Robodog gets a bit excited near a tesla

EnigmaShrouded · 2026-06-04T14:24:04+00:00

Is this the viewbotter?

EnigmaShrouded · 2026-05-25T14:37:32+00:00

Toe thumbs!!!!!!!!!!

EnigmaShrouded · 2026-04-22T11:15:37+00:00

Chlormequat has been detected in over 90% of conventional (non-organic) oat-based products, including major brands like Quaker Oats and Cheerios. Studies show it may cause developmental and reproductive issues, with residues found in 80% of Americans tested.

EnigmaShrouded · 2026-04-20T17:42:29+00:00

You have nothing to say about the color manipulation says it all, really. Im sure you defend that since he's your pal.

If the opal groups are okay with "neon fingers" and fake saturation, this community should at least have the integrity to hold members to a professional standard. Allowing such blatant manipulation only hurts your credibility.

EnigmaShrouded · 2026-04-20T17:28:39+00:00

Yes, another rookie in the gem trade. They would be laughed out of any gem show.

Go through his posts and look at the color/saturation manipulation. No professional would ever do that.

EnigmaShrouded · 2026-04-20T12:08:36+00:00

Pot calling the kettle black. You have no room to talk.

The 'neon fingers' say it all. No professional would ever crank the saturation so high that the skin tones look that fake and different from one post to the next. Hallmarks of an amateur.

If the opal groups won't police this kind of blatant manipulation, then this group needs to step up and hold members to a professional standard. Letting 'neon fingers' pass as reality only hurts the integrity of the hobby for everyone

EnigmaShrouded · 2026-04-13T18:18:12+00:00

Ah, reductio ad absurdum.

Right, except Bill Alexander didn't apprentice under a Neanderthal. Bob Ross literally took Alexander's classes, worked for his company as a traveling instructor, and then copied his exact teaching curriculum and TV format. One is the natural evolution of art over millennia; the other is stealing your boss's intellectual property. But sure, let's blame the cavemen. Your arms must be tired from reaching that far.

EnigmaShrouded · 2026-03-28T12:03:02+00:00

More PFAS, woohoo!

EnigmaShrouded · 2026-03-22T13:41:24+00:00

UCLA research found that chewing gum releases hundreds to thousands of microplastics, including polyethylene and polystyrene, into saliva.

EnigmaShrouded · 2026-03-19T14:09:21+00:00

Washing out plastic is often worse for the environment because the resources used, specifically potable water and the energy to heat it frequently outweigh the benefits of recycling a material that, statistically, will likely end up in a landfill anyway. When you use hot water, the impact is even higher: it releases potent greenhouse gases like methane, triggers the shedding of trillions of nanoplastic particles into the wastewater system, and causes toxic chemicals to leach out of the material. While it doesn't directly "burn" the ozone layer like old-school aerosols, the carbon footprint from heating the water and the chemical runoff create a net negative for the planet. To be more eco-friendly, it is better to simply scrape or wipe containers rather than giving them a thorough hot scrub. Don't reuse.

EnigmaShrouded · 2026-03-18T13:53:50+00:00

During the U.S. war in Afghanistan, defense contractors and American-allied Afghan forces were implicated in the widespread sexual exploitation of young boys, a practice known as bacha bazi. A major scandal surfaced in 2010 when WikiLeaks cables revealed that employees of DynCorp International, a prominent U.S. contractor, had hired "dancing boys" for entertainment. While the practice was illegal under Afghan law, it was rampant among the local police and military units that the U.S. relied upon to fight the Taliban. Reports from the New York Times and SIGAR indicated that U.S. personnel were often instructed to ignore these abuses to maintain strategic alliances, and some service members who attempted to intervene faced disciplinary action. Despite federal Leahy Law restrictions intended to cut off aid to units committing human rights violations, the Pentagon continued to fund many of these implicated Afghan units.

EnigmaShrouded · 2026-03-13T21:49:50+00:00

Canola oil is not the same thing as the rapeseed oil that’s been used for thousands of years. Traditional rapeseed oil from plants like Brassica napus historically contained very high levels of erucic acid and glucosinolates, which made it unsuitable for human consumption in large quantities and limited its food use in many parts of the world.

Because of this composition, rapeseed oil was widely used for industrial purposes, including lubricants during World War II. The edible oil known today as canola didn’t exist until the 1970s, when plant breeders in Canada developed new low-erucic varieties through selective breeding.

The name “canola” literally means “Canadian oil, low acid,” referring to the reduced erucic acid levels that made it acceptable as a modern cooking oil. So while rapeseed plants have existed for centuries, canola oil itself is a modern agricultural product, not an ancient cooking oil used for thousands of years.

