:09):
And what's really notable and interesting, and this is getting
into the weeds that we can get back to what's
actually happening. But they weren't even pretending to care enough
to convince anybody they cared. It was like the barest minimum,
low level guys who couldn't didn't have the authority degree
to anything, And it was obvious that they were snubbing
(09:30):
the process, so they didn't even care enough to pay
it fake respect. Don't talk to me about the peace process.
I won't get sidetracked with this. I'll go with this first.
Speaker 1 (09:43):
David Ignatius to the Washington Post, who writes a lot
about the wharn Ukraine knows a lot about this stuff,
has really good sources, says, I think the obvious it's
about to get ugly. I think this war is.
Speaker 6 (09:54):
About to get a lot dirtier. Ukraine has drones that
are able to penetrate get to of Moscow and its environs,
and they also have the capability to wage on the
ground a dirty war of sabotage, of assassination. I've met
with leaders of Ukrainian military intelligence. They are very, very
tough at and they have networks inside Russia, as Russia
(10:18):
has networks inside Ukraine that can do a lot of damage.
So as bad as this war has been, it could
tip into a much nastier phase of dirty war.
Speaker 1 (10:28):
And that's the main reason I want to spend this
much time talking about it today. Even though it's not
on the hasn't been on, you know, hasn't been hasn't
been on the front burner for a while. It's about
to get crazy ugly. Ukraine starts firing missiles into Moscow,
regularly targeting Putin or his people or his house. Putin's
(10:51):
going to respond right best he can. And it's who
knows where this is headed? Mushroom clouds. We don't know. Trump,
Are you serious about that? You think Putin would use
a He wouldn't use a regular nuke, I don't think.
Speaker 3 (11:05):
But yeah, one of your smaller tactical ones. Yeah, just
to make the point, Yeah, I could absolutely see that.
I certainly hope not. I'm not, you know, taking taking
it lightly, but you know, Ukraine and this, I was
just going to say. You know, Trump was critical of
Zelensky in his tweet, saying Zelensky is doing his country
no favors by talking the way he does. That there
at risk of being.
Speaker 1 (11:25):
Wiped off the map, right.
Speaker 3 (11:27):
His animosity towards Zelensky. And I don't want to theorize
we've probably annoyed Trump fans enough already, but I don't
get that when you're fighting for the very existence of
your country, you're you're criticizing the guys, the guy for
talking tough or being demanding or whatever.
Speaker 1 (11:46):
I don't get it well. And Putin's absolutely going to
try to kill Zelensky. Yeah, oh yeah, yeah, Well do
whatever damage he will.
Speaker 3 (11:55):
He will be the proverbial guy who will turn, who
will destroy Ukraine so he can rule over the Ashes.
Speaker 1 (12:03):
We would absolutely do that, right Illinois, More people here then.
Tucker Carlson tweeted out over the weekend and did a
long podcast about it. Do Americans have any idea that
Zolensky has declared war on Christianity in Ukraine? It's ridiculous,
It is absolutely ridiculous. The Orthodox Church, the Russian Orthodox
(12:23):
the Russian Orthodox Church is an arm of Putin. Yeah,
Zolensky trying to get rid of them. He's trying to
get rid of spies in his country or people that
are working with Putin. It's not a war on Christianity.
Speaker 3 (12:37):
Yeah, the Russian Orthodox Church agreed with Putin. We will
give you the cover of the moral authority of the church.
Speaker 1 (12:44):
We will be absolutely in bed with you.
Speaker 3 (12:46):
You protect the power and money of the church.
Speaker 1 (12:49):
Putin said a deal about to get a lot more ugly,
it's been.
Speaker 3 (12:53):
War on Christianity. Tucker's lost his effing mind. Or he's
intentionally lying.
Speaker 1 (12:58):
It's already been a pretty damn ugly warrant to get
a lot ugly. We will cover it for you. Stay here,
you're coming up. We now know why Miley Cyrus skanky, skanky,
Miley Cyrus sounds the way she sounds. Stay tuned. She's
(13:19):
a chainsmoker, isn't she. It's beyond that, Joe oh my.
Speaker 3 (13:23):
Also, perhaps the most amazing breakthrough in what your dog
is actually thinking studies in the history of studying what
your dog is thinking?
