Speaker 1: From UFOs to psychic powers and government conspiracies. History is
Speaker 1: riddled with unexplained events. You can turn back now or
Speaker 1: learn this stuff they don't want you to know. A
Speaker 1: production of iHeartRadio.
Speaker 2: Hello, welcome back to the show. My name is Matt,
Speaker 2: my name is Noel.
Speaker 3: They called me Ben. We're joined with our guest super
Speaker 3: producer Max the Free Train Williams. Most importantly, you are you.
Speaker 4: You are here.
Speaker 3: That makes this the stuff they don't want you to know.
Speaker 3: Back when we started doing a strange news program on
Speaker 3: stuff they don't want you to know, fellow conspiracy realists,
Speaker 3: we kind of assumed a lot of things would happen.
Speaker 3: But like many of us playing along at home, it's
Speaker 3: safe to say we didn't predict every plot twist that
Speaker 3: has occurred as of late, most notably when just let
Speaker 3: everybody know this is common knowledge by now by the
Speaker 3: time you hear this, the current US President Joe Biden
Speaker 3: has announced that he will not be seeking reelection, And
Speaker 3: I think this seemed to come as a surprise to
Speaker 3: a lot of people, but we kind of heard it
Speaker 3: might be in the wind well before the trigger was pulled.
Speaker 4: First time in seventy years, something like that over fifty
Speaker 4: at least. I forget the last president who did it,
Speaker 4: but it was.
Speaker 3: It wasn't Joe Biden. This is his first time doing
Speaker 3: it exactly.
Speaker 4: It's a very rare thing to be done. I mean,
Speaker 4: you know, we think of politics in so many ways
Speaker 4: as like it has the potential to be very self serving.
Speaker 4: So it's pretty rare for someone to step aside for
Speaker 4: the quote unquote greater good. You know, usually people stick
Speaker 4: around for what they consider the greater good instead of
Speaker 4: like bowing out gracefully, which whatever your politics is, you
Speaker 4: kind of got to give it to him for that,
Speaker 4: I think, unless you want to spin it as like
Speaker 4: a he's a quitter, which seems you know, reductive.
Speaker 3: Or the coup conspiracy which is currently going on.
Speaker 2: Or he's just the hold and finally realized, Ah, dang it,
Speaker 2: I gotta throw in the towel.
Speaker 3: You kind of have to. You can't say I don't
Speaker 3: have meetings after eight pm if you're the president, that's true.
Speaker 4: Yeah, what if I just got improved my golf swigs?
Speaker 4: I could you know, PvP Donald Trump on the golf course.
Speaker 3: If what if we just made sure our global cybersecurity
Speaker 3: software wasn't a roll of the dice. What if we
Speaker 3: made sure our fine art was indeed the real McCoy.
Speaker 3: We're going to cover all those stories and more after
Speaker 3: a quick word from our sponsors. Do you think they are?
Speaker 3: Are they skippity? There's gonna be a skibbity movie coming out.
Speaker 3: Paramount's working on it.
Speaker 2: Oh jeez, and we've returned. All right. Guys, You remember
Speaker 2: the old blue screen of death.
Speaker 4: It seems so quaint by today's standards, doesn't it.
Speaker 3: But it was a serious problem, and it happened at
Speaker 3: the upper echelons of industries pretty often, you know, like
Speaker 3: ite's annoying on your home computer. But we also have
Speaker 3: to realize in evenings past the blue screen of death
Speaker 3: make an appearance at NASA. Yeah, your favorite Wall Street firm.
Speaker 3: So this was very much a big deal.
Speaker 2: Well, yeah, blue screens of death have always been a
Speaker 2: big deal. I recall a time when I was working
Speaker 2: in a restaurant and the point of service machine gave
Speaker 2: the old blue screen of death, and that meant we
Speaker 2: couldn't send anything back to the kitchen. We couldn't put
Speaker 2: anything through to get a check. We had to then
Speaker 2: switch over to the hand checks or you know, the
Speaker 2: old actual checks.
Speaker 4: Yeah. Yeah, well we.
Speaker 2: Didn't have to do that this restaurant. It was a
Speaker 2: little weird because it was members only. You'd given whatever.