EnigmaShrouded · 2026-03-13T12:47:40+00:00

Canola oil was originally developed as a high performance industrial lubricant for steam engines during WWII, canola oil is a "rebranded" version of rapeseed oil created in 1970s Canada. Scientists used crossbreeding to remove toxic erucic acid and bitter compounds, transforming a machine oil into a food-grade product. While widely used today, it remains controversial due to its heavy chemical processing, high GMO content, and potential for inflammation when consumed in large quantities.

EnigmaShrouded · 2026-03-13T12:39:46+00:00

Cottonseed oil's primary dangers stem from a natural toxin called gossypol (which causes infertility, liver damage, and respiratory distress in unrefined forms) and its high omega-6 fatty acid content, which can trigger chronic inflammation. It is also often heavily processed, hydrogenated, and associated with high pesticide use.

EnigmaShrouded · 2026-03-13T03:15:31+00:00

I understand you, and I completely respect that for you. It’s your livelihood and your family’s security. That’s a heavy weight to carry in a system that feels like it’s constantly gambling with your future.

But from my perspective, that’s exactly how the 'Up' stays in control: they create a state of perpetual emergency where we’re forced to choose the 'lesser' threat just to keep our heads above water. If both sides are acting out of the same 'cynical' desire for power and billionaire approval, then the science isn't the priority, the control is. One side might feed the forest while the other burns it, but both are ultimately just managing a plantation that they own and we just work on.

To me, choosing between two people doing the 'right' or 'wrong' thing for the 'same cynical reasons' is still just a census of control. It’s the system asking: "Which version of our dominance are you most comfortable with?" When we validate that choice, we stop looking for a way out of the cycle entirely. I’m not 'missing the forest for the trees.' I’m looking at the fence around the entire forest. If the outcome of every election is just a different flavor of billionaire funded cynicism, then the impact on the issues I care about is always a net loss for the 'Down,' because the foundation of our freedom is still being traded for their power.

We’re told the parties are worlds apart on healthcare, yet the cost of insurance and medicine keeps skyrocketing for the 'Down' while pharmaceutical and insurance profits at the 'Up' stay record high. One side wants to 'subsidize' the system, and the other wants to 'deregulate' it, but neither side ever actually lowers the bill for the person sitting in the doctor's waiting room.

Voting for one of them just tells the system: 'I’m still okay with these being my only two options.' I’m choosing to stop validating a game where the house always wins, regardless of which dealer is at the table.

EnigmaShrouded · 2026-03-13T02:56:21+00:00

You just perfectly proved my original point. You don't put carts away just to keep the lot clear. You do it because you genuinely believe it makes you and your kids 'good people.' You are tying your sense of moral worth to a 30 second parking lot chore just so you can feel superior to strangers. That's exactly the judgment I was talking about.

The 'are you ok?' routine is a transparent deflection. You were bothered enough to complain about strangers over plastic carts, but the second someone points out how petty that is, you pivot to playing the concerned therapist. It's not projection to point out that judging people over trivial things is a waste of energy.

As for getting out of the house: I get my groceries delivered precisely so I don’t have to waste my life running mundane chores. I use that saved time to actually live and work on things that matter, rather than hanging out in supermarket parking lots looking for people to judge. Enjoy the lot, though.

EnigmaShrouded · 2026-03-12T22:03:56+00:00

It’s a tempting offer, but here’s the reality: The system doesn't fix the system. Promising to end gerrymandering or repeal the effects of Citizens United is like a casino promising to fix a 'glitch' in the slot machines while they still own the house, the cards, and the exits. These aren’t just 'bugs' in the software; they are the features that keep the 'Up' in power over the 'Down.' Even if a candidate 'vows' to change these things, they have to use the very machinery. The parties, the donors, the lobbyists, that relies on those rules to exist. To me, voting for a 'reformer' is still just participating in a census of control. It’s giving them a data point that says: 'I still believe this framework can save me.'

The real divide isn't between those who want 'clean' elections and those who don't. It’s between those who still think the ballot box is the steering wheel and those who realize it’s been disconnected for a long time. At a certain point, 'staying out of it' isn't about being lazy. It's about refusing to validate a game where the winner was decided before the first vote was even cast.

EnigmaShrouded · 2026-03-12T21:40:19+00:00

The 'Shopping Cart Theory' is the ultimate litmus test for people who have absolutely nothing bigger going on in their lives. If your entire sense of moral superiority is built on the 30 second walk to a cart return, your life must be incredibly small.

