Speaker 1: Okay, let's dive in. You know, it's funny. In a
world that feels well, pretty divided a lot of the time,
there's this one thing we mostly share, right, Yeah, a calendar.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's kind of this bedrock. We all generally agree
what day it is, what year it is.
Speaker 1: It's fundamental totally for like everything, global trade, planning, holidays,
just knowing when things happen.
Speaker 2: That framework we've built over gosh centuries across so many cultures.
Speaker 1: What if that framework, what if the year we all
write down the when we base our history on.
Speaker 2: What if it's wrong, wrong, hout.
Speaker 1: Like fundamentally flawed, missing a huge chunk of time maybe
I don't know, hundreds of years that just didn't actually happen.
Speaker 2: Okay, now that is a wild thought, and it's actually
the core idea behind something called the phantom time hypothesis.
Speaker 1: Phantom time sounds dramatic, It is pretty dramatic.
Speaker 2: It's this idea from a German historian suggesting, well that
the early Middle Ages, a big slice of it might
have been.
Speaker 1: Fabricating, fabricated, like made up.
Speaker 2: Whoa, yeah, made up. It's an extraordinary claim for sure.
Speaker 1: So for this deep dive We've got all this source
material you pulled together articles, research notes, laying out this
pretty audacious idea.
Speaker 2: Right and the arguments for it, and importantly the arguments
against it.
Speaker 1: Our mission then is to really unpack it, understand the
core claim, look at the evidence proponents point two or
the supposed lack.
Speaker 2: Of evidence, and then critically examine the counter arguments from
mainstream history and science. It's a real historical puzzle.
Speaker 1: Absolutely, let's get into it. So to even talk about
phantom time, maybe we should start with, well, regular time,
how do we end up with the calendar we use? Now?
Speaker 2: Good starting point. I mean humans have always tracked time right, seasons,
the moon, the sun. Different cultures had different ways.
Speaker 1: Sure makes sense.
Speaker 2: But when empires got big, like the Roman Empire, suddenly
you needed everyone on the same page. Por trade, for administration, taxes,
all that stuff.
Speaker 1: Yeah, can have different towns thinking it's different years if
you want to run an empire logistics nightmare.
Speaker 2: Exactly. So Julius Caesar steps in forty five BC. He
introduces a big reform, the Julian calendar.
Speaker 1: The one named after him.
Speaker 2: Got it and it was based on the solar year.
You know how long it takes the Earth to go
around the sun.
Speaker 1: Okay, how'd they calculate that?
Speaker 2: They figured it was three hundred and sixty five and
a quarter days three hundred and sixty five point twenty.
Speaker 1: Five ah, and sleep year every four years at a
day to catch up that quarter precisely.
Speaker 2: That was the system seemed pretty neat, pretty accurate for
the time.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it seems logical. M But I sense a butt coming.
You said for the time.
Speaker 2: Well, yeah, there was a slight snag. It was a
fantastic step, but that three hundred and sixty five point
twenty five number wasn't perfect a fa how much? The
actual average time equinox to equinox is a tiny mit shorter,
closer to three hundred and sixty five point two four
two one nine days.
Speaker 1: Okay, that's a lot of decimals, so the difference is.
Speaker 2: Small, about eleven minutes per year. The Julian year was
about eleven minutes too long.
Speaker 1: Okay. It doesn't sound like a catastrophe day to.
Speaker 2: Day, not at all, but think about it over centuries,
those eleven minutes keep adding up.
Speaker 1: Ah right, like a clock running just a tiny bit
slow or fast. Actually, the calendar years longer, so the
dates drift forward relative.
Speaker 2: To the seed ones exactly. The calendar was slowly getting
ahead of the sun, and it meant you'd lose sync
by about a full day every one hundred and twenty
eight years or so.
Speaker 1: Okay, so over fifteen hundred years, Yeah, that would definitely
become noticeable.
Speaker 2: Very noticeable. By the fifteen hundred's AD, it was quite
obvious something was.
Speaker 1: Off, and the sources you shared mentioned it was actually
the church that got really bothered by this, something about
Easter that.
Speaker 2: Was a major driver. Yes, Easter's date is tied to
the spring equinox, which the Church had fixed as March
twenty first way back at the Council of Nicea in
three twenty five AD. Right, But because the calendar had
drifted forward by the fifteen hundreds, the actual astronomical spring
equinox was happening around March eleventh on the Julian calendar.
