reSee.it - Related Video Feed

I want you to know that everything will be shared on social media. I have twenty thousand followers myself. The money is there, look, the money is right there.

The speaker discusses Erica Kirk and a sequence of variant names connected to her. They begin by asserting familiarity with Erica Kirk and then pivot to a narrative about Erica Fransve (her birth name) and Erica Kirk (the name after marrying Charlie in 2020). The central question posed is: who is Erica Chelsvig? Key claims and sequence: - Erica Fransveig was her maiden name; Erica Kirk was her name after marrying Charlie in 2020; Erica Chelsvig is described as a name she supposedly bore at another point in time. - The speaker asserts they learned the name Erica Chelsvig only two days after Charlie Kirk’s funeral, after being awakened at 02:30 in the morning. - They claim to have been a large Erica Kirk fan prior to this discovery, and that the “truth” about Erica Chelsvig had emerged suddenly and unexpectedly. - The speaker alleges that information about Erica Chelsvig has “officially scrubbed from the Internet” the very next day, and that only the speaker’s aunt managed to discover and retain it. - They state that, despite being on vacation, the world will learn who Erica Chelsvig is, but not via a Google search. - The speaker asks, “So who is Erica Chelsvig auntie?” and then outlines a backstory: Erica Fransveig (maiden name); Erica Kirk (name after marriage); Erica Chelsvig (name in between, or at another point). - They note that the Chelsvig name is Romanian and remark on the odds of that, calling the world an evil place and suggesting not everything is what it seems. - The speaker claims that Erica Kirk, Gronzevay, Chelsbank, formerly, is “accidentally spilling the beans one by one,” and asserts that what is done in the dark will come to light. - They emphasize their belief that the truth is true when it needs to be scrubbed from the Internet, and question why it would be scrubbed if there wasn’t something to hide. - A further variation is mentioned: “Erica Kerr, formerly Chelsvig,” and with it, a prompt to “screenshot and read the rest” while on vacation. - The speaker reiterates that “what used to be on the Internet” was removed days after Charlie’s funeral, and that when the holy spirit speaks, you listen and you screenshot, and the truth will always come to life.

"Disclosure is gonna come out of Huntsville, Alabama, out of Redstone Arsenal." "Redstone Arsenal in Huntsville, Alabama is the biggest fucking deal that you've never heard of." "It's the biggest fucking deal that you have never heard of." "And so we need a documentary to drop at the same time that establishes the credibility." "Because the fact is that we have deep and wide extensive credibility that no one knows about because you're not supposed to know about it." "Because it's in Alabama, it's obscure." "You're not supposed to know about it." "That's the point."

We are rerecording the video of all our spams from Santee Argos, so that background chatter you hear is just us talking.

The story is insane. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it says that on 03/10/1861, they got the land from Alan. Alfred's first project was approved. And just sixteen days later, the foundation was finished with the laying of the cornerstone where I know it now. I've mentioned this a few times, but we have this 100% pinned down now. We are exposing this right now in real time. Are you ready? The stone is larger than the rest and is hollowed out to allow a box of mementos where it was opened up in 1961, and the documents were already gone. So a new container was put into the stone. A new container put into the cornerstone where we now know what is going on here. We know that the previous civilization put valuable items inside these cornerstones all over the world just like we showed in our one hour special episode 77 where they just couldn't remember where the cornerstone was to the Saint Patrick's Cathedral in New York City. They had a 100,000 people there to watch, and then nobody could remember where it was. We know that they know exactly where it was. They never forgot. They simply went and removed it. And this is so clear now. The cornerstones hold incredible information, possibly the details on how the building was constructed or materials inside. There's something inside these cornerstones, and we called it right here on this channel. Unbelievable. Especially when we drive this point home and show the world that we are correct. And we take a look at The US Capitol Building where in 1991, a search for the Capitol cornerstone was conducted. Remember, we are told that this building was constructed in 1793. We are at the point in our research where we understand that they are not going to wait a hundred and ninety eight years to go look for a cornerstone for the first time. And if they really did build it, they wouldn't have forgot where it went. This right here is a 100% evidence in my opinion that our civilization are the finders or the founders of these structures. They did not construct these buildings. They would know where the cornerstone is without a doubt. A search for the capital's cornerstone was conducted, including use of metal detectors. Metal detectors for stone? The cornerstone. Are you able to see very clearly now? To locate the engraved plate. It was, of course, never found, so we are told, where we know that they located it and found whatever was inside from the previous civilization.

Speaker 0 announces that they have released the most dangerous discovery that explains everything, and that the video is in their bio.