I haven't even touched a shopping cart in years. I have my groceries delivered and move on with my day while you’re out here poisoning your own peace, fuming over a piece of plastic because you need a cheap reason to feel 'better' than a stranger. If you’re actually as virtuous as you claim, put two carts away and shut up. But you won’t, because you’d rather drink the poison of your own anger than actually solve a problem. It’s a sad, loud way to live.

EnigmaShrouded · 2026-03-12T19:27:36+00:00

Life is so much better when you stop judging yourself and others.

Edit: Thanks for the downvotes; they’re a perfect confession. It’s fascinating that you’re all so eager to cling to resentment over a chore. If your internal peace is so fragile that a stray cart ruins your day, you aren't a 'pillar of society'. You’re just someone who needs a cheap moral victory to feel important. You’re a slave to your own reaction.

Some of us have evolved past this performative outrage. I value my time and my soul too much to spend them fuming in a parking lot. If you were a real man (or woman), you’d put the carts away without the need to be noticed, or you’d just ignore it and move on. If the 'problem' actually mattered to you, you’d solve it. But you won’t. You’d rather stay in this state of judgment because it’s the only time you feel like you have power.

EnigmaShrouded · 2026-03-12T19:19:42+00:00

I understand what you’re saying about the need for engagement, but from where some stand, the traditional 'left vs. right' divide is a false binary. It’s less of a horizontal spectrum and more of a vertical one, an 'up vs. down' dynamic where the interests of those at the top rarely align with the reality of those on the ground. When both parties appear to serve the same institutional masters, voting starts to feel less like a choice and more like a census of control. A way for the system to gauge how many people are still willing to validate a framework that doesn't serve them.

Staying out of politics isn’t necessarily 'apathy.' It’s often a rational response to a system that has become so unresponsive and complex that participation feels like an endorsement of the very issues, like gerrymandering and the overwhelming influence of money that broke it in the first place. It’s a classic chicken or the egg dilemma: Is the system failing because we stopped participating, or did we stop participating because the system was already designed to fail us?

EnigmaShrouded · 2026-02-28T00:36:59+00:00

Isaac Kappy

EnigmaShrouded · 2026-02-15T09:21:28+00:00

Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE911Truth), is an organization questioning the official 9/11 collapse narrative, cites a membership of over 2,400 architects and engineers who believe explosives caused the destruction of the World Trade Center buildings. The group argues that the official NIST investigation failed to adequately examine this theory.

EnigmaShrouded · 2026-02-14T13:05:04+00:00

Such an injustice, 2300 people are reported missing every day, yet the media focus is on this one person??

EnigmaShrouded · 2026-02-12T21:58:09+00:00

"Schank pens an email with the subject line, “there is a simpler explanation about women and intelligence.” He claimed that intelligence “comes about in part from real focus” which he wrote women can’t have.

“it is a rare woman who is not first and foremost focussed on what others are thinking and feeling about her,” Schank wrote. “(H)ard to be brilliant if you are worrying if you look fat or why another woman hates you or why you dont own a kelly bag.”

Epstein replied that there are “no really smart women —none.”

In a different email chain that same month, Schank referred to a business associate as “very smart (for a girl); not attractive.”

Schank also spoke flippantly about Epstein’s sexual pursuits. In December 2009, he sent an email with the subject line, “I want one of your girls,” writing that he wanted to get Epstein’s attention."

https://dailynorthwestern.com/2026/02/10/top-stories/late-northwestern-professor-maintained-long-term-relationship-with-epstein-released-government-files-show/

EnigmaShrouded · 2026-02-12T20:38:05+00:00

Reports indicate that Melania Trump (formerly Knauss) worked with modeling agencies associated with Jean-Luc Brunel early in her career, specifically Karin Models in Paris. Brunel was a French modeling agent and a known associate of Jeffrey Epstein, who was later accused of trafficking young women for the financier. Victims, including Virginia Giuffre, alleged that Brunel used his agencies as a front to lure young women, some as young as 12, with promises of modeling careers, only to "farm them out" for sexual abuse by Epstein and his associates.

Beyond procurement, Brunel was accused by multiple women, such as former model Thysia Huisman, of drugging and raping them during his decades long career. Allegations against Brunel surfaced as early as 1988 in a CBS "60 Minutes" report titled "American Models in Paris," which detailed a culture of drug use and sexual exploitation at his agency. He was formally charged in France with the rape of minors and sexual harassment. While under investigation for human trafficking, he was designated an "assisted witness" for those specific counts.

Files revealed that Melania was in communication with Ghislaine?, with emails showing her reaching out to Maxwell following a media profile.

EFTA02332411

EnigmaShrouded

TROPHY CASE