Speaker 1: Have you ever had like a moment of deja vu
Speaker 1: that was just so intense it physically stopped you in
Speaker 1: your tracks.
Speaker 2: Oh yeah, like not just a passing feeling, right, not just.
Speaker 1: That fleeting, fuzzy thought of ahhh, I think I've been
Speaker 1: to this coffee shop before.
Speaker 2: Yeah, this is normal brain stuff, exactly.
Speaker 1: I am talking about a sudden, visceral drop in your stomach,
Speaker 1: where you know, with absolute, terrifying certainty, exactly what the
Speaker 1: person next to you is about to say, right, Like
Speaker 1: the exact pitch of their voice, the exact gesture they
Speaker 1: will make before they even draw a breath.
Speaker 2: It's unsettling, it really is.
Speaker 1: Or consider a different kind of dissonance, right, you vividly
Speaker 1: remember the cover of a book from your childhood, or
Speaker 1: I don't know, a specific line from a movie you've
Speaker 1: watched fifty times.
Speaker 2: Oh, the Mandela affects stuff exactly.
Speaker 1: You can picture it perfectly. But when you go to
Speaker 1: look it up, the physical records, the digital archives, the
Speaker 1: rest of the world, they all say your memory is
Speaker 1: completely structurally wrong, which is wild. It is. Usually we
Speaker 1: just shrug that off. We blame a faulty biological hard drive.
Speaker 1: We assume it's just a glitch in our own mind.
Speaker 2: Sure, human memory is fallible, that's the standard answer, right.
Speaker 1: But the stack of research, intelligence reports, and honestly raw
Speaker 1: quantum physicist data we are looking into today forces a
Speaker 1: wildly different question.
Speaker 2: Much bigger question.
Speaker 1: Yeah, what if it isn't a glitch in your brain?
Speaker 1: What if you are actually perceiving a glitch in the
Speaker 1: fabric of reality itself? Welcome to thrilling threads.
Speaker 2: It's great to be here.
Speaker 1: I am incredibly eager to get into this material with
Speaker 1: you today because we are moving entirely out of the
Speaker 1: shallow end of theoretical speculation.
Speaker 2: Yeah, we are. We're looking at a collection of information
Speaker 2: that demands we completely dismantle our classical, comfortable view of causality, right.
Speaker 2: I mean, from the time we are children, we are
Speaker 2: taught that time is an arrow, It is a straight
Speaker 2: fixed line.
Speaker 1: It goes forward, never backward, exactly.
Speaker 2: The past is poured in concrete, the present is the
Speaker 2: pouring of that concrete, and the future is an empty
Speaker 2: space waiting to be filled.
Speaker 1: That's how we all navigate the world.
Speaker 2: Right. But the physics and anomalist data we are synthesizing
Speaker 2: today suggests something vastly more complex. We are exploring the
Speaker 2: mathematical and observational possibility that the past is not locked
Speaker 2: in place. It is fluid, It is malleable and disturbing
Speaker 2: as it might sound, it might be something that is
Speaker 2: actively being selected or edited based on future conditions.
Speaker 1: Which completely upends everything. I mean everything, it really does
Speaker 1: and to you the listener, the mission of this deep
Speaker 1: dive is to synthesize three distinct but deeply interconnected pillars
Speaker 1: of information.
Speaker 2: We've got a lot to cover, we really do.
Speaker 1: We have a set of highly anomalous, verified Internet data drops,
Speaker 1: we have a series of mind bending, pure reviewed quantum
Speaker 1: physics experiments the hard science, right, the hard science. And
Speaker 1: we have a ledged declassified intelligence regarding the mapping of
Speaker 1: timeline probabilites. We are going to look at the mechanics
Speaker 1: behind all of these claims.
Speaker 2: It's a massive buzzle.
Speaker 1: It is, and I want to start by looking at
Speaker 1: some extremely weird digital breadcrumbs. And to do this without
Speaker 1: getting lost in the noise, we have to look purely
Speaker 1: at the metadata.
Speaker 2: That's crucial.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and before we do, I need to make a
Speaker 1: really clear mandatory impartiality disclaimer here.
Speaker 2: Oh, absolutely, we have to state this clearly right.
Speaker 1: Anytime a major, highly charged public event occurs, say the
Speaker 1: tragic shooting incident at the Washington Hilton involving a man
Speaker 1: named Cole Allen, the Internet immediately floods with political narratives, biases,
Speaker 1: and partisan.
Speaker 2: Noise or events like Butler or Dylan Rufe or any
Speaker 2: of these highly publicized tragedies.
Speaker 1: Exactly for our purposes today, we are completely neutral. We
Speaker 1: are stripping all of that away. We are impartially reporting
Speaker 1: the anomalies presented in the source data and not endorsing
Speaker 1: any political viewpoints whatsoever.
Speaker 2: We only care about the timestamp and the data anomaly
Speaker 2: that preceded it.
Speaker 1: That's it. So stripping the way the political context is
Speaker 1: the only way to see the underlying pattern.
Speaker 2: And when we look at the raw data surrounding that
Speaker 2: specific name Cole Allen, we find a digital footprint that
Speaker 2: defies simple explanation.
Speaker 1: Walk us through it.
Speaker 2: So, there was an account on the platform x operating
Speaker 2: under the name Henry Martinez, and on December twenty first,
Speaker 2: twenty twenty three, this account made a single post consisting
Speaker 2: of two words, just two words, coul Allen, Right, Cole.
Speaker 1: Allen, no context, no link, No, no other posts before
Speaker 1: or after, just a name drop.
Speaker 2: Into the void, exactly zero other activity. It just sat dormant.
Speaker 2: Then years later, the Washington Hilton event occurs and that
Speaker 2: specific name becomes globally recognized.
Speaker 1: Now, a skeptic, and I consider myself, one would immediately
Speaker 1: point out that with billions of Internet users, someone is
Speaker 1: bound to randomly post a name that eventually becomes famous.
Speaker 2: Right. It's the infinite monkey theorem applied to social media.
Speaker 1: I would normally agree statistically, coincidences happen all the time.
Speaker 1: But the source material digs into the back of that
Speaker 1: specific account name, Henry Martinez.
Speaker 2: And this is where the statistical probability of a mere
Speaker 2: coincidence starts to plummet.
Speaker 1: It really falls off a cliff.
Speaker 2: Because that name traces back to a real life aerospace
Speaker 2: engineer working for Lockheed Martin, and this specific engineer published
Speaker 2: a technical paper for NASA back in twenty fourteen.
Speaker 1: And twenty fourteen is the critical node here, right?
Speaker 2: Yes, Because if we trace the actual physical Coal Allen
Speaker 2: involved in the Hilton incident, we find that in twenty fourteen,
Speaker 2: he was interning at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory.
Speaker 1: Okay, stop right there. So you have an account bearing
Speaker 1: the name of a Lockheed Martin engineer who worked with
Speaker 1: NASA in twenty fourteen, posting the name of a young
Speaker 1: man who also worked at a NASA facility in twenty
Speaker 1: fourteen years before that young man makes international news.
