TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

Social media's role in reporting incidents was discussed, with the claim that social media posts often do not depict the entire incident, presenting only one version of events. It was asserted that social media and mainstream media commentaries sometimes misrepresent circumstances, which complicates thorough investigation and law enforcement by distorting the reality of events. In response to a question about what was distorted, it was stated that social media irresponsibly shows one side of the equation, lacking factual context, leading to misinformation that investigators then have to manage.

During a question period, Pierre Polayev cited a Fox News report about a terrorist attack, which was the only outlet reporting it at the time. He was questioned about the responsibility of using media reports when the Canadian government was still learning about the situation. Polayev defended his statement by criticizing the Canadian press for making three corrections in one article. Another speaker pointed out that attacking the agency instead of addressing the question was not appealing in terms of leadership and constructive conversations. The discussion ended with the mention of a GTA voter who didn't appreciate the aggressive tone.

Speaker 0 questions Speaker 1 about calling the explosion at the Rainbow Bridge terrorism, as no officials confirmed it. Speaker 1 defends their statement, mentioning that the government of Canada presumed it was a terrorist incident based on media reports. Speaker 0 argues that media reports are not the same as calling something terrorism. Speaker 1 disagrees, stating that media reports of a terror-related event came from security officials in the Trudeau government. Speaker 0 asks if CTV was irresponsible for their tweet, to which Speaker 1 responds with a comment. Speaker 1 hopes Speaker 0 won't publish something they need to apologize for again.

