reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Speaker 0: Describes the cutting off of heads during Operation Stone: a lieutenant colonel there, two people had their heads cut off and put on stakes and stuck in the middle of the field. Speaker 1: Describes a brutal act against a woman: he went over there and ripped her clothes off and took a knife and cut from her vagina all the way up, well, just about up to her breast and pulled her organs out completely out of her cavity and threw them out. And then he stopped and knelt over and commenced to peel every bit of skin off her body and left her there as a sign for something or other. And there were Speaker 2: Describes a child-killing incident: two little boys playing on a dike. One sergeant just took his M16 and shot one boy off the dike. The other boy tried to run. When he was almost out of sight, this other guy, Spec Four, shot this other little boy off the dike. And the little boy was, like, lying on the ground kicking. So he shot him again to make sure he's dead. Speaker 3: Notes that the people are aware of what American soldiers do to them, so they hide the young girls. Found one hiding in a bomb shelter in sort of the basement of her house. She was taken out and raped by six or seven people in front of her family, in front of most of the villagers. This isn’t just one instance. This is just the first one that I could remember. Speaker 4: Describes a game-like brutality and a system of trophies: It got to be like a game. The object was to see who could kill the most people. Different ways to prove how many people you killed included cutting off ears. If you brought back someone’s ears, pretty likely you had to kill them to get them. Then people would, you know, whoever had the most ears, they would get the most beers, and you trade your ears for beers. Speaker 5: Recounts another atrocity in which civilians were targeted: As I was walking over to him, I turned and I looked in the area. I looked to where the VCS were, supposed VCS. And two men were leading a young girl, approximately 19 years old, very pretty, out of a hooch. She had no clothes on, so I assumed she’d been raped, was pretty SOP. And she was thrown onto the pile of the 19 women and children, and five men around the circle opened up on full automatic with her M16s. And that was into that.

In a study conducted by the speaker and their graduate students, college students volunteered to participate in a study on prison life. After personality tests and interviews, 24 participants were randomly assigned to be either prisoners or guards. The experiment began with a realistic arrest, where a police car arrived at the participants' homes and took them away in front of real neighbors. The prisoners were then taken to a makeshift cell in the basement of a police station. The speaker, who was the first prisoner picked up, described the experience as degrading.

During filming, I noticed that everyone encouraged each other in various situations. However, many people tend to say the same thing, thinking it's amazing. I had to explain to them that it's more like being restricted because you have to be able to express yourself freely. I've never experienced it personally, but there was a time when music became a part of my life. I can explain to others that their work can still be appreciated, even if it may not be immediately visible.

Speaker 0 questions why someone is calling people and asks why they do what they do. They mention taking everything and working long hours.

The speaker mentions that they often bring papers but never look at them, except when they are given numbers. They admit to relying on whatever is written down for them.

The party that viewers might imagine is not what actually happened. Instead, these people were working together tirelessly for long hours, sometimes up to 19 hours a day. They had to be present at the location due to the national emergency and the fact that they couldn't work remotely.

Speaker 0 admits to being paid to pretend to protest at the Capitol building. They mention having difficulty pulling off the act and getting a bruise on their leg. Although they don't reveal who paid them, they suggest it was part of an organized effort.

The conversation opens with Speaker 0 expressing irritation about smoking, saying, “Smoking induce shit to me. I go to the casino twice a week. Fuck your smoke.” The exchange quickly shifts to a request for clarification or communication: Speaker 1 asks, “It like, from the local or I will send you a message?” and Speaker 2 repeats the detail, noting “The casino twice a week, bitch.” A brief interjection acknowledges a small moment of support or appreciation, as Speaker 0 mentions Alaska Post with an Amazon Prime sub and adds, “Thank you. It’s a dumb by the way, the Amazon Prime sub.” The tone then pivots to a discussion about screens and expectations for the group’s audience or participants. Speaker 2 criticizes having “too many screens,” while Speaker 1 asserts a standards-based stance: “we are very selective, and we we're not here for people who just say too many screens. Either you fucking marinate and you figure it out or you don't. Just fine if you don't.” This reveals a commitment to a certain level of engagement or preparation from participants. The dialogue returns to a chaotic incident as Speaker 2 asks about a situation, “Hold on. Jerry, I see Jerry. Did they just chase Jerry out? I don't know.” Speaker 1 responds, “Sure. Sure. You didn't do nothing wrong, man.” But Speaker 2 pushes back, insisting someone did something: “I didn't nothing. Yes. You did, bro. You fucking knocked the old man out of his chair. People.” The narration then pivots to a description of an event in progress: “So it's in slow. He was driving down the street. I got you. I got it. I got it.” The speakers explain that they had told someone to stay home, repeatedly: “We told him to stay home, bro. Fuck. We told him to stay home, dude. We told him to fucking stay home, dude. We told him to stay home.” The commenters attribute the action to “Spider Mike,” who allegedly knocked the old man down, and they acknowledge gratitude: “Thank you. Thank you. Send it to him, please.” A subsequent query asks whether anyone witnessed the incident or has video evidence: “Anybody witness this or have any video of this? Not for you.” The exchange repeats the sentiment of a witness or footage request: “Not for you.” The conversation concludes with a sense of closure or reflection as Speaker 2 notes, “It’s beautiful. And I I just stood there, and then he just went back.” Throughout, the participants reference a chaotic scene surrounding a dispute or altercation near the casino, involving force against an older person, the instruction to stay home, and a call for witnesses or video documentation, all framed within a broader discussion about engagement standards and personal conduct.