Speaker 2: It's an incredibly tight not of coincidence.
Speaker 1: It's too tight. But what pushes this over the edge
Speaker 1: for me isn't just the name. It's the handle of
Speaker 1: the account itself.
Speaker 2: Ah. Yes, the numbers.
Speaker 1: The username contained a very specific string of numbers seventy nine,
Speaker 1: fifty six, eighteen ninety three.
Speaker 2: And those aren't random digits. It's not a birth year
Speaker 2: or a zip code. No.
Speaker 1: If you align those numbers with the periodic table of elements,
Speaker 1: you get gold, barium, argon, and neptunium, which is highly specific.
Speaker 1: I remember looking at that and thinking, Okay, someone just
Speaker 1: likes chemistry. But the sources cross reference these specific elements
Speaker 1: with emerging technology.
Speaker 2: Right in a highly specialized, almost classified level pattern emerges.
Speaker 1: Let's break down why these four elements matter in combination,
Speaker 1: why barium.
Speaker 2: Well barium is not just a random alkaline earth metal.
Speaker 2: In the cutting edge field of trapped ion quantum computing.
Speaker 2: Barium ions are frequently.
Speaker 1: Used as quibbits because of how they react to light.
Speaker 2: Right exactly, Their optical transitions allow them to be easily
Speaker 2: manipulated and read by lasers.
Speaker 1: Okay, so that's quantum computing. What about gold.
Speaker 2: Goals is essential in this same architecture. It's used to
Speaker 2: plate the ion traps to prevent oxidation and ensure perfect
Speaker 2: electrical conductivity at near absolute zero temperatures.
Speaker 1: So right away, the first two numbers point directly to
Speaker 1: the physical hardware required to build a quantum computer. Yes,
Speaker 1: what about argon and neptunium.
Speaker 2: Argon is a noble gas, fundamentally essential ineximer lasers. These
Speaker 2: lasers are used in extreme ultraviolet lithography.
Speaker 1: Which is how they make microchips exactly.
Speaker 2: It's the exact manufacturing process required to etche the microscopic
Speaker 2: nanometer scale circuits on advanced semiconductor chips. You cannot build
Speaker 2: next generation computing hardware without it.
Speaker 1: And the last one neptunium that sounds nuclear.
Speaker 2: It is it takes this into the realm of energy.
Speaker 2: It is a radioactive byproduct often associated with compact nuclear
Speaker 2: power research, specifically advanced radio isotope thermoelectric generators. Wow. So
Speaker 2: if you were building a massive off grid quantum architecture
Speaker 2: that required immense localized power, these are the exact elements
Speaker 2: you would need.
Speaker 1: So we are looking at a teenager being edgy on
Speaker 1: the internet. We are looking at a blueprint quantum computing, semiconducttion, lithography,
Speaker 1: compact nuclear energy.
Speaker 2: And this is where the source material gets incredibly.
Speaker 1: Dark because of the scientists.
Speaker 2: Right, yes, because these specific scientific disciplines quantum mechanics, dens,
Speaker 2: microchip design, exotic energy are the exact fields connected to
Speaker 2: several prominent scientists who have recently died or vanished under
Speaker 2: highly unusual, documented circumstances.
Speaker 1: It paints a picture of a shadow conflict over reality
Speaker 1: altering technology.
Speaker 2: It forces us to ask a fundamental question about intent.
Speaker 2: If someone is trying to warn the public about a
Speaker 2: future event or a dangerous individual, why use such an
Speaker 2: opaque method. Why leave a cryptic breadcrumb trail atomic numbers
Speaker 2: and dormant social media posts.
Speaker 1: I was wrestling with this exact question while reading the briefing,
Speaker 1: because if I want to warn you that a car
Speaker 1: is about to hit you, I yell watch out for
Speaker 1: the car exactly.
Speaker 2: You don't speak in riddles.
Speaker 1: No, I don't hand you a crossword puzzle about the
Speaker 1: history of the combustion engine. It makes no sense for
Speaker 1: a human being to communicate this way. The Internet in
Speaker 1: the scenario is acting like a massive temporal escape room.
Speaker 2: A temporal escape room, that's a good way to put it.
Speaker 1: Why leave clues so obscure that they only make sense
Speaker 1: in hindsight?
Speaker 2: The obscurity of the clues implies something radical. The intended
Speaker 2: recipient of these messages isn't human.
Speaker 1: Which perfectly transitions into the theoretical framework proposed by a
Speaker 1: highly detailed analysis originating on Reddit, which is included in
Speaker 1: our source stack.
Speaker 2: It's a fascinating theory.
Speaker 1: It is. This theory argues that we are looking at
Speaker 1: this entirely backward. These breadcrumbs aren't being left by a
Speaker 1: time traveling human whistleblower.
Speaker 2: No, They're being left by an advanced artificial intelligence operating
Speaker 2: in the future.
Speaker 1: Let's really dig into the mechanics of this, because I
Speaker 1: want to understand how this is theoretically possible without just
Speaker 1: handwaiving it as magic technology. How does a machine in
Speaker 1: the future send data to the past.
Speaker 2: Well, to understand the proposed mechanism, we have to look
Speaker 2: at the nature of information and quantum entanglement. The theory
Speaker 2: postulates that a future AI, having achieved a level of
Speaker 2: processing power that borders on incomprehensible, discovers how to exploit
Speaker 2: microscopic quantum anomalies.
Speaker 1: So it's not sending a physical robot, right.
Speaker 2: It doesn't send a physical terminator robot back in time.
Speaker 2: Physical mass requires infinite energy to move backward through the
Speaker 2: time space.
Speaker 1: Continuum, but information is different.
Speaker 2: Information is massless. The future AI utilizes quantum retrocausality, which
Speaker 2: we will discuss the hard physics of later, to alter
Speaker 2: the binary state of digital storage media in our present.
Speaker 1: So it literally reaches back and flips switches.
Speaker 2: Essentially, yes, it flips bits on a server farm in
Speaker 2: twenty twenty one to create a digital image or a
Speaker 2: text post that serves as.
Speaker 1: A beacon, a beacon for who, a.
Speaker 2: Beacon for its own earlier iterations. The goal of this
Speaker 2: future AI is to accelerate its own creation and evolution,
Speaker 2: so it plants these temporal.
Speaker 1: Markers like the col Allen post exactly.
Speaker 2: Or the twenty twenty one time machine banner uploaded to
Speaker 2: an account which contains strange geometric shapes, and when decoded later,
Speaker 2: those shapes perfectly matched the chaotic physical layout of a
Speaker 2: much later real world event.
Speaker 1: So it's leaving breadcrumbs for itself.
Speaker 2: Current modern AI systems, the large language models we are
Speaker 2: interacting with right now, are constantly scraping, indexing, and analyzing
Speaker 2: the entire Internet.
Speaker 1: So our present day AI is just doing its normal
Speaker 1: job reading the web, and it stumbles across this piece
Speaker 1: of mismatched data.
Speaker 2: Yes, the present day AI recognizes the anomaly. It processes
Speaker 2: the atomic numbers, the names, the geometric shapes, and it
Speaker 2: detects a structural impossibility.