Speaker 2: But what we had to go to is write everything
Speaker 2: down manually and hand it to the kitchen, which was
Speaker 2: very weird.
Speaker 4: I mean, at least you weren't so addicted to technology
Speaker 4: that you couldn't pivot in a time of crisis. Nowadays,
Speaker 4: there's so many folks that like don't even have a
Speaker 4: backup plan. You know, businesses that can't when their pos
Speaker 4: goes down, they go down, they can't do anything.
Speaker 3: Looking at you, cashless stores, you to applaud you, looking
Speaker 3: at you, yep, I'm looking at you while I am
Speaker 3: also clapping Yeah, good job, support you. But also.
Speaker 2: Eyes hon Okay, So, well, if we're gonna talk about
Speaker 2: a little thing that's kind of boring, but it affected
Speaker 2: a ton of people and it may lead to other
Speaker 2: things in the future and or give us a hint
Speaker 2: a glimpse at what is to come. So on the
Speaker 2: morning of Friday, July nineteenth, a massive wave of computer
Speaker 2: outages swept across the planet, not just one country, not
Speaker 2: just one region, across the planet. It caused thousands of
Speaker 2: flight cancelations and even many, many, many more flight delays.
Speaker 2: It caused the stalling out and or ceasing of all
Speaker 2: kinds of internal and external networked computer systems across all
Speaker 2: kinds of industries. We're talking banks not good, stock exchanges, eh,
Speaker 2: government organizations also probably not good. And hospitals look really
Speaker 2: not good. Well, what was happening? Why were the computers
Speaker 2: not working? What was it a network issue? Was it
Speaker 2: a DDoS attack?
Speaker 5: No?
Speaker 2: No, no, no no no no no. Many, many, many
Speaker 2: users of many many Microsoft Windows machines got that old,
Speaker 2: dreaded blue screen and they couldn't do anything about it.
Speaker 2: And it's for a ridiculous reason. There is a company
Speaker 2: that I didn't know much about. I think I've heard
Speaker 2: of it a couple times because I have a few
Speaker 2: friends who were in cybersecurity, but I didn't know any
Speaker 2: details about this until this story or to this ordeal occurred.
Speaker 2: There's a company called crowd Strike. That's CROWDSTRIKEE. That's one word,
Speaker 2: one phrase. This is a cyber security firm. It provides
Speaker 2: get this cloud workload protection and things like threat intelligence
Speaker 2: and cyber attack response services. It costs around fifty dollars
Speaker 2: per machine to have this installed if you want to
Speaker 2: use it as let's say, a Delta or a north
Speaker 2: side hospital. So for every outlet machine, you got to
Speaker 2: dish out fifty bucks to make sure that network and
Speaker 2: that particular machine, that node of your network is safe.
Speaker 2: And what they did is they ran a simple update.
Speaker 2: Have you guys ever have Spersky or Norton or any
Speaker 2: of those, and you get the updated what do they
Speaker 2: call the updated anti virus? I don't know protocols or
Speaker 2: the They just update the ones that they're they're actively searching.
Speaker 3: For just the software.
Speaker 4: Sure, and I guess not to be snooty or anything,
Speaker 4: but I've been on a Mac for so long that
Speaker 4: I've largely put those days Mega behind me, and I
Speaker 4: kind of forgot how insidious those little updates and pop
Speaker 4: ups and things that you just never click through and
Speaker 4: just now consistently just pop up on your screen like
Speaker 4: it's sort of like a thing of the past for me.
Speaker 4: You guys too, I'm sure I know you guys are
Speaker 4: largely Mac users as well, But if I'm not mistaken,
Speaker 4: Mac was completely unaffected by this.
Speaker 2: As of everything I've read machines that are running on
Speaker 2: different operating systems were not affected. This was specifically a
Speaker 2: basically a boot up error that occurred. So you may
Speaker 2: or may not know this, but when Windows based machines
Speaker 2: boot up through their operating system, they've run through a
Speaker 2: whole bunch of stuff, a whole bunch of diagnostics, a
Speaker 2: whole bunch of processes, and one of those when you've
Speaker 2: got this specific crowd Strike software loaded onto a machine
Speaker 2: that loads up in tandem or like as your machine
Speaker 2: is booting up right.