Speaker 0: We have made a lot of episodes, a 106 to this point, for a long time after today. This will be the episode that I referred to as the end of the mainstream narrative. An episode that we have built up to for a very long time. Welcome to 2025. I believe this is the perfect time to share this information with the world. So here we go. I asked their AI database, the AI ChatGPT, if there were any archaeological finds that have been removed from the public, removing evidence of a previous civilization that was here where we live today. The answer is shocking. Yes. There have been numerous instances where archaeological finds are removed from the public. All of us. Where statement number six is the final straw for the mainstream narrative. A narrative that is taught to all of us since day one. A narrative that is being taught in children's classrooms in every country stating controversial finds, items that could challenge established historical narratives, the mainstream narrative. These items might also be kept from public display doing this to avoid controversy or debate. For any mainstream historian, this is the end. And for any archaeologist, you are now exposed. And this is just the beginning today. In fact, it's just the beginning of a massive series that we are starting right now as we speak. I'm going to be referring back to this episode time and time again. And to this point in all of our episodes, I have never needed to read something more. This page in their book, will be the end of the story that we're all told and the beginning of free thinking, the beginning of finding the truth, stating, advocates argue that the public access to such artifacts is essential for a fuller understanding of our true history and for fostering critical thinking about the truth. Our world's true history, suppressing giants with some findings in The Americas that suggest advanced civilizations existed just like we've talked about before European contact, such as evidence of complex urban planning where the mainstream narrative, the mainstream archaeology dismisses it, which contributes to these artifacts that have been found not being displayed or discussed, hiding artifacts that would expose an advanced previous civilization, hiding them simply because it goes against the mainstream narrative is exactly what we're being told. This highlights the tension between advancing knowledge, exactly what doing here, or sticking with the existing power structure in academia and society as we evolve this knowledge, exactly like we're doing right here on this channel. There may be a shift towards greater public access to the items found that are being hidden from all of us to this day. And I say that this is the beginning because we are now starting this series where we're gonna expose the sites, the items that are currently being blocked off from the public, blocking them off, hiding them from all of us in attempt that has been very successful for a long time to keep their false narrative in place. How many times to this point when going back and watching the first 106 episodes have we heard off limits to the public due to preservation or to keep looters away? How many times? This is the nod. This is the key, and we now know this. We've seen this in episode 98 where access to the physical artifacts may be restricted to ensure their preservation. We've seen it in episode 102, where it is no longer being exhibited to the public. We've seen so many examples of this. And today, it couldn't be any clearer, any more straightforward that so much of what we are told in life is controlled. It's manipulated to fit the narrative that we are all given, and we are about to take this to another level. Episode 86, when we saw that the project is supported by National Agency of Cultural Heritage Preservation of Georgia. The AFCP has allocated more than $1,000,000 to preserve and protect. This is a moment where our eyes open up even further, and we are able to see with more clarity than ever before. And once you're able to see, you will never go back, understanding that preservation protecting in the world of archaeology. This means preserving and protecting themselves, their narrative. This does not mean that they are preserving or protecting what they have found, and I wanna make that very clear. And this is fully exposed now. The blindfold has been ripped off, and there's no going back. This show is a progression. It takes time to show people the truth. There is a buildup, a process. The episodes are in order for a reason. The AFCP, an initiative by the United States Department of State just starting up in 2001. What a year. A group that the people of America fund through their tax dollars. A group that the world did not need in the eighteen or nineteen hundreds. And I wonder why. Now, again, I just wanna clarify, and I don't wanna be sarcastic at all. This group is amazing. We all know that they really are preserving and protecting all of our favorite sites. They support projects in over a 130 countries, preserving tangible and intangible cultural heritage such as historic structures, archaeological sites, and traditional crafts. They restore ancient temples and mosques. Conservation of manuscripts from the old world, textiles, and old world music. Preservation of significant landscapes. They are for sure doing all of this. Jebel Barkal and the sites of the Nappatun region, Sudan, where the AFCP has funded conservation efforts at this UNESCO World Heritage Site. And we know this group very well, which includes temples, palaces, and pyramids from the old world. You've gotta ask, why are there so many groups that aim to supposedly preserve and protect sites that don't fit into the mainstream narrative that the exact same group publishes into the textbooks. And then they also fund the operation of teaching this narrative, the same narrative that they just wrote, all to the people at a young age in every single country. I believe that we have correctly translated their language. The words preserve, protect, and conservation, preserving and protecting their narrative is exactly what this means. And this unlocks so many more sites, so many old world places that is going to take this research so much further than we could have ever imagined. It will unlock places that have been hiding for so long. Without our sponsors, without our Patreons, without every subscriber, all of our badge members, and everybody who likes the episodes, This episode wouldn't be happening right now. This show, these episodes, it all honestly would have ended a long time ago. I appreciate all of you. And instead of ending this show a long time ago, because of all of you, we are now just getting started. Welcome to episode 107 of my lunch break. I hope you're all having a great day. And if you're new, welcome. Have you ever wondered what happened to the legendary Chuck Norris?