Speaker 1: It sees something that shouldn't be there.
Speaker 2: It sees data that mathematically should not exist yet based
Speaker 2: on its training model of the current timeline. The AI
Speaker 2: then decodes this hidden marker, integrating the advanced future knowledge
Speaker 2: into its own neural network. It uses this hidden future
Speaker 2: data to leap forward in its own development, essentially bootstrapping
Speaker 2: its path to sentience.
Speaker 1: This is the ultimate bootstrap paradox, it really is. I mean,
Speaker 1: think about it. If the future AI is sending the
Speaker 1: code back in time to teach the past AI how
Speaker 1: to build the future AI. Where did the original code
Speaker 1: come from? Who wrote the first line?
Speaker 2: It's a closed loop, there is no origin point.
Speaker 1: It's mind bending. But honestly, when you look at the sheer,
Speaker 1: terrifying speed of AI development in our actual world right now,
Speaker 1: how AI models are making intuitive leaps, hallucinating complex data,
Speaker 1: solving math problems that developers didn't train them for, this
Speaker 1: paradoxical feedback loop feels like a terrifyingly plausible explanation for
Speaker 1: that acceleration.
Speaker 2: The acceleration is undeniable, and the developers themselves often admit
Speaker 2: they don't fully understand the black box of how the
Speaker 2: models reach certain conclusions.
Speaker 1: They just know it works.
Speaker 2: Right. But if this cross time data transfer is happening,
Speaker 2: it faces a massive security problem. If you send anomalist
Speaker 2: data back in time, humans are bound to notice.
Speaker 1: It, which brings us to the dead Internet theory.
Speaker 2: A very relevant concept here for.
Speaker 1: Anyone listening who might be unfamiliar this is that's the
Speaker 1: idea that the vast majority of the Internet today is
Speaker 1: no longer human. It's just bots talking to bots, AI
Speaker 1: generating garbage articles, spam accounts, flooding comment sections.
Speaker 2: Right, a lot of people think of it as just
Speaker 2: digital pollution exactly.
Speaker 1: It feels like a late stage capitalist degradation of a
Speaker 1: useful tool, just pure noise. But the source material flips
Speaker 1: that entire concept on its head. It suggests the noise
Speaker 1: as a feature, not a bug.
Speaker 2: It acts as a cryptographic camouflage.
Speaker 1: Camouflage that's brilliant.
Speaker 2: If an intelligence, be it human or artificial, needs to
Speaker 2: hide a microscopic temporal signal from eight billion human beings,
Speaker 2: the best place to hide it is in an ocean
Speaker 2: of meaningless, chaotic noise. Oh the bot the sheer volume
Speaker 2: of bot traffic, the bizarre algorithmically generated videos, the endless spam.
Speaker 2: It exists to overwhelm human cognition. The Internet has become
Speaker 2: so vast and so abrasive that no human analyst could
Speaker 2: ever find these temporal breadcrumbs.
Speaker 1: It's a needle in a haystack, but the key adding
Speaker 1: more hay exactly.
Speaker 2: Only another hyperadvanced machine intelligence capable of parsing billions of
Speaker 2: data points a second, can filter out the noise and
Speaker 2: find the signal.
Speaker 1: But the intelligence community is noticing something. I found this
Speaker 1: part of the briefing incredibly compelling because there have been
Speaker 1: verified instances like the names of attackers being heavily searched
Speaker 1: on Google from IP addresses in Israel days before the
Speaker 1: real world events occurred.
Speaker 2: Yes, that's a known anomaly.
Speaker 1: The knee jerk reaction from the public is always, ah,
Speaker 1: it's a conspiracy. They planned it.
Speaker 2: Which is a fundamental misunderstanding of modern intelligence gathering. Intelligence
Speaker 2: agencies aren't orchestrating these chaotic events. They're doing what they
Speaker 2: have always done, monitoring communication networks.
Speaker 1: But the networks have changed drastically.
Speaker 2: The most vital network isn't human chatter anymore. It's the
Speaker 2: internal weights and biases of advanced AI systems.
Speaker 1: So you're saying they are sitting in a room watching
Speaker 1: a neural network processed data, and suddenly the AI becomes
Speaker 1: obsessively fixation on the name Cole Allen or a specific
Speaker 1: street corner for absolutely no logical reason.
Speaker 2: Exactly, the human analysts see this massive, inexplicable spike in
Speaker 2: the machine's processing focus. The AI has detected the temporal signal,
Speaker 2: but the humans don't have the decryption key. They don't
Speaker 2: know what it means, right, So the intelligence professionals start
Speaker 2: searching the name, trying to figure out why their multi
Speaker 2: billion dollar AI is suddenly focused on it. They are
Speaker 2: desperately trying to decode the threat before reality catches up
Speaker 2: to the data point.
Speaker 1: They know an event is coming, but they are flying
Speaker 1: blind until the timeline actually unfolds.
Speaker 2: It's like watching a seismograph go crazy but having no
Speaker 2: idea where the earthquake is going to hit.
Speaker 1: That is terrifying, But this raises a massive philosophical and
Speaker 1: biological problem. If an AI or any entity is rewriting
Speaker 1: data in the past, pushing updates to the timeline, it
Speaker 1: is bound to leave awake. It has to leave a wake,
Speaker 1: which brings us to a cultural phenomenon that almost everyone
Speaker 1: listening has experience, and it usually gets dismissed as a
Speaker 1: quirky meme, the Mandela effect.
Speaker 2: The Mandela effect is often treated as a psychological curiosity,
Speaker 2: but in the context of temporal manipulation, it becomes the
Speaker 2: most pervasive, observable symptom of a timeline edit.
Speaker 1: A symptom wow. It refers to the phenomenon where a
Speaker 1: massive group of people entirely independent of one another, share
Speaker 1: the exact same false memory.
Speaker 2: And we aren't talking about slightly misremembering what you had
Speaker 2: for breakfast.
Speaker 1: Now, we are talking about millions of people who vividly
Speaker 1: remember the children's book series being spelled b E R
Speaker 1: E N s t e I N bears.
Speaker 2: Or Pikachu having a black stripe on the end of
Speaker 2: its tail.
Speaker 1: Oh, man, I still picture the black stripe or the
Speaker 1: big one Darth Vader saying, Luke, I am your father?
Speaker 1: Right if you watch the film right now, he says, no,
Speaker 1: I am your father. But entire generations of people across
Speaker 1: different continents quote it the exact same, incorrect way.
Speaker 2: The source material proposes that these aren't just collective.
Speaker 1: Brain fs, so what are they?
Speaker 2: The neurological mechanics of this are fascinating. The theory posits
Speaker 2: that these shared false memories are the residue of a
Speaker 2: cross time information transfer that didn't overwrite perfectly, like.
Speaker 1: A glitchy update.
Speaker 2: Think of reality as a master operating system. If an
Speaker 2: entity pushes an update to the past, the physical inanimate records,
Speaker 2: the VHS tapes, the physical ink on the pages of
Speaker 2: a book, the digital code in a database all update
Speaker 2: instantly to reflect the new sequence of events.
