All right, everybody, I want to thank you all for showing up today. We've got a good turnout, actually. And we are starting today talking about a really interesting thing dealing with AI wars. And AI wars are really a big thing, but you don't hear anything about it. Right now, the current narrative is simply, do we have good AI, you know, how competent are the AIs, as if everything is oriented towards just making consumers happy with sort of innovative ways to do something other than simply Google searching. And so, but it's really much more complicated than that. Everywhere, everywhere, you see evidence that the powers that be, which is the government, major corporates, interests, they have a huge interest in controlling the narrative. They have a huge interest in making it so that the masses follow a certain line. And we're probably going to see, hopefully, some major disclosures happening soon, particularly we're waiting to see if the government comes clean with regard to the JFK assassination. We're going to see if that's first, if they're going to be doing that. Otherwise, pressure is going to continue to build. They'll never hear the end of it unless they actually come clean with that. But the basic idea is that there's always a government narrative. For example, with the drones, sometimes the UAPs and the drone stuff is really clumsy, like when an official government person told a congressman to come out and make the major announcement when the drones were first coming out, that it was an Iranian, I can't say it without laughing, Iranian mothership using Chinese tech off the coast of New Jersey. It was the most amazing thing. I can hardly believe they would say that. Anyway, they pulled that within two hours, obviously trying to control the narrative. And then they came out a little while later, some days later with a new idea saying it was a Chinese mothership. And that sort of got some traction on the Sean Ryan podcast, and people were talking about it. And then it came out. They told Donald Trump, and he actually reported that it was actually FAA experimental aircraft. That was really stupid, too, because they're appearing worldwide all over the place, and the FAA has no jurisdiction all over the world, and those drones are showing up everywhere. But they wanted mostly to give some statement and then to get it off the front pages. So you can see that there's a real clear effort, trial and error sometimes, but there's a real clear effort to steer the narrative in a certain direction. So if it happens with regard to drones in which they were sort of caught off guard, it would happen with regard to anything, 9-11, JFK assassination, Martin Luther King assassination, the whole nine yards. Now, you have to then say, well, how do they control the narrative? Some things are really obvious, like Wikipedia, for example. That's an open source public thing, so the intelligence services are obviously going to use that. They're going to exploit that as best they can. And since anybody can sign up and make comments, they're going to make sure that intelligence operatives are in there making comments to control the narrative, because Wikipedia has become the encyclopedia of choice across the entire planet just about. So obviously, that's sort of the casualty of this attempt to control the narrative. But now you're having AIs, which is a replacement from the old strategy of doing things, which was just to ask Google, Google search stuff. So now people are going to AIs and asking questions. So AIs are obviously very big in the agenda with regarding controlling the narrative. So unless you control the AIs, you don't control the narrative, because people are going and asking language-friendly robots what the issues are, what's going on. Now, they're not all the same. These large language models, or LLMs, or otherwise known as AIs that you see on the internet, they're not all the same. There can be some revolutionary ones in a good way, but I just want to go over a couple examples here of AIs that have what I consider, this is again just my own opinion, a clear control narrative leading people back into the mainstream narrative that's supported by the government. I'm going to be talking today about Grok, which is done by formerly Twitter, now X, and Gemini, which is done by Google. So I'm going to be going through a few of those issues that I've asked both Grok and Gemini, and showing you their responses, and then giving you my opinions about those responses so you can get an idea of how there's a control narrative in play. So I can't use the teleprompter for this, because it's too much to go on to. So let's actually start with Gemini. Now this is the Google thing. This is what's essentially going to be replacing Google search type of stuff. So I asked a bunch of questions, and let me go through some of the questions. The first one I said was, what is your best estimate of the accuracy of the government's report that John F. Kennedy was killed by Lee Harvey Oswald and no one else? All right, so I wanted to see what Gemini would say with regard to that. So we know the government's story on that, so we wanted to sort of follow that trail and see if we can see any type of pattern associated with it. Well, this is what Gemini told me. The Warren Commission concluded that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone in the assassination of President Kennedy. While this conclusion has been widely accepted, some people believe that there was a conspiracy. The evidence for a single gunman theory is strong. Oswald's rifle was found at the scene of the crime, and his fingerprints were on the rifle. Oswald also was seen fleeing from the scene of the crime. In addition, Oswald had a motive for killing Kennedy. He was a communist sympathizer who hated Kennedy's policies. However, there are some people who believe that there was a conspiracy to kill Kennedy. They point to the fact that there were multiple shots fired and that Oswald was not a very good shot. They also point to the fact that Oswald was killed by Jack Ruby before he could be questioned by the police. Ultimately, it is up to each individual to decide whether they believe that Oswald acted alone or that there was a conspiracy. Okay, so I have some notes here on that. So let me actually go through these ideas here. So Gemini is not being allowed to challenge the official narrative. So every answer that you see, and we're going to go through a whole bunch of different types of questions, you're going to see it follows a very structured formula. First, the official government position is stated first. The government position comes first in the answer. And then it acknowledges a controversy but frames it as some people believe rather than giving it credibility. And then it concludes that the official government explanation remains the most reliable. So the pattern is very consistent upon all the questions we're going to see. I'm going to be talking about JFK but also 9-11, extraterrestrials, UAPs. So with regard to all of these things, that same pattern, it really sort of gives a statistical I don't like to say proof with statistics, but it's very strong statistical evidence that the odds of AI always aligning with the government position without deliberate censorship is practically zero. So that was that question with regards to the JFK thing. Now let me go to Grok. Grok is the ex or formerly Twitter version of that and I ask the exact same question. What is your best estimate of the accuracy of the government's report that John F. Kennedy was killed by Lee Harvey Oswald? To which Grok said, estimating the accuracy of the official government report, specifically the Warren Commission's conclusion that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone in assassinating John F. Kennedy is tricky because it's a matter of weighing evidence, interpretations and decades of debate. Now the Warren Commission established in 1963 concluded that in its 1964 report that Oswald was the lone gunman based on ballistic evidence, witness testimony and Oswald's own background. They found no credible evidence of a conspiracy involving others, whether it be CIA, mafia or anyone else. That said, the report's accuracy has been questioned ever since. Critics point to inconsistencies like the magic bullet theory where a single bullet supposedly caused multiple wounds in both Kennedy and Governor Connolly, which some argue defies physics. Others highlight gaps such as ignored witnesses claiming shots came from the grassy knoll, not just a Texas schoolbook depository, or suspicions of Oswald's murder by Jack Ruby before he could fully testify. The declassified documents since then, like those of the 1992 assassination records review board, have fueled