Speaker 1: So Easter was happening earlier and earlier relative to the Sun.
Speaker 2: Yeah, drifting away from its intended spot. And Pope Gregory
the third wasn't thrilled about it. The sources call him
an irritated pope.
Speaker 1: Okay, So the irritated. Pope needed a fix.
Speaker 2: He did, and his fix in fifteen eighty two was
the Gregorian calendar, the one most of the world uses today.
Speaker 1: And how did he fix the drift?
Speaker 2: The most dramatic part. He just cut out the extra
days that had accumulated. Ten days were.
Speaker 1: Just removed, removed.
Speaker 2: How people literally went to bed on October fourth, fifteen
eighty two, and woke up and it was October fifteenth.
Speaker 1: Wow, just skipped ahead. That must have confused some people.
Speaker 2: I imagine so, but it worked. It snapped the calendar
date March twenty first back in line with the actual
spring equinize problem solved.
Speaker 1: Calendar fixed. History marches on simple or maybe.
Speaker 2: Not so simple, or maybe not, because this is where
the phantom time hypothesis really kicks off. It starts with
a bed of maths.
Speaker 1: Maths, Okay, what's the calculation?
Speaker 2: Well, think about it. The Julian calendar is off by
about a day every one hundred and twenty eight years, right,
and it had been running roughly for over fifteen hundred
years since Caesar introduced it around forty five BC up
to fifteen eighty two.
Speaker 1: Okay, fifteen hundred divided by one hundred and twenty eight.
That's almost twelve days. Or if you count the total
minutes going on eleven minutes a year times fifteen hundred years, it.
Speaker 2: Adds up to nearly thirteen days of drift, just under
maybe twelve point something days, let's call it close to thirteen.
Speaker 1: Okay, So the calendar should have been off by almost
thirteen days by fifteen eighty two.
Speaker 2: That's what the straightforward calculation suggests.
Speaker 1: Yeah, but Pope Gregory only removed ten days exactly.
Speaker 2: He only removed ten and those ten days did relign
the calendar correctly with the equinox in fifteen eighty two.
Speaker 1: So where did the other three days of expected drift go?
If the calendar ran continuously for fifteen hundred years, shouldn't
he have needed to remove closer to thirteen days.
Speaker 2: That's the discrepancy, that's the mathematical hook for the whole hypothesis.
Those missing three days representing about three hundred years of
accumulated drift that somehow didn't need correcting.
Speaker 1: And this is what art Ilig noticed.
Speaker 2: Ilig in his Yes, they looked at this and said,
hold on, Pope Gregory wasn't bad at math. They propose
he wasn't trying to correct fifteen hundred years of drift
from forty five BC.
Speaker 1: What was he correcting? Then?
Speaker 2: They claim he was correcting the drift since a later
point in time, and that this three day difference wasn't
a mistake, it was evidence of something else.
Speaker 1: Entirely, something like conspiracy.
Speaker 2: Precisely, the hypothesis posits that those roughly three hundred years,
specifically the years six fourteen AD through nine to eleven AD,
never actually happened. They were fabricated, invented.
Speaker 1: By just invented, added to the timeline retroactively.
Speaker 2: That's the claim that this was a secret plan cooked
up around the year one thousand AD.
Speaker 1: By who and why on earth would anyone do that?
That seems like a massive undertaking.
Speaker 2: The sources point the finger at some very powerful figures
Holy Roman Emperor Oughted the third, Pope Sylvested the third,
and maybe Byzantine Emperor Constantine the seventh.
Speaker 1: Okay, heavy hitters. What was the alleged motive.
Speaker 2: Power and prestige? Basically, they supposedly wanted to manipulate the
calendar to place their own reins right at the beginning
of the new millennium. The year one thousand eighty, or
rather to make it seem like the year one thousand
and eighty was happening during their rule. Ruling at the
dawn of a new millennium was seen as a big
deal legitimacy, prophecy maybe, so.
Speaker 1: They just inserted three hundred years to fast forward the
timeline to where they wanted it.
Speaker 2: That's the core of the conspiracy theory presented in these sources.
And to make this invented history believable.
Speaker 1: They needed some history to fill it with.
Speaker 2: Exactly, and this is where Charlemagne comes in. According to
the hypothesis.