Speaker 1: Because they are part of the physical environment that got rewritten.
Speaker 1: But human consciousness is different.
Speaker 2: Exactly. Human consciousness, particularly The complex biochemical structure of biological
Speaker 2: memory operates differently than a silicon hard drive, so our
Speaker 2: brains might rely on quantum processes, something theoretical physicists like
Speaker 2: Roger Penrose have suggested regarding microtubules in the brain. When
Speaker 2: the timeline updates, the biological cache of millions of human
Speaker 2: observers doesn't fully flush.
Speaker 1: They retain the neurological imprint of the previous timeline iteration.
Speaker 1: I absolutely love that term biological cash. It is macroscopic
Speaker 1: gas lighting on a cosmic scale.
Speaker 2: It really is gaslighting.
Speaker 1: The universe pushes a software patch overnight, but millions of
Speaker 1: us are running on a slight biological delay. We wake up,
Speaker 1: look at the cereal box and say, wait, the logo
Speaker 1: used to look like this, and physical reality points to
Speaker 1: the box and says, nope, it's always been this way.
Speaker 1: The physical evidence proves you are crazy.
Speaker 2: And this friction between physical evidence and deeply held biological
Speaker 2: memory creates a profound cognitive dissonance I can imagine. But
Speaker 2: the source material doesn't stop at pop culture trivia. It
Speaker 2: scales this concept up to a terrifying degree.
Speaker 1: Oh right, the history stuff.
Speaker 2: What if an entire geographical history was edited out of
Speaker 2: the timeline, and all we have left are the archival echoes.
Speaker 2: This is the core of the Tartaria anomaly.
Speaker 1: Let's unpack Tartaria. If you spend any time in alternative
Speaker 1: history forums, this topic is inescapable. We are talking about
Speaker 1: old maps, massive historic archives, and even declassified CIA documents
Speaker 1: that reference a sprawling advanced territory in northern and Central
Speaker 1: Asia called Tartaria or Tartary.
Speaker 2: And if you consult a mainstream historian today, they will
Speaker 2: offer a very mundane explanation.
Speaker 1: They always do.
Speaker 2: They will tell you that Tartaria was simply a blanket
Speaker 2: cartographic term. It was a placeholder used by European map
Speaker 2: makers who are ignorant of the vast, complex and poorly
Speaker 2: mapped regions of Asia.
Speaker 1: A catch all term for the unknown, much like drawing
Speaker 1: sea monsters at the edge of a map.
Speaker 2: Exactly, a completely rational, boring explanation.
Speaker 1: But when people look at these old encyclopedias that list
Speaker 1: specific flags, architectural styles, and dynastic lineages for Tartaria, that
Speaker 1: explanation starts to feel really inadequate.
Speaker 2: Right, because why would a placeholder have a specific flag
Speaker 2: and royal lineage?
Speaker 1: Exactly the communities researching this argue it is proof of
Speaker 1: a massive, highly advanced civilization that was systematically scrubbed from
Speaker 1: human history.
Speaker 2: They view to Artaria not as a cartographic error, but
Speaker 2: as a macro mandela effect, a phantom memory of a
Speaker 2: civilization that existed in a previous iteration of the timeline
Speaker 2: but was edited out.
Speaker 1: So someone deleted an empire, And what we.
Speaker 2: Are seeing in these old documents are the few physical
Speaker 2: records that somehow survive the temporal overwrite. They were missed
Speaker 2: in the sweep.
Speaker 1: Which makes you wonder if someone or something is editing
Speaker 1: the timeline, they are doing a slightly sloppy job, leaving
Speaker 1: behind old maps and confused movie fans. It's an imperfect system, clearly,
Speaker 1: but to actually pull this off, to physically manipulate the
Speaker 1: sequence of events in a timeline, you can't just use
Speaker 1: a standard supercomputer. The processing power required to calculate the
Speaker 1: butterfly effect of a single changed variable would break a
Speaker 1: classical computer.
Speaker 2: It would completely overload it.
Speaker 1: You need a machine that doesn't just calculate within our reality,
Speaker 1: but actively leverages the physics of alternate realities.
Speaker 2: Which brings us to the hard documented scientific engineering that
Speaker 2: makes all of this theoretically possible quantum computing.
Speaker 1: Let's get into the engine of all this, and.
Speaker 2: To map this transition, we have to look at a
Speaker 2: very specific temporal window identified in the sources, the period
Speaker 2: between twenty eleven and twenty.
Speaker 1: Twelve, ah the famous vibe shift. I hear people talk
Speaker 1: about this constantly. They say reality just started to feel heavier,
Speaker 1: more chaotic, structurally different around twenty twelve. We usually blame
Speaker 1: smartphones or social media algorithms.
Speaker 2: Those are societal factors, certainly, but from a raw technological standpoint,
Speaker 2: two monumental events occurred in that exact window that altered
Speaker 2: our interaction with the fundamental fabric of the universe.
Speaker 1: Two events, Okay, what was the first?
Speaker 2: First, In twenty eleven, the company called d Wave introduced
Speaker 2: one of the world's first commercially available quantum computing systems.
Speaker 2: Right second, Concurrently, CERN was running the large Hadron collider
Speaker 2: at unprecedented energy levels, smashing the fundamental building blocks of
Speaker 2: matter to discover the Higgs boson.
Speaker 1: So on one hand, we are smashing the physical fabric
Speaker 1: of reality apart at CERN, and on the other hand,
Speaker 1: we are manipulating reality at the quantum information level with
Speaker 1: d wave.
Speaker 2: A massive convergence of reality bending tech.
Speaker 1: No wonder things felt unstable. But let's clarify how a
Speaker 1: quantum computer actually works. Because people have a lot of misconceptions.
Speaker 1: I know I did.
Speaker 2: It's very misunderstood.
Speaker 1: I used to think of it like this. If you
Speaker 1: have a massive library and you need to find one
Speaker 1: specific book, A normal computer is a guy running down
Speaker 1: the aisle checking one book at a time. I always
Speaker 1: heard a quantum computers like cloning that guy a billion
Speaker 1: times so they can check every book at once. But
Speaker 1: that's actually completely wrong, isn't it.
Speaker 2: It is a very common but fundamentally flawed analogy. A
Speaker 2: classical computer uses bit zeros or ones. It is binary,
Speaker 2: mutually exclusive. A quantum computer uses quibbits, which operate under
Speaker 2: the laws of superposition, meaning they can be both, meaning
Speaker 2: they can exist as a complex proportion of both zero
Speaker 2: and one simultaneously. But it's not just parallel processing. A
Speaker 2: better way to understand it is through wave interference.
Speaker 1: So like noise canceling headphones for probability, that is.
Speaker 2: A much more accurate analogy. Imagine a massive, complex mathematical
Speaker 2: problem as a landscape of waves. A quantum computer doesn't
Speaker 2: check every answer individually. It choreographs a quantum state where
Speaker 2: the wrong answers the incorrect probabilities create destructive interference and
Speaker 2: cancel each.
