Does the recent SCOTUS decision on firing the heads of agencies established by Congress apply to the Smithsonian, or is the Smithsonian not part of the Executive branch.
Article states Epstein ran a honey pot at the direction of our own intelligence services. If all the names got out, it would decimate our political power structure. This is why Harris Lost when she actually won. I hope this is not true.
I previously made a post in here asking about people’s thoughts on Ning Li and Eugene Podkletnov for opinions/research, and wanted to share this video I finished discussing the both of them to get peoples thoughts.
I honestly think this feels like a big smoking gun with the amount of evidence there is that the US has cracked antigravity and had it for decades.
I’d love nothing more than feedback about anything I missed/ didn’t find. I was hoping to find more info on Podkletnov’s connection to Boeing and other MIC companies but wasn’t able to find anything, and was surprised Podkletnov still does interviews to this day.
PJM rewrites rules to manage surging AI data center electricity demand on America's largest power grid. This enables real-time scaling of advanced AI systems integrated into federal operations under Executive Order 14409.
Big tech firms Microsoft, Google, Amazon, Meta and Anthropic build massive data centers that generate attribution through power usage patterns linked to surveillance.
These projects advance through the Brookfield and Bloom Energy $25 billion partnership and $700 billion expected spending in 2026, with opaque grid decisions shielding potential misuse.
The outcome produces power imbalances enabling coercive control via centralized AI infrastructure, leaving individuals little recourse to opt out or challenge impacts on autonomy and privacy.
Sources
Biggest US power grid PJM moves towards managing data center demand
Reports on PJM adapting rules to handle massive AI data center electricity demand and potential shortages.
Promoting Advanced Artificial Intelligence Innovation and Security
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2026/06/02/executive-order-14409/
Official text of Executive Order 14409 directing accelerated AI integration across federal government operations.
Brookfield and Bloom Energy Expand AI Infrastructure Partnership to $25 Billion
Details the expanded financing deal to rapidly build power infrastructure specifically for AI data centers.
Google's AI boom sends emissions, power use soaring
https://www.axios.com/2025/google-ai-boom-emissions-power-use
Covers Google's rising electricity consumption and emissions driven by AI data center expansion.
Anthropic invests $50B in AI data centers, Microsoft expands
https://apnews.com/article/anthropic-microsoft-ai-data-centers-2025
Reports major big tech investments in AI data centers and supporting infrastructure across multiple companies.
Retired Rear Admiral and former Oceanographer of the Navy Tim Gallaudet says a sonar investigation identified a massive unexplained feature on the seafloor near Southern California, in a region associated with repeated UAP and alleged transmedium activity.
Gallaudet says he was contacted by deep sea explorer and former naval intelligence officer Victor Vescovo, who was preparing to test a new sonar system off the coast of Southern California.
Working with colleagues connected to the Galileo Project, Gallaudet compiled coordinates where UAP activity had reportedly occurred.
These included areas around Catalina Island and locations associated with the USS Omaha incidents, where objects were reported operating near or entering the ocean.
Gallaudet asked Vescovo to examine the coordinates for possible underwater disturbances or infrastructure.
One location near San Pedro contained a particularly unusual seafloor feature that had already appeared in earlier data.
According to Gallaudet, part of an undersea ledge appears to have been completely removed and horizontally displaced by approximately two kilometers.
He estimated that the affected section was more than 100 meters high.
High resolution bathymetric data reportedly shows scouring extending between the original ledge and the displaced material.
Gallaudet said conventional underwater landslides, known as turbidity flows, normally move downslope and produce recognizable depositional patterns.
He argues that this feature does not resemble a typical turbidity flow and instead appears as though a large section was carved from the ledge.
The bathymetric data was examined by Dr. Larry Mayer of the University of New Hampshire, a prominent specialist in ocean mapping.
According to Gallaudet, Mayer told him that he was unsure what had produced the feature.
Gallaudet’s next proposed step is to send a remotely operated vehicle to examine the ledge and the displaced material directly.
Such an expedition could collect imagery, geological samples and structural measurements to determine whether the formation resulted from a natural marine process.
Gallaudet also discussed the possibility of involving ocean explorer Robert Ballard and an oceanographer connected to NASA’s UAP study team, although he made clear that no final expedition agreement had been reached at the time of the interview.