Speaker 1: The famous emperor Charlemagne, Father of.
Speaker 2: Europe, the very same illigant proponents claim he was essentially
a fictional character or at least massively embellished design is propaganda.
Speaker 1: The sources say, propaganda for what to.
Speaker 2: Fill that three hundred year gap with a heroic figure,
a glorious past, and importantly, to give Otto the Third
and his dynasty a legendary ancestor, linking them back to
this fabricated hero to solidify their own claim to power
and the pope's authority.
Speaker 1: So one of the most famous figures of the Middle
Ages might have just been like historical marketing spin for
a calendar change. That's a lot to take.
Speaker 2: It's a radical reinterpretation, no doubt about it.
Speaker 1: Okay, So if you're going to claim three hundred years
are missing, you'd need some evidence beyond just that three
day calendar math discrepancy. What did the proponents point to
in the sources? What signs did they see of this
phantom time?
Speaker 2: They focused heavily on that specific period, roughly six hundred
and fourteen to nine to eleven AD, the Early Middle Ages,
often called the Dark Ages, though historians debate that term,
and they argue there's a suspicious lack of stuff from
that time, a lack of records, artifacts, a general silence.
Speaker 1: How significant a lack I mean historical records can be patchy.
Speaker 2: They claim it's more than just patchy. The sources say
Roman records are pretty detailed right up until about six' TEN.
Ad then proponents argue written history In europe just basically
vanishes for three hundred, YEARS a real, void.
Speaker 1: Okay a lack of written. Documents what? Else physical?
Speaker 2: Evidence, buildings that's another major point for.
Speaker 1: Them.
Speaker 2: Architecture they argue that building styles from around say four
seventy six A. D when The Western Roman empire fell
look almost identical to styles from one thousand eighty.
Speaker 1: Identical over five hundred.
Speaker 2: Years virtually no progress is how the sources describe their,
claim which they find totally. Implausible if five hundred real years,
passed you'd expect significant changes in how people build.
Speaker 1: Things, yeah that does sound a bit weird if. True
the source is used in an.
Speaker 2: Analogy, yeah like us living in thatched roof dirt floorhouses,
today meaning it'd be like us seeing no technological change
in housing for five. Centuries that degree of stagnation seems
suspicious to.
Speaker 1: Them and this is a six end beyond architecture the science,
Technology they.
Speaker 2: Argue, yes the advancements you saw in The Roman empire,
aqueducts plumbing, roads and then later in The renaissance seem
to have paused during these alleged phantom, centuries a three
hundred years stall in.
Speaker 1: Progress, okay what About pacific? STRUCTURES i remember the outline mentioned.
Speaker 2: Castles, right. Castles this is a specific, argument they. Claim
you find plenty of castles data before six hundred A
d and tons after one thousand A, d but very
few reliably dated to that. Window in between a castle
gap kind. Of one source mentioned a document listing near
the seventeen hundred structures supposedly built during those missing. Years
but when, researchers according to the hypothesis, proponents tried to
verify this, list what did they? Find they claimed ninety
seven percent of the structures were just, gone no, trace
no evidence they ever.
Speaker 1: Existed so the conclusion wasn't just that castles weren't, built
but that someone might have faked a list saying they were.
Speaker 2: Built that's the interpretation presented by the. Proponents, yeah that
the list itself was a, forgery intended to rewrite history
and fill that awkward three hundred years.
Speaker 1: Silence, Wow, okay so forged documents now. Too what about?
Archaeology what does digging in the ground?
Speaker 2: Show this is another pillar of their. Argument the sources
cite archaeological, findings particularly From germany in nineteen eighty, six
where researchers apparently noted very little evidence of medieval towns
during a certain, period which, period specifically a gap that
lasted from six point fifty to nine. Ten and the
really striking quote from the sources supporting the hypothesis is
not a single discovery was attributed to this. Time not
a single, one.
Speaker 1: No finds at all from that two hundred and sixty
year window in Those german.
Speaker 2: Digs that's the claim. Presented so you put it. Together
history goes, quiet buildings don't, change archaeology finds a. Gap
you can see how they might start, thinking maybe these
years aren't.
Speaker 1: Real it paints a, picture, Definitely and then we come
back To charlemagne smack in the middle of this supposed gap.