Mitch Snow, Fort Huachuca whistleblower, joined a Diligent Spaces edition hosted on X with his cohosts and guests, describing a two-day sequence centered on his attempt to obtain prosecutorial records and the extraordinary presence he observed at Fort Huachuca. Context and purpose for Fort Huachuca visit - Mitch explained that for years he has been trying to obtain records related to his military service, alleged targeting, and a custody fight involving his son. He has been collecting records across the country (Florida, East Coast, Washington DC) to reinforce a prosecutorial case and defend his reputation. - The last records he needed, he said, were at Fort Huachuca, where there had been prosecutions connected to a tunnel associated with a drug trafficking operation involving the Sinaloa cartel. Mitch described laying sensors (seismic and acoustic) as part of a Joint Task Force Six mission in May 1990, discovering an underground tunnel near Douglas, Arizona, with evidence implicating U.S. members. He testified in an army CID deposition related to that case, and described being flown back to Fort Drum after the deposition. - He stated that the tunnel raid led to the tunnel’s partial shutdown, but that it also caused the cartel to redesign distribution methods (submarines, various ports) and that evidence included photographs showing U.S. members with cartel figures. He asserted that he was targeted and harassed for reporting these findings over the years, including attempts to access his clearance information and threats linked to debt-tracking techniques used by cartels. First day at Fort Huachuca (evening of September 8) - Mitch traveled to Fort Huachuca for the records he needed, planning to stay at Candlewood Suites on base. He arrived around 5:00–6:00 PM Mountain Time, checked in with his girlfriend (Amy) via video call, and went to the lobby to speak with staff about access and the building layout. - In the lobby, he noticed a man who seemed like a professional, possibly a special forces contractor, wearing a distinctive watch; he did not approach or engage with the man. - A woman joined the man on a corner couch; Mitch described the woman as having a “sheen” of being well put together, blonde with a ponytail, and noted the eyes as particularly striking. He observed them leave in a green GMC SUV with the woman entering the passenger seat and the man driving, while he headed off to find a place to eat. - Mitch and Amy had dinner off base at a place described as a Mexican sushi restaurant (Takimaki-like name) and returned to the Candlewood Suites. He reported that the base was navigable but had a lot of speed traps; he did not report being stopped or harassed by MPs on arrival, and he described the gate staff as helpful. - A key moment from this first day was Mitch’s observation in the lobby: the woman sitting with the contractor appeared to be a high-profile figure; he was unsure of her identity but described her as distinct from the military guests, not in uniform. - Later, a panel of listeners asked about the exact appearance and actions of the people Mitch observed, including whether the two individuals were romantic or simply meeting, and whether the female wore rings. Mitch answered with limited detail, saying he did not want to discuss some specifics at that time. Observations at the base and the private meeting later that night - On the first night, Mitch described witnessing the duo in the Candlewood lobby, then later seeing the woman with the contractor in the same lobby as he returned. - He described a potential private discussion between the woman and the contractor, with the two leaving together in the vehicle; the following morning, Mitch provided a rough timeline (5:30–6:00 PM for the lobby sighting, with departure around 7:00–7:30 PM MT). - The Host participants, including Sam, Noxie, Destiny, and Lemair, pressed for precise details and identifiers (make of the vehicle, exact times, and the identity of the people), while Mitch occasionally deferred to not reveal certain details yet, citing comfort and safety concerns. - The host and guests discussed Mitch’s prior experiences, his memory, and the fact that a militarized environment often accompanies high-profile investigations. Several speakers affirmed Mitch’s credibility, noting that his level of detail resembled trained observation (salute reports: size, activity, location, unit, time, and equipment). Second day and the escalation - On the morning of September 9, Mitch woke early (around 05:30) to try to catch the sunrise and continued documenting with Amy via video calls; he described continuing to record selfies, videos, and notes to share with Amy. - Mitch retraced his attempts to locate the CID (Criminal Investigation Division) building to retrieve the records, describing a lack of clear visitor information and multiple detours across post as he sought the proper location. - He encountered a series of baselined rooms, offices, and signs; at one point, an officer suggested a different building and a different path to obtain the records. Mitch found a room with a podium and two soldiers at a desk; he identified it as a near-time, transitional office with a sign-in log. - Mitch reported the appearance of an entourage of high-ranking officers (captains, majors, lieutenant colonels) and a congressman as the group passed by him while he waited. Detainment, questioning, and consequences - Mitch described being escorted outside the building with his belongings, including his bag of documents and passports, while a security/escort team questioned him about his purpose there. He provided his documents and explained his purpose: to obtain the records and file a report. - The officers suggested bringing in a sergeant major, but he did not return; instead, a group of officers and soldiers surrounded him, including a captain, and a bomb-threat-like scenario unfolded: a vehicle investigation was initiated, and a bomb threat was insinuated as part of the unrelated escalation. - Mitch recounted being driven off post to CID for interrogation; he described the interrogation room with one-way glass and the presence of Captain Neff. He provided his detailed life history and his case history, including the NDA he believed had expired and his request to produce a report number for the encounter. - The post commander reportedly trespassed him from the installation for 24 hours, a decision made after the interrogation; Mitch insisted he would not return if trespassed further and stated he would proceed with his records via other channels. He described a variety of law enforcement vehicles at the scene (marked and unmarked police vehicles, federal agents, and a Park Ranger-type officer) and an elaborate, sometimes surreal, sequence of questioning. He documented his own records, including the OIG number (277 episode) and other documentation, and later traveled back to Tucson to regroup with Amy. - Mitch described that he believed the bomb-threat and the post lockdown were part of an overreaction to his attempt to obtain records, noting that such reactions had occurred in the past when his records were sought. He claimed not to have been charged with any crime, but was escorted off the base and told not to return for 24 hours. Aftermath and ongoing implications - Mitch and Amy returned to Tucson and then continued the process, continuing to seek congressional inquiry and prosecutorial review; they also contemplated FOIA requests. They discussed the reality that Candlewood Suites’ ownership was privately operated, complicating direct FOIA access to hotel footage. They mentioned a separate FOIA attempt by a lawyer (Slickdog) to obtain records about sightings of named individuals on Fort Huachuca, with a focus on gate logs and signage. - The pair connected their experiences to broader political events, including the Charlie Kirk incident, Candace Owens’ involvement, and the allegations around Erica Kirk, Brian Harpole, and Mark Amaday, noting the difficulty in obtaining corroborating evidence. Mitch spoke about Candace Owens’ role in amplifying the story, and his own preference to keep certain details private until appropriate. - Throughout the conversation, Mitch’s credibility was repeatedly supported by the other participants who emphasized his memory and attention to detail as evidence of his lived experience. Several speakers stressed the importance of cross-checking facts against the timeline and urged caution against disinformation and attempts to discredit credible testimony. Closing notes - The space concluded with expressions of support for Mitch and Amy, praise for their courage, and a plan to publish and share Mitch’s full story beyond the space. The host highlighted ongoing efforts to verify details, to preserve the record, and to bring attention to Mitch’s experience as part of a broader pursuit of truth. The event was described as a significant, if contested, documentation of a whistleblower’s eyewitness account at a sensitive military installation, with calls to action for audience members to share the narrative and support Mitch and Amy as they continue their efforts.