Speaker 1 (13:33):
Is this one of those things you buy that reads.
Speaker 3 (13:35):
Its bar No, no, no, I don't traffic in that
sort of crap, sir, This is science, So stay tuned. First, though,
here is the story of a thirteen year old girl
in Carmel by the Sea, California, which is a very
pretty part of California, but it's still cal Unicornia.
Speaker 1 (13:52):
So you got some scumbag.
Speaker 3 (13:54):
On drugs or drunk or crazy steps out from behind
between a couple of park cars and is going to
assault this thirteen year old girl. Luckily, though, she's been
taking jiu jitsu classes with sense A Blackburn, And here's
his description of what this thirteen year old girl did
(14:15):
the junkie boy.
Speaker 7 (14:16):
Halfway home, a gentleman was standing in between two cars
and he stepped out to punch her in the face.
She punched him, she wrapped it, got him in the headlot,
and need him a couple of times him around, threw
him on the ground, and she had stepped on his
foot doing all this, And when she threw him to
the ground, she broke his ankle. I told her we
(14:37):
were proud of her, and she did exactly what she
was supposed to do.
Speaker 1 (14:42):
Yeah, that's a great story and a great ending. But
the kind of guy that's gonna punch a thirteen year
old girl in the face to rob her freaking lock
him up forever or whatever else, save his head in
with a brick.
Speaker 3 (14:54):
Yeah, no kidding, no kidding, just sickening. Oh my god, Yes,
she went medieval on him. They're still looking for this guy,
he says, limping wherever he is.
Speaker 1 (15:03):
But oh my god, that's horrifying. Yeah, I know it is.
I've always referred to Miley Cyrus as skanky. I realize
she's trying to present as sexy sexy. I feel like
she presents a skanky, But anyways, she sounds like this
and we've been talking about for years. Says, she's twenty
one years old, and she's sounds like she's an eighty
year old truck driver. Right. She announced yesterday that her
(15:27):
signature voice, she called it, is because of a medical
condition she's got called rankies an edema. She's got polyps
on her vocal cords. It's she says, she did too
much singing for too long in her life. The New
(15:49):
York Post fills in that it's very common with people
who have a long term history of smoking, starting at
a young age. So it wasn't just your singing that
caused it was your your smoking also. But she have
on her vocal cords which gives me a lot of
the tone and texture which has made me who I am,
She says. So she doesn't want to get an operation
because she's afraid she'd wake up and not sound like
(16:09):
who she is.
Speaker 3 (16:10):
Ah, she probably would. Yeah, wow, she's so she's leaving
the polyps.
Speaker 1 (16:16):
She did say that staying up and drinking and smoking
and partying after every show, starting very young is probably
didn't help any Yeah, probably didn't.
Speaker 3 (16:24):
Are they the sort of polyps that can turn into cancer?
Or I would assume not or she'd get something done.
I don't know you would think so. Yeah.
Speaker 1 (16:31):
One other popular woman note in celebrities, Caitlin Clark, who
has played like one hundred and ninety straight games, four
years of college and a year in the WNBA without
ever being hurt, is hurt and going to be out
for two weeks for a team that is uh well,
it doesn't matter how the team was going to do it.
That's all the ratings on the wa NBA is hurt.
(16:52):
The revenue, yeah, lots of revenue involved.
Speaker 3 (16:55):
Watch your dog wag's tail or her tail carefully. There's
a hidden signal there. We'll tell you all about it
next half hour.
Speaker 1 (17:06):
So body language dog body language segment, among other things
armstrong and geddy.
Speaker 8 (17:16):
Excuse me, I have to ask who did you vote
for it? I voted for Trump. Surprise, surprise.
Speaker 9 (17:20):
Another privileged white man who voted for the fashions Well,
excuse me, I'm sorry man, whoa what.
Speaker 8 (17:25):
Are you talking about?
Speaker 9 (17:26):
Did you just assume my gender? So you're telling me
you're a woman, I'm a trans bisexual paleontolligence PI.
Speaker 8 (17:32):
What wow, I'm speechless. I'm sorry. Is that too much
for you? Is my existing too much for you to handle. No, really,
that's not it at all.
