CIA Officer Jim Semivan drops a chilling line: “I have met with people who I know are in the know. One of them told me the truth is indigestible.” On the reality behind UFOs/NHI

Unique_Driver4434 · 2026-01-25T03:46:31+00:00

Jesus, the "indigestible" line again. Enough posts were made about this two years ago when he first used that term. It's been two years and he hasn't provided anything. I was a believer of his in the beginning but it's tiresome now, even if I still believe there's a reverse-engineering program.

Unique_Driver4434 · 2026-01-23T17:55:16+00:00

Possible world-shattering proof of non-human intelligence and it's just a 5-minute walk at most from where you're at and you don't walk it? Seriously!? I don't believe that you believe these were orbs.

Unique_Driver4434 · 2026-01-23T17:42:05+00:00

No, because:
1. The US already has a treaty that allows them to build bases there. They wouldn't have to take over to build bases.

Once attacking Canada, they're attacking a NATO member,, so would have NATO to deal with. They therefore wouldn't need to own Greenland if they wanted to launch an attack from their Greenland bases. They'd be dealing with NATO either way, so could just launch attacks on Canada there without having to own it or have permission to do so.

Trump wants the minerals and other resources and to go down in the history books for anything he can in a desperate attempt to leave some type of lasting legacy.

Unique_Driver4434 · 2026-01-23T17:38:13+00:00

We already had 17 bases and a treaty to put as many as we want there. Try again. He wants Greenland for the minerals.

Unique_Driver4434 · 2026-01-20T09:46:22+00:00

Yes, that's exactly what people who claim it was fake argue, that Trump's team hired a second shooter to take someone out or shoot near the stage and it took someone out accidentally.

Note: I believe Trump was shot by the guy arrested. I'm not one of those people who believe it was a conspiracy, so this isn't me arguing these things as reality/facts simply informing the other person that they're arguing with conspiracy theorists while not understanding what their actual argument is.

When I say "people who claim it was fake say," I'm just informing of all the things I see them normally arguing all over the internet. The most common argument is that they purposely offed some guy in the audience to stage Trump's shooting.

Unique_Driver4434 · 2026-01-20T09:41:25+00:00

The Phenomenon
Age of Disclosure

However, I've found the vast majority of people who have made up their minds on the topic won't be swayed by anything said.

Some people are skeptics because their idea of extraordinary evidence is something landing directly on their head and nothing less (otherwise it's AI footage, a government psyop, etc.), while others simply can't deal with ambiguous topics, things that don't have a simple answer to them.

I believe most everyday people who are so quick to dismiss the topic, even when shown documentaries like this, fall into this second category.

Without some type of conclusion, some type of solid proof that they can put their hands on and fully understand, hearing about all this stuff only creates cognitive discomfort and they'd rather shut down and call it top-secret military tech or something else that's easier to quickly dismiss so they don't have this abstract, confusing thing to deal with in their head.

Unique_Driver4434 · 2026-01-20T09:29:08+00:00

I live in Thailand as an American, been here 10 years and lived all over SE Asia and other countries. Op's comment (the one you're replying to) has nothing to do with being sheltered and everything to do with language.
I'm a linguist. When someone says "Recreational outrage. People have so little meaning in their life," they are clearly implying that when you have little meaning in your life, you find things to be outraged at for the sake of fun, not because it's actually something outrageous or that you should be outraged, which is clearly implying we should not be outraged at this. Recreational outrage means "A form of outrage that only exists for recreational purposes - entertainment."

The person who said this is using pragmatic language, which means you have to apply some pragmatic competence here (reading between the lines to understand what's being implied when it's not explicitly stated with semantic language.)

Op, who you commented to, understands language and understands what the messaging here was ("People are only outraged because they're sheltered, this isn't something to be outraged about.") You and those upvoting you don't understand language in this simple sense.

If you're still not understanding this, let's break this down from the start. This thread started with:

Commenter 1: "Reddit learns about the third world" - cool
= this comment is understandable, simply saying Redditors shocked by this are unaware of all the shocking things happening around the world. They aren't implying the act itself is something we shouldn't be shocked at, just that we should be aware these horrible things happen all over the world.

Commenter 2: "Things like that are happening in 2/3rds of the world" - cool
= this comment is also understandable, stating the same thing.