Paola Lorigio from The Canadian Press questions the speaker's decision to label the explosion at the Rainbow Bridge as terrorism, despite no official confirmation. The speaker defends their statement, citing media reports and claiming that the government of Canada presumed it to be a terror-related event. They also criticize The Canadian Press for issuing three corrections in one article. When asked if they think CTV was irresponsible for reporting the incident as terrorism, the speaker redirects the question. The conversation ends with the speaker pointing out the contradiction in the reporter's comment.

The discussion centers on concerns about the CIA’s influence over American media and how covert connections abroad could affect news domestically. Speaker 0 states a real concern: planted stories intended to serve a national purpose abroad could come back home and be circulated and believed in the United States, implying the CIA could manipulate the news in the U.S. by channeling it through a foreign country. The participants agree to examine this matter carefully. Speaker 1 raises a targeted question about individuals paid by the CIA contributing to major American journals, effectively asking whether there are CIA-paid contributors to prominent news outlets. Speaker 2 acknowledges that there are people who submit pieces to American journals and asks about whether any are paid by the CIA who are working for television networks, indicating a potential broader reach across media. Speaker 2 suggests that detailing “this kind of getting into the details” is something they would prefer to handle in an executive session, signaling a desire to limit public discussion at that stage. Speaker 3 provides historical context from CBS, noting that “the ships had been established” by the time the speaker became head of the news and public affairs operation in 1954, and that he was told to carry on with them, implying an established framework of CIA involvement or collaboration. Speaker 0 reiterates the need to evaluate the information and to “include any evidence of wrongdoing or any evidence of impropriety in our final report and make recommendations,” indicating a plan to compile findings and address possible abuses. The question is revisited: “Do you have any people being paid by the CIA who are contributing to the national news services, AP and UPI?” Speaker 2 again wants to move the discussion to an executive session, suggesting sensitivity about the specifics and possibly broader implications. Speaker 0 notes that the final report’s content or title “that remains to be decided,” leaving unresolved how the findings will be presented. Speaker 3 asserts that correspondents at the time “made use of the CIA agent chiefs of station and other members of the executive staff of CIA as sources of information which were useful in their assessments of world conditions,” indicating direct use of CIA personnel as information sources. The question is asked whether this practice continues today, and Speaker 3 responds affirmatively, though with caveat: due to revelations of the 1970s, a reporter “has got to be much more circumspect” and careful, or risk being looked at with considerable disfavor by the public. The speaker emphasizes the need for greater prudence in contemporary reporting in light of those revelations.

The speaker defends their statement about the explosion at the Rainbow Bridge checkpoint being terrorism, citing media reports that the Canadian government presumed it to be so. They criticize CP for making false claims in an article and question CTV's responsibility for reporting on the incident. The speaker also mentions the awkward situation of CP attacking CTV's reporting, considering that CP works for CTV.