Speaker 9 (17:40):
Okay, look, I just miss, I am so sorry for
offending you, Like, I'm sorry.
Speaker 8 (17:44):
What's wrong? Did you just assume that I was offended?
Speaker 1 (17:47):
Offended?
Speaker 8 (17:48):
No? I didn't assume you did you totally did?
Speaker 9 (17:49):
You said I'm sorry for offending? You just assumed I
was offended. You just assumed I didn't know that I'm
a little bit.
Speaker 1 (17:56):
Is that it?
Speaker 8 (17:57):
I would never assume that I don't have thick skin?
Is that what?
Speaker 9 (17:59):
You just know? I didn't.
Speaker 8 (18:00):
Let's just track this up so we can both go
our separate ways.
Speaker 9 (18:02):
Okay, well, miss, I hope you have a wonderful afternoon.
Speaker 1 (18:05):
What's wrong?
Speaker 8 (18:06):
I'm sorry?
Speaker 2 (18:07):
What?
Speaker 8 (18:07):
No afternoon afternoon?
Speaker 9 (18:10):
Just assume you you just.
Speaker 8 (18:13):
Said I will give a good afternoon.
Speaker 9 (18:15):
Really, it's the afternoon I identify as it always being
the morning.
Speaker 3 (18:22):
How tiring is that high speed comedy for people with
attention deficit disorder?
Speaker 1 (18:27):
Yeah? I love that though, flip in the script? Yeah please?
Did you just assume?
Speaker 3 (18:34):
Oh?
Speaker 1 (18:34):
I can't believe soft heads fell.
Speaker 3 (18:36):
For that technique for so long. Oh well, more on
that to come, et cetera. So oh, including your dog's
tail wagging. There are different wags. You don't know about
the wags.
Speaker 1 (18:50):
What if your dog has a stub because somebody took
a pair of clippers and cut.
Speaker 3 (18:54):
It off, then you bought a weird, freaky dog anyway.
But if your kids love it, that's the dog for them.
So this story is crazy. You've probably heard part of it,
but there are details that you have to have. This
is the arrest of one crypto guy for allegedly kidnapping
(19:15):
and torturing a different wealthy crypto guy.
Speaker 1 (19:19):
And held him for weeks.
Speaker 3 (19:21):
We had a really nice townhouse in Manhattan.
Speaker 1 (19:24):
Thank you. This is a very nice place you're holding me.
Speaker 3 (19:26):
Yeah, it's you know, if I'm going to be held
in torture for my crypto passwords, at least it's in
this lovely neighborhood. So here's here's one of the crazy
aspects of it. The suspect, John Woltz, he's some sort
of Kentucky crypto king. He's said to be worth at
(19:47):
least one hundred million dollars.
Speaker 1 (19:49):
Wow.
Speaker 3 (19:49):
The perpetrator, Wow has a private jet and a chopper.
Speaker 1 (19:55):
You got one hundred million dollars and you're going to
risk committing a crime why not just enjoy your life.
Good lord, you won, you win. Yeah, I can't even imagine.
Speaker 3 (20:06):
But so he kidnapped this other guy who was I
think Italian, who's said to be worth like thirty million
dollars Michael Valentino, Teo Frosto Cartron. So one hundred million
wasn't enough. He needed thirty million, maybe to for jet
fuel or something like that. So he and his is,
(20:29):
you know, cohort his henchmen, and there are going to
be more arrests and questioning in this case. They lured
this guy to this Soho townhouse and held him captive
while they tortured him for his Bitcoin password. He was
tied to a chair, tasered while his feet were in
(20:50):
a bucket of water. I don't know if like that
makes it worse or if you just have wet feet.
He was urinated on. I feel like they were guessing
on that one. I don't you'reinated on now, it's a
freak off. Pistol pistol whipped, had his arms and legs
cut with a chainsaw. He was also allegedly dangled from
(21:11):
the top of a staircase.
Speaker 1 (21:13):
I feel like you need to do these in some
sort of order like building up because I'm not really
that worried about my wet feet. If you're gonna use
a chainsaw on my arms and.
Speaker 3 (21:23):
Legs, I'm going to chainsaw your arms and legs and also.