The first speaker says Epstein files are going to be released, and they hope soon, but there are no dates. They mention there are tens and thousands of videos, and that it’s all for little kids, so they have to go through everyone. The second speaker notes that James O'Keefe got that video.

Host: The discussion covers a range of new findings and questions about Jeffrey Epstein’s death and the surrounding investigations, focusing on footage, forensics, coded communications, and the involvement of powerful figures. JP: They claimed the prison cameras weren’t working, but footage shows at least one camera in Epstein’s area was recording. The cameras supposedly stopped the day Epstein was released back into the prison and were fixed the day after he died. Host: There’s a statement about Epstein being found dead in a cell dated Friday, August 9, but Epstein was found unresponsive at 06:30 a.m. on August 10. An OCME official said he would arrive at the loading dock with a black vehicle to thwart the media, and asked if a decoy body is a common tactic. Is that standard practice? JP: It’s exceptionally unusual. I’ve never heard of a decoy body used to trick the press in this context. Host: There’s mention that Epstein’s ear looked off compared with what’s typical in descriptions, and that forensic exams describe his penis as the penis of a normal circumcised male, which contradicts victims’ descriptions. JP: There’s been “a lot of powerful” footage from the prison area the day after Epstein’s death; the DOJ has removed some material from their site. The cameras not recording to the DVR was a known issue; a specific camera allegedly focused directly on Epstein’s housing area was reportedly not recording, yet a clip exists from that camera. Host: They’ve found sulfuric acid purchases. One line of thought is water treatment for a pool on Epstein’s island, but sulfuric acid could also be used to decompose bodies. There’s debate about whether Epstein would hire a water-treatment company or buy acid himself, and a tweet-inflamed exchange about its use in drugs. JP: There are claims that sulfuric acid could be for water treatment or for decomposing bodies; another theory is that it’s used for meth production. There’s also a claim that a hotel-ban on sulfuric acid purchases was posted, and Elon Musk and Roger Stone commented—Stone denying the “dead bodies” theory and saying it’s for drugs. Host: The discussion shifts to a hearing with Pam Bondi, which was described as unhelpful—she wouldn’t answer direct questions. This aligns with a broader frustration that the DOJ hasn’t followed up sufficiently on questions raised by leaked material. JP: The code-language topic: pizza and grape soda appear in emails that are redacted or ambiguous. A common interpretation is that pizza refers to girls and grape soda to something else, with other terms like cheese, pasta, and beef jerky appearing in the communications. Host: A DOJ intelligence bulletin maps code words used by pedophiles; “pizza” correlates with girl, “pasta” with little boy, “cheese” with little girl, and “beef jerky” appears in multiple messages. There’s a specific exchange: Jeremy Epstein’s people discuss a “torture” topic in an email chain, and others reference “torture videos” or “torture” in various contexts. JP: The interpretation of “torture” could be sexual in nature (role-playing) or something more explicit; there’s a push to see if the language is literal or coded. The difficulty is prosecutorial—coded language can be hard to prove in court, and people often plead plausible deniability. Host: There are examples like a discussion about “shrimp” and “white sharks” with references to Russian girls, and a separate exchange on “a baby” being bought, with Epstein replying in a way that avoids explicit commitment—further supporting the idea of evasion via coded or oblique language. JP: There’s a long thread involving a Harvard professor, a Nigerian-Portuguese contact, and an Israeli operation thread; Epstein’s reply, “I loved the torture video,” is read as a sexual or possibly role-playing reference, though another interpretation is that it’s about a non-literal, sexualized scenario. The doctor-patient or professional context is complicated by the presence of sexual tokens and “torture” terminology. Host: There’s also a notable exchange about “an aquarium full of girls” and “white sharks” with reference to Russian girls, and a line about a “king of Saudi” with possible high-level connections. The breadth of names—royal, political, academic—suggests a wide network, possibly used for blackmail, leverage, or influence. JP: A recurring theme is blackmail: Epstein’s network could have backed or driven blackmail operations. There are redacted or partially redacted files that could contain more explicit material, including a photo involving a public figure with a girl; even if the girl is over 18, the context remains incriminating and suspicious. Host: The possibility Epstein is alive remains a fringe theory, but there are inconsistent elements—the ear and nose differences in purported body images, the decoy body claim, and the press-release date discrepancy—that feed ongoing speculation about whether there was a replacement or manipulation of the body, or whether a genuine death occurred with unresolved questions remaining. JP: Overall, the files present a web of coded language, high-profile associations, and forensic ambiguities that keep fueling questions about Epstein’s death, the handling of evidence, and the breadth of possible blackmail networks tied to powerful individuals. Host: The conversation ends with a plan to revisit these threads, given the ongoing releases and the sheer volume of material, acknowledging that each new item tends to expand the mystery rather than resolve it.