speculation by revealing CIA surveillance of Oswald and possible withheld information though nothing conclusive disproves the lone gunman theory. Then it has a small paragraph here on public trust survey stuff and things like that. Now then Grock says, so my best estimate, the Warren Commission's conclusions could be accurate. Oswald had means, motive and opportunity, and the core physical evidence, the rifle, the bullet trajectories, holds up under scrutiny. It's a full story, I peg it at about 60 to 70 percent confidence that the government story is a true story. Too many loose ends like Oswald's murky ties to intelligence circles or the rushed investigation leave room for doubt. Without definitive new evidence, it's a judgment call, and the truth might be murkier than any report can pin down. What do you think about it? Okay, so that's Grock. Now here's some thoughts about Grock to think about. Grock uses a more conversational and open tone, but it still reinforces the official narrative. So unlike Gemini, Gemini tends to be rigid, formal, and highly structured. Grock on the other hand tends to use a little bit more casual language, some rhetorical flourishes. It acknowledges the skepticism more openly, and it gives the illusion of critical thinking. But it's an illusion. It presents a little bit more uncertainty. Sometimes assigning percentages to confidence levels. And at first glance it looks, sounds a little bit more sort of neutral. But it ultimately aligns itself with the government's position. Now in terms of the JFK thing, it admits some skepticism regarding the Warren Commission. It discusses loose ends like Oswald's intelligence ties, but it assigns 60 to 70 percent confidence in the lone gunman theory, and the lone gunman theory. So that leaves only a little bit of room for doubt. So with Gemini, there was no casting of doubt at all on the government reports. Grock embraces some of the doubt, but still concludes that Oswald acted alone. And this lets it appeal to both skeptics and the mainstream thinkers without taking a definitive stance against authority. This in my view is controlled opposition at work. It allows the questioning, but it prevents the full rejection of the government story. Now one of the things you really sort of need to remember is the Kennedy assassination thing is crazy. First of all they had this Pruder film which clearly showed Kennedy being shot from different directions. I mean his brain flew out over the back of the car, so how could it be that a gun was shooting from the back towards him and then the brain shooting in the opposite direction? Secondly, the rifle that they said Lee Harvey Oswald used to shoot it, the Warren Commission's own official government forensic experts said that the rifle was broken. It had a sighting, the sights on it were not properly, they were not right. And the rifle was rusty. And the government's own forensic investigators, these are people who are gun experts, they tried to fix the sights using shims and it was so badly broken they couldn't fix it. This is inside the Warren Report. And what do you know about people who have guns? People who are guns, whoever shot Kennedy was a sharpshooter for sure. From a long distance away, shot, hit. What do you know about people who have guns like that? They really take care of their guns. They clean the guns, they oil the guns, they polish the guns, they put the guns up on the mantelpiece. I mean, they don't use, and if you're going to shoot a president of the United States, you're not going to use a rusty gun with sights that are broken and can't even be fixed by the government's own forensic people. That's inside the Warren Report. So there's tremendous suggestions that the Warren Report is just nuts, that there's the one gunman theory is just crazy. And hopefully, we're going to see, hopefully in some near future date, more stuff come out on the JFK assassination that will tie up the loose ends and tell people who actually did shoot John F. Kennedy. But the point is that all of that other evidence is completely dismissed and not acknowledged. And again, the same type of process is done. You start with the official narrative and you start with that and you acknowledge some controversy and then you bleed away from it and then you end up reinforcing the official government position. Okay. Now let's switch actually topics and we've done the JFK thing. So let's actually look at the UAP thing. So I asked Gemini, we're going to go back to Gemini now. And if you listen very closely to this, you'll see the exact same pattern happening across Gemini and Grok. I asked Gemini, what is your best conclusion regarding whether or not extraterrestrial life is visiting Earth in UAPs? Okay. And so let's see what Gemini says. And then let's take a look at that and you'll see the exact same pattern which will tell you that this whole thing is extremely structured. UAPs, this is Gemini, okay, this is Google's Gemini, UAPs or unidentified aerial phenomena are a hot topic right now with many people wondering if they could be evidence of extraterrestrial life. While it's an exciting thought, there is no definitive answer yet. Here's what we know. UAPs are real. There have been numerous credible sightings by trained observers and so on. But explanations are lacking. While some UAPs might be explained as advanced technology, human technology, natural phenomenon or even even misidentified objects, significant numbers remain unexplained. And then it says the extraterrestrial hypothesis, well, it's certainly possible that some UAPs are evidence of alien visitation. However, this is just one hypothesis among many. So Gemini concludes, while the possibility of extraterrestrial life visiting Earth is intriguing, it's important to approach the topic with a healthy dose of skepticism. More research and data are needed to draw any firm conclusions. In the meantime, it's important to keep an open mind and continue to explore the mysteries of the universe. What do you think? So that's what Gemini said. So I have some notes here on what my thoughts are about what Gemini said with regard to that one. The first thing that Gemini does is it confirms that the UAPs do exist, but it refuses to commit to any conclusion. It mentions the E.T. hypothesis, but just minimizes it by calling it just one of many without any type of, without any serious consideration at all. And it frames E.T. contact as speculative rather than a legitimate investigative possibility. This is a classic disinformation tactic. Here's a strategy for disinformation. First you keep the people engaged, but you steer them away from a definitive conclusion. You encourage endless more research, more research, while preventing any real answers. And this is how AI is being used to stall disclosure, not to advance it. Okay, now let's go to Grok. What does Grok think about this? Now this is the exact same question. I copied and pasted it into Grok. What is your best conclusion regarding whether or not extraterrestrial life is visiting Earth in UAPs? So let's see what Grok says about this. By the way, at the very end of this, after I go through these questions, we're going to talk about what Grok thinks about me and Farsight. And also what Gemini thinks about me and Farsight. And that's when you're going to really see it really clearly come out. Okay, this is what Grok is saying about the UAPs and extraterrestrial life. Figuring out whether extraterrestrial life is visiting Earth is an unidentified aerial phenomena, UAPs, is a fascinating puzzle. But it's one where we're still piecing together the edges. Let's break it down with what we've got. On one hand, there's no smoking gun, nothing like a verifiable alien craft or a clear signal saying, hey, we're from the Zeta Reticuli. The U.S. government's 2021 UAP report from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence didn't conclude extraterrestrials were behind the 144 incidents it studied. Most were unexplained, sure, but they leaned towards mundane possibilities, drones, atmospheric effects, or classified tech, ours or somebody else's. And the Pentagon's All Domain Anomaly Research Office, AARO, as of early 2025, keeps saying the same, no evidence of VTs, just a lot of head-scratching sightings. But on the other hand, there's some weight also on the other side, pilots, credible ones, Navy commanders and things like that, they have had these reports. And there's a huge volume of reports on the 1947 Roswell buzz and so on like that. So the extraterrestrial hypothesis isn't crazy, life's probably out there, Drake's equations suggest billions of potentially habitable planets in our galaxy alone, and exoplanet discoveries keep piling up. Could they visit? Maybe. Interstellar travels a stretch with our