f we say it was done by people, then we don't have to accept that, hey, is this climate change doing anything? By the way, I don't think there's evidence that climate change is a problem. Allow me to tell you what the news told you about climate change and the hurricane. You ready? Here are things the news told you. It looks like climate change made it worse because it's one of the worst. It's one of the top five hurricanes in the last, I don't know, 50 years. Do you see any problem with that? Climate change made it worse and so much worse it's one of the top five hurricanes. Do you see the problem? If it's in the top five, it means that they happen on their own. How did the other top five get in there? Were they all caused by climate change? No. If it's only in the top five, it's not even the top one, then the obvious conclusion is that this kind of hurricane happens on its own. Now if it has like a special character that no hurricane has ever had before, well now you have my attention. Now you have my attention. So we could talk about any specific oddity of it. That's fair game. I'll listen to that argument. But just the fact that it's one of the worst, no, it's not unusual to get something that's in the top five. That is not indication of anything. But there might be some weird things about these. I just don't know.

So I've been asked, do I believe that these have been manipulated hurricanes? I would say 5% chance. So I'm not going to give it a zero because it's sort of in the category of, well, anything's possible. I doubt it. Here are the things that I don't doubt. I don't doubt that you can make it rain more than it was going to rain. So if you seed the clouds, that seems like acceptable stuff. I don't doubt that there have been experiments and maybe more than experiments of trying to put something in the atmosphere that would dull the impact of the sun for climate change. I think that's real, at least in the prototype phase. And I think it's been tested somewhere. But do you think they have technology using lasers or whatnot to steer a storm? Here's what I think. It's probably been studied and there might even be a theoretical way to do it. But do I think that Americans, to let's say change the outcome of an election, used hurricane modification to create a mass murder in the United States to change the election outcomes? I say no. I'm going to go with 95% no. And it's sort of the same 95% that I put on the UFOs not being real. Because the nature of the people who are saying I'm a whistleblower, I can tell you for sure it's real, it looks like the same people to me. Like they're not the same, but they could be. If you sat them down next to each other, you put the UFO whistleblower next to the hurricane modification whistleblower, you would think you're talking to the same guy.

Now I'm not going to ignore that the whistleblowers have this kind of vibe to them, if you know what I mean. And their stories all sound the same, whether it's a hurricane or UFO. They sound the same when they're telling the story. I can't ignore that. So I'm going to say no. Now I'm seeing the angry people saying, God, Scott, on some subjects you're so obtuse. Well, here's the context you should look at. Compare all the things that I've predicted publicly to all the things you've predicted publicly, and maybe you should get a little bit more humble about how certain you are that you know that there's earthquake or hurricane modifications. Now I'm allowing you the 5% because I don't rule it out. It could be. It could be. I mean, there have been horrible things that have happened in history. This just seems unlikely. All right, so I'm going to say unlikely.

I do believe that our government has looked into it. I do believe they may have even tested something. That's possible. I do believe they may have a theoretical weapon that would be really bad if they unleashed it on an enemy. I don't believe they tested it on the United States. I don't believe anybody ran a hurricane through the middle of the country for a strategic reason. I don't believe that. All right, but I will accept that many of you are spring-loaded to believe that.

60 Minutes had some propaganda on. I assume 60 Minutes is primarily a propaganda platform. That's just what it looks like. It doesn't look like it's trying to be news, sort of an MSNBC situation. It looks like it's purely for controlling the public opinion. Here's an example. So they had on somebody named Shelby Bush, and she believes that the 2020 election was rigged. So how do you think 60 Minutes treated her? And why do you think they had her on before the election? Do you think it was to take seriously her claims and really dig into them and see if they have substance? Or is it to ask a question like, why do you believe in a conspiracy theory? Oh, it's the latter. Yeah. So the questioner basically has a total attitude and saying, but why, why do you believe in the conspiracy theories?

Now if somebody goes on TV and tells you something is a conspiracy theory, that is propaganda. If it had not been propaganda, if it had not been the intention of it simply to make it look like nobody in their right mind could think the election was... that's the point of it, right? They're trying to make sure that we don't claim it in this coming election by demonizing people who claimed it in the last election. It's not news. It's not news. It's propaganda. So they're setting the stage and they're priming you. Do you want to be treated like Shelby was because she said in public she thought the election wasn't real in 2020? So you know you might be next one who stopped by 60 Minutes to be told that you're a conspiracy theorist in front of the whole world so that they can ruin your life. Yeah, to me it looks like it's just a shot across the bow to warn people not to complain about the election, which is another way of telling me that they plan to steal it. Not confirmed, but the message I get from 60 Minutes is that they're part of a network of people who know that the election is going to be stolen and they want to put down some suppressive fire so that when you do challenge it, you know that you're going up against strong forces and that you might be jailed like the J6ers or you might be maligned and defamed like Shelby Bush.