Speaker 1 (21:27):
Pee on you. I'm like, well, let the pan begin
exactly changing. I don't like it, but I mean race.
Once they fired up that chain neighbors to pee on me,
I don't care. Leave the chainsaw in the case. Once
they fired up that chainsaw, man, you would be if
you've ever seen scarface, you'd be having some bad thoughts.
Speaker 3 (21:49):
Here is my question. You assumed they fired up the chainsaw.
Curds elon Musk there if you need him, because you
can definitely cut somebody with a chainsaw that's not on.
If the chainsaw had been on, I think that would
be the headline, wouldn't it Unless they just barely.
Speaker 1 (22:11):
Nipped him with it. That seems odd.
Speaker 3 (22:14):
Yeah anyway, uh so there is a story to be
told here as more details.
Speaker 1 (22:20):
Before you get some more details, I want to that
is all. I have no more details, not a single one.
Those are all the details. How many details did you need?
I saw the video of the guy running down the
street barefoot, So how did he get loose? How is
he not dead?
Speaker 3 (22:35):
How was he The only account I heard was that
he escaped when they were distracted.
Speaker 1 (22:41):
How do you get this chainsaw started? I keep pulling
it and pulling it. Hey, where did he go? I
thought you were supposed to watch him. His feet were
in a bucket of water. He's covered in urine. Can
you get me some lemonade? Because I just don't feel
like I could go. Yeah, I don't know what distract
I went before I got here, You went before you
got here. We discussed this yesterday. We're gonna pee on him,
(23:03):
I know, But I was leaving a house and I
thought there might be traffic. So and some.
Speaker 3 (23:08):
Second the crypto big wig is uh is about to
be arrested to or was going to turn themselves in
today it was a half a freak.
Speaker 1 (23:18):
Off, though it really was. You added a little sex
and it's a ditty party. Yeah. So thinking this over,
I think I get any indication. I mean, I get
tased once, and there's any indication of like chainsawing or
(23:38):
any other Here's here's my password. I'll walk there with you,
walk where wherever I gotta go to help you. I'll
do whatever you gotta do. What do you want me
to do?
Speaker 3 (23:49):
I'll do it. It's it's on the laptop right there. Okay, yeah,
so you do it, But then you're broke.
Speaker 1 (23:56):
He's committed a crime. I hope that the authorities can
catch them and figure it out. But I'm not gonna
sit there and get chainsawed to death. Well the guy's alive.
He just had a rough couple of weeks. Well he's
alive because he escaped. I might think, I hear you
absolutely wouldn't you just give it? I mean, well, it's
like the thing, you know, somebody stops you on the
street with a knife and says, give me your watch.
(24:18):
I'm probably just gonna handle my watch, get into a
knife fight for the best.
Speaker 3 (24:26):
It's possible. This guy just like didn't have the passwords
handy or.
Speaker 1 (24:31):
Yeah, if you could, you could torture me for a
very long time to try to get into my bank account.
I don't have the slightest idea what my password is.
I had another question around this, what was it?
Speaker 5 (24:43):
Oh?
Speaker 1 (24:43):
Uh, I suppose there's a chance I would think, well,
they're gonna kill me after I type in the password,
because they're not gonna just let me go and finger
them for this crime. Yes, so he might have decided
that was the only thing keeping him alive. Yeah, that
that could have been his calculation, which is probably a
(25:04):
pretty good calculation. Yeah. Yeah.
Speaker 3 (25:07):
Anyway, I think the greater story here, and we hit
on this last week, is that cryptocurrency is so easily
transferred and then is gone forever, and there are so
few I mean, if you if you were to, you know,
put my feet in a pan of water and hold
half a freak off and fire up the chainsaw whatever
(25:28):
and say, all right, Joe, I want your entire net worth,
I would tell you this is gonna take a while.
I've got like six to eight different financial institutions I've
got to get in touch with. They've got like three
step verification crap to do. Then we're gonna have to
email them, and this is gonna take quite some time.
Whereas with crypto, you just click and you click in
(25:50):
your password. There you go, have access to the account,
it's transferred, and it's gone. I mean, it could be
five minutes.