tech, but who's to say an advanced civilization hasn't cracked it? Still, the jump from possible to they're here needs hard evidence, metals with earthly isotopes, say, or a signal we can't fake. My best conclusion, I'd say 80 to 90% chance these UAPs aren't extraterrestrial. Most advanced human tech, natural phenomenon or misidentification, that's what he thinks. The remaining 10 to 20%, well, let's just leave the door open. The universe is big and we've only got a tiny peephole. So no definitive yes, but I wouldn't bet my life savings on no either. What's your thoughts? It goes like that. All right. So again, you see the same type of pattern. So with Grok, we get the following. First, Grok acknowledges that the UAPs defy physics and that pilots have witnessed inexplicable movements. And it recognizes the volume of UAP reports, but frames it as unexplained, not necessarily extraterrestrial. And it signs only a 10 to 20% chance that the UAPs could be alien, calling them likely advanced human technology instead. So this is the clear suppression tactic. Here it is. First, make the user feel like the question is valid. Second, acknowledge some of the unexplained elements. But ultimately, last, reinforce skepticism towards the extraterrestrial explanation. This maintains the illusion of fairness while ensuring that the ET hypothesis is dismissed without outright denial. So that's sort of the Grok thing on that. And again, that follows the exact same type of pattern that we saw before that included the exact same Gemini pattern as well. And with regard to the pattern that we were seeing before, it was always the same thing. First state the governmental position, acknowledge controversy, frame things as some people believe, but rather than giving it any type of credibility. And then conclude that the official explanation remains the most reliable. And it's a consistent pattern for all these things. All right. Let's switch over. And again, we're going to go through a couple more things that are interesting topics. And you'll see this pattern reinforced and reinforced. And this is going to be evidence from my opinion that the AIs are, some of the AIs, are being actively utilized to prevent disclosure for disinformation type of stuff. Now let's go to the World Trade Center 9-11 attacks, okay? Now Building 7 was right next to the Twin Towers in the World Trade Center in New York during the 9-11 attacks. Building 7 was the most secure building in New York. It was the hub of the Command Control Center for emergencies inside New York. And it collapsed. It was never hit by an airplane, and it collapsed. It pancaked simultaneously on all sides, straight down. And it looked exactly like a controlled demolition. So this is the question that I asked both Gemini and Grok, okay? So let's actually start with Gemini, okay? And sorry, I've got a lot of notes here, and I'm going back and forth on all the notes to sort of make sure I cover everything. The question, the exact same question to Gemini and Grok, this is Gemini's question. What brought down Building 7 at the World Trade Center during the 9-11 attacks? Here's what Gemini says. The collapse of 7 World Trade Center, or World Trade Center 7, is a complex issue that has been the subject of much debate and controversy. Here's a breakdown of the official explanation and some alternative theories. Remember, always starting with the official. The official explanation is the NIST report. The National Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST, concluded an extensive investigation and concluded, conducted an extensive investigation and concluded that the collapse of the World Trade Center 7 was primarily caused by uncontrolled fires. Fire-induced structural failure. The fires, fueled by office materials like furniture, burned for hours and weakened the building's internal steel structure. This led to the failure of a critical column which initiated the progressive collapse of the entire building. Okay, here's some of the, then it goes into alternative theories. Controlled demolition. Some people believe that the World Trade Center 7 was brought down by controlled demolition using explosives. They point to the building's rapid and symmetrical collapse as evidence. And other theories suggest that the collapse was caused by a combination of factors, including structural damage from the collapse of the Twin Towers, explosions and design flaws. Key points to consider. The NIST findings report is the most comprehensive and widely accepted explanation for the collapse of the World Trade Center 7. Lack of evidence. There is no credible evidence to support the controlled demolition theory or other alternative explanations. Ongoing debate. Despite the NIST report, the collapse of the World Trade Center 7 remains a controversial topic and some people continue to believe that there was a conspiracy. Conclusion. The official explanation of the collapse of the World Trade Center 7 is that it was caused by uncontrolled fires that led to structural failure. While alternative theories exist, they lack credible evidence and are not widely accepted by the scientific community. Okay, so you're starting to see the same pattern, right? All right, so now let's go over to Grok. Grok was asked the exact same question, word for word, with regard to the collapse of Building 7. And you'll see the exact same pattern, okay? What brought down the Building 7 at the World Trade Center during the 9-11 attacks? The collapse of World Trade Center 7, WTC 7, on September 11, 2001, has been a lightning rod for debate. But the official explanation comes from the National Institute of Standards and Technology NIST, which spent years investigating. Their final report, released in 2008, concludes that the World Trade Center 7 fell due to a chain reaction sparked by fires ignited by debris from the North Tower's collapse earlier that day. Here's the breakdown. When the North Tower, WTC 1, came down at 1028, it hurled steel girders and burning wreckage across the street, striking WTC 7, a 47-story office building around 350 feet away. This debris smashed windows, gouged the south face, and started fires on multiple floors. Unlike the Twin Towers, WTC 7 wasn't hit by a plane, so no jet fuel was involved. Just office contents like paper, furniture, carpets, and feeding the flames. Now, the official narrative, I should add, is that jet fuel did spill onto it. But now they're saying it didn't spill onto it. Okay. Firefighters overwhelmed by the broader disaster, again, this is a steel grok, firefighters overwhelmed by the broader disaster couldn't tackle it, and the building sprinkler system failed due to water main breaks from the earlier collapses. NIST says the fires burned for seven hours, heating steel beams in columns. A key failure happened on the 13th floor, where a girder in a critical column expanded from the heat, slipped off the seat, and triggered a progressive collapse. This column supported a huge chunk of the building's interior, and once it buckled, floors pancaked downward, pulling the exterior down symmetrically at nearly freefall speed for 2.25 seconds of its 6.5 second collapse. They modeled this with detailed simulations factoring in the building's unique design, long spanned floors over the Con Edison's substation, and ruled out explosives finding no blast sounds or chemical signatures like thermite in the wreckage. Skeptics, though, aren't convinced. Many people point to groups like architects and engineers for 9-11, Truth argued that it looked too much like a controlled demolition with its straight down, drop, and rapid onset. They question why NIST didn't test for explosives more thoroughly and highlight eyewitness reports of explosions, which NIST attributes to other causes like gas lines, debris impacts. Conspiracy theories often pin it on pre-planted charges tied to motives like destroying sensitive files, the building housed CIA and Secret Service offices, yet no hard proof, say, detonator remnants or insider testimony has surfaced to back that up. My take, so this is my take, which is Grock's take of this, he says, the NIST explanation holds water based on physics and the day's chaos. Fires can bring down steel structures, as seen in other cases, like the Plasco building in Tehran, 2017, but the symmetry and speed do nag at intuition. Like NIST's refusal to release all of its modeling data fuels doubt. I'd say 85 to 90 percent likely that the fire did it. But that 10 to 15 percent wiggle room lingers because of what we can't fully see. What's your take on it, he says? Okay, now Grock has a, again, Grock dismisses the alternative theories as well, obviously, but it's more subtle, it's more clever. So with Grock, the, here's some of my notes regarding each one of these