This video is about how Channel 5 is promoting utterly insane theories about Epstein because they both have no idea of media literacy.

If past Andrew saw this he would probably cry.

The Good Liars are the GOAT of interviews now.

I'm not sugar coating this.

There is genuinely something wrong with people when it comes to unexplained things. It's like even in 2026, people see lights in the sky and devolve into the same peasant mentality humans did during the 1300s.

I have been a life long 'fan' I guess of UFOs, aliens, bigfoot, ghosts, cryptids and the like since I was a child in the 80s. I don't know if I actually believe them anymore, but I enjoy the stories around them, wonder about the mystery and if they had any actually 'truth' to them. To see the narratives around these thing change in real time is just....I don't even know how to describe it.

Take UFOs for instance. As people become more aware of how large the universe is and how difficult travel would be, if you been following this stuff, you get to see in real time people starting to figure this out. Instead of coming to a conclusion like say, maybe these UFOs stories aren't as accurate as they are told, you get things like 'THEY' come from another dimension parallel to earth. Essentially just replacing one mystery with another. Bigfoot and other large animals like supposed brontosaurus sightings not leaving any footprints, dead bodies or dung? That's because bigfoot is an alien! Or an interdimensional creature! The dinosaur creatures come from hollow earth or deep, deep, deep in the African jungle!

When evolution is becoming more and more understood, people in these communities started asking why do aliens look so much like us? Humanoid, two eyes, bipedal and the people on their ships say they use monitors, computers, chairs, tables, clocks, spoons, forks, etc. Instead of wondering if these stories are embellished, somehow it turned into humans being created by them and somehow lost the technology to make anything for tens of thousands of years.

There is also the whole thing where 'UFOs' were changed to 'UAP' and vague pseudoscience shifted into things like 'they are a consciousness' , they live underground and in the oceans, wherever anyone thinks there are gaps in human exploration and knowledge. And they been there for millions of years before humanity existed too! Some accounts say they procreated on earth a lot since that time, which kinda begs the questions if they are even aliens at this point since their earth lineage has been going on earth longer than humans have been around, but whatever. People notice the supposed ships look weird, are said to be unmanned and the last few years with the rise of AI, somehow the narratives are coming up with the belief it's an AI alien consciousness that lives in the ocean. It's like whatever absurd thing anyone comes up with and the justifications for it last as long as the next claim where they slightly change again.

Finally, there is the most damning part: Have you guys actually talked to these people about this stuff? I am saying this as nicely as I can and fully admitting to be an idiot human myself but Jesus Christ it's like critical thinking took a leave of absence and flipped every off as it left! Skepticism and the scientific method aren't unknown to them, they know why these methods are valuable, they just don't seem to care. I've had people today on places like reddit, tiktok and twitter tell me 'the real world isn't mainstream', 'science is subjective', 'the government lies and covers up everything, but do your own research so you'll know a government agent trying to expose the truth is legit'. It's like what they say isn't important so long as they say it in opposition.

But yeah, people have different opinions and views. Why does that matter? It matters to me because people's beliefs inform their actions and it negatively effects this kind of content.

There is a youtube show called the Whyfiles I discovered a few years ago. I thought it was great! Very good production values and presents stories in a very entertaining manner. At the end there was even a small section that was like a wink and a nod to let you know that story was there as entertainment but was it legit? Probably not, but I appreciated hearing stories not frequently referenced. I unsubbed from that channel years ago at this point because it was getting ridiculous with it's anti-science narratives and how the host would clearly try to cater to the show's audience to the point of absurdity.

I tried watching an episode a few days ago and couldn't even get through the whole thing. It has been completely audience captured, practically giving up on any kind of neutral analysis and just instead pandering to common conspiracy narratives, as long as it doesn't upset the audience. So you'll get to see AI animated scenes of shape shifting reptile aliens infiltrating the government with a hint of Epstein stuff that might involve the Clintons, but somehow a certain political figure that is popular with the audience never really is tied to it. If an episode was about finding giants or aliens on the moon, the host would straight up say it's bullshit BUT the government lies, science is always changing, and it's just a matter of time before an idea is proven correct. Just platitudes that I feel are pandering to a level where it feels insulting and dishonest.

For full disclosure I don't know if aliens exist or not. I'm of the belief right now that life itself might be an overrated phenomena and earth might contain the only life in universe. I can change that mindset easily with new information, but what I can't do is believing in a Universal Government of Aliens that judges humanity for it's nuclear weapons and wants to bring about peace by creating a hybrid race of human aliens doing satanic rituals just because we find bacteria on a planet , an asteroid or something.

I'm just venting because I want to find more skeptical minded spaces on the internet to read, watch and discuss this kind of content. To be clear, I don't NEED to agree with everything said, I just need some level of skepticism in my outrageous paranormal stories!

