reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The speaker questions the official explanation that a plane caused a building to explode. They point out that the building exploded after the alleged plane impact and express doubt about the accuracy of the information. They wonder how the other side of the building could have exploded as well.

Собеседники спорят о Буче: один говорит, что это «хорошо спланированная акция…», чтобы показать агрессивность, кровожадность, убийцы россияне; другая сторона отвечает, что «ничего подобного там не было» и знает «номера автомобилей» организаторов БУДЖ, спрашивая, «почему это всё замяли на Западе?» Разговор переходит к телам: «я своими глазами видел», «на войне… тела» — один настаивает, другой сомневается. Путин якобы говорил, что «вся Буча это фейк», но оппоненты утверждают, что их «спецслужбы» обращали внимание Запада, однако «вы замылили их». Interlocutors discuss Bucha: one says it was a 'well-planned operation to show aggression, bloodlust, murderers'—the other counters that 'nothing like that happened there,' claiming to know 'car numbers' of the organizers of BUDZH and asking why it was hushed in the West. Bodies: 'I saw with my own eyes.' Putin allegedly said that 'all of Bucha is a fake,' while others say their 'intelligence services' drew the West's attention, and that 'you concealed them.'

The speaker questions the authenticity of a reconstructed gas chamber at Auschwitz, arguing that it should be labeled as such. They suggest that the existence of a genuine gas chamber nearby raises doubts about the purpose of the reconstructed one. The speaker acknowledges the crimes committed against Jews during the Holocaust but questions the scale and intent. They argue that the lack of physical evidence, such as large quantities of coke for cremation, challenges the official narrative. The speaker emphasizes the importance of archival research and dismisses eyewitness testimony as unreliable. They reference intercepted code messages from the commandant of Auschwitz, which make no mention of gassing. The speaker concludes that there is a lack of collateral evidence to support the existence of gas chambers.

The speakers question why the Ukraine war, which the U.S. allegedly funded and whose military leaders purportedly ran, was not televised. They claim the U.S. funds the Ukrainian government, retirement, and small businesses, keeping Ukraine afloat. One speaker states they asked members of Congress, including the Speaker of the House, about the number of Ukrainians who have died in the war. They suggest that while the U.S. is funding the war, there is no tracking of how many Ukrainians have died, including those with Down syndrome. The speakers question why the public is shown Israel being bombed but not other wars, implying manipulation. They believe the public should be able to watch a war they are paying for.

Speaker 0 argues that the war is really about dark weapons, especially bioweapons, and focuses on labs near the Russian border that have moved from about 11 labs a decade ago to 30. He traces this back to President Obama, then Senator Obama in 2005, suggesting a long-running history that underpins current events. He contends there is substantial history to unpack and believes the investigation is worthwhile for understanding the situation. He notes that Gareth has long discussed American bio labs in Ukraine and acknowledges that people ridiculed that view in the past. He asks Gareth how he feels now that the topic is suddenly front and center in the news, suggesting a sense of vindication that the broader group knowledge is being disseminated. He claims to have an example in Andrew Weber, who worked with the Defense Threat Reduction Agency, showing Obama, when he was a young senator in 2005, a vial of anthrax in Kyiv at a bio lab. Speaker 0 states that the claim there are no bioweapons in Ukraine is hard to believe, and asserts that people would not look at the evidence. He says it took a war for people to realize the situation and compares it to a Cuban missile crisis for Putin, arguing that as weapons get closer, the plans become more concrete and closer to execution. He emphasizes the proximity of weapons and labs to Russia’s border as a critical element, implying that the risk profile has increased over time. He frames the current conflict as one where the existence and proximity of bioweapons labs are central, and he uses the example of a 2005 scene involving Obama and a vial of anthrax to illustrate what he views as established evidence. Overall, he presents a narrative that the war reflects long-standing concerns about bioweapons labs in Ukraine and their strategic implications, culminating in a perception shift only after war began.

In this video, the speakers discuss the situation in Mariupol, Ukraine. The first speaker claims that there is evidence of a fascist regime in Mariupol and mentions witnessing people being shot. The second speaker interrupts and accuses the first speaker of lying, stating that criminals attacked the local government and that the Ukrainian army is protecting the city. The second speaker also accuses the first speaker of spreading propaganda. The video ends with the second speaker requesting the Ministry of Justice to consider banning the Communist Party in Ukraine based on evidence of their alleged terrorist activities.

The speaker expresses disagreement with the portrayal of the President of Ukraine by Western media, arguing that he is not the hero he is made out to be. They highlight the mistreatment of ethnic Russian people in Ukraine and the ongoing civil war. The speaker criticizes President Zelensky for endorsing a group with a leader who made a controversial statement about Russian children. They also mention the Azov battalion, a militia with alleged Nazi affiliations, and the US's support for Ukraine's bid to join NATO. The speaker questions Zelensky's image and accuses him of propagating lies and escalating the conflict. They suggest allowing a vote on independence for predominantly Russian areas as a solution. The speaker concludes by cautioning against blindly accepting information about the conflict.