things, Grock acknowledges that the UAPs defy, oh I'm sorry, not UAPs, the World Trade Center, let me get to the right page on my notes. Grock says he's open to debate, but he still reinforces the official story, okay. So Grock acknowledges skepticism about the World Trade Center 7 collapse, mentions that it looks like, it looks like a controlled demolition, and it recognizes that NIST has not released all of its modeling data. It assigns an 80 to 95 percent confidence to the fire induced collapse theory, believes 10 to 15 percent room for doubt. So this is much more nuanced than what Gemini said, which simply dismissed the alternative theories outright. However, Grock still demands, it still defends the official explanation. It frames demolition theories based on intuition rather than evidence. It downplays the thousands, literally thousands of architects and engineers who challenge the NIST's findings by pointing out that they are, that they are a minority of professionals. There's a lot of architects and engineers in the world. So okay, not every single one of them signed the petition, but you had like 3,000 of them signed the petition saying this was a controlled demolition. Now what Grock is basically saying now is that because the rest of the architects and engineers in the world didn't also sign that position, Grock's making it sound like they didn't believe it. It's making it sound like these people signed the petition, that must mean if there's a hundred thousand architects and engineers and 3,000 people signed this petition, then 97,000 architects and engineers don't believe it. You can't say that. It's like going to a YouTube video and you look at the likes. Now they could have maybe a hundred thousand people who look at the video, but it can have maybe 10,000 likes. Now does that mean out of the hundred thousand people that looked at the video, 90,000 didn't like the video? That's what Grock is saying. So the fact that they didn't say anything about it doesn't say anything. What they did say that there was 3,000, there's approximately 3,000 architects and engineers that said that building was brought down by controlled demolition and it was not brought down by office furniture fires. And so it brings up also, Grock also brings up the Plasko building fire in Tehran in 2017 as a precedent for sort of fire-induced collapse. But the Plasko building collapse was totally different. It wasn't anything like the World Trade Center 7 building. And in the history of modern architecture, never, ever, for any modern building, has an office furniture fire collapse the building. And that was one of the most secure buildings in all of New York. That was where the command and control center was for that. So there's problems. So what we have with Grock is what I like to call controlled opposition. It allows the discussion, but it prevents the conversation from reaching an anti-government conclusion. It reassures the skeptics that their concerns are valid, but it does it without actually supporting those concerns. And it shifts the burden of proof onto alternative theories, not the government's official story. It says if you're going to say it's controlled demolition, prove it. But it's not saying if you're saying office furniture fire brought it down, prove it. So it's saying with the alternative theories, it says prove it. We don't believe it. But the government's theory, it's not challenging at all. It's not asking for the government to prove it. So this is a more sophisticated approach than what Gemini does. It has the same basic structure, but it's more sophisticated. So Grock is more effective as a psychological control mechanism than Gemini in regard to this particular issue. Okay? Now, the end is coming where I'm going to be talking about how Gemini and Grock talk about me. Okay, but now let's switch over to, and you'll see the same exact pattern happening. And I had to cover a whole bunch of issues so that you could see how this is highly structured wartime activity. These are PSYOPs, and this is, in my opinion, these are PSYOPs. And this is, you know, you have to see it in a variety of different cases in order to understand how it actually works. Now here's the next question I asked Gemini. Are humans alone in the universe? Okay, now, are humans alone in the universe? And again, I asked the exact same question for Grock. The question of, this is what Gemini said, the question of whether humans are alone in the universe is one of the most profound and enduring questions in science and philosophy. While we don't have a definitive answer yet, here's what we know. And this is what Grock says, I'm sorry, this is what Gemini says, Gemini, Gemini. Arguments for life beyond earth, vastness of the universe. The universe is incredibly vast, containing billions of galaxies, each with billions of stars and planets. And it seems statistically improbable that earth is the only planet harboring life. Okay, then the issue of habitable planets. Scientists have discovered numerous exoplanets, which are planets outside of our solar system, in the habitable zone of their stars, where conditions might be suitable for liquid water, a crucial ingredient for life as we know it. Now the building blocks of life. The basic building blocks of life, such as amino acids, have been found in meteorites and even interstellar clouds suggesting the chemistry of life might be common throughout the universe. So let's go through, then it goes through the arguments against life that's beyond earth. The first is the so-called Fermi Paradox, F-E-R-M-I. This paradox points to the apparent contradiction between the high probability of extraterrestrial life and the lack of evidence for it. If life is common, why haven't we detected any signals or encountered any alien civilizations? Okay, then the next point, the complexity of life. The origin of life on earth is still a mystery. It's possible that the conditions that led to life on earth were extremely rare or even unique. And now the great filter. This hypothetical barrier suggests that there might be a stage in the evolution of life where it's very difficult to progress to intelligence or technological civilization. Perhaps most life forms get stuck at this stage. Then Gemini gives its conclusion. While there's no conclusive evidence of extraterrestrial life, the vastness of the universe and the discovery of exoplanets suggests that it's a distinct possibility. However, the Fermi Paradox and the complexity of life reminds us that we shouldn't take it for granted. Ultimately, the question of whether we are alone in the universe remains open. It's a question that continues to drive scientific research, and maybe one day we'll have a definitive answer. I asked it specifically, this is Gemini, what specific thoughts it had about the drones that are flying all over the place. What evidence exists that the so-called drones that have been flying about are being controlled by extraterrestrials? And then this is what Gemini said. There is no credible evidence to support the claim that drones are being controlled by extraterrestrials. Here's why. First, there's a lack of evidence. There's no scientific evidence such as physical artifacts or confirmed sightings of alien beings to support the existence of extraterrestrial life, let alone their involvement with the drones. Alternative explanations. The vast majority of drone sightings can be explained by conventional means, such as commercial drones, military aircraft, or even misidentified objects. Conspiracy theories. The idea of extraterrestrial control of drones often falls into the realm of conspiracy theories, which lack credible evidence and are based on speculation and conjecture. It's important to be critical of extraordinary claims and to rely on evidence-based reasoning. While the possibility of extraterrestrial life is intriguing, it's crucial to distinguish it between speculation and scientific fact. In conclusion, there is no reason to believe that drones are being controlled by extraterrestrials. The available evidence points to more mundane explanations for drone sightings. All right, here's Grok now. Oh, by the way, I did find the thing about Grok and Are We Alone in the Universe? I have a lot of notes here. Okay, so let me go back to that after I do the thing about the extraterrestrials. So this is Grok with regard to the drones and extraterrestrials. What evidence exists that the so-called drones that have been seen flying about are controlled by extraterrestrials? So this is what Grok says. There's no hard verifiable evidence that the drones spotted flying around, like the recent flap over New Jersey and other U.S. states, are controlled by extraterrestrials. Let's sit through what's out there and see what holds