A journalist engages with a person at a park, aiming to speak to someone, and the conversation shifts to a narrative about Naftali Aaron Kranz. The speaker identifies Kranz as a paid protester through GetFree, detailing LinkedIn evidence of the arrangement. GetFree is described as hiring for part-time mobilization support contractors, seeking individuals with four or more years of experience in leading direct action, large-scale mobilizations, demonstrations, protests, and civil disobedience (the latter implying experience with arrests). Compensation is stated as 3,500 to 4,200 dollars per month for an average of twenty hours a week. GetFree brands itself as a grassroots organization, but Kranz and others are described as being paid to protest. The narrator asserts Kranz’s role in celebrating vandalism, citing an incident in Crown Heights where someone threw an egg at a stranger’s Cybertruck and dog feces were placed on it, describing Kranz as part of this sentiment. They place Kranz at an abolish-the-police rally, noting he was blending in with other recruits rather than leading, with the implication that field photos can be staged for later use. The claim is made that Kranz works with the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), and the narrator reports meeting him again at a DSA Tax the Rich rally. LinkedIn activity is cited to show Kranz frequently posting about recruitment and expanding efforts to win reparations nationwide, with mentions of Chicago, the Bay Area, and Baltimore. A linked link is described as listing a nine-week contract, part-time, paying 3,400 dollars in stipends biweekly, seeking someone excited about experimentation and capable of recruiting and training people to drive turnout to events. Nicole Cardi is named as a figure at the top of the Get Free movement. The narrative shifts to donations, stating that donations to Get Free are funneled through ActBlue, which is under Department of Justice investigation for foreign contributions. ActBlue allegedly funds activist groups like Indivisible Twin Cities, which purportedly orchestrates resistance to ICE agents in Minneapolis and has been reported to pay protesters, receiving over 7,600,000 dollars from the Open Society Foundation, funded by George Soros. The speaker concludes with a personal reaction to the information, expressing a need to stay away, before the conversation ends with Speaker 0 saying they have to stand there.

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss a long-standing, elite network believed to have roots in Nazi-era experiments. Speaker 1 recounts being taken at age nine to a mind control facility described as a villa in Heidelberg, with the basement as the training area. The training there is described as extremely precise and effective, forming a persona that Speaker 1 was to become as an elite sex slave. Based on innate ability and bloodline, she was groomed to gain fame in France, under the direction of a man described as a Nazi, who was reportedly used by a powerful family for their special project. The training was highly professional, and Speaker 1 says she noticed a clear change in herself. A plan emerged to use her platform to attract a certain type of men, with her role serving to bring information back to her owner. Speaker 0 probes whether the aim was for Speaker 1 to resemble famous French figures such as Édith Piaf or Françoise Hardy-esque icons, specifically referencing Edouard Piaf (Édith Piaf), Gainsbourg, and Jane Birkin. Speaker 1 confirms the direction toward a “cool genre” akin to those figures in France. Speaker 1 adds a highly distinctive, previously unreported detail: during a holiday period, she spent a week or two in a basement in France with an entourage, where she had to be naked to become accustomed to being object of adoration and worship, anticipating being filmed naked extensively. The entourage consisted of adults who dressed and prepared her—doing her hair and makeup—aiming for a natural look that appeared effortlessly beautiful, described as “looks natural, but a little more beautiful, like it was just accidentally so pretty.” The overarching objective was for her to embody a “natural look” and become a public figure in France, aligning with the referenced artistic milieu. Speaker 1 notes that the training and program would be used to attract men and to gather information for the owner, emphasizing a system designed to blend celebrity identity with control and surveillance. The conversation touches on the emotional intensity of the topic, with Speaker 0 expressing anger and Speaker 1 acknowledging the sentiment without further commentary. Speaker 0 asks whether Speaker 1 often encounters anger in listeners, to which Speaker 1 responds with thanks for the observation.