Speaker 1 (25:56):
So I asked chat GPT, Yes, if you tase someone
while their feet are in a bucket of water, would
it hurt more? I wondered, what you're dictating into your phone? Yes,
while you're talking. The problem is the voice texting isn't
very well. So the first time it said, would chasing
someone while their feet are in a bucket of water
(26:17):
hurt more? Yes, being chased while your feet are in
a bucket of water would hurt because it would be
hard to run. Okay, that's not what I asked for that,
so I did it again and emphasized it more. Would
tasing someone hurt more if their feet were in water?
And it said teasing someone while their feet are in
water wouldn't hurt more, but it could amplify the emotional discomfort.
(26:41):
You're fat, You're fat. Stop it. My feet are went out,
I'm fat. So I still don't have the answer. I
still don't have the answer to that question. I will
try to figure that out. For some reason, I feel
like they were really just winging it on the whole
torture thing, like they hadn't thought this through right. They
(27:01):
didn't bring in a massad agent or something. This guy
looks to be quite young too. I don't recall he's
like barely thirty years old.
Speaker 3 (27:11):
The already one hundred millionaire who decided he really needed
another thirty million dollars. Yeah, craziness, but you're gonna see
more of this stuff. So the dog thing actually interesting,
not crap. Really enjoyed it as a dog lover myself.
Speaker 1 (27:30):
And I will get the answer in case you ever
need to do it. On whether they're tasing someone while
their feet are in a bucket of water hurts more barbaric.
We'll have that all for you coming up. Stay here.
So a little tip, I guess if you're ever gonna
(27:51):
try to torture the crypto codes out of someone who's
got a bunch of money, tasing them while their feet
are in a bucket of water, according to chat GPT,
would likely hurt quite a bit more, causing the electrical
current to spread more unpredictably or intensely through the body,
especially if both feeders submerged, which they were in this case.
(28:13):
We've all learned something handy these case's great. Yeah, I'm
sure chat GPT, which is owned by whoever is sending,
is now monitoring all my stuff as they think I'm
some sort of job, some sort of crypto stealing lunatic.
Speaker 3 (28:26):
Yeah yeah, So a much more life affirming note came
across this piece and will post it under hot links
at Armstrong eyetdy dot com.
Speaker 1 (28:34):
But it's about a couple.
Speaker 3 (28:36):
Of people, a professor and a grad student who were
doing separately then together studies on dogs and dog behavior
and dog emotional responses and stuff like that. And during COVID,
the grad student Gal filmed her dog playing with her
father in several different situations. And this is kind of
(28:59):
a two part revelation here. Some were positive, like giving
him a treat. Some were more negative, like showing him
his nemesis, Saffron. The housecats. Oh, they did not get along.
They got along like dogs and cats anyway. So then Holly,
who's this grad student Gal edited the videos so they
(29:19):
only showed Oliver the dog against a black backdrop. All
you could see was the dog and how he reacted,
not what.
Speaker 1 (29:28):
The stimulus was.
Speaker 3 (29:30):
And the videos were shown to hundreds of people who
were asked how is Oliver feeling? And a key finding
was that people could not say how the dog was
feeling without context. They were absolutely terrible in saying, Oh,
that dog is happy, that's interesting, or that dog is
mad or sad or threatened or whatever. It was really
(29:50):
kind of disturbing, and I took the little quiz that
they have and I was pretty good at it.
Speaker 1 (29:55):
But so we're filling in the blanks on that when
we look at a dog.
Speaker 3 (29:58):
Yeah, precisely, Yeah, we see the context and so interpreted.
My buddy Greg, the professional dog trainer, taught me a
long time ago that a wagging tail does not necessarily
mean happy.
Speaker 1 (30:11):
It does not, so don't assume.
Speaker 3 (30:13):
That, especially if it's in a situation where there could
be aggression. But anyway, then when people were given the context,
they nailed it, of course. But but they're terrible at decoding
you know, how dogs, what dogs were thinking, what they
were feeling. And they go into a little bit more
of the study. But the most interesting revelation to me
(30:36):
was they used what they learned with a study from
Italy from a little earlier. They put dogs in a
box just so they could film their tails, with a
camera in front of them and a window in front,
and the cameras were trained on the dog's wagging tails. Well,
the researchers presented things to look at through the window,
(30:57):
like they would show the dogs an owner. It's uh
old Joe, come to see Baxter with a predictable reaction,
or they'd show them an unfamiliar person who would come
up right in front of them, or an unfamiliar dog,
and the dogs showed a strong, consistent bias to wag
their tails to the right when shown their owner or
(31:21):
an unfamiliar human, but a left bias toward an unfamiliar dog.
