reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss how to read events and who was responsible, highlighting that “the best reading of what happened there is who wanted JFK dead the most,” with claims that “Israel wanted JFK dead” but that “Lyndon Baines Johnson and parts of our own government and the Cubans” were also involved. They emphasize that there were “like 15 or 20 things that happened that day that were inexcusable,” including changing the parade route, JFK in an open-air convertible, LBJ not riding alongside him, the vehicle slowing down, and the Texas School Book Depository. They argue that “more than one person did it,” not just Lee Harvey Oswald, and that acknowledging that could expose government lies about the assassination. Speaker 0 notes the shift in the public’s trust toward the government and argues that those who now question government credibility previously failed to acknowledge multiple actors in JFK’s death. He asks about the fallout of this shift, noting that the PBD (Patrick Bet-David) show and its audience are pro-Israel and that “70% of those people overwhelmingly agreed with you.” Speaker 2 agrees, stating that “Find somebody who has ignored Gaza being bombed” and who “can call Kansas a demon, but has never once called BB Netanyahu a demon,” will align with protecting the Charlie Kirk narrative. He says the discussion around JFK didn’t make sense within 48 hours and argues that people find it suspicious. He adds that even if one believes “Tyler Robinson pulled the trigger,” you cannot claim nobody else was involved because “we haven’t been told anything.” He says this reflects the same tactics used during BLM to shut down inquiry about George Floyd, arguing that people who supported him on George Floyd would not say “there's no evidence” merely because Floyd had fentanyl in his system. They frame this as evidence that the narrative is being built and that scientific inquiry requires asking questions. Speaker 0 recounts learning during COVID that “it came from a bat in the Himalayas,” that “the vaccine was safe and effective,” and that “ivermectin was horse-paced,” asserting that questioning is essential for freedom. He references a Glenn Beck interview with Erica Kirk and describes elitist attitudes that equate trust in experts with correct understanding, characterizing the exchange as elitist and contrived. He argues Turning Point USA was not built on experts and would not survive if it continues down this path.

- We need to stop trusting the experts. - We were told at the beginning of COVID, don't look at any data yourself. Don't do any investigating yourself. Just trust the experts. - And trusting the experts is not a feature of science. It's not a feature of democracy. It's a feature of religion, and it's a feature of totalitarianism. - In democracies, we have the obligation, and it's one of the burdens of citizenship, to do our own research and make our own determination. - And we're gonna give people gold standard science. We're gonna publish our protocols in advance. - We're going to tell people what we're doing, and then we're gonna use data, and we're gonna publish the peer reviews, which is never published by CDC studies. We're going to publish any time that we can the raw data, and then we're going to require replication of every study, which never happens at NIH now. That's something new that we're bringing in, is that every study will be replicated.

Individuals in mass formation lose critical thinking abilities. Surprisingly, higher IQ and education levels make people more susceptible. People tend to blindly trust authority figures like the CDC, while those outside the system question and seek evidence.

Anthony Fauci and his understanding of evidence-based medicine is questioned by Speaker 0 and Speaker 1. They both agree that he seems to lack this understanding. Speaker 0 clarifies that they don't believe Fauci is intentionally misleading, but rather that his repeated phrase "trust the science" is akin to trusting a psychopath. Speaker 1 finds the concept of "trust the science" to be vague and questions its meaning, likening it to witchcraft.

The American people will not accept an unelected group controlling the executive branch. While innovation is important, public institutions like Social Security, Medicare, and national defense are at stake, and citizens deserve a voice in these matters. Elections reflect the will of the people, and just because one viewpoint wins doesn't mean we abandon democracy. We cannot replace centuries of democratic practice with a small group that believes they know better than the collective wisdom of the American populace.

People leaving universities with advanced degrees only trust peer-reviewed papers for science, ignoring observation and discussion. This narrow view stifles new scientific insights from emerging. Breakthroughs often come from outside the mainstream, not the center of the profession. Relying solely on peer review hinders progress and risks self-destruction due to ignorance.

There will be other health crises in our country, and there will be other gurus who will undermine the trust of our citizens on a large scale. Some may even target our institutions. We are here to make laws, to protect the most vulnerable, and to remind everyone of the obvious. The obvious is based on science. We can debate ideas, but we cannot claim expertise we do not have and put the safety of our fellow citizens at risk for personal gain.

Fauci lacks knowledge in various areas and shouldn't be in his current position. He misunderstands microscopy and medicine. Most top officials are just administrators and lack understanding of the situation. Fauci has been invited to debate someone knowledgeable on the subject, but he hasn't accepted. The president of the University of South Carolina even asked him to debate in front of the student body.

The problem of fake news is not solved by a referee, but by participants helping each other point out what is fake and true. The answer to bad speech is not censorship, but more speech. Critical thinking matters more than ever, given that lies seem to be getting very popular.