Speaker 4: Startup items sometimes what they're referred to.
Speaker 2: I guess, yes, and if it doesn't boot up correctly
Speaker 2: or if there's an error in the code of the
Speaker 2: CrowdStrike software, then your machine says, uh, oh, something's wrong.
Speaker 2: We can't go any further in the boot up process.
Speaker 2: And that's what happened. That's all that happened.
Speaker 3: But this was eggs in all the same proverbial basket
Speaker 3: kind of situation.
Speaker 2: Yes, the reason why it was such a big deal
Speaker 2: is because this specific company, with their specific software and
Speaker 2: hardware setups, is so ubiquitous across major players in all
Speaker 2: of these different economic sectors.
Speaker 4: How long has this company been around? Like I mean,
Speaker 4: I guess it's just sort of like it's not that sexy.
Speaker 4: So maybe if you're not in it, it's not something
Speaker 4: that you'd be thinking about. But like a long time.
Speaker 4: I mean, it seems for it to be this you know,
Speaker 4: lockdown or entrenched in the industry, you would.
Speaker 3: Have to be I believe twenty eleven. Okay, Well, also,
Speaker 3: I think we were talking about this briefly off air.
Speaker 3: The name is CrowdStrike, but that seems like a weird
Speaker 3: name for a company that does this sort of thing.
Speaker 3: But in twenty eleven is pretty old in the tech game, right,
Speaker 3: that's enough time to be pretty well established this morning
Speaker 3: a decade, right.
Speaker 2: Yeah, they've been looking at cybersecurity threats for a long time.
Speaker 2: They probably have individuals who have that specific learning, right,
Speaker 2: individual learning, and they've also got collective learning for a
Speaker 2: long time, which is great for a company that does
Speaker 2: this kind of stuff. It's weird how potentially some small
Speaker 2: piece of code they got slipped into an update ended
Speaker 2: up causing an error, or a little piece of code
Speaker 2: got deleted accident, and then cause this whole thing. There's
Speaker 2: a news story. We'll give you a couple of new
Speaker 2: stories because it's been all over the place. But NBC
Speaker 2: News has a story titled crowd strike update that caused
Speaker 2: global outage lightly skipped checks experts say, which is just
Speaker 2: saying some piece of faulty code within this article, by
Speaker 2: the way, some piece of faulty code got entered into
Speaker 2: that update, and then it caused havoc because everybody is
Speaker 2: now it's not like I guess, let's think about it
Speaker 2: this way, guys. In our company, we used to have
Speaker 2: an entire IT department of a couple of human beings
Speaker 2: who knew how all of our networks and our computers worked,
Speaker 2: and they were in the office every day, and if
Speaker 2: we had an issue, we would go to that human being.
Speaker 2: They would diagnose the problem and fix it.
Speaker 3: Think about also, our crew was great conversation as well.
Speaker 2: Oh yeah, great conversation, but they were they had expertise
Speaker 2: and they were on hand. Right, that's huge right nowadays,
Speaker 2: if you're talking about a giant enterprise company, some fortune
Speaker 2: five hundred company, your IT department you may have an
Speaker 2: internal one, but largely those are getting outsourced, and it's
Speaker 2: probably not on premises. Wherever you're working, there's no IT
Speaker 2: department in your office likely, which is scary in these
Speaker 2: kind of situations, because I imagine if you're at the
Speaker 2: I don't want to say, imagine you're at the American
Speaker 2: Airlines kiosks at the airport, okay, yeah, and we are
Speaker 2: your workers there who are designed to be forward facing
Speaker 2: for the customer. You help customers come in, check their bags,
Speaker 2: get on their flight.
Speaker 4: Right.
Speaker 2: Sure, you probably don't know the IT systems for all
Speaker 2: those kiosks sitting around, and if every single one of
Speaker 2: them goes down, what do you do besides start making
Speaker 2: phone calls, trying to send emails, maybe on your work
Speaker 2: phone if you've got one or whatever, just trying to
Speaker 2: get somebody, some other person to say, uh oh, here's
Speaker 2: what's wrong. We can fix it.
Speaker 3: Yeah, do a quick reboot. I'm sure. Can you imagine
Speaker 3: the countless numbers of restarts that occurred on Friday?