So if it was, and they traced it to the
centers of the brain, which, just like in a human being,
if something happens on the left side of the brain,
it manifests on the right side of the body. Well,
the left side of a dog's brain is more specialized
for approach and I'm happy, let's meet each other and so,
(31:47):
and the right side for withdrawal and fear responses and
that sort of thing. So there is a bias in
dogtail wagging if it's toward the right. And being politically conservative,
this is easy for me to remember. To the right
is good, to the left is not good.
Speaker 1 (32:04):
What if the dog is sitting in the passenger seat
while you drive with its arms crossed looking out the
window and refuses to respond to anything you say, even
if you ask it what's wrong. Your dog is angry
with you.
Speaker 3 (32:15):
Trust me, you should apologize to your dog, whether you're
in the wrong or not.
Speaker 1 (32:21):
What if you don't know what you're apologizing for.
Speaker 3 (32:24):
And here's a pro tip, don't give the dog a bone.
The dog doesn't want it, maybe not for a couple
of days. Dog is not looking for a bone at
this point. Yes, yes, don't even bring it up. I
thought that was super interesting. So in a follow up study,
(32:44):
the researchers connected dogs to heart monitors heart rate monitors
and show them videos of other dogs wagging their tails.
If the dog saw a left wagging tail, that's the
more hostile one, their heart rate revealed that they were
more anxious than when they watched a right wag tail.
Speaker 1 (33:02):
So the dog knows.
Speaker 3 (33:04):
The dog's like, ooh, left tail wag All right, hey brother,
no thread here, that's not I'm not looking for trouble
because the dog sensed it. And then they point out
that people and dogs have been living together for more
than fifteen thousand years.
Speaker 1 (33:20):
Yeah, it's really quite amazing, but we're still not.
Speaker 3 (33:23):
Great at recognizing the emotional state of dogs.
Speaker 1 (33:26):
I like to think for most of that period, we
probably didn't care. We were just happy with the relationship
that we built, where you lightly sleep and bark. If
anybody approaches, I will continue to feed you and give you.
Speaker 3 (33:39):
Water when when yeah, yeah, yeah, anyway, there you go. Right,
tail wag, good, left tail wag beware.
Speaker 1 (33:49):
Right and that whole double untondra thing earlier we can
just ignore.
Speaker 3 (33:56):
I enjoyed it. Also from the world of science for this,
that's right science. Oh you know what this deserves more
time came across this one is choosing your passion over
a paycheck worth it.
Speaker 1 (34:12):
Do what you love and the money will follow. Micro's
big on. Nah, that's dumb. Yeah, find a way to
make a living and make that your hobby. Learn to
love it or tolerate it. Yeah, and then do what
you love at home when you get home, yeah, or
on the weekend. Yeah, not even close. Depends.
Speaker 3 (34:31):
I mean, if you happen to really enjoy what you do,
or you're one of those people. And see that's the problem.
There's an exceptionality bias. It happens in the news if
something is rare that makes it interesting. That means they
will show it to you. That convinces people. It happens
all the time. But it's the opposite. It's the paradox
(34:52):
of exceptionality for us because we have done that.
Speaker 1 (34:56):
I wanted to be in radio long before I ever
thought I'd make any money at it to a large extent. Yeah,
it does help you with the like the ten thousand
hours problem of takes you that long to be really
good at something if you really like doing it. Yeah.
Speaker 3 (35:09):
Some days, do I want to throw myself off a
cliff and beaten by sharks instead of doing this one?
Speaker 1 (35:13):
Working?
Speaker 3 (35:14):
Yes?
Speaker 1 (35:15):
Yes, but most days no. Are you hoping the dog
is using the left side of its brain to elite
your face off so you don't have to go to work? Yeah?
If you miss a segment, get the podcast Armstrong and
Getty on demand Armstrong and Getty
Hosts And Creators
Joe Getty
Jack Armstrong
Popular Podcasts
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.