Speaker 2: Exactly and from the hypothesis, viewpoint his, story as it's usually,
told is just too, much too good to be true
for one, person too.
Speaker 1: Much how like too many, accomplishments.
Speaker 2: Way too, many they. Argue the sources listed. Out he
was supposedly an, astronomer interested in agriculture and architect reformed
the legal, system revamped, education sponsored scripture, updates and he
was almost constantly at. War how constant reigned forty six,
years spent forty four of them on military, campaigns conquering
huge amounts of.
Speaker 1: Territory, okay that's. Busy doesn't leave much time for astronomy and.
Speaker 2: Legal, reform, Right and in those maybe two years not at,
war he supposedly sets up jury systems pushes through over
one hundred, laws reforms education across the. Empire it's presented
as something that would take four or five, lifetimes according
to one source cited by, proponents so their conclusion is
for illigantist. Followers the only logical reason for this impossibly
impressive resume is That charlemagne was largely or entirely made.
Speaker 1: Up a fictional, hero created to give that phantom period,
substance and, crucially to give later rulers Like auto The
third a, glorious manufactured past to legitimize their own.
Speaker 2: Power that's the, idea a fabricated backstory for The atonian,
dynasty bolstering their claim and The church's position alongside.
Speaker 1: Them but hold, on if you're inventing three three hundred
years In, europe wouldn't the rest of the world? Notice
what about you, know The, Byzantines Islamic, World, China their
calendars and records would be totally out of.
Speaker 2: Sync that's a huge potential hole in the, theory and
the proponents had an answer for, it according to the,
sources which was they claimed the conspiracy required the rest
of the world to basically play along to corroborate the.
Lie they allege, that for, Instance islamic record keepers actively
added events or even fudged whole centuries in their own
histories to match the new Fabricated european.
Speaker 1: Timeline, seriously they Claimed islamic historians rewrote their past just
to help out A Holy roman.
Speaker 2: Emperor that's the claim presented in the sources supporting the.
Hypothesis they suggest this explains why various cultures might have
introduced new calendars or dating systems around the tenth. Century
it was all supposedly part of this global effort to
align with the fabricated, timeline done for the sake of
One Holy roman emperor's.
Speaker 1: Glory that sounds incredibly far. Fetched coordinating a global historical
rewrite in the tenth.
Speaker 2: Century it's definitely one of the more challenging aspects of
the hypothesis to accept a vast multi continental.
Speaker 1: Conspiracy, okay so that's the case For Phantom, time as
laid out in the, Materials the math, discrepancy the alleged
gaps in, history, architecture, archaeology The charlemagne, question even this
claim of global, corroboration it's quite a.
Speaker 2: Story it absolutely is a, complex intriguing and pretty thrilling.
Speaker 1: Narrative but as you, said the sources also present the other,
side the counter. Arguments what do mainstream historians and scientists
say about all? This is any of it?
Speaker 2: True, well the short, answer based on the material is
that the vast majority historians consider the phantom time hypothesis
to be debunked.
Speaker 1: Debunked, Okay so how do they address the points? Raised
let's start With charlemagne. Again was he just made?
Speaker 2: Up the consensus view presented is, No he almost certainly did. Exist. Okay,
now was his historical resume likely exaggerated over? Time almost? Certainly.
Yes that happens a lot with powerful. Figures their achievements
get amplified in later.
Speaker 1: Accounts so maybe he didn't personally invent astronomy while fighting.
Speaker 2: Wars probably not, Personally, No but the sources suggest his
non military accomplishments are quite plausibly explained by the talented
people he kept around. Him he was known as a
very effective, leader a, unifier a, conqueror, yes but also a.
Patron he supported learning the, arts legal, reform the.
Speaker 1: Church so a, real very successful and influential ruler whose
administration achieved a lot and whose legacy got let's say
polished over the.
Speaker 2: Centuries that's a much more conventional and according to historians
cited evidence based explanation than him being entirely. Fictional it
fits the pattern of historical.
Speaker 1: Figures, okay that makes. Sense less, superhero more EFFECTIVE ceo
WHOSE pr team worked over time after he was. Gone
but what about more concrete stuff like that claim of
global corroboration and the calendar.
Speaker 2: Mak, Right let's move beyond historical interpretation to things we
can check more. Objectively and a big one mentioned in
the counter arguments is a famous celestial, visitor.