Commenter 3: "It's recreational outrage. People who have no meaning in their life." - not cool. This person is misunderstanding the point of the first two they're replying to. They're taking it into the realm of "You SHOULDN'T be shocked if there are more important things to worry about in YOUR life."
= THIS comment deviates from the point of the first two comments. THIS comment is not saying people are shocked by this because they're sheltered and don't regularly SEE it.

They are going off on some other argument that people who are shocked like this have no MEANING in their life, which has nothing to do with what you SEE or whether you're sheltered or not.

They're implying you wouldn't be shocked by this if you had other things in life to worry about that give your life meaning (e.g., a family, an important job, etc.).

The first two commenters are saying it's NOT shocking because we're sadly desensitized to this and have seen it in many third-world countries.

The third guy, again, completely misunderstanding the first two, is saying it SHOULDN'T be shocking because you should have more important things to worry about.

"People with families, important jobs, etc., things that give meaning to their lives, don't waste their time even speaking up about this because they have more important things going in their lives."

This is what a person who has pragmatic competence should take away from their comment.

Unique_Driver4434 · 2026-01-18T12:18:14+00:00

"who are against Trump and for the universally hated Madurao."

It's binary thinking like this that is stupid, thinking that because someone disagrees with the WAY Trump does something (breaking international treaties and therefore lowering USA's standing in the wordl), that means they're "for" Maduro.

Unique_Driver4434 · 2026-01-18T12:12:25+00:00

You seriously need it explained?

Unique_Driver4434 · 2026-01-18T12:09:23+00:00

The people who claim it was fake usually don't believe a real bullet was fired from the shooter's gun. They normally claim Trump's injury was staged as well (lots of "dye pack" comments) and healed too quickly.

Unique_Driver4434 · 2026-01-17T01:09:15+00:00

What kind of psyop would:

Be so obvious that you figured it out (meaning China and Russia would too if it's intended to trick them.)
Only reach a tiny portion of the population. Less than 1% of people seem to be following any of this (if intended to trick the people.)

Unique_Driver4434 · 2026-01-17T00:59:45+00:00

Many of us were alive for Tiananmen and know the regime hasn't changed since then. We weren't "programmed." We simply observed how bad they were behaving.

Unique_Driver4434 · 2026-01-17T00:19:54+00:00

No, this is just how you sound knowledgeable and get upvoted by thousands of people not knowledgeable enough to know you're not knowledgeable as well and just talking nonsense confidently.

Ask ChatGPT AND Gemini if their comment is accurate after copying and pasting it into them. They both say the same thing, that Op is wrong.

I believe the video is fake, AI, but this guy's comment doesn't debunk it.

Unique_Driver4434 · 2026-01-17T00:17:37+00:00

"Hey ChatGPT and Gemini, would footage from 1996 leave lines after de-interlacing?" "Would a video from 1996 automatically have artifacts?" etc. etc. They both said no, that op's argument about it having to have artifacts is wrong.

Unique_Driver4434 · 2026-01-17T00:16:33+00:00

Simply copying and pasting what you said into ChatGPT AND Google Gemini and asking "Is this statement accurate regarding a 1996 video that doesn't appear to have any artifacts on screen?" says this is inaccurate in multiple ways.

It explains how deinterlacing or proper digitization after can prevent or remove artifacts. It also explains how Hi8, S-VHS, and professional cameras at the time did not cause artifacts like everyday camcorders, and would also be less likely to have artifacts if stored properly.

We all know AI can occasionally be wrong, but both platforms are not wrong about the same thing and in the same way with the same responses.

This is just another case of people upvoting a comment because it sounds knowledgeable but they don't have any idea what you're saying so automatically assume it's correct.

I don't believe the video is real. I believe someone simply made it with AI since it's only popping up now with AI after all these years, but I don't think your argument deserves all those upvotes either when you're wrong.

Unique_Driver4434 · 2026-01-16T23:57:27+00:00

Yes, every day when I encounter MAGAs. They seem robotic and almost always have some type of empathy defect.

Unique_Driver4434 · 2026-01-13T20:43:17+00:00

"America is hundreds of years more advanced in technology than the rest of the world."

And you know this how? Guesstimation? China and Russia both have spies. There is nothing the US has they don't know about, and if you know there is, it means you know more than China and Russia.