There are those who are intentionally undermining mainstream media, such as conspiracy theorists and social media influencers who keep people in filter bubbles. This prevents agreement on common facts, unlike when CBC, CTV, and Global were the main news sources projecting a shared understanding across the country.

To combat alleged misinformation, the censorship industrial complex used counterterrorism and intelligence tactics, including psychological operations, to shape domestic opinion. The speaker, a counterterrorism and counter espionage expert, was asked in 2008 to apply these same skill sets to the UFO community.

Speaker 0 notes a doubling or tripling of baby deaths in the last year, which sparked curiosity. Speaker 1 says their own government told them a medical treatment was safe, and it killed babies. Speaker 2 states they have lost all faith that Health Canada is looking out genuine for the best interests of Canadians. Speaker 1 says doctors made extra money to push vaccines and were given a billing code to do it, and she has pulled all the billing codes. Speaker 3 asserts they’ve purchased the vaccine that hasn’t been approved and distributed it to the provinces, so the second it’s approved they can start jabbing themselves and pregnant mothers with it. Speaker 4 asks why vaccinations were necessary, noting that when going to the hospital for birth, you expect to go home, and then you don’t. Speaker 0 suspects criminal negligence by the government and public health officials. Speaker 2 agrees, saying “Possible.” Speaker 0 contends they pushed a narrative to everybody, including pregnant and breastfeeding women, that the mRNA shots were safe and effective. Speaker 2 recalls wiretapping, harassment, and charges, and that they didn’t allow any expert witnesses to testify. Speaker 1 says Canadian babies died, and police are trying to cover it up by stopping detective Helen Graves from testifying about it. Speaker 3 comments that dominant individuals maintain subordinates’ place through constant aggression. Speaker 5 argues that choosing not to vaccinate is one thing, but being unable to fly or ride trains with vaccinated people and thus putting them at risk is another issue. Speaker 2 says CBC started with a story to implicate her and paint her in an uncomplimentary light to the public. Speaker 6 claims Canada must shift its understanding of CBC, describing it as a state broadcaster pushing the agenda of the Liberal government of Canada. Speaker 3 declares this is the most significant health matter affecting children today, and they are still not investigating. Speaker 2 asserts that everything emanates outward from this case involving law enforcement, the judicial system, the pharmaceutical industry, and health agencies, and how they work together and censored information; all of it ties to this one case, making it dangerous.

Tucker Carlson and the host discuss the evolving casualty figures and the media’s handling of them. The conversation begins with the host recalling that on March 9 they reported, citing a military source, that 147 Americans were wounded, and that Reuters later published an exclusive stating 140 soldiers were wounded; the Pentagon confirmed that figure, and they note that many of the wounded have serious injuries, including traumatic brain injuries, not minor injuries. The host asks Carlson if his sources, close to the White House, confirm those numbers and why the media might be hiding them. Carlson offers two reasons. First, he suggests the media hesitates to push on the matter because they “support the war reflexively” and because of institutional loyalty and fear of criticizing the war. He adds a provocative comparison, saying some in the media “support big organizations” and implying that certain prominent figures have incentives to align with defense contractors. Second, he says there is a legitimate moral concern about reporting numbers when families are involved, describing a “moral blackmail” that discourages reporting about deaths and injuries. He acknowledges that, in his experience, families deserve consideration, which can complicate reporting, but asserts that there is also a pattern of lying and censorship surrounding casualty figures. He notes that ground troops, while the U.S. military presence may be limited, certainly includes special operations and Tier One units, and expresses concern about overuse of those forces. He emphasizes that there is a broader issue of deception and AI-generated misinformation making it hard to know what is true. The discussion then shifts to Israel. The host asks for Carlson’s sense of daily life in Israel and what is happening on the ground, noting a “total blackout” on Israeli attacks. Carlson replies that he is not as well sourced in Israel as before but has connections in the Gulf, where sharing social media video of destruction is illegal in six monarchies. He mentions a single clip that has stood out in his thinking for years: a video showing a missile segment near the Dome of the Rock in the Al Aqsa Mosque Complex, and references Jerusalem’s Holy Sepulchre. He warns that the destruction of the Al Aqsa Mosque Complex and the Dome of the Rock could trigger a global war and possibly a nuclear exchange, suggesting that some prominent Israelis would want such an escalation; therefore, he argues the U.S. government should make protecting the Dome of the Rock a priority, not because of sectarian reasons but to prevent a world-ending conflict. A separate segment (omitted as promotional) includes Carlson’s remark that denial of censorship and government blocks complicates reporting and that he values the ability to access diverse sources. The hosts then pivot to audience dynamics, with Carlson noting that some audiences who were skeptical of him have become supporters, and reflecting on the cultural shift in political loyalties. Toward the end, the host asks Carlson for his take on last night’s events involving Thomas Massey and Donald Trump in Kentucky; Carlson describes it as a reflection of a broader battle in American politics. He recalls his experience with Trump’s 2020 coalition and laments that neoconservatives allegedly destroyed the coalition, elevating figures like MTG and Massey as enemies. He expresses a desire for a new political coalition of “normal” people who want a government that does not hate them and seeks to improve their lives, acknowledging differences in approach but emphasizing good-faith effort over insults or aggressive foreign policy. The program closes with mutual thanks and well-wishes.