Speaker 1: Which Is haley's, comment the comment how does that fit?
Speaker 2: In, Well haley's comment is incredibly. Regular its swings By
earth where we can see it roughly every seventy five
or seventy six, years like.
Speaker 1: Clockwork, okay and we have records of people seeing it
going way way. Back the sources mentioned observations recorded as
far back as four hundred and seventy FIVE.
Speaker 2: Bc impressive record.
Speaker 1: Keeping so the crucial point is we have records Of
haley's comet being observed during the exact period the hypothesis
claims was fabricated throughout those alleged phantom years between six
fourteen and nine to ELEVEN.
Speaker 2: Ad, wait if those years didn't, exist how could people
have seen and recorded the comet appearing on schedule during
those non existent? Years?
Speaker 1: Exactly the schedule wouldn't work if you just chopped out
three hundred. Years and, importantly While european records might be
sparse for parts of that era for other.
Speaker 2: Reasons there are records.
Speaker 1: Elsewhere, yes the sources specifically highlight that there are records
of the comet In chinese history during this supposed phantom,
period independent astronomical observations from halfway around the, world based
on the predictable path of a, comet confirming that those
years did in fact.
Speaker 2: Pass that seems pretty hard to argue with a comment
doesn't care About european. Politics it's considered very strong evidence
against the. Hypothesis it provides an external natural clock that
seems to contradict the idea of missing.
Speaker 1: Time, okay so that tackles the global aspect and provides
positive evidence for those years. Existing what about the lack
of evidence In, europe the quiet, histories the stagnant, architecture
the archaeological. Gap is there a simpler explanation than a.
Speaker 2: Conspiracy the mainstream historical perspective outlined in The sources offers
what many see as a much more obvious. Answer the
period after the fall of The Western Roman empire was just,
really really.
Speaker 1: Tough The Dark ages explanation.
Speaker 2: Pretty much the sources paint a picture of intense. Disruption
the entire world was grown into chaos and. War roman, infrastructure,
roads trade, networks. Administration it pretty much.
Speaker 1: Collapsed life got, harder a lot.
Speaker 2: Harder dramatically harder for the vast. Majority the sources site
figures like almost ninety five percent of the world's population
was living in, poverty and literacy. Plummeted maybe less than
five percent of people even knew how to.
Speaker 1: Read so if everyone's just struggling to.
Speaker 2: Survive, then as one source puts, it there's not a
lot of opportunity for art and science to. Advance if
the entire world is struggling to not die of, starvation.
Speaker 1: Right you're not focused on building grand new cathedrals or
writing detailed histories if you're worried about your next meal
or getting.
Speaker 2: Rated exactly, so the relative scarcity of written records compared
to The roman, era the slower pace of architectural, innovation
the difficulty archaeologists might have finding extensive evidence of complex
towns in certain regions during certain. Periods all of this
is much more plausibly explained by societal, collapse, poverty, warfare and,
rebuilding rather than three hundred years being magically.
Speaker 1: Erased that feels like a much less convoluted Explanation okham's.
Speaker 2: Razor maybe it's certainly the explanation favored by most historians
based on the available evidence of the period's.
Speaker 1: Conditions, okay so that addresses the lack of evidence. Arguments
but what about the spark the core mathematical. Problem Pope
gregory only removing ten days when the drift since forty
FIVE bc should have been closer to Thirteen hows that? Resolved?
Speaker 2: Ah, yes the central pillar of the, Hypothesis and according
to The connor arguments presented in the, sources this relies
on a misunderstanding of What Pope gregory was actually.
Speaker 1: Doing he wasn't correcting the drift since forty FIVE, Bc,
no he.
Speaker 2: Wanted aiming that far. Back his specific, goal driven by
the easter, problem was to bring the calendar back into
sync with the astronomical situation as it was defined by
The church much earlier at The council Of nicea back
in three twenty FIVE. Ad that's when The church formally
set the rules For, easter tying it to The march
twenty first date for the.
Speaker 1: Equinox, okay So gregory was resetting to three twenty FIVE,
ad not forty FIVE. Bc.
Speaker 2: Correct and here's the absolute crucial piece of. Information the
sources reveal something illeg apparently missed or didn't factor. In
The council Of nicea in three twenty FIVE ad already
knew The julian calendar had drifted a bit by their.