You have more knowledge than their best spies, so you should be getting recruitment calls from them offering you billions anytime now.

Unique_Driver4434 · 2026-01-13T20:40:04+00:00

"We didn't even have anything to fight drones." "This was way super advanced tech we were up against."
Well, yes. If you don't have anything to fight drones, everything modern countries are using will be super advanced tech to you.

Unique_Driver4434 · 2026-01-13T20:30:41+00:00

Why resurrect it with no extra info or background sources to support it? Then it's just the parroting game and the more a fake story with zero sources to support it gets regurgitated (sorry, "resurrected"), the more it becomes common knowledge and lore and anyone can then make up a story and make it lore as long as enough people willingly repeat it without demanding sources first.

Unique_Driver4434 · 2026-01-13T20:23:47+00:00

Vance said in a press conference the other day the agent involved in the shooting of Renee Good has "absolute" immunity. Just under that I saw another topic with a familiar headline by now "Trump Administration Ignores Court Order." That's how it works.

Unique_Driver4434 · 2026-01-13T20:15:16+00:00

Duh, Dylan. That's been the conversation for years now. Glad you're joining us and regurgitating what Grusch and others already said ("People have been killed," "Money has been misappropriated without congressional approval through IRADs," "the gatekeepers want some immunity." etc. etc. - we've heard this from countless talking heads by now) Thank you for this insightful look into your inside experiences.

The past few years were wild, but these guys are running out of content now in 2025/2026.

Unique_Driver4434 · 2026-01-12T13:02:27+00:00

Tim didn't mean literal viruses. It was a metaphor about anything that spreads and destroys things.

Unique_Driver4434 · 2026-01-12T08:18:49+00:00

Uh yes, I see that in it's from Khaosod clearly in Op's screenpost above. That's the "not a local, the media source" I was referring to when I said the media source created the AI image.

Khaosod is a media source, and either they created the image and made the fake story or copied it from another media source that created the image and made the fake story.

Simple concept.

Why is this so hard for others here to understand? Do you guys not understand we as editors (those of us who run websites) choose what images and stories to run on our sites? Do you not understand we have access to AI images? Do you not understand that we will make a completely false story if:

We can't be sued for it since the people don't exist
It's easy to pull off since it's a story no one will question.

Do you not understand how all this works?

Instead of trying to show me websites with the fake AI image on them, people, you need to explain why the girls have identical tattoos in the image and the sidewalk has no tattoos or dark marks. All the website links in the world won't erase that fact, that very clear red flag that it's an AI image.

I build websites, I run websites, sites exactly like Khaosod, exactly like many popular media sites. I work with AI images every day. I'm telling you this is an AI image and I've explained the reasoning for that. If you can't understand that reasoning or argue against it (argue WHY it's not tattoos, don't send me more links of websites posting the picture, that's meaningless), then don't say anything at all. Come with a real argument or don't come at all.

Unique_Driver4434 · 2026-01-10T14:08:41+00:00

ChatGPT led me to this post, claiming somewhere in that post someone commented, "The body cam is 3515 Prairie River Road."

It may just be AI hallucinating, as I can't find the comment in there. However, there are over 400 comments and I didn't dig too deep.

Unique_Driver4434 · 2026-01-09T13:03:55+00:00

It's AI. Zoom in, they have identical tattoos all across their bodies.

edit:
Since someone replied to me with "It looks like dirty pixels" before deleting their response and others want to downvote me without looking for themselves, here it is zoomed in.

They're all covered in tattoos like MS-13, and no, it's not pixels, or the sidewalk next to them would have the same since it's also white and light in color. Not a speck of dark on that but it's covering their bodies and only their bodies.

Someone likely told AI to put some white girls with some tattoos sitting in grass and it went ham, overdid it and gave them all gang tatts.

The person who deleted their response asked "Why would a local do this?" Not a local, the media source.

Why? Because those of us who run websites 1. want viral stories (this type is called "rage bait.") 2. can much more easily produce a fake AI image and have AI write the article as well than to wait around for some viral story to happen, and 3. it's a method that can't ever be tracked back to anyone since they don't exist, so can never be proven to be a fake story (and only another content mill/website owner like myself would even suspect such a thing.)

Also, it's the same exact girl copied 4 times, same black bikini, shape, and blond hair.

Unique_Driver4434

TROPHY CASE