The speaker knew the suspect and said he was bullied almost every day and was an outcast who sat alone at lunch. Kids would target him because they thought it was funny. The speaker didn't want to say this provoked the suspect, but stated that you never know. The speaker said the suspect was a loner because he was quiet, but he was bullied so much. He was made fun of for the way he dressed or his appearance. The suspect would regularly wear hunting gear and always have a mask, even well after COVID.

The speaker discusses their experience working for the CIA and the unethical practices they witnessed. They mention being tested extensively before joining the agency and the sexist and racist attitudes prevalent at the time. They worked as a secretary, assisting operatives and obtaining necessary documents. They also worked in technical services, researching topics like bridge explosives and undetectable poisons. The speaker recalls feeling disturbed by a mission report that involved killing innocent women and children. Despite recognizing the wrongdoing, they admit to being addicted to the excitement and intrigue of the job. They conclude by stating that no other job could ever match the excitement they experienced at the CIA.

The speaker observed someone taking paper from their pocket and writing notes. This observation was made while reviewing footage three to four days after the event. Therefore, they were unable to secure the piece of paper that the person had torn up.

They were flipping us off multiple times, as well as each other, joking around and not taking anything seriously.

The speaker describes observing someone who appeared to be negotiating with a deaf prostitute. The speaker claims this person gestured, "I want some of this, then you do some of this, and I'll do some of that back to you, and then we'll do this, and then I'll pay you, and then we'll do it again." The speaker says the woman kept refusing, suggesting alternative arrangements like, "You do this one first, then we do this one, then we give a little back and forth."

Speaker 0: Oh. It's good. Don't sit back, homie. Good? See you in prison, Inc. Oh, I hated that. That's a little bit of guy. Was rough. That sucked. Yeah. That sucked. Looks like you made it out.

The speaker mentions that they often bring papers but never look at them, except when they are given numbers. They admit to relying on whatever is written down for them.

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss a sudden, unexplained YouTube ban impacting Speaker 1’s entire account, including the ability to watch YouTube, with no violations or warnings on the channel and no explanation given. The channel was deleted for not following community standard guidelines, which Speaker 1 notes is surprising given the channel’s focus on personal experiences, scientific conversations, and lack of strikes. Speaker 1 explains the last interview they did was with Jim Sikala, and mentions frequent contact from Harvard University’s neurology department seeking real experiences to place boxes in homes for real scientific data collection, not ufology. He says the interview with Sikala was “the last thing we did” about a week or two prior, and asserts there was no explanation for the termination and ban from the app. Speaker 2 frames this as part of a broader pattern of suppression since they started filming a documentary and releasing it on November 5. They describe their YouTube presence as minimal in size and influence, yet they’ve observed a lack of visibility across Twitter and other platforms, with posts “invisible” or unseen by audiences. They had expected the Rogan mention to boost visibility, given some discussions around the documentary and agent disclosure, but instead experienced continued suppression. Speaker 0 notes that both their channels and individual accounts are not reaching audiences despite heavy cross-promotion, and they question how to generate interest or reach when content remains unseen. They reference a Rogan appearance last night that mentioned Speaker 1, and then the next day Speaker 1’s channel is wiped out, prompting speculation about a possible connection. Speaker 1 acknowledges that several thousand people think the ban is connected to the Rogan mention and Doctor Michael Masters’ discussions, though he emphasizes he does not monetize his channel and aims to help others share experiences. Speaker 1 emphasizes the documentary’s impact on people who feel unable to discuss certain topics in everyday society, noting that the content has helped many to rediscover suppressed ideas and experiences. He describes the emotional and personal toll of the work, including sleep issues and a period of sleepwalking, which he attributes to stress and exposure, and recounts a recent incident of seeing a face in a kitchen window, which turned out to be himself in a mirror-like reflection. Speaker 2 summarizes the sense of ongoing coincidence and timing that feels significant, comparing it to the sense of the phenomenon experienced prior to their first filming. They acknowledge receiving messages from viewers inspired by the documentary, thanking them for the work.

Speaker 0: There was nobody here. What the fuck? What did we do? We made it outside. We made it about a block. We... Speaker 1: ...made it at least two blocks, and we started running floor by floor instead of popping out. Speaker 0: It was like it was if if if they had dented me. Yeah. Dented plan.