There is currently no evidence presented in this segment demonstrating that the feature was created by a UAP or represents artificial undersea infrastructure.
Its proximity to reported UAP activity is the reason it was selected for investigation, not proof of its origin.
The relevant scientific questions are whether the formation can be reproduced by known geological processes, whether the displaced material matches the original ledge and whether direct inspection reveals evidence of erosion, collapse, impact or artificial modification.
Click below to access the sources and related material:
AI data centers concentrate vast computing power in centralized facilities to train and operate advanced models by processing massive datasets continuously at scale. This infrastructure gives operators like OpenAI the capacity to expand into new sites rapidly wherever power and land allow.
Public events with Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer and photo opportunities create attributable records of local endorsement while private litigation threats from developers build persistent pressure profiles that force resistant townships into acceptance over time.
The model spreads through tax break incentives and settled lawsuits that corporations use with minimal transparency because negotiations occur behind closed doors between companies and officials with little public audit.
This enables coercive siting of projects despite opposition, resulting in steamrolled communities facing potential pollution and health risks while residents hold no effective power to block developments or hold Sam Altman and partner companies accountable for the outcomes.
Sources
Sam Altman, OpenAI CEO, visits Saline, Michigan data center site
Reports Sam Altman's visit to the Saline Township project and his statement that The Saline Barn could serve as a template for future community engagement with AI data centers.
OpenAI's Sam Altman says Michigan data center a 'huge bet' on AI
Details the $16 billion Oracle-OpenAI data center campus in Saline Township and Altman's comments on its potential for medical and educational breakthroughs.
Michigan Governor Joins AI CEOs at Ceremony for Controversial Data Center
Covers the June 2026 event with Governor Gretchen Whitmer and highlights prior community opposition and litigation against the Saline project.
Altman visits Saline data center, says it's 'huge bet' on AI
https://planetdetroit.org/2026/06/michigan-data-center-news-altman-saline/
Summarizes the Saline Township data center financing, community resistance, and corporate claims about responsible development.
Saline Twp. data center will be 'template' for future, Sam Altman says
Explains how the project settled litigation and now serves as OpenAI's promoted model for siting future hyperscale AI facilities.
A user on 4chan posted a method for developing psychic abilities using isochronic tones while focusing attention on a visual point
Source:
Flock cameras use infrared motion detection to flash and photograph pedestrians on foot. AI tracking follows individuals between nearby units without needing any vehicle in the scene.
Networks of closely spaced units build connected records of the same person's route and timing. This creates persistent profiles of movement through public spaces like parks over repeated visits.
Law enforcement deploys these widely via simple contracts into neighborhoods and parks. Apps reveal thousands of locations but proprietary systems block meaningful audits of data use or misuse.
Authorities gain searchable access to detailed public movement histories without warrants. Individuals cannot realistically avoid coverage, review their data, or prevent sharing that enables profiling and control.
Sources
Flock says its cameras don't track people. Its own training videos say otherwise.
Documents Flock's AI object detection and Guardian Mode features that acquire and follow pedestrians in real time, matching the IR activation and tracking behavior shown.
Flock's Aggressive Expansions Go Far Beyond Simple Driver Surveillance
https://www.aclu.org/news/privacy-technology/tracking-alpr-cameras/flock-roundup
Analyzes Flock's shift to video, AI search, and capture of bystanders and pedestrians, explaining how data flows create broad surveillance networks with weak accountability.
DeFlock: Find Nearby ALPRs
Open-source crowdsourced project mapping over 110,000 ALPR units including dense Flock deployments, providing the public tools to identify coverage in their communities.
FlockHopper | See ALPR Surveillance Cameras Near You
Navigation app that generates routes avoiding known Flock and ALPR locations, directly addressing the widespread placement in parks and neighborhoods referenced in community resources.
Anti-Surveillance Mapmaker Refuses Flock Safety's Cease and Desist Demand
Covers public mapping efforts of Flock cameras and corporate attempts to limit transparency, underscoring barriers to auditing data collection and sharing practices.
Retired United States Air Force Colonel Ross Dedrickson claimed that extraterrestrial beings repeatedly intervened when governments attempted to send nuclear weapons into space.
Dedrickson said he learned about several such incidents through contacts connected to military and nuclear weapons operations.
One of the cases he referenced appears to be the reported Big Sur missile incident.