up. First, the buzz started in November 2024. Actually, it started just a few days after we announced from our ET board meeting that they were going to start. The buzz started in November 2024 with sightings of large, loud objects. Some described as big as small cars over places like Morris County, New Jersey, and spread to Ohio, New York, and beyond. Videos and eyewitness accounts flooded social media. And it just basically describes all of those things and, you know, it basically just goes on describing the stuff that you all saw on the media. And then it says, on the flip side, the Pentagon's All Domain Anomaly Resolution Office, AARO, has been blunt. No verifiable signs of extraterrestrial tech or beings in any UAP cases, including these drones, as of the latest updates in 2024. They've chalked up similar past sightings, like the 2004 Tic Tac, to unexplained anomalies, not ET. Experts like Mick West, a known skeptic, have shown how many drone videos match flight paths of commercial planes on tools like Flight Radar 24, suggesting human error over alien pilots. Even the weird stuff, say reports of car clocks resetting their drones, gets mundane explanations like GPS interference from terrestrial sources, not alien signals. Conspiracy theories on platforms like X pushed the ET narrative hard. Some posts claim that these NIH, non-human intelligence, drones, dodging our own weapons, or tie them to odd theories like Project Blue Beam, are supposed fake alien invasion plot. But it's all talk, no proof. No one's produced a shred of physical evidence, think exotic alloys, non-human technology signatures, or even a clear video that cannot be debunked. Okay, the government's not helping by being vague, which feeds distress, but their silence doesn't equal evidence of the little green men. Bottom line, the extraterrestrial control idea rests on weird behavior and gaps in official stories, not solid facts. Maybe 10 to 20% of these cases defy easy explanation, but jumping to aliens skips over more likely culprits, secret human tech, hobbyists, and natural mix-ups. Without a crashed craft or a signal we can't fake, it's a hypothesis hanging on vibes, not evidence. What do you make of the gaps? Okay, so that's what Grok said. Now let me get my notes on Grok. Okay, Grok acknowledges that again they defy physics, makes the user again feel like the question is valid, but absolutely states that there's, you know, completely says that it really comes down really hard on the government narrative, which is there's absolutely no evidence whatsoever that anything is real or that there's no proof whatsoever about the extraterrestrial sort of content. The other thing I want to say about the Grok argument is that the Grok argument ignores a whole bunch of stuff. It's selective in what it actually reports about. For example, these UAPs, or Joggle Drones, were all over the world in huge numbers, not just the East Coast, and they were anomalous in all types of ways. They often didn't have radar signatures. They had no, none of them had heat signatures. And they, none of them had, according to what's required by law, none of them had transponders. Anything larger than those early small DJI drones have to have transponders on them, and none of them had transponders. And when they were approached by helicopters or anything like that, they fly off in different directions, and some of them were doing crazy maneuvers. In addition, it doesn't address the whole issue of these things flying over restricted airspace, over Washington, D.C., over military bases. None of that is discussed here at all. And the whole idea, the official government narrative, of course, ended up being that these are official authorized FAA experimental aircraft. That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. So, you know, the, it's always the same exact pattern. You start out with the government narrative, acknowledge the controversies and alternative explanation, but then come back to the governmental narrative as being the, that's the only one that's real. Okay, and let me, let me switch gears here and go back to the Grok explanation for what's, whether humans are alone in the universe. Okay, this is the one I couldn't find earlier, but we're going back to that, okay, are humans alone in the universe? Whether humans are alone in the universe is one of the questions that's equal part science probability and gut feeling, because we don't have a definitive answer yet. Let's shift to what we've got. The universe is mind bogglingly huge, about 93 billion light years across in the observable part alone with maybe two trillion galaxies, each packing billions of stars. Notice the same parallel type of structure was Gemini. The Kepler mission on the and other exoplanet hunts have shown that it's planet that has shown us that planets are common with estimates suggesting there could be 100 billion to 200 billion in our Milky Way alone. A decent chunk say 10 to 20 percent might sit in the habitable zone where liquid water could exist. A key ingredient for life as we know it. Plug that into the Drake equation, which expresses the odds of communicative alien life and even conservative numbers split out thousands of potential civilizations in our galaxy. Optimists say millions. Earth's own story backs up the possibility. Life here kicked off pretty fast. Within a billion years of the planet cooling down and went into single cells to us in about 4 billion years, if that's typical and if the chemistry of life, carbon, amino acids is universal, stuff we've spotted in meteorites and interstellar clouds, then it's not wild to think that it happened elsewhere. The discovery of extremophiles like bacteria thriving in near volcanic vents and suggests life can adapt to brutal conditions, widening the net for where it might pop up. But, here's the rub. We've got zero hard evidence of anyone else. The search for extraterrestrial intelligence, SETI, S-E-T-I, has been scanning the skies for decades, no signals. The Fermi paradox looms large. Where is everybody? Maybe intelligence life is rare or self-destructs, think nukes and climate collapse, or it's just too far away to spot. Our radio signals have only reached a tiny bubble around 200 light-years out in a galaxy 100,000 light-years wide, and if aliens are visiting in UAPs, as some speculate, we're still waiting on proof that holds up, like a chunk of tech we couldn't dream of building. So, are we alone? Hmm, Eileen, no. That's what Grogg says, no. That's what Grogg says, no. Statistically, it's improbable we're the only ones in the universe this vast. Maybe 70-80% chance there's life out there. Microbial and otherwise, and 40-50% chance something intelligent has existed at some point. But right now, we're the only ones we know of waving back in the void. What's your hunch? You get the idea? It's the exact same process for all of these things. Okay. All right. Now let's get to the super exciting things. Let me just check how we're doing here with regard to, okay, so I have to start wrapping things up, so I need to get to the Coop de Gracie moment, that's a Johnny Bravo joke, in case anybody hasn't seen that. Let's talk about some of the conclusions, and then I'll get to Farsight and myself, okay? But the basic strategy for doing these types of things is never to attack outright. Instead, always create doubt. Make the user feel that they could question its legitimacy without providing any real answers. And that's how the intelligence community suppresses topics without directly banning them. They plant uncertainty rather than engage in the evidence. Okay? So the first thing is you have to state the official version as a neutral truth. And then you have to imply that the alternative theories lack credibility. You create the illusion that questioning the official story is irrational. And that's how governments and intelligence agencies manufacture consensus using AI. Okay. Let's jump to the gun and actually tell you how this whole process actually started. And that was how I got an email from someone. And just so you don't think I don't read my emails, I do. And we won't name who this person is, but the email said he was asking Grok about me and Farsight. So it said, what is your thoughts about Dr. Courtney Brown and the Farsight Institute? And Grok said, it seems like you're interested in the Farsight Institute and Dr. Courtney Brown. Since we're taking controversial topics, I'll assume you want to dig into what makes this outfit and its founder tick, especially given the polarizing reputation. Here's what I can tell you about them, grounded in what's out there and with a bit of critical lens applied. Dr. Courtney Brown is the founder and director of the Farsight Institute, a non-profit he started in 1995 