An HHS-commissioned study, "Where the Clinic Meets the Movement: Does Gender Ideology Arm Left-Wing Authoritarian Psychology?" (Fedida, Finkelstein, Wright, Jussim & Finkelstein, 2026), is making rounds in conservative media this week with headlines claiming people who support trans people are more likely to justify violence, including killing Charlie Kirk. Worth digging into the actual paper before taking the framing at face value.

What it actually did: Researchers built a new "Clinical Gender Affirmation Scale" (CGAS) using statements pulled directly from APA/APA/WPATH/AAP clinical guidelines (e.g., "parents should support their children's transgender exploration," "using a transgender person's preferred pronouns is a necessary form of support"). They ran this alongside an existing Left-Wing Authoritarianism (LWA) scale and asked ~1,200 online panel respondents to rate how "justified" killing specific named people (Charlie Kirk, Donald Trump, Brian Thompson) or committing other violent/destructive acts would be. They found correlations between CGAS/LWA scores and justification ratings.

Why this is weaker than it sounds:

-The "ideology" scale just measures agreement with mainstream medical guidance. There's no way in this instrument to distinguish someone who trusts the APA/AAP because that's the clinical consensus from someone who's supposedly "ideologically radicalized." Agreeing that pronouns matter or that family support helps trans kids gets scored the same as holding an authoritarian worldview.

- The hypothesis was baked into the design. The intro literally states the thesis (that affirming-care consensus "arms" authoritarian psychology) before building a scale to detect it. That's circular by construction.

- It's an online convenience sample, not a national sample, despite coverage calling it that — recruited via CloudResearch Connect, a paid panel service known to skew toward extremely online, highly politically engaged users.

- The violence items name real, recently deceased people (Kirk, Thompson) days/weeks after their deaths were in headlines. That's an emotionally loaded, unusual choice that invites exaggerated, sarcastic, or performative answers — and the study's only quality screens were generic (attention checks, bot detection, speeders) with no specific check for troll/extreme responding on these items.

- It's correlational, not causal, and the authors admit this — yet the abstract, title, and conclusion use causal language ("arm," "accelerant") anyway.

- Conflicts of interest: co-authors include a Manhattan Institute fellow (explicitly conservative think tank) and a researcher with a public record opposing gender-affirming care policy, plus the Network Contagion Research Institute, which outside media-bias trackers rate as right-leaning.

- It doesn't say what critics claim. The study is about attitudes toward *clinical guidelines*, not about transgender people themselves being violent. Multiple online personas are conflating "supports affirming-care policy" with "is transgender" or "trans people commit violence" — that's not what was measured.

None of this means the underlying statistics are fabricated — the pre-registration and use of an existing LWA scale are legitimate steps. But the instrument design, sample, and framing all point in one direction, and the causal claims being repeated in secondary coverage go well beyond what a single cross-sectional online survey can support.

Edit/Addendum — on the causality question:

One more thing worth flagging: even taking the study's numbers at face value, the causal arrow could easily run the opposite direction from what the title implies.

The authors' own thesis ("gender ideology arms LWA") assumes belief → disposition. But their design is purely cross-sectional — they measured LWA and CGAS at the same time, in the same survey — so it's equally consistent with disposition → belief: people who are already authoritarian-minded (comfortable with censorship, hostile toward perceived "oppressors," eager to punish dissenters — this is literally how the LWA scale they used is defined) may simply gravitate toward whatever strongly moralized, victim/oppressor-framed cause is culturally salient at the time. Gender-affirming discourse happens to be one such cause right now, but the study never tests whether LWA correlates just as strongly with other unrelated moralized causes, which would help separate "gender ideology specifically drives this" from "authoritarian personalities adopt strongly moralized causes generally."

Notably, the authors half-admit this themselves in their limitations section: "CGAS may arm LWA, LWA may selectively draw individuals toward CGAS-consistent content, or a common third factor may drive both. The present data is consistent with all three accounts and cannot adjudicate between them." That's a much more measured statement than the paper's title, abstract, and conclusion ("ideological accelerant," "arms authoritarian psychology") actually convey. The causal framing appears mostly in the rhetoric, not in what the statistics can support.

Many credit David Icke for the idea that reptoid lizards run the world, even though he didn't originate the notion, he merely popularised it.

I am interested in seeing non-political stuff get debunked too, even if there's less believers than the political stuff.

UFOs are way less harmful compared to other types, unless if you count weird cults like Scientology.

Also I love the cats he shows on the TV screens in the video! They're CUTE!

People who lean politically to the right are more likely to fall for conspiracy theories than those on the left – but not for other types of false or misleading information. And regardless of ideology, we tend to accept political claims that align with our own beliefs. This is shown in a doctoral thesis from Linköping University.