Speaker 0 questions Speaker 1 about calling the explosion at the Rainbow Bridge terrorism, despite no official confirmation. Speaker 1 defends their statement, citing media reports and corrections made by CP. Speaker 0 argues that it was irresponsible to make such a statement without proper evidence. Speaker 1 counters by mentioning that CTV reported the incident as terror-related, based on information from security officials in the Trudeau government. Speaker 0 avoids answering the question and ends the conversation.

In January 2022, a colleague alerted Speaker 0 that there had been a doubling or tripling of baby deaths in the last year, which sparked curiosity. Speaker 1 states that “Their own government told us a medical treatment was safe, and it killed babies.” Speaker 2 says she has “lost all faith that Health Canada is looking out genuinely for the best interests of Canadians.” Speaker 3 alleges that doctors “made extra money to push vaccines” and were given a billing code to do it, and that she has “pulled all the billing codes.” Speaker 4 asserts that “They've purchased the vaccine that hasn't been approved,” distributed it to the provinces so that once it’s approved, they can “start jabbing ourselves with it” and “start jabbing pregnant mothers with it.” Speaker 3 questions the necessity of vaccinations: “Why did we have to get these vaccinations? Like, why was this something that we had to do? You go to the hospital, you expect to have a baby, and you expect to go home, and then you don't.” Speaker 0 speculates on criminal negligence, saying, “I would suspect that there was criminal negligence on part of the government and the public health officials.” Speaker 3 notes that it is “highly recommended that pregnant women get their vaccine as soon as possible.” Speaker 0 contends that a narrative was pushed to everybody, including pregnant and breastfeeding women, that the mRNA shots were safe and effective. Speaker 2 claims wiretapping, harassment, charging, and barring expert witnesses: “They had wiretapped her phone. They had harassed her. They had charged her. They didn't allow any expert witnesses to testify.” Speaker 1 accuses police of trying to cover up Canadian babies’ deaths “to the point of stopping detective Helen Greaves from testifying about it.” Speaker 4 observes that “The dominant individuals keep the subordinates in their place by constant aggression.” Speaker 5 discusses vaccination choice versus public risk, remarking, “If you don't wanna get vaccinated, that's your choice. But don't think you can get on a plane or a train besides vaccinated people and put them at risk,” and claims CBC initially “started off with CBC running a story to implicate her and to paint her with a brush that looks uncomplimentary to the public.” Speaker 6 claims Canada must shift its understanding of what the is, describing it as “a state broadcaster pushing the agenda of the Liberal government of Canada.” Speaker 4 calls this “the most significant matter affecting our children today from a health perspective,” noting that authorities are “not investigating.” Speaker 2 concludes that everything emanates outward from this case involving law enforcement, the judicial system, the pharmaceutical industry, and health agencies, “how they work together, how they censored information. It all ties together to this one case, and that's what makes it so dangerous.”