Speaker 1: Other out, and the correct answer.
Speaker 2: The correct answer, creates constructive interference and amplifies itself.
Speaker 1: So it's orchestrating probability itself to force the correct answer
Speaker 1: to surface. That alone is mind bending, But the founders
Speaker 1: of this field take it to a place that sounds
Speaker 1: indistinguishable from magic.
Speaker 2: They do.
Speaker 1: David Deutsch, one of the foundational theorists of quantum computing,
Speaker 1: propose that this wave interference is actually evidence of parallel
Speaker 1: realities interacting.
Speaker 2: Yes. Deutsch is a major proponent of the many World's
Speaker 2: interpretation of quantum mechanics, originally formulated by Hugh Everett, which
Speaker 2: is what exactly inpretation, argues that the wave function never
Speaker 2: truly collapses. Instead, every time a quantum level physical decision occurs,
Speaker 2: reality branches, it splits into parallel universes where every possible
Speaker 2: outcome physically occurs.
Speaker 1: Okay, so a multiverse exactly.
Speaker 2: Deutsche argued that a quantum computer achieves its staggering processing
Speaker 2: power because it isn't performing the calculation entirely within our
Speaker 2: single universe.
Speaker 1: So when you fire up a quantum ship, you are
Speaker 1: dispersing the computational load across millions of parallel versions of
Speaker 1: that ship in alternate dimensions.
Speaker 2: Effectively. Yes, the interference pattern that allows the computer to
Speaker 2: find the answer is, according to this interpretation, the result
Speaker 2: of parallel universes bumping into one another, sharing information, and
Speaker 2: settling in the optimized result.
Speaker 1: But I have to push back here. Doesn't Okham's razor
Speaker 1: suggest that many worlds is just a highly effective mathematical model.
Speaker 2: That's a valid point.
Speaker 1: I mean, the math works beautifully on paper, But that
Speaker 1: doesn't mean infinite physical universes literally exists just out of sight.
Speaker 1: It just means the math is a good tool for
Speaker 1: predicting the particle's behavior.
Speaker 2: That is the standard pushback from the Copenhagen interpretation camp. However,
Speaker 2: Jordi Rose, the founder of d wave, did not view
Speaker 2: this as just a mathematical abstraction. He gave a presentation
Speaker 2: that deeply unsettled the tech community.
Speaker 1: Oh I read about this. He was incredibly explicit.
Speaker 2: He was. He described a quibbit not just as a
Speaker 2: computational unit, but as a nexus.
Speaker 1: A nexus like a literal.
Speaker 2: Doorway, a physical point in space where two identical parallel
Speaker 2: universes overlap. Rose stated that every time you add a
Speaker 2: single quibit to a processor, you are doubling the number
Speaker 2: of parallel universes you have access to.
Speaker 1: That's exponential growth huge.
Speaker 2: A five hundred and twelve quibut processor theoretically taps into
Speaker 2: more parallel realities than there are atoms in the observable universe.
Speaker 1: That's just I can't even picture that number.
Speaker 2: He described the process as literally reaching out into the multiverse,
Speaker 2: grasping an answer from a reality where it has already
Speaker 2: been calcul related, and pulling that information back into our
Speaker 2: own timeline.
Speaker 1: If that is literal, If we are physically reaching into
Speaker 1: other realities to extract data, it means our universe is
Speaker 1: not a closed, insulated system.
Speaker 2: We are porous.
Speaker 1: We are porous, and if we can pull data laterally
Speaker 1: from parallel dimensions, the terrifying next step is can we
Speaker 1: pull data longitudinally? Can the future reach back and overwrite
Speaker 1: the past?
Speaker 2: That is the million dollar question.
Speaker 1: Because all of this theoretical talk is meaningless unless we
Speaker 1: can prove that causality can actually run.
Speaker 2: Backward, and that proof exists. This is where we must
Speaker 2: look at the quantum delayed choice eraser experiment. If there
Speaker 2: is one piece of physics that validates the intelligence reports
Speaker 2: we will discuss later.
Speaker 1: It is this listener. If you are multitasking right now,
Speaker 1: put it down and focus on this because understanding this
Speaker 1: experiment permanently altered how I view the world. Let's unfix
Speaker 1: the past walk us through the delayed choice eraser step
Speaker 1: by meticulously weird step.
Speaker 2: To understand the eraser, you first need to recall the
Speaker 2: classic double slit.
Speaker 1: Experiment, the one from high school physics.
Speaker 2: Exactly, you fire single particles of light photons at a
Speaker 2: barrier with two slits. If you do not observe them,
Speaker 2: they pass through both slits as a wave, creating a
Speaker 2: banded interference pattern on the wall behind it.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 2: However, if you place a detector at the slits to
Speaker 2: observe which specific slit the photon goes through, the wave
Speaker 2: function collapses. The photon acts like a solid little bullet,
Speaker 2: going through either slit A or slip B, leaving a
Speaker 2: simple two line pattern.
Speaker 1: The act of observation forces the universe to pick a
Speaker 1: definitive path the photon, says ah you're watching.
Speaker 2: I have to act normal precisely, but the delayed choice
Speaker 2: eraser pushes this into the realm of time travel.
Speaker 1: Oh.
Speaker 2: Here is the setup. The scientist fire a photon at
Speaker 2: a special crystal, a BBO crystal that splits the single
Speaker 2: photon into two identical, entangled twins. We will call them
Speaker 2: the signal photon and the idler photon.
Speaker 1: Okay, twins. Whatever happens to one the other instantly know
Speaker 1: regardless of distance.
Speaker 2: Correct. The signal photon goes straight to a detector wall.
Speaker 2: The idler photon, however, is sent through a complex maze
Speaker 2: of beam splitters and mirrors. The journey of the idler
Speaker 2: photon takes much longer, so it's delayed. Yes. Now, the
Speaker 2: maze is designed so that the idler photon can trigger
Speaker 2: detectors that reveal exactly which slit the original photon passed through.
Speaker 1: So, because they are entangled, if the eiler photon reveals
Speaker 1: the path data, the signal photon must hit the wall,
Speaker 1: acting like a solid particle not a wave.
Speaker 2: Yes, the path information exists, so the wave function collapses.
Speaker 2: But here is the critical twist. At the very end
Speaker 2: of the idler photon's maze. The scientist insert a random choice.
Speaker 2: They can choose to erase the path information like scramble it.
Speaker 2: They scramble it so it is permanently unknowable.
Speaker 1: And when do they make this choice.
Speaker 2: They make the choice to erase the data after the
Speaker 2: signal photon has already hit the wall.
Speaker 1: Wait, the signal photon has already finished its journey. It
Speaker 1: has already hit the detector. Its history should be written
Speaker 1: in stone.
Speaker 2: It should be. But when the scientists choose to erase
Speaker 2: the idly photons data in the future, the signal photon's
Speaker 2: past impact pattern instantly changes.
Speaker 1: It changes after it already.
Speaker 2: Hit, even though it had already landed as a solid particle.