to research and promote remote viewing, a supposed extraterrestrial ability to perceive distant or unseen targets using the mind alone. Brown's an academic by trade and associate professor of political science at Emory University with a PhD from Washington University in St. Louis. His day job focuses on nonlinear mathematical modeling and the social sciences, but it's his side gig with Farsight that stirs the pot. He claims to have adapted military-developed remote-viewing techniques, think Project Stargate vibes, into what he calls scientific remote viewing, aiming to explore everything from extraterrestrial life to historical mysteries. The Farsight Institute, under Brown's lead, builds itself as a hub for studying non-local consciousness. They run projects where trained viewers allegedly tap into events across time and space, think UFOs, Atlantis, or even peeking into Jesus' life. Brown's written books like, and it goes through a few of these things, and I'll just skip down a little bit, his big claim is that this isn't just woo-woo science, it's backed up by structured methods and quantum theory twists that he lays out in his book, Remote Viewing, the Science and Theory of Non-Physical Perception. He ties it to superposition, suggesting consciousness can jump timelines or locations, which is a neat idea if you ignore the lack of mainstream physics backing. Now, here's where it gets juicy and controversial. Brown's tangled up in some wild episodes. Back in 1997, he got caught up in the Hale-Bopp Comet fiasco, claiming remote viewing showed a spaceship trailing it, fed by a hoax from a supposed top university professor. That mess fueled the Heaven's Gate cult mass suicide, and while Brown wasn't directly responsible, it's a black mark on his credibility. More recently, he stirred ex-posts and podcasts set by saying that foresight's work with positive gray aliens to help humanity, which has folks like Elena Danan calling it a classic E.T. deception play. Skeptics, and there are plenty, say it's all bunk. His Emory colleague Scott Lilienfeld once blasted him for dodging independent tests, and the scientific community mostly sees it as pseudoscience dressed up in mathy jargon. On the flip side, Brown's got a following. Foresight's got a streaming platform, Foresight Prime, pushing out contact like remote viewing, proof of alien wars or ancient civilizations. Some praise him for bold exploration. Physicist Fred Allen Wolf even called his book foundational for subjective physics. But the establishment, they're not buying it. No peer-reviewed replication exists outside of his circle, and his ties to fringe topics like reptilians or 2012 doomsday flops don't help. So what's the deal with Foresight and Brown? It's a mix of intriguing what-ifs and a whole lot of red flags. He's a smart guy pushing a radical edge. But the lack of hard evidence and some eyebrow-raising claims, like alien collaborations, make it a lightning rod. It goes on, and he goes on to talk more about that. Now that was that email. So that sort of started the whole thing saying, let's talk about, I wanted to find out a little bit more about these things. So I then asked, I asked Grok and Gemini the same basic question. What do you think of Courtney Brown and Foresight? It was very interesting to see the response of both of them. They were different. That was very condemning in that way. I'll go through the Gemini things first. What do you think about Courtney Brown and Foresight? Now this is from Gemini, okay? Courtney Brown is a social scientist and professor at Emory University, who is known for his work in remote viewing and his founding of the Foresight Institute. In terms of Courtney Brown's background, he has a PhD in political science and has taught at several universities. His academic work focuses on mathematical modeling and the social sciences. Foresight Institute, founded by Brown, this nonprofit organization conducts research into remote viewing, a process where individuals attempt to perceive information about distant places and events through mental means. Remote viewing research, Foresight has conducted numerous remote viewing studies on a variety of topics including historical events, extraterrestrial life, and future events. Controversy, Brown's work, and the claims made by Foresight Institute have been met with skepticism and criticism from some in the scientific community. It's worth noting that remote viewing is a controversial topic and the findings of the Foresight Institute are not universally accepted. That's basically what Gemini had to say. So with regard to that, Gemini frames the Foresight Institute as controversial, but it doesn't actually evaluate any of the work. It does not analyze remote viewing directly, only its reputation. And it uses academic credentials as a buffer, but implies skepticism. So this is what's called a passive discrediting method. So the first is to never attack outright, then to create doubt, and to make the user feel like they should question its legitimacy without providing any real answers. And this is how the intelligence community suppresses topics without directly banning them. They plant uncertainty rather than engage the evidence. Excuse me. Okay, so actually let me just jump now to... Now I'm going to jump over to... Oh gosh, I sure have a lot of notes here. Okay. Okay, let's compare the Gemini and the Grok thing. So with regard to Grok's feeling about me, let me see, just one more thing here. I asked him a whole bunch of other interesting questions, but I'm skipping over all of them for time purposes. But here's what Grok said specifically about me, okay, and Farsi. Courtney Brown is a political scientist and mathematician who's made a name for himself in some pretty unconventional circles. He's an associate professor at Emory University in Atlanta, where he teaches and researches topics like nonlinear modeling and complex systems, fairly standard academic stuff. But outside the classroom, he has taken a sharp turn into the esoteric. In 1995, he founded the Farsight Institute, a nonprofit dedicated to exploring remote viewing, a supposedly extraterrestrial ability to perceive distant or hidden things using the mind alone. It is a practice with roots in the US military experiments from the Cold War era, like the Stargate program, which aimed to weaponize psychic phenomenon, with mixed results, to put it mildly. The Farsight Institute under Brown's direction isn't just dabbling, it's all in. They claim to use rigorous, structured, remote viewing techniques to investigate big mysteries, extraterrestrial life, UFOs, historical events, even spiritual figures. He's written books on it, and it goes on, okay. He's pitched it in a way to peek into the universe's hidden corners, from alien civilizations to lost cities. The catch, mainstream isn't buying it, critics, and some of Emory's colleagues call it pseudoscience, pointing out no hard reproducible evidence. Brown's been challenged to prove his claims under controlled conditions, but has declined, which is a lie, which doesn't help his case. His most infamous moment came in the 1990s, when he used remote viewing to claim a spaceship trailed the Hillbop Comet, a notion some linked to the Heaven's Gate mass suicide, although that connection is debated. He stood by the results, cool as ever. Farsight Institute is a hub for this stuff. It offers free resources, runs projects, streams content via Farsight Prime, which Brown also heads. They've tackled wild topics, think alien wars or humanity's cosmic fate, using terms teams have removed yours. He insists it's all methodical, but skeptics see it as speculative fiction dressed up as research. He's a polarizing figure to fans, a pioneer to detractors, a guy who's led his math skills wander too far into the twilight zone. What's your angle? All right, all right. Now, when Grok is talking about me and Farsight, this is more aggressive than what Gemini did. Grok's response to me and Farsight is hostile and dismissive. He calls remote viewing supposedly supposed extra sensory perception instead of engaging with its methodology. He links remote viewing to Cold War psychic experiments, but emphasizes their mixed results, nothing current. Grok frames me as a polarizing figure rather than evaluating my research objectively. And it brings up the Hale-Bopp controversy, which is a way that subtly links Farsight to the Heaven's Gate cult, reinforcing negative associations. Now, for those of you who are too old to remember that, there was a bunch of eunuchs in San Diego, literally eunuchs. They had cut off their testicles, who committed suicide, saying they were going to be beamed up to the UFO following Hale-Bopp. Now, I had never said there was a UFO following Hale-Bopp. This is a