Here are the tells. The fact that the questioner labels it a conspiracy theory is all you need to know. The average person who watches any kind of news-related show, if they hear that the questioner who you trust is calling it a conspiracy theory, they're not really going to listen to the details of the claim. They're going to be, oh, it's a story about how dumb Republican conspiracy theories are. Got it, got it. Number two, the mocking way the question was asked. It was more like, but you think the election was stolen? Which is way different from, well, you've made some claims about the election and others have said the election's fine, but we want to look into your claims and see what the basis is for them. That's what a news report would do. A news report doesn't mock you for your conspiracy theory if they can't tell if an election was stolen or not.

So the other thing they're trying to sell you, and they did try to sell this, is like, but you know the courts, you fool, you stupid, you know the courts didn't find anything wrong. The courts found nothing wrong, you stupid piece of... now I'm exaggerating. They didn't say those words, but they did say that the court was the basis upon what is true. Now you all know that's propaganda, right? The courts are not the determinant of whether an election was fair. It is true that if you found something and you had standing and you brought it to them in time, there's a very narrow little window of things that maybe the courts could be useful for. But mostly they don't know what's true. What did the court audit the election? No. Did the people bringing stuff to the court audit the election? No, they didn't have an option usually. No. So the fact that 60 Minutes, who clearly knows better, is selling to their audience that the only way you can know if the election was stolen is if the court said so... no, you brainwashing pieces of... no, you don't need the court to tell you if an election was stolen.

Now I don't know what it would take because we don't have access to really know because it's not an auditable process the way it is. But certainly anybody who tells you the courts are the determinant of whether the election was fair, they are bad people. They're either idiots, and that's probably not what's happening, or they're just trying to brainwash you because they know they're stealing the election and they don't want to get asked questions. Yeah, the whole every time the court gets brought into it, you're into brainwashing propaganda. It's not a conversation. It's no longer a conversation. It's not news. It's just propaganda as soon as the courts are brought into it. So remember that rule.

So there's a report by Bottle Raiders. I don't know who the Bottle Raiders are, but they're talking about the purported drinking problem of Kamala Harris. And they're talking about how Saturday Night Live was mocking her for portraying her as having a glass of wine in her hands and suggesting that maybe she really liked her alcohol. And here's how this was covered. They talk about how Newsweek talked about how this started. They said Newsweek reported that a Trump ally, James Blair, I think he has something to do with the campaign, may have originated the claim on X. So somebody named James Blair is being blamed for suggesting that Kamala Harris has a drinking problem. And they think he suggested it or started it on August 17th.

So let's do a little fact check here. So Newsweek, which as you know is a news publication allegedly, August 17th. So that wasn't very long ago, right? August 17th. Is the first time you heard somebody on the X platform suggest that Kamala had a drinking problem, was it August 17th? Does anybody remember anything from anybody that happened maybe before August 17th, a little bit earlier? Anybody? Here's my question. Was that me? Did I do this? Because I don't remember anybody saying it before I did. I don't have my dates right, but it was well before August, I'm sure. Yeah.

So remember I always tell you about Gell-Mann Amnesia. So that's the phenomenon where if you know the truth of an event, when you look at the news you know the news got it wrong because you knew what really happened. In this case, do you see it? So each of you watched in person. You watched me talk about this hypothesis before anybody. Did you know that a lot of people see this? And you know that in the past I've influenced events. And Newsweek is blaming somebody who said it on August 17th. Now check the number of followers that James Blair has and then compare it to the number of followers I have. And in both cases they're primarily probably political people following both of us. Now do you see the Gell-Mann Amnesia? Every time you know the real story, you can tell that the news is wrong. Every time. Here's one of those examples. Yeah, this clearly wasn't him. Let me tell you for sure it wasn't him. It didn't start there. He might have been a fast follower, but no, didn't start there.

Now but you all see it, right? You got to see the real event and then you got to see the news get it wrong. That's Gell-Mann Amnesia. Once you realize that that's every time, then you move to the next level of awareness. If you're still at the point of, wow, that's weird that you found that one example, Scott, no, we're not talking about one example. This is just the way it all works. All the news is fake about anything important. And by fake I mean just some context is left out usually.

Speaking of fake, Bob Woodward has a book coming out next week, and there's some hints about what's in it. And one of them is, so MSNBC and all the propagand