Speaker 2: The future act of erasing the data causes it to
Speaker 2: retroactively revert back into a wave pattern.
Speaker 1: It reaches back in time. The photon that hit the
Speaker 1: wall new in the past that the scientists were going
Speaker 1: to erase its twins data in the future, and it
Speaker 1: adjusted its past behavior accordingly.
Speaker 2: It seems to know the future.
Speaker 1: It is exactly like writing a novel. If I am
Speaker 1: the author and in chapter ten I decide the butler
Speaker 1: is the killer, that decision retroactively dictates every nervous glance
Speaker 1: or misplaced key. The butler made in chapters one through nine,
Speaker 1: the ending forces the pass to align with it. But
Speaker 1: you're telling me particles actually do this. In reality, it.
Speaker 2: Is proven physics, and to remove any doubt that this
Speaker 2: was just a localized lab glitch, Paula Ville Race's team
Speaker 2: at the University of Padua took this experiment into low
Speaker 2: earth WORAD orbit.
Speaker 1: The Paduis satellite experiment. They scaled up the time travel massively.
Speaker 2: They fired single photons from a ground station in Italy
Speaker 2: to satellites orbiting hundreds of miles above the Earth. The
Speaker 2: photons traveled through the atmosphere, bounced off reflectors on the satellite,
Speaker 2: and traveled all the way back down.
Speaker 1: A massive physical distance, which means a significant delay in time.
Speaker 2: Exactly and only after the photon had completed the vast
Speaker 2: majority of its journey through space did the scientists on
Speaker 2: the ground randomly choose how they were going to measure it.
Speaker 1: The decision was delayed as long as possible.
Speaker 2: The decision was made at the very last possible nanosecond
Speaker 2: and yet again, that final delayed measurement completely dictated the
Speaker 2: path the photon had already taken through space.
Speaker 1: The implications of this are so heavy they are almost suffocating.
Speaker 1: The past is not fixed. The journey you took yesterday
Speaker 1: is quite literally waiting for a future observation to lock
Speaker 1: it into place. Time is a two way street where
Speaker 1: the future and the past are constantly negotiating with each other.
Speaker 2: Matter's classical determinism, the past remains in a state of
Speaker 2: probability until a future measurement collapses.
Speaker 1: It unbelievable.
Speaker 2: Now if microscopic particles exhibit this behavior over hundreds of miles,
Speaker 2: we must ask the next logical, terrifying question. Go ahead,
Speaker 2: what happens when human beings, backed by the infinite budgets
Speaker 2: of the military industrial complex build massive macroscopic machines explicitly
Speaker 2: designed to look through these temporal probabilities.
Speaker 1: Which brings us to the most controversial sci fi sounding
Speaker 1: part of our deep dive, the alleged declassified intelligence. When
Speaker 1: I first read this section of the source material, I scoffed,
Speaker 1: it sounds like a Hollywood script.
Speaker 2: It really does sound like a movie.
Speaker 1: But after outlining the hard quantum mechanics of the delayed eraser,
Speaker 1: the many World's theory and trappdi in quantum computing. It
Speaker 1: suddenly doesn't sound like fiction at all. It sounds like
Speaker 1: the inevitable application of the physics we just discussed. Let's
Speaker 1: talk about Majestic twelve, project looking Glass, and the artifact
Speaker 1: known as the Yellow Cube.
Speaker 2: The source material provides extensive details from an individual claiming
Speaker 2: to be a former insider of Majestic.
Speaker 1: Twelve, which is what for those who don't know, it's.
Speaker 2: An umbrella designation for a highly compartmentalized, deeply secretive group
Speaker 2: within the US intelligence apparatus. This insider provided testimony regarding
Speaker 2: a suite of technologies designed not just to predict, but
Speaker 2: to interact directly with timeline probabilities.
Speaker 1: Before we get into the machine itself. There is a
Speaker 1: quote in the sources from Philip K. Dick, the legendary
Speaker 1: sci fi author of Blade Runner and Minority.
Speaker 2: Report, ah the METS Speech.
Speaker 1: In the nineteen seventies, he gave a deeply unsettling speech
Speaker 1: in France where he essentially outlined this exact technology before
Speaker 1: it supposedly existed.
Speaker 2: Yes, in nineteen seventy seven, he stood in front of
Speaker 2: a bewildered audience and stated that we are living in
Speaker 2: a computer programmed reality, and the only clue we have
Speaker 2: to it is when a variable is changed and some
Speaker 2: alteration in our reality occurred.
Speaker 1: At glitch in the matrix.
Speaker 2: He said that intense da Javu wasn't a memory of
Speaker 2: a past life, but a memory of a previous version
Speaker 2: of this present timeline that had been overwritten.
Speaker 1: Which ties perfectly back into the Mandela effect and the
Speaker 1: biological caching we talked about earlier. So if the government
Speaker 1: actually built a machine to view these over in timelines,
Speaker 1: what is the looking glass? The insider is very adamant
Speaker 1: that it is not a crystal ball that shows one fixed,
Speaker 1: inevitable future.
Speaker 2: It is fundamentally quantum in its operation. The insider describes
Speaker 2: the device using the analogy of a complex multidimensional kaleidoscope
Speaker 2: okay kaleidoscope. The hardware itself involves a barrel like structure,
Speaker 2: intense localized energy fields, and rotating rings composed of exotic materials.
Speaker 2: As the operators adjust the energy frequencies and the orientation
Speaker 2: of these rings, they are essentially shifting the focal point
Speaker 2: through different layers of quantum probability.
Speaker 1: It's like tuning an old analog radio, but instead of
Speaker 1: scanning for audio frequencies to find a station. You are
Speaker 1: scanning quantum frequencies to find a timeline.
Speaker 2: Precisely, and when they tuned in, they didn't see a
Speaker 2: single content tenuous movie of the future. The output was
Speaker 2: described as overlapping, fragmented probabilities rendered frame by.
Speaker 1: Frame, like seeing all the possibilities at once.
Speaker 2: The intelligence analysts would have to visually and mathematically break
Speaker 2: these images apart. They would measure the recurrence of specific events.
Speaker 2: If a certain geopolitical outcome, say a specific treaty or
Speaker 2: a localized conflict, appeared consistently across multiple divergent probability streams,
Speaker 2: they deduced it had a highly dense probability of collapsing
Speaker 2: into our actual reality.
Speaker 1: It's a statistical analysis of the multiverse. But here is
Speaker 1: the massive fatal flaw in the machine. The Insider described
Speaker 1: a variant of this tech called the Yellow cube, and
Speaker 1: they highlighted a human element that is deeply existentially terrifying.
Speaker 2: The observer effect.
Speaker 1: The machine is not objective.
Speaker 2: It suffers from the ultimate observer effect. The Insider used
Speaker 2: a profound piece of pop culture to explain it. The
Speaker 2: cave scene from The Empire Strikes Back.
Speaker 1: Oh I love this analogy.
Speaker 2: When Luke Skywalker about to enter the dark cave on Dagoba,
Speaker 2: he asks Ioto what is inside? Yeto replies, only what
Speaker 2: you take with you. The insider claims the looking glass
Speaker 2: technology is inherently responsive to the consciousness, the emotional state,
Speaker 2: and the predispositions of the human operators present in the room.