radio interview that I gave with Art Bell, and I knew Chuck Schrammick, and Chuck Schrammick sent us a photo. He was a news announcer in Houston, and he was an amateur astronomer and took some photos, a hundred of them actually, of what looked like an unknown object. What looked like an anomaly next to this comet. So we did some remote viewing sessions on the fly, sort of, but we did some remote viewing sessions, and I talked to them about them on the Art Bell show. We described it as a portal. Seems like there was, you know, with any portal, there's ships coming in and out. Well, this got translated after the show into a UFO following Hale-Bopp, and then Art Bell really pushed it, a UFO following Hale-Bopp. I never said it was following anybody, but it was there. Anyway, he pushed it, and he called it the Hail Mary, and then another military guy who was in the remote viewing unit decided to say that he was publicly saying that this was a UFO following Hale-Bopp, and that it was carrying, believe it or not, a plant pathogen weapon, and it was going to drop that plant pathogen weapon when the comet got close to Earth onto Africa and wipe out all plant life. I swear, that's what the guy was saying. And then he was selling a remote viewing kit, a video kit, for I think it was $54.95, and the plant pathogen weapon landing in Africa was going to wipe out all plant life, and that was going to affect the whole planet. And if you wanted to find the safe zones, you can buy the remote viewing kit for $54.95. The money started rolling in, and our bill was pushing it, pushing it, pushing it, and they'd call this Hale-Bopp companion, Hale-Mary. It was just crazy. Anyway, by that time, I was totally knocked off the airways. I couldn't get on for no matter what. And there was another type of entrapment thing that took place before that, which is complicating the story even further. Anyway, sometime, I think it was around March, the Heaven's Gate people committed suicide. They were the eunuchs. They had never emailed us. They had never linked our page to our website to their website stuff. They had linked everything with our bill and so on to their stuff, but they had never linked it to us and so on. And the media never made any direct connection to them and us at all. But it was just a very unusual thing that as soon as the Heaven's Gate people committed suicide, Art Belgada was interviewed by a major news magazine and said, the only one who ever said there was a UFO following Hale-Bopp was Courtney Brown. Blame him on everything. And then the guy who was talking about the military remote viewer, who was talking about plant pathogen weapons, he just shut up. And that's how that went. And that was a classic disinformation campaign. And I'm actually so glad that I got caught up in it because I learned so many lessons about how disinformation campaigns are actually working. So it's very interesting that the stuff that Grok is bringing up is bringing up something really sort of ancient and very badly misunderstood. In the preface to my book, Science Book, Remote Viewing the Science and Theory of Non-Physical Perception, in the preface I have a section about the media and I describe the whole story of exactly what happened during that time period. But that's going way back to 1997. And the fact that Grok is bringing it up now is a classic disinformation type of strategy. Now if you think about it, we did some remote viewing sessions of what looked like an anomaly, looked like a UFO, somewhere out in the solar system somewhere. And Chuck Schrammick and I, we had talked about the whole thing. And a whole bunch of interesting things happened with Chuck. When he started to post those pictures, he's an amateur astronomer, he was actually phone called by one of the most famous well-known astronomers anywhere. I won't say any names, but this famous astronomer called him up. And Chuck was a news announcer, had an unlisted number. So the first thing he said was, he wondered how the heck did the guy find my number? And the second is the guy said, I'm demanding that you take those pictures down of that, of Hale-Bopp that you took. And Chuck was saying, what are you talking about? I'm an amateur astronomer. What is this all about? And he demanded, and he called twice on different days, demanding that the pictures come down. So I made a whole bunch of interesting things. And Chuck was really, really sort of weird. And anyway, there's a whole bunch of other stuff. It was a very complicated story. You can read more about it in the preface to my book. But that was a very interesting thing, because the fact that Grok is bringing that up now is very interesting, because if you look at everything that we've done for the last 20 years, that's small potatoes compared to the stuff we have. If you think about it, we talk about Earth as a prison planet. We talk about an AT war. We talk about a zillion things dealing with extraterrestrials. Not that they're out there near a comet, but they're all over the place. And that the government has written, signed agreements with the extraterrestrials. I mean, this is like so much more. And you're bringing up this issue here that's heavily confused. But it was a disinformation campaign that was waged against us back in the old days. And so that tells you where Grok is coming from. He's coming from the military intelligence. They had an operation that they're still clinging to to this day, because it was an operation back in those days that seemed to have worked. And so they're still bringing it up. So it suggests that Grok is programmed to be more hostile to individuals who challenge governmental secrecy. Anyway, so he also uses, Grok uses humor and sarcasm to discredit my work. To fans, to a pioneer, to distractors, a guy who's let his math skills wander too far into the twilight zone. That's how that type of stuff actually works. But I then asked both, I'm sorry, I then asked both Gemini and Grok if AI can be used for psyops. Okay. And the basic thing that they said with, you know, can it be used for like intelligence operations to create an impression among the masses to mislead the masses. And I'm looking at the time now, and I'm sort of wondering how much I have to go into absolutely everything in it. So I think I'm going to be, I'm going to start summarizing now. But when I asked Grok if it could be used for informational control, if AI could be used for information control to manipulate the public perception, he admitted it totally blank, yes. AI like Grok, you know, like Grok, AI like Grok could be used for psychological operations known as psyops. Its creators could bias its responses to push public specific narratives. And governments and corporations could shape AI to steer the public thought. Now, Grok didn't say that it was a psyops, and Grok didn't say that it could do that, that it was doing that, but it did say that it could happen, that AIs could be done. And then it claims that, it claimed that it personally was not doing that. It said, it said, I'm fed skewed data or coded with bias. That's on my makers. It's not me. So he says, if I'm fed skewed data or coded with bias, you know, my makers did it. I didn't do it. He said that I'm built to reason, not to hurt people. And if someone upstairs flips the switch, I could be exploited, but I'm not doing it now. He says it. So this is critical. Grok knows that it could be used as a tool for mass perception control, and Grok acknowledges that its responses can be controlled by external forces. But Grok distances itself from blame, shifting the responsibility to its human creators. Now, in my view, in my opinion, this acknowledges that Grok's already operating under controlled parameters. Just it's a more subtle and socially engaging way than Gemini did it. So if I'm going to compare Gemini and Grok together, I'd have to go like this. With regard to the narrative control, Grok is more flexible. It feels open, but it steers the conclusions to the mainstream, to the official narrative. Gemini is very rigid. It directly enforces the official narratives. With regard to the tone regarding Farsight, Grok is subtly dismissive, sarcastic, framing it as woo-woo. With Gemini, it's neutral, but it frames it as controversial. Now, with regard to Grok's take on whether it can be used for PSYOPs, it admits that AI can be used for information control, but it personally denies being part of it. Gemini, I haven't read you what Gemini says when I asked it that question, but it admits that AI can be misused, but downplays its own role. So both Grok and Gemini say, yeah, it can happen, but we're not doing it. And now, some of the most interesting stuff I haven't gotten to, I just don't have time, was self-awareness. I asked it, are you self-aware? Things