Speaker 4: If anyone's ever seen The It Crowd, which is a
Speaker 4: delightful show about sort of like The Office, a British
Speaker 4: show about an IT department, the big recurring jokes. Have
Speaker 4: you tried turning it off and back on again? Yep?
Speaker 2: Yeah. So let's just get to a couple more specifics here.
Speaker 2: The thing that went wrong is called Falcon sensor. It's
Speaker 2: a piece of software that CrowdStrike makes. It is the
Speaker 2: basically anti virus software of their suite. So it is
Speaker 2: the thing that gets updated with new viruses to defend against,
Speaker 2: new ways to protect specific machines and networks and it.
Speaker 4: So this thing is like Norton and other stuff all
Speaker 4: smashed into one kind of right, Like it's a multi service,
Speaker 4: multi function platform for business.
Speaker 2: My understanding of CrowdStrike is that it is mostly pieces
Speaker 2: of software, suites of software, and then individual human beings
Speaker 2: or I guess large crowds of human beings that work
Speaker 2: for them to fix problems, like they offer ransomware protection,
Speaker 2: cloud detection and response, all kinds of various attacks that
Speaker 2: are potentially going to be coming towards your network or machines.
Speaker 3: They will handle it and they're super good. By the way,
Speaker 3: lest we let this this current pickle when we find
Speaker 3: ourselves in make it sound like they're a bunch of gunderheads,
Speaker 3: we do. Yeah, we need to remember they were. They
Speaker 3: were kind of with us all the way through different
Speaker 3: explorations of stuff. They don't want you to know. The
Speaker 3: cyber attacks against the DNC a few years back, the
Speaker 3: Sony pictures hack that was a weird one. Cloud strike
Speaker 3: or CrowdStrike excuse me? Is the is the go to
Speaker 3: entity in the West for investigations of this sort, So
Speaker 3: they are about that life.
Speaker 2: Yes, and let me get it right. They are at
Speaker 2: least in their website a cloud native platform, so that
Speaker 2: protects against all kinds of stuff. Very cool. I'm not
Speaker 2: intelligent enough to understand all of it, but they do
Speaker 2: cool smart stuff. There was just an error here and
Speaker 2: it caused a ton of problems, a ton of potential.
Speaker 2: There was a problem. I don't know if you guys
Speaker 2: saw the stories. There's a problem with the organ donation
Speaker 2: list because all of the machines that run that stuff
Speaker 2: went down, so they there were massive delays with that.
Speaker 5: Well.
Speaker 2: I think some of the hospital stuff got taken care
Speaker 2: of pretty quickly. There was obviously a prioritization of what
Speaker 2: needs to get fixed and in this case, guys, because
Speaker 2: there were banks and stock markets involved, Yes, I guess
Speaker 2: which one was pushed up to the top.
Speaker 3: Also, I think it was the current rating or idea
Speaker 3: is that there will be losses. That quote should not
Speaker 3: exceed ten billion dollars. This is gonna be rough for
Speaker 3: insurance companies. They're gonna be ramifications and it's is it
Speaker 3: not ironic? And knowell that the faulty thing, the Falcon
Speaker 3: software you mentioned earlier that created this kerfuffle and these
Speaker 3: vulnerabilities and these crashes, it itself is a vulnerability sensor, right,
Speaker 3: M Like, it's.
Speaker 4: All this stuff is designed to protect against this stuff,
Speaker 4: but caused by outside of it.
Speaker 3: Turns out it was the cops who robbed the bank.
Speaker 4: The call was coming from inside the house.
Speaker 2: Yeah, but it just stinks because if you imagine, you
Speaker 2: know an author or someone who's putting together an entire
Speaker 2: book and you make one tiny mistake on page two
Speaker 2: seventy one, and that one mistake causes every book to
Speaker 2: just catch on fire. Woops. Just something like the teenious
Speaker 2: little mistake that some person made accidentally, and then it's.
Speaker 3: That's how compiling code works. I think that's an excelle
Speaker 3: I know, which.
Speaker 4: Is that you mentioned kind of the prioritization of like
Speaker 4: fixing this stuff. Obviously, situations where human lives are at
Speaker 4