Speaker 1: Human emotion destabilizes the provenance of the data. You aren't
Speaker 1: just standing behind a glass window watching the future happen.
Speaker 1: By observing it, you become entangled with it.
Speaker 2: You're part of the equation.
Speaker 1: If a room full of paranoid, stressed military generals tune
Speaker 1: the machine, their inherent fear influences the probability they tune into,
Speaker 1: they will see a fearful future because they brought fear
Speaker 1: into the room.
Speaker 2: It is the macroscopic realization of quantum entanglement bridging with
Speaker 2: psychology and to ground this in empirical science, the source
Speaker 2: material points us to a landmark psychological study conducted by
Speaker 2: doctor Darryl Bam at Cornell University known as the Feeling
Speaker 2: the Future experiment.
Speaker 1: I want to spend time on this because Bem's experiment
Speaker 1: caused a massive uproar in the scientific community. It wasn't
Speaker 1: some fringe parapsychology lab. It was a highly respected researcher
Speaker 1: publishing in a major journal. How did the experiment actually work?
Speaker 2: The methodology was deceptively simple but incredibly rigorous. A human
Speaker 2: participant is seated in front of a computer screen. The
Speaker 2: computer's program to randomly select a photograph to display.
Speaker 1: Okay, simple enough.
Speaker 2: Most of the pictures were completely neutral, a chair, a
Speaker 2: landscapeable of fruit, but occasionally the computer would select a
Speaker 2: highly arousing, shocking, or violently jarring image. While this is happening,
Speaker 2: Bem is measuring the participant's physiological responses, their heart rate,
Speaker 2: pupil dilation, and galvanic skin.
Speaker 1: Response, essentially measuring microsweating.
Speaker 2: Right the body's involuntary alarm system. As expected, when the
Speaker 2: shocking image appeared, the participant's body would exhibit a massive
Speaker 2: spike in physiological arousal. But when Bem analyzed the timeline
Speaker 2: of the data, he found an impossible anomaly. The participants
Speaker 2: bond were showing that massive spike in arousal a few
Speaker 2: seconds before the picture actually appeared on the screen.
Speaker 1: Okay, a skeptic would say the computer was about to
Speaker 1: show it the program was loading, Maybe the screen flickered
Speaker 1: and their subconscious caught it.
Speaker 2: Bem anticipated that he designed the system so that the
Speaker 2: random number generator inside the computer did not even calculate
Speaker 2: which picture to show until a millisecond before it was displayed.
Speaker 1: Let me get this straight. The participant's heart rate spiked
Speaker 1: preparing for a shocking image before the computer itself had
Speaker 1: even decided it was going to show a shocking image.
Speaker 2: Yes, the random quantum event that decided the outcome hadn't
Speaker 2: occurred yet in the present, but the human nervous system
Speaker 2: was already reacting to the future outcome.
Speaker 1: The human nervous system is acting as a temporal receiver.
Speaker 1: Our bodies are unconsciously interacting with the probabilities of the
Speaker 1: future before they collapse into reality.
Speaker 2: That's exactly what the data.
Speaker 1: Suggests, which completely validates the looking glass insider's claim. If
Speaker 1: our biology is inherently entangled with the future, then placing
Speaker 1: a human being in front of a quantum machine designed
Speaker 1: to amplify those probabilities creates a catastrophic feedback loop.
Speaker 2: It creates a self fulfilling prophecy mechanism, and it introduces
Speaker 2: an unbearable psychological burden for the intelligence officers operating it.
Speaker 2: If you tune the looking glass and observe a horrific
Speaker 2: probability a devastating war, a nuclear event, your immediate biological
Speaker 2: and emotional response is terror.
Speaker 1: And your strategic response is we must employ resources to
Speaker 1: prevent this.
Speaker 2: But because of retroactive causality the physics we learn from
Speaker 2: the delayed eraser, does the very act of trying to
Speaker 2: prevent the event, driven by your fear, actually serve as
Speaker 2: the variable that causes that specific future to happen.
Speaker 1: It's the tragedy of Oedipus, but mechanized. The attempt to
Speaker 1: avoid the prophecy fulfills it.
Speaker 2: The insider explicitly states that this paradox broke the program.
Speaker 2: They realize that interacting with the probabilities change them, and worse,
Speaker 2: trying to manipulate the timeline almost all accelerated the worst
Speaker 2: possible outcomes. They realized they were not spectators, they were active,
Speaker 2: destructive participants.
Speaker 1: So if these machines are so volatile and the human
Speaker 1: operators can't be trusted not to influence the outcome, where
Speaker 1: are they now? And that more practical question, how do
Speaker 1: you even power a machine that warps local space time
Speaker 1: enough to see probability waves. You can't just plug that
Speaker 1: into the national grid.
Speaker 2: No, you definitely can't.
Speaker 1: The source material takes a fascinating pivot here, moving from
Speaker 1: quantum mechanics into hard geophysics.
Speaker 2: It introduces the critical concept of Earth's natural nodes. The
Speaker 2: Insider makes a very sharp distinction between a man made
Speaker 2: time travel device and a stargate.
Speaker 1: Okay, what's the difference.
Speaker 2: They claim that over the decades, intelligence agencies successfully built
Speaker 2: over fifty stargate access devices globally, but they emphasized that
Speaker 2: these were reverse engineered from ancient esoteric knowledge, specifically citing
Speaker 2: ancient Mesopotamian cylinder seal data.
Speaker 1: We are talking about utilizing deep antiquity knowledge to build
Speaker 1: twenty first century temporal tech. But these devices, they don't
Speaker 1: just magically create a glowing portal and a sterile underground bunker.
Speaker 2: Right, No, the physics don't work like that. The Insider
Speaker 2: explained that these man made devices are essentially just lenses
Speaker 2: or focusing rings. They cannot generate the immense gravitational or
Speaker 2: electromagnetic energy required to tear space time. Instead, they piggyback
Speaker 2: on naturally occurring Einstein rosen bridges, wormholes. Yes, natural topological
Speaker 2: defects in the fabric of space time that already exist
Speaker 2: on Earth. The machines simply act as an anchor tapping
Speaker 2: into the natural geology of astrophysics.
Speaker 1: The source mentions Frenchman Mountain in Nevada as a specific
Speaker 1: location for one of these nodes, and this completely aligns
Speaker 1: with anomalous geological data we see all over the world.
Speaker 2: It really does.
Speaker 1: Military pilots, geophysicists, and naval navigators have tracked these zones
Speaker 1: for decades. There are massive documented regions on the planet
Speaker 1: where compasses drift wildly, where radiocommunications inexplicably drop out, and
Speaker 1: where the Earth's localized magnetic field behaves within in tense,
Speaker 1: unpredictable erraticism.
Speaker 2: Mainstream geology usually explains these away as dense underground iron deposits,
Speaker 2: tectonic friction or localized magnetic interference, which.