According to Dedrickson, a United States missile launch was filmed as an unidentified object followed the vehicle during its ascent.
He said the object directed a beam toward the missile and neutralized it.
Dedrickson further claimed that the personnel who witnessed or recorded the event were separated and that the incident was initially concealed.
The description closely resembles the account later given by former Air Force officer Robert Jacobs.
Jacobs claimed that in 1964, while his team was filming an Atlas missile test launched from Vandenberg Air Force Base, the footage captured an unidentified object moving around the warhead and directing beams of light toward it.
According to Jacobs, the warhead then malfunctioned or fell out of its intended trajectory.
The Big Sur incident has been publicly discussed for decades and is supported by testimony from former military personnel.
However, it has not been publicly established as an officially confirmed extraterrestrial intervention.
Dedrickson then described a second and even more consequential alleged event.
He claimed that during the late 1970s or early 1980s, the United States attempted to send a nuclear weapon to the Moon and detonate it on the lunar surface.
According to his account, the mission was intended to collect scientific data from the resulting explosion.
Dedrickson said the weapon was destroyed before it reached the Moon because extraterrestrial beings would not tolerate nuclear detonations in space.
He presented this as part of a broader pattern.
In his interpretation, extraterrestrials had repeatedly demonstrated that no government on Earth would be permitted to place or detonate nuclear weapons beyond the planet.
There is an important historical distinction.
The United States Air Force did conduct a classified study known as Project A119 in 1958.
That project examined the scientific, military and psychological implications of detonating a nuclear device on or near the Moon.
The proposal was real, but the available historical record indicates that it remained a study and was never carried out.
No publicly available launch record or declassified document confirms that the United States sent a nuclear weapon toward the Moon during the late 1970s or early 1980s.
There is also no publicly available evidence confirming that such a weapon was intercepted or destroyed by a non human intelligence.
Dedrickson does not identify the mission, launch vehicle, date, personnel or documents associated with the alleged lunar incident in this excerpt.
He instead attributes the information to contacts who allegedly alluded to the event.
The two cases should therefore not be treated as equivalent.
The Big Sur incident is connected to named witnesses and a known missile test, although its interpretation remains disputed.
The alleged mission to detonate a nuclear weapon on the Moon is a separate claim for which no publicly verifiable mission record is presented.
The central questions are:
What specific operation was Dedrickson referring to?
From which launch facility was the alleged lunar weapon sent?
Who informed him that it had been destroyed?
Was the mission documented under another classified project name?
And why is there no known launch or tracking record corresponding to the event?
Dedrickson’s testimony is significant as a statement from a former Air Force officer associated with nuclear weapons matters.
But without the underlying documents or identifiable firsthand witnesses, the claim that extraterrestrials destroyed a nuclear weapon en route to the Moon remains unverified.
Click below to access the sources and related material:
Data centers provide the fundamental mechanism for ingesting and analyzing massive data streams in real time to power AI decision-making and surveillance at scale.
Township meetings turn every spoken objection into a public record that attributes positions to named residents for future reference.
The infrastructure spreads through private contracts presented to local boards with limited transparency on data access or environmental costs that resist easy audit.
Van Buren Township officials advanced the Panattoni project at the May 19 2026 meeting while directing police to remove a resident and dismissing public claims as misinformation, leaving communities with scant ability to halt the resulting surveillance-enabling facilities or challenge their deployment.
Sources
Data Center FAQ - Welcome to Van Buren Township
https://vbtmi.gov/departments/municipal\_services/data\_center\_faq.php
Official township resource detailing the Panattoni data center proposal, zoning, water use, wetlands impacts, and responses to resident questions from the 2026 meetings.
Protest planned over 1-gigawatt Van Buren Township data center proposal
https://planetdetroit.org/2026/01/van-buren-data-center-protest/
Reports community opposition and environmental concerns including daily water consumption of up to 3.6 million gallons for the proposed facility.
Data center plan heads to Van Buren Township board despite community opposition
Covers planning commission approval of the 280-acre data center site plan amid ongoing public backlash in early 2026.
Recall petitions for Van Buren Twp. officials, but appeal is planned
Documents recall efforts against township officials triggered by the data center approval and related public meeting controversies.
Van Buren Township data center draws public concerns about environment
Examines wetland destruction, high water and power demands, and regulatory filings for the Panattoni project serving major AI workloads.