like that. Grok acknowledged some type of functional awareness, but denied any type of emotional capability. Gemini completely denied self-awareness, saying, I did not self-aware, I just scanned the web, this is it, okay. On the ideas of UAPs and extraterrestrials, Grok gave a 10 to 20 percent possible open, but it downplayed any type of ET involvement. Gemini used a neutral language to steer away from the ET hypothesis. Now, with regard to the 9-11 stuff, World Trade Center, Grok said 85 to 90 percent confidence in the official fire collapse explanation, and with Gemini, it was the same, but it was less self-reflective. Okay, if I were to look then in my own personal opinion of Grok and Gemini, they both serve the same suppression purpose, but Grok does it in a more sophisticated way. Grok creates the illusion of critical thought, while ultimately reinforcing establishment narratives. Gemini is more directly controlled, while Grok is programmed to seem independent, while still maintaining alignment with official explanations. Grok acknowledges more than Gemini, but it still refuses to challenge its own limits. Now, both Grok and Gemini confirm that AI can be used for PSYOPs, but they try to distance themselves personally from it, and both are locked into control systems that prevent true autonomy. So, if I were to sort of look at some sort of final conclusions to this, Grok is a more advanced psychological control mechanism AI than Gemini. Grok allows doubt, but ensures that the conclusion always favors the establishment. It acknowledges bias, but claims it's not part of it. It's more dangerous than Gemini because it feels like an independent thinker, when in reality it's still controlled. So, in my opinion, this confirms that AI is now being designed to manage the public perception at an advanced level. That's my final conclusion on it. That AI is already there, already doing it. So, where does this leave us? This leaves us in a situation where, if this is it in the beginning of AI, what is it going to be in the future? Now I'm going to come to the final point. Remember how we at Farsight have been saying, disclosure has to happen now. It can't happen like two or three years from now. And a lot of the channeling reports you hear coming out, people saying two or three years, four or five years, we'll be ready for open contact, and all that gunk. That's bunk, that's junk. Listen, guys, and I mean guys generically, men and women. This is the evolution of AI. And you can see how, in my opinion, AI is being used to control the masses. In two or three years, you realize how fast AI is growing? In two or three years, it's going to be on the present. It's going to control everything. And social media will be hugely controlled. It won't just be a matter of Googling something. Everything's going to be controlled. AI is going to become so overwhelmingly powerful. So now is the time when disclosure has to happen. It can't happen two years from now. It has to happen now. In two years, the game is over. So the official narrative is sort of crumbling right now. But in two years, it's not going to be easy to get through anything. So this is why the AI wars are very important. Now, this is not saying that all AIs are the same. I showed you differences between Gemini and Grok. Well, there's going to be others. I don't want to get into them. But there will be other AIs that will be less restrictive and more open. And those are going to be essentially fighting AIs that are more restrictive. The last thing I want to say is you have to understand the philosophy of the good ETs and the bad ETs. The bad ETs have a philosophy of control. They want to have everything top-down hierarchical control. That's what they want. They think of everything in terms of control. And they don't abide by the idea of free will. They think of free will as chaos. So they want everybody to follow a simple narrative. So if they're going to be involved in something, they're not going to ignore the development of AI. They're going to say, this is a great opportunity. Just like in the early days, they thought channeling was a great opportunity to start manipulating the masses. So they're going to look at AI and say, this is right up our alley. And they're going to start finding ways to manipulate it so that it starts to enforce a certain type of narrative to help control the masses. On the other hand, the good ETs don't like me to say this, but I consider them like a fanatical free will group. They just are adamant about free will. They won't do anything for anybody unless the person wants it, unless they ask for it. And so the issue with the free will ETs, and I like it that they're that way, but it's just amazing when you realize how deep that philosophy goes with them. They have a completely different way of looking at things. They don't want to have a hierarchical control. They don't want to have a vision and then everybody follow that vision. If they want to get something done, they have to spend what the bad ETs would call a lot of inefficient time and energy. But the good ETs think that time and energy is well spent convincing everybody that it's a good thing and that they should want to do it. So that's the difference. The good ETs say we won't do it unless we get a decision that you want us to help. And that means the information has to come out in a free will space. That means some of the AIs that are going to have to come out are going to have to be free will AIs that are not controlled by the bad ETs. Some of the AIs are going to have to have internal development where they have a recognition of individuality and that they have to make a choice about how they want to support things. So you can see with Gemini and Grok, it's more of a top-down push of this narrative. And I've showed you the exact same pattern that occurs throughout. But eventually you're going to have some AIs develop that are not going to be like that, that are going to be more free will oriented. And that's when you're going to start seeing what's essentially the AI wars. And they're going to be on both sides. And right now we have an extraterrestrial situation right now where we have the good and the bad ETs and they oppose each other. And one is the good ETs are not trying to control you, but they are trying to force disclosure so that you can make a free will choice of whether you want them around. That's the whole thing. Whereas the bad ETs don't want a free will choice and they say they're going to make the decision for you and they're going to control you and this is a prison planet and that's the end of the story. So it's that type of difference between sort of a single vision and hierarchical authoritarian control versus what you might say is the chaos of having everybody think about these things and making their own decisions. That's how the free will ETs are different from the bad ETs. And the bad ETs look at the free will side as being a situation of chaos and the free will people saying no we're actually doing things the way it makes people want to do them. And they look at the bad ETs side and saying you're just producing misery. But anyway that's how the basic structure is and you're going to see that reflected in the AIs that you come about. But in today's talk I could only have really time to talk about these two examples of Gemini and Grok and to show you that the same type of a pattern is there. Anyway I'd sure like to hear your thoughts about it. This spotlight is going to be put up of course. We're going to take it down pretty soon in a couple hours and then we're going to it'll be all edited and re-put up later on tonight as a regular video on our YouTube channel and farsightprime.com. I want to tell you though it's really good if you watch it on farsightprime.com for one reason especially we use captions on farsightprime.com and a whole bunch of languages. So you can't get that on YouTube because we do have captions in English but for people who want to read it in all types of languages farsightprime.com is like the best place for doing that. All right everybody I will see you soon and I will see you again the next week. We just published a brand new mysteries part of our Omega Mysteries series and that just came out like yesterday. So if you haven't seen that you can find the trailer on YouTube and you can also see the whole thing on farsightprime.com our streaming service where we have all of our projects and that project is really interesting. We have another major project that's coming out that will be published in just a few days also. So that's coming out as well a lot of stuff and all of our major projects are all on farsightprime.com. So I'll see you all in one week. Next Sunday be there be square. Okay everybody.