The speaker criticizes the labeling of a gas chamber as a fake, arguing it's a reconstruction. They question the scale and feasibility of mass cremations in Auschwitz, highlighting the lack of evidence in archives supporting gas chamber claims. Eyewitness testimony is deemed unreliable without corroborating evidence. The speaker challenges the historical narrative surrounding Auschwitz, emphasizing the need for thorough archival research to uncover the truth.

It has already been more than three years since staging of the alleged mass killing in Bucha, which the speaker says Kyiv regime and its Western curators "hastily cobbled together this implausible story." They claim it was "criminal disinformation" about Moscow, and that Russian investigative authorities opened a criminal case to clarify what happened. They say they appealed to the UN secretariat and High Commissioner Volker Türk; in September 2024, via the Russian mission in New York, a request was delivered for information, but the UN allegedly tried to let the appeal fade away. They quote UN officials saying they understood that what Kyiv and West insisted happened did not occur, yet offered no exposure. They accuse the UN of evading cooperation and demand publication of the appeal as UN documents, calling for a thorough Bucha investigation and justice, and alleging Kyiv left negotiations after Boris Johnson promised them influence.

The speaker questions the authenticity of a reconstructed gas chamber in Auschwitz, arguing that it should be labeled as such. They criticize the authorities for not being transparent about it and suggest that it is a fake. The speaker also discusses the capacity of the crematoria and raises technical questions about the logistics of the mass killings. They claim that the German records, including intercepted telegrams, do not mention gas chambers. The speaker dismisses eyewitness evidence and emphasizes the importance of collateral evidence in the archives.

The speaker questions the claim that six million Jews perished in German concentration camps during World War II. They cite gas chamber doors that allegedly didn't lock, some made of wood with glass windows, arguing they weren't airtight and would have harmed the guards. They mention Fred Lukter's analysis of Auschwitz gas chamber walls, which supposedly found no cyanide residue. The speaker highlights the existence of soccer teams, a theater, sewing rooms, and swimming pools in the camps, questioning why these would exist if extermination was the goal. A 1944 International Red Cross report allegedly found no evidence of extermination installations at Auschwitz. The speaker claims Jewish population records before and after the war show no significant change. They state that autopsies on 270,000 bodies found the cause of death was typhus and starvation, not poison gas. They allege some cremation smokestacks had no soot and one chimney wasn't connected to the building. The speaker concludes that evidence was manipulated for propaganda and that questioning the Holocaust is taboo because the narrative falls apart under scrutiny.

Bucha massacre. I've been to Bucha, so I want to play this clip. So I don't believe that Bucha was a war crime. I believe it belongs in the long line of false flag operations used to trigger war False flag? Absolutely. It was a massacre carried out. Have you been there? No. It was a Have you spoken to the people? There. I'd be killed if I went be killed by been to Besiktivas Russia. It's because you're chilling for him. Zelenskyy would have me killed if I went there. I am absolutely certain that the people who were massacred at Bucha were massacred by the Nazis that are the foundation stone of the existing Ukrainian state.

Speaker 0 argues that many narratives about the Russia–Ukraine war lack internal logic. They say that claims Ukraine is “winning” are supported by evidence such as Russians taking massive casualties and Ukrainians recapturing territory. However, they point to reported exchanges of dead soldiers (including reparation of remains and prisoner-related dead exchanges) where the ratio is often described as around 1 to 20 or even 1 to 40, which they say implies far more dead Ukrainian soldiers than Russian soldiers and “doesn't really make any sense.” They also argue that if casualties were higher overall, the ratios would be reversed. Speaker 0 adds that advocates using these claims “get away with it.” Speaker 1 responds by focusing on casualty figures. They reference a New York Times piece that presented relative casualty numbers—killed in action plus wounded—and also separate killed-in-action counts for both sides. Speaker 1 says the New York Times article was based on a CSIS (Center for Strategic and International Studies) study in Washington, D.C., which estimated roughly 450,000 Russians dead and between 125,000 and 150,000 Ukrainians dead. Speaker 1 uses the Ukrainians’ high-end figure of 150,000 against 450,000 for Russians, producing a “three to one ratio” (three Russians dead for every Ukrainian), and says this cannot be the case. They argue that the main battlefield killer is artillery and that estimates suggest Russians held an advantage in artillery throughout most of the war, ranging from 5 to 1 to 7 to 1 or 10 to 1. They also point to Russian smart bomb inventories as a reason Russians have been able to strike Ukrainian forces more heavily, while saying Ukrainians have virtually no smart bombs deployed against Russians. Speaker 1 further disputes the idea that differences in casualty totals can be explained by posture. They say Ukrainians have been on the offensive for much of the war, citing the Kursk offensive and a June 4, 2023 offensive described as aiming for a blitzkrieg that would reach the Sea of Azov and cut Russian front lines in half. Speaker 1 also cites major Ukrainian offensives in Kherson and Kharkiv in 2022 after noting Russian defeats. They argue that because Ukrainians have frequently conducted offensive operations—and because offense generally produces higher casualties than defense—those numbers do not align with how casualties should look. Speaker 1 says they expect that Ukrainians likely lost around a million men killed in action rather than 150,000, and that the lower figure is “ludicrous.” They add that these casualty narratives are reported and then used by various people to decide what should be done “moving forward,” including arguments for escalating support to “clobber the Russians” and end them as a great power. Speaker 1 concludes by saying elites have told themselves a story they believe and continue “march[ing] forward based on these false narratives.”