- The reason most people believe we need government is because of a lack of trust in human beings. - The solution is to place a subset of people we don’t trust inside of a political monopoly. - The people we don’t trust are going to vote people we don’t trust into the political monopoly and then run free and fair elections even though we don’t trust them. - It’s this self destroying logic. - If you don’t trust people, then you would not trust government. - It shouldn’t exist. - And if you do trust people, then you wouldn’t need this political monopoly at all. - So, I mean, the idea of government is destroyed on the basis of logic alone. - 100%.

Science can be incorrect, but progress is made by building on previous work. When doubt is cast on established science, it hinders advancement and keeps us stagnant. The issue lies in continuously questioning and revisiting settled science, which prevents us from moving forward.

"My my feeling, Charlie, is that it's it's not that pseudoscience and superstition and new age so called beliefs and fundamentalist zealotry are something new. They've been with us for as long as we've been" "But we live in an age based on science and technology with formidable technological powers." "Science and technology are propelling us forward at accelerating rates." "And if we don't understand it, by we, I mean the general public." "And the Republican Congress has just abolished its own office of technology assessment, the organization that gave them bipartisan and competent advice on science and technology." "They say, we don't want to know. Don't tell us about science" "There's two kinds of dangers."

Science is often misunderstood. Many people with advanced degrees only trust peer-reviewed papers and ignore observation, thinking, and discussion. This narrow view is pathetic. Academia values peer-reviewed papers, but this blocks new scientific insights and advancements. Breakthroughs in science usually come from the fringe, not the center of the profession. The finest candlemakers couldn't have imagined electric lights. Our ignorance and stupidity may lead to our downfall.

Checklist for summary approach: - Identify and restate the speaker’s claimed credentials (or lack thereof). - Capture the core activity described (deposing leading vaccine experts) and the basis for claims (actual evidence). - Note the courtroom principle contrasting titles versus evidence. - Outline the asserted strategic actions (legal action against specific agencies) and purported results. - Preserve the exact claim about the outcome of the lawsuits regarding vaccine safety science. - Present statements verbatim where feasible, and otherwise closely paraphrase to retain meaning. - Avoid adding judgments, external context, or evaluative commentary. Summary: The speaker introduces himself as Mister Siri and immediately clarifies that he is not a medical doctor, and not an immunologist or biologist or any kind of vaccinologist. He adds that despite lacking these titles, he “depose[s] them regularly, including the world’s leading ones with regards to vaccines,” and that he must base his claims on “actual evidence.” In describing his courtroom approach, he asserts that when he goes to court regarding vaccines, “I don’t get to rely on titles.” He then recounts a proposed strategic path he characterizes as a “genius way forward”: “We’re gonna sue the government agencies, HHS, FDA, NIH,” and he states that “we started winning.” The narrative then turns to the alleged outcomes of those legal actions, posing the question, “And what did we prove in those lawsuits?” followed by the claimed conclusion: “That the entire science behind vaccine safety was nothing but a complete fraud.” Throughout, the speaker frames the process as a shift from deference to credentials to a reliance on evidence obtained through deposition and litigation, culminating in purported victories against major federal health agencies. He presents the lawsuits as the mechanism by which the foundational science of vaccine safety was challenged, and he asserts that the result of these proceedings is a definitive statement that the science underpinning vaccine safety is fraudulent, as claimed within the transcript’s courtroom-centered account. The emphasis remains on the contrast between claimed authority and evidence-based legal challenges, as well as on the asserted procedural successes and the sweeping conclusion about vaccine-safety science.

Authority can be dangerous when those in power equate criticism with subversion. It's a delicate balance, as some earn authority through capability while others use it to oppress. Unfortunately, we live in a society surrendered to authority, where government at all levels holds power over the average citizen. Expertise and education were once seen as important for a healthy society, but they have also bred arrogance and created a class separate from the average American. This concentration of power has led to monolithic thinking and a lack of skepticism. We must break free from this orthodoxy and embrace diverse voices to advance as a society.

Science and open debate died in the 1980s, replaced by dogma in academia and the scientific world. Engineers face consequences when they fail, unlike scientists whose theories are harder to verify. In early 2020, a doctor realized much medical teaching is dogma, not science. Government-approved figures are portrayed as top scientists, unaware they are pawns for political agendas and fearmongering.

There's a growing distrust in experts, despite our reliance on them in everyday situations, like calling a plumber when there's an issue. People now often prefer their own research over expert advice, especially with the vast information available online. This shift in trust can have serious consequences, particularly when it comes to health and well-being. Making decisions based on personal interpretation of data rather than expert guidance can lead to dangerous outcomes. It's crucial to recognize the value of expertise in our lives, even as skepticism rises.

Mister Siri, we've been talking about medical issues. You're you're not a medical doctor, are you? No, sir. And you're not an immuno immunologist or biologist or any kind of Or vaccinologist. No. But I depose them regularly including the world's leading ones with regards to vaccines and I have to make my claims based on actual evidence when I go to court with regards to vaccines. I don't get to rely on titles. Okay.