The speaker spent a week doing the US Army sleep experiment, which is a method to fall asleep in two minutes. The first step is to relax the body from top to bottom, starting by contracting and releasing muscles in the face, then working down to the shoulders, arms, and legs. The next step is to constantly repeat to yourself, "do not think," to distract the mind. The speaker didn't have much success until filming the video, when they caught themself dozing.

Speaker 0 describes an overwhelming personal realization after reviewing files last night. He couldn't sleep and began with documents, then moved on to video, and says, “my god. My god. Bloody hell. We're living in bloody hell.” He states he had to stop because he cannot unsee what he saw. He reports witnessing horror far beyond any horror movie, noting “Blood curdling screams of young kids, the fear in these children.” He asserts that “these people are the devil walking earth,” declaring that “The devil is on earth.” He calls the experiences horrible and uses strong language to convey the intensity of the content. He explicitly references acts described as “Unaliving of children,” and details that he observed claims of “they've been unaliving children, cutting up intestines and eating them, unaliving babies, violating, essaying these children.” He emphasizes the impact of these revelations on his perception, stating he has never in his life, and questions whether he is naïve, asking himself, “Am I naive?” He adds that, if told in his wildest dreams that this kind of thing was happening in this country, he would be surprised. Throughout, Speaker 0 conveys a sense of shock, horror, and disbelief upon discovering alleged crimes against children, expressing that the content is beyond ordinary fear and horror, and that the severity of the acts described has left a lasting, distressing impression.

Speaker 0 marched in the civil rights movement to change attitudes. They were involved in desegregating movie theaters and organizing voter registration drives. Speaker 0 sat in black churches with Jewish rabbis, preparing to desegregate movie theaters. They have been involved in causes since they were 18, including desegregating restaurants. However, according to the New York Times, Speaker 2 claims that Speaker 0 lied about marching in the civil rights movement. Despite being reminded of this, Speaker 0 continued to tell the story. Speaker 2 finds this behavior strange.

Speaker 0 recounts a 2022 experience described as a “mini abduction” at a UFO conference. He was taken to a vacant room and then onto a balcony by a woman he knew loosely. A stranger named Eric sat close to him in a way that caused intense physical discomfort, with Eric’s knee against his groin. The stranger claimed that the closeness was necessary for something to work, and then the moment passed. Two weeks prior, while washing dishes and considering quitting their TV/podcast work, Speaker 0 says the same strangers telepathically conveyed a message: “we know you’ve been thinking about quitting lately, and we’d really prefer you not do that yet.” He notes the interaction involved an entity or entities communicating through the man he’s calling Bruce pluribus sort of TV show, with the message that once he knows who they are, he’ll understand how they know that private thought. He recalls no telepathic moment before this. Speaker 0 was told that he would continue looking, but a darkness would come from top to bottom, and they would put things in his brain which he would see coming but would not have access to once they were done. He was asked for permission to do this, with free will preserved, and he agreed. The “eyes went dark” and a massive stream of information flowed into his brain. He describes the moment as exhausting but not painful and notes the transition from vocal to telepathic communication as seamless. Afterwards, the room filled with more people, who watched as the encounter unfolded. He was lifted out of the altered state and walked back through the hotel corridor; his head felt heavy, and he lay on a bed fully dressed, sleeping for about thirteen hours. Upon waking, he cried uncontrollably, not from fear or sadness, but as the memory of the event resurfaced and clarified. He later wrote down a transcript of everything that happened to ensure accuracy, distinguishing between memory and past details. Speaker 0 mentions the possibility that the stranger may have done the same thing to Speaker 1, noting that the experience could involve a future event or series of events, with memories possibly blocked consciously. He describes a temporary or ongoing memory manipulation and suggests the telepathic shift and the presence of three women who closed a door during the encounter, with a fourth individual observed. The experience included confirmation that the information inserted into his brain was time-released or timestamped for future disclosure. He contemplates the possibility that someone could have drugged him, but rejects this by referencing his prior extensive experience with acid, and notes that a “flashback” could be suggested by others. The account emphasizes the astonishment at the brain’s ability to receive and store such information, with limited access to it afterward.

Speaker 0: Was essentially trying to do. He was essentially trying to figure out how to navigate this to keep the It can change the way you live. It can Speaker 0: Was essentially trying to do. He was essentially trying to figure out how to navigate this to keep the It can change the way you live. It can Speaker 0: Was essentially trying to do. He was essentially trying to figure out how to navigate this to keep the It can change the way you live. It can Speaker 0: Was essentially trying to do. He was essentially trying to figure out how to navigate this to keep the It can change the way you live. It can

Speaker 0 asks, "What was the scariest moment of the journey? Scariest. It didn't happen. It could have been scary."