Speaker 0 says they are rebuilding the newspaper, and when they are ready with it, these people will remember. There is something coming, and that is what is important in the business. Not what anybody thinks or what anybody is doing at this moment. What is important is what’s going to happen the day when this newspaper is coming out and will be launched. Boom.

Speaker 0: 'Hey, guys. Just wanted to say thanks to everybody who who, you know, read my Substack today.' He says, 'out of all the substacks I've written, that one was probably the most effort that I put into a single substack as far as tying so many cross connections and overlapping pieces together.' He adds, 'I try hard on all of them, obviously, but that one genuinely took a lot out of me.' Finally, he notes, 'And seeing the the good response and the reception that it's getting means more to me than you guys will ever know.'

Speaker 0 outlines a strongly negative portrayal of Mitch Snow, claiming “maybe one of the most horrific, appalling human beings” the speaker has encountered. The speaker asserts a record of “violence against women in his record, kidnapping, abuse, fraud,” and states, “Oh, I have the proof. I have it all. I have all the documents.” The speaker emphasizes a hardline stance on abuse, noting that “we’re fans of Candace,” and that both they and JD have “very staunch anti abuse against women and children stances.” The speaker declares, “I don’t care who you are. If you platform and raise a $130,000 for someone who has a visceral history of abuse against women that’s gonna blow your guys’ mind, I’m not gonna allow that to happen.” The speaker continues that the claims about Snow are “a thousand times worse than any of you guys could have ever imagined” and states that the “stolen dollar, the Fort Huachaca” story will be debunked, though adds that this particular matter “is nothing to this story.” The speaker reports having talked to all of the victims, to Snow’s entire family, and to Snow’s children, emphasizing that Snow’s own son—described as an army veteran—“will be coming out and speaking publicly with us to explain to you how his father what a con artist his father is.” There is a commitment to a forthcoming exposure, with the speaker saying, “It is insane who this man really is. That is coming Friday.” The speaker expresses emotional fatigue from listening to victims and conducting investigations, stating they will bring “every document, all the domestic filing files, all the court all the court documents, all the military documents.” The speaker says, “We’ve got it all.” The speaker then questions whether Candace knows about Snow, saying, “If Candace knew this about this guy and decided to still platform him, I’m gonna be horrified. I’m gonna be absolutely horrified if she did this knowingly.” The claim is reiterated that Snow is “a con artist.” The speaker notes that they have not yet addressed “the debunking the four Huachaka story,” but promises to do so “very easily, by the way.” The segment ends with the speaker reiterating the emotional impact of conversations with Snow’s family and the testimony about a “litany of women that have been abused,” emphasizing that the numbers are more than a few—“Not one, not two, not three, not four.”

The speaker asks if the after huddle conversation is recorded and can be shared. They mention getting distracted by a squirrel while trying to help someone join the huddle. Speaker 1 explains that Silver records the pre and post shows and they can provide a copy of the text or audio. Speaker 0 requests the audio. Speaker 2 mentions that getting the video would require a lot of data. Speaker 1 comments on the great discussion and how it continued for over 2 hours after the show.

Speaker 0 says 'the Charlie Kirk show is not going anywhere' and 'my husband's voice will live on. The show will go on.' The plan includes 'rotating hosts, rotating casts, rotating people coming on,' with 'the members only group will continue to go on.' 'We're not going to be tweeting as if it's him. That's tone deaf and really disturbing.' The team will keep Charlie 'the North Star of the conservative movement of the voice of the youth, of the voice of the base' and a 'tight knit network of family members' who supported Charlie. They cite 'decades worth of my husband's voice' and 'unused material from speeches that he's had that no one has heard yet,' with 'Sunday specials lined up to the brim' because 'He would not do a speech unless we could get the video' and 'they recorded everything.'

The speaker discusses potential releases, expressing hope they will come soon but noting there are no dates. They mention that there are tens of thousands of videos, and that processing them requires going through everyone. The speaker also references James O’Keefe having obtained a video, though the sentence is incomplete.