What is it? What what is it about humanity that that that that wants to go to all the details and stuff and listen you know, these guys like Fauci get up there and start talking. You know, he didn't know anything really about anything, and I'd say that to his face. Nothing. The man thinks you can take a blood sample and stick it in an electron microscope, if it's got a virus in there, you'll know it. He doesn't understand electron microscopy, and he doesn't understand medicine and he should not be in a position like he's in. Most of those guys up there on the top are just total administrative people and they don't know anything about what's going on with the bottom. You know, those guys have got an agenda, which is not what we would like them to have, being that we pay for them to take care of our health in some way. They've got a personal kind of agenda. They make up their own rules as they go. They change them when they want to, and they smugly like Tony Fauci does not mind going on television in front of the people that pay his salary and lie directly into the camera. You can't expect the sheep to really respect the best and the brightest. They don't know the difference, really. I mean, I I like humans. Don't don't get me wrong. But, basically, there is a there is a there is a vast the vast majority of them do not possess the the ability to judge who is and who isn't a really good scientist. I mean, that's a problem. That's a main problem, actually, with science, I'd say, in this century because science is being judged by people. Funding is being done by people who don't understand it. K. Who do we trust? Fauci. Fauci doesn't know enough to, you know if Fauci wants to get on television with somebody who knows a little bit about this stuff and debate him, he could easily do it because he's been asked. I mean, I've had a lot of people, president of the University of South Carolina, ask Voucher if he'd come down there and debate me on the stage in front of the student body because I wanted somebody who was from the other side to come down there and balance my Oh. Because I felt like, well, these guys can listen to me, but I need to have somebody else down here that's gonna tell me the other side. But it was didn't wanna do it.

Science is often misunderstood. Many people with advanced degrees only trust peer-reviewed papers, ignoring observation and discussion. This narrow view is limiting and pathetic. Academia values peer-reviewed papers, but this means everyone agrees, stifling new knowledge and advancements. Breakthroughs in science usually come from the fringe, not the center. The finest candlemakers couldn't imagine electric lights. We are endangering ourselves with our own stupidity.

People leaving universities with advanced degrees only trust peer-reviewed papers, stifling new scientific insights. Breakthroughs often come from outside the mainstream, not the center of a profession. This narrow view of science is blocking progress and may lead to self-destruction.

Smart, highly educated people are often out of touch with reality because they don't see the world as it is.

Judge Wilson asks about the statute of limitations for a misdemeanor in New York—one year. The business records case is a misdemeanor, correct? The underlying crime, the falsified business records, yes. That’s a misdemeanor charge. The only way to reach a felony is by concealing another crime, right? Correct. Each crime has specific elements that must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to convict at trial. Right? That is the right way to do it. In the indictment, did they specify the underlying crime? No. They only described it as other crimes. In the jury instructions, did they specify the specific underlying crime? No. The falsifying business records was described in the jury instructions, with some brief description of a New York state election law violation, but there was no description of the three underlying crimes. There was a description given of falsifying business records, which was ironic because it was falsifying business records to falsify business records. So, and that’s also a misdemeanor, right? That should be. So you have two plus two equals six: if you commit two misdemeanors, you get to the felony statute of limitations, which they had to get—or they could have never brought the case. That’s correct. But there are more questions about the statute of limitations. It’s not cut and dry because the time Donald Trump spent out of New York could be used to toll the statute of limitations. That was the Harvey Weinstein ruling in the court of appeals. He argued that the time he spent out of New York, while in California, should have tolled the time limitations, but the court of appeals ruled against him on that issue. So that’s how they may get around the statute of limitations problem in this case. Was the election law case a federal or state underlying crime? It seemed charged as both; when we got to the jury instructions, there’s a violation of New York election law charged, but then one of the three charges underlying is an unspecified violation of federal election law. And then the third one was a tax violation, right? Also unspecified. So all three underlying crimes have significantly different elements of the crime. Were any of the elements listed? No. Not at all. And this matters for defense: if you don’t know the elements of the crime you’re defending, how do you mount a defense? You can’t. That’s the very issue of fundamental fairness referenced here: a defendant is entitled to know what the charges are against them so you can defend against those charges. Trump was never made aware of the extent of the charges until the end of the trial. Elements of the crime go in jury instructions. Traditionally you get the elements of the underlying crime. Instead, in this case, they got a grab bag: a choice of three underlying crimes, and we don’t even know which ones they chose or whether they could have been unanimous on those three. So not only were the elements of the crime missing, but there were three different crimes with three vastly different elements, all unspecified. Neither the indictment nor the bill of particulars lists the elements. The statement of facts merely describes a series of allegations and actions believed to have been taken by Trump, none of which describe any criminal activity or elements of any crime. Therefore, on appeal there may be significant legal issues arguing the jury never actually had the elements put in front of them. There’s little doubt this matter could be reversed on appeal based on these issues. Jury trials are still the best way to determine guilt or innocence, but juries are only as good as the information put in front of them. With that, the speakers yield.

The conspiracy theorist believes in doing their own research, thinking for themselves, and seeing things firsthand. However, it is argued that thinking for oneself is not possible. This idea has been debunked since Kant, as it doesn't make sense. It is important to remember that you cannot think for yourself.