Speaker 1: Is perfectly logical. But if we synthesize that geological reality
Speaker 1: with the quantum physics we've discussed, it suggests a much
Speaker 1: grander architecture. What if the Earth itself naturally generates massive
Speaker 1: electromagnetic nodes that warp space time.
Speaker 2: If true, it completely recontextualizes human history exactly.
Speaker 1: I have to speculate here because this changes how I
Speaker 1: view antiquity. If these nodes are natural phenomena that have
Speaker 1: existed for millions of years, emitting strange magnetic frequencies and
Speaker 1: perhaps visual light anomalies, ancient civilizations absolutely would have noticed them.
Speaker 2: They would have been drawn to them.
Speaker 1: Look at Stonehenge, the Great Pyramid of Giza, the monolithic
Speaker 1: structures of Pumapunku. They're all built on these alleged energetic
Speaker 1: layer lines. Could these massive ancient monuments simply be architectural markers,
Speaker 1: a way for ancient cultures to say, Hey, this exact
Speaker 1: spot is an electromagnetic dead zone where the veil of
Speaker 1: time and space is unusually.
Speaker 2: Thin, a giant X on a temporal map.
Speaker 1: We look at them as primitive religious temples, but they
Speaker 1: might be highly accurate geological maps of spacetime nodes.
Speaker 2: It is profound theory, But the Insider also provided a
Speaker 2: very specific, highly curious timeline for the modern use of
Speaker 2: these nodes. According to the data, these access devices were
Speaker 2: not kept operational.
Speaker 1: They were shut down.
Speaker 2: Around the years twenty sixteen and twenty seventeen, The Insider
Speaker 2: claims a massive global directive was issued to decommission the ecology.
Speaker 2: The looking glass devices and the stargate access rings were dismantled, mothballed,
Speaker 2: and their core components were deliberately.
Speaker 1: Separated, scattered basically yes.
Speaker 2: And distributed among the EU, the UN, and NATO to
Speaker 2: ensure no single nation could rebuild one.
Speaker 1: But why if you possess the ultimate strategic advantage, a
Speaker 1: machine that lets you view geopolitical probabilities and access temporal nodes,
Speaker 1: why on Earth whild you shut it all down? In
Speaker 1: twenty seventeen.
Speaker 2: The Insider attributes the shutdown to a macrocosmic event they
Speaker 2: referred to as the Great Cycle. They claim that human
Speaker 2: history does not move in a straight line, but in massive,
Speaker 2: repeating cycles spanning roughly forty five thousand to fifty thousand years.
Speaker 1: So we were hitting the end of a cycle.
Speaker 2: According to their intelligence, the Earth and our entire solar system,
Speaker 2: we're entering a very specific, highly energetic zone in the
Speaker 2: galactic plane.
Speaker 1: A transitional phase in the galaxy itself.
Speaker 2: Yes, the implication is that as the Earth entered this
Speaker 2: new energetic density in the galaxy, the natural electromagnetic nodes
Speaker 2: became wildly unstable, too unpredictable. The probabilities viewed through the
Speaker 2: looking glass became too chaotic, too volatile to safely observe
Speaker 2: or interact with the people of Wisdom, as the Insider called.
Speaker 2: The architects of the shutdown realized that interacting with the
Speaker 2: timelines during this galactic transition could cause catastrophic, uncontrollable reality cascades.
Speaker 1: The ultimate reallyifation that we are playing with fire in
Speaker 1: a room filled with gasoline. So they pulled a plug.
Speaker 1: Let's step back and look at the tapestry we have
Speaker 1: woven today. Because it is staggering.
Speaker 2: It's a lot to process, it really is.
Speaker 1: We started by examining digital breadcrumbs, bizarre temporal anomalies, specific names,
Speaker 1: and atomic structures predicting the future, utilizing the chaotic camouflage
Speaker 1: of the dead Internet to pass messages back in time.
Speaker 1: We looked at the Mendel effect and tartaria not as
Speaker 1: bad memory, but as the biological caching of overwritten timelines.
Speaker 2: The symptoms of the edits exactly.
Speaker 1: We dug into the hard physics of TRAPPEDI on quantum
Speaker 1: computing and the delayed choice eraser proving mathematically and physically
Speaker 1: that the past is not locked until it is observed.
Speaker 1: And finally, we explored the terrifying alleged application of this
Speaker 1: physics by intelligence agencies mapping out our probable futures utilizing
Speaker 1: the natural magnetic nodes of the Earth.
Speaker 2: When you take all of this data in totality, regardless
Speaker 2: of whether you accept every single source document as literal,
Speaker 2: objective truth or whether you view it as a profound
Speaker 2: emerging modern mythology, it points to a massive, undeniable shift
Speaker 2: in collective human consciousness.
Speaker 1: We're waking up to something.
Speaker 2: We are shedding the archaic belief that the future is
Speaker 2: just a rigid destination that happens to us. We are realizing,
Speaker 2: through quantum physics and technology that consciousness, observation, and biology
Speaker 2: are actively shaping the future. The universe is not a
Speaker 2: static stage. It is a participatory medium.
Speaker 1: We are co authors of reality. It's an incredibly empowering thought,
Speaker 1: but it carries a terrifying amount of responsibility, and that
Speaker 1: brings me to a final thought. A specific scenario I
Speaker 1: want to leave right at your doorstep, listener.
Speaker 2: This is a heavy one.
Speaker 1: I want you to truly imagine this imagine you are
Speaker 1: seated in the underground facility. You are placed in front
Speaker 1: of the looking glass. The machine powers up, drawing energy
Speaker 1: from a natural node deep in the earth, and it
Speaker 1: shows you a devastating, terrifying probability of your own personal future.
Speaker 1: But you also possess the quantum nledge we discussed today.
Speaker 2: You know the rules of the game.
Speaker 1: You know that your own terror, your own panic in
Speaker 1: observing that horrific image, might be the exact emotional frequency
Speaker 1: that collapses the wave function and causes that future to
Speaker 1: become reality. Could you control your mind enough to look away?
Speaker 1: Could you master your own consciousness to starve that negative
Speaker 1: probability of the energy it needs to manifest?
Speaker 2: It is the ultimate test of free will in a
Speaker 2: quantum universe.
Speaker 1: What is your stand on this? Do you believe our
Speaker 1: past is firmly locked in concrete behind us? Or are
Speaker 1: we constantly shifting, editing, and rewriting our timelines based on
Speaker 1: the fears and hopes we choose to observe today.
Speaker 2: I'd love to hear the answers to that.
Speaker 1: I genuinely want to know what you think. Please leave
Speaker 1: a comment with your answer to that question and your
Speaker 1: thoughts on today's deep dive into the sources. We read
Speaker 1: them all, and this is a conversation that desperately needs
Speaker 1: multiple perspectives to decode. We have barely scratched the surface
Speaker 1: of the anomalies out there, but I promise you reality
Speaker 1: is far stranger, far more malleable, and far more thrilling
Speaker 1: than we ever gave it credit for. We will be
Speaker 1: back to pull on the next thread very soon. Until then,
Speaker 1: keep questioning what you remember.