The mayor of Bucha initially reported the city was free from Russian troops without mentioning any tragedies. A city council deputy later urged residents to stay indoors during a military sweep, still not mentioning any atrocities. Days later, she mentioned bodies in an interview. The Ukrainian National Police released a video of a sweep in Bucha without mentioning bodies. Reports of bodies only surfaced when the Ukrainian military and media arrived, suggesting a coordinated effort to create a dramatic narrative. Translation: The mayor and city council deputy of Bucha did not mention atrocities initially, but later reports of bodies emerged coinciding with the arrival of the Ukrainian military and media.

The speaker highlights the lack of attention and outcry when people in Palestine, Syria, Libya, and Iraq suffer, as well as when Ukrainians violate the rights of others. They question why there is no concern for the Indian minorities whose rights are violated by the Indian government. The speaker believes that the West, particularly the United States, is the root cause of global chaos and destruction. They mention a Pentagon-funded biological laboratory in Ukraine and the Ukrainian massacres that have gone unnoticed. Russia's request is for others to stay away from its borders. The speaker asserts that Ukraine is being used by the United States and the West, falling into their trap.

Four days after the mayor of Bucha declared liberation, dead bodies appeared on the road. Speculation arises that Ukrainians may have killed those friendly to Russians. The media's lack of questioning allows for potential war crimes, such as the castration of Russian POWs, to go unnoticed.

Speaker 1 claims to have heard "behind the scenes" that war is coming and NATO wants to send 250,000 troops into Ukraine. Speaker 1 states that Ukraine is losing the war, with the death toll approaching 1.5 million, and that Ukraine has "flatlined" according to computer analysis. Speaker 1 believes the West is gearing up for war and deliberately crossing Putin's red lines in order to provoke him into attacking NATO, so they can claim he is the aggressor.

The speaker mentions the liberation of all camps in Poland, not just Auschwitz. They point out that photos of the Russian liberation of Auschwitz lack snow, which was actually present. The Russian embassy confirmed that the photos were taken after the fact when cameras were available. The speaker emphasizes that the photos do not accurately depict Auschwitz's liberation due to the lack of snow and the presence of well-dressed individuals and children.

The speaker denies ordering the assassination of Alexei Navalny and argues that their country does not have a habit of assassinating people. They also question whether the arrest and detention of 450 individuals who entered the congress with political demands is a form of persecution for their political opinions.

The speaker questions the portrayal of Ukraine as good and Russia as bad, mentioning US bioweapon labs in Ukraine. They find it odd that Ukraine's president is a former comedian. They suggest that President Biden is not in charge, and the US is run by revenge-seeking misfits.

Bucha massacre. I've been to Bucha, so I want to play this clip. So I don't believe that Bucha was a war crime. I believe it belongs in the long line of false flag operations used to trigger war False flag? Absolutely. It was a massacre carried out. Have you been there? No. It was a Have you spoken to the people? There. I'd be killed if I went be killed by been to Besiktivas Russia. It's because you're chilling for him. Zelenskyy would have me killed if I went there. I am absolutely certain that the people who were massacred at Bucha were massacred by the Nazis that are the foundation stone of the existing Ukrainian state.

Bucha massacre. I've been to Bucha, so I want to play this clip. So I don't believe that Bucha was a war crime. I believe it belongs in the long line of false flag operations used to trigger war False flag? Absolutely. It was a massacre carried out. Have you been there? No. It was a Have you spoken to the people? There. I'd be killed if I went be killed by been to Besiktivas Russia. It's because you're chilling for him. Zelenskyy would have me killed if I went there. I am absolutely certain that the people who were massacred at Bucha were massacred by the Nazis that are the foundation stone of the existing Ukrainian state.

The speaker states they are not happy with Putin, who is killing many people. The speaker says they have known Putin a long time and always gotten along with him, but now Putin is shooting rockets into cities and killing people. The speaker expresses surprise at Putin's actions. When asked what they are going to do about it, the speaker doesn't say, and then accuses the questioner of being fake news. The speaker reiterates they do not like what Putin is doing, that he is killing people, and that something has happened to him.

In this video, the speaker denies experiencing any harm or witnessing the horrors of war. They claim that their home was not damaged by projectiles in 2017 or 2014, and their mother was not injured by a mine in March 2022. They also state that their son was not killed by the Ukrainian army in 2014. The speaker insists that they have never been under fire or seen any war-related atrocities. They deny being injured by the Ukrainian army in 2015 or having their house destroyed.

The video discusses the spread of fake images and videos during the Russia-Ukraine conflict. Examples include a fake image of Zelensky in military gear and footage from a video game used in news reports. The speaker warns of anti-Russian fake news but acknowledges similar misinformation may exist on the other side. They emphasize the need to be critical of information before reacting emotionally.