Social media and journalism can misrepresent the circumstances surrounding an event, and the post seen does not depict the entire incident. What often happens is that social media and mainstream media commentary distort content, which makes it harder to thoroughly investigate the activity and enforce the law. A single post or coverage item can present one side of the story without context, leading to people rushing to conclusions and the narrative “growing legs” that the investigation then has to manage. Speaker 1 asked where the nearest officers were. Speaker 0 answered that in the central business section they were working; both were in vehicles and had to maneuver through traffic. Regarding what exactly was distorted, Speaker 0 explained that social media irresponsibility frequently shows one side of the equation without factual context, and then people run with that, causing the issue to grow larger and become more difficult to manage as part of the investigation.

Speaker 0: Wikipedia is a propaganda operation, and one of its founders told me that the CIA or the American intel community is heavily involved in shaping the message, on Wikipedia. Did you come across evidence of that? Speaker 1: On the weaponization working group, as it's described by attorney general Bondi and the president's direction, intelligence community is one of the groups who was weaponized against the people, obviously. It's obvious. The question is, how are we gonna get to the bottom of it? Right? How are gonna get to the bottom of some of the weaponization of the government intelligence community against the citizens? And that's what I that's where I'm going now.

The discussion centers on the RCMP examination into whether the prime minister obstructed justice under section 139(2) of the Criminal Code. The RCMP’s strongest theory of obstruction involved the prime minister shuffling Jody Wilson-Raybould out of the position of attorney general so a new attorney general might pursue a different decision regarding SNC-Lavalin. It is stated that the RCMP did not have access to all material evidence related to this strongest theory, because of the parameters of the order in council concerning the waiver of cabinet confidentiality. The RCMP acknowledge that the scope limitations prevented them from fully examining this central aspect of potential criminal conduct. When pressed, it is indicated that the decision to expand the parameters would have to be made within the government, and that the RCMP did request an expansion to obtain additional evidence, but the request was denied. The denial occurred on 08/30/2019 and came from the Prime Minister’s Department (the PCO). The RCMP clarifies that they did receive a letter from the Department of Justice, but cannot confirm if it originated from the PCO; regardless, the refusal by the prime minister’s personal department significantly impeded the RCMP’s ability to pursue a full investigation into potential obstruction of justice. The RCMP describes this as limiting their capability and suggests that, given the scope constraints, they could not reach the heart of the obstruction issue. Speaker 0 asserts that the prime minister’s department obstructed the investigation, and questions whether any other Canadian could single-handedly block RCMP access in such a way. Speaker 2 emphasizes that the RCMP operates within established parameters and regulations, noting that certain information remains inaccessible under those rules, including some international security information. Nevertheless, Speaker 0 states that there is no one with such powers and characterizes the situation as part of a pattern of cover-up. Speaker 2 reiterates that they made efforts to obtain additional information, but the expansion request was refused, leaving the investigation constrained. In closing, Speaker 0 thanks the commissioner and Justice, and the exchange underscores that the RCMP felt hindered by the parameters set by the PCO, which curtailed their ability to conduct a full investigation into the prime minister’s potential obstruction of justice.

Social media's role in reporting incidents was discussed. Social media posts often do not depict the entire incident, presenting only one version of events. Social media and mainstream media commentaries can misrepresent circumstances, hindering thorough investigation and law enforcement. This distortion of content makes investigations more difficult. An attendee asked where the nearest officers were, and the response was that they were in the central business section in vehicles, maneuvering through traffic. Another attendee asked what exactly was distorted by social media and news media. The response was that social media irresponsibly shows one side of the situation without factual context, leading to misinformation that complicates investigations.