Speaker 1: Time they, knew, yes and.
Speaker 2: They had already accounted for the drift that had occurred
between forty FIVE bc and three twenty FIVE. Ad how
much drift was that h.
Speaker 1: Three twenty FIVE A d minus forty FIVE pc is
about three hundred and seventy years divide by one hundred
and twenty, eight so it's roughly three days.
Speaker 2: Exactly The council Of nicea effectively absorbed or corrected for
about three days of drift that had already happened by
three twenty FIVE ad when they set The easter rules
around The march twenty first date on the then Current julian.
Speaker 1: Calendar wait.
Speaker 2: Yees so the three days already accounted for IT nica
plus the ten Days Pope gregory removed in fifteen eighty two.
Speaker 1: Adds up to thirteen days the total expected drift since
forty FIVE. Bc.
Speaker 2: Precisely the math works out perfectly once you Realize gregory's
starting point for correction WASN'T cz but The Nicean council's
definition from three twenty five eighty the three day discrepancy. Vanishes.
Speaker 1: Wow so the entire mathematical foundation of the phantom time
hypothesis just dissolves when you look at the history of
the calendar corrections.
Speaker 2: Properly according to the analysis presented in the sources debunking the, Theory,
yes that key piece of context about The nician adjustment
resolves the central puzzle without needing to invent three hundred
years of phantom.
Speaker 1: Time. Okay so pulling it all together based on everything
of these, sources we've dug into what's the final verdict
on the phantom time.
Speaker 2: Hypothesis the clear consensus presented from the vast majority of
historians is that it's considered to be. Debunked the counter
evidence Like haley's, comment the more plausible explanations for The
Dark age's, conditions and especially the resolution of The gregorian
calendar math is seen as.
Speaker 1: Overwhelming it really is a fantastic, story as one source called,
It you can see the appeal a hidden, history a grand,
conspiracy altering time.
Speaker 2: Itself, absolutely it captures the. Imagination the sources indicate that
when you weigh the evidence presented for and against, it
the balance falls heavily against the, hypothesis though.
Speaker 1: The original, Proponents ilig and, others they're apparently sticking to their.
Speaker 2: Story that's what the material. Suggests, yes but the mainstream
historical and scientific view presented is quite. Firm the years
Happened charlemagne was, real if perhaps, embellished and the calendar
correction makes.
Speaker 1: Sense so why did we spend this deep dive on
an idea that's ultimately considered. Incorrect why should you listening
right now care about phantom? Time?
Speaker 2: WELL i think exploring ideas like, this even debunked, ones
is actually really. Valuable it forces us to think about
how we know what we know about.
Speaker 1: The, past, right what counts as, Evidence how do historians
piece things together?
Speaker 2: Exactly it highlights the different kinds of, evidence written, texts, archaeology,
architecture even, astronomy and how they intersect or sometimes. Conflict
it's a masterclass in critical. Thinking, really how do you
evaluate an extraordinary?
Speaker 1: Claim and it shows that something as basic as the,
calendar something we just, accept has this complex history behind, it, calculations, errors, corrections.
Debates it wasn't just handed down. Perfectly.
Speaker 2: Absolutely it reminds us that our shared, reality even something
as fundamental as what year it, is is constructed and
maintained through human, effort observation and agreement and sometimes. Disagreement
it encourages us to question, assumptions to.
Speaker 1: Look under the hood of things we take for.
Speaker 2: Granted, precisely don't just, accept ask how we arrived at this, Understanding.
Speaker 1: Which does leave you with a final, thought doesn't. It
if something as seemingly solid as our calendar could inspire
such a, radical detailed alternative, Theory.
Speaker 2: It really makes you wonder what other parts of our
accepted history might be open to challenge or. Reinterpretation, and
perhaps more, importantly if a new challenging theory, emerged how
would you equip yourself to evaluate the, Evidence how would
you decide what to believe.
Speaker 1: Something definitely worth. Pondering, well thank you for joining us
on this fascinating deep dive into the phantom time, hypothesis
exploring all the twists and turns presented in the source.
Speaker 2: Material it's certainly been a mind bending journey through the,
centuries real and perhaps.
Speaker 1: Imagined we hope you found it as thought provoking as we.
Speaker 2: Did until next, time be.
Speaker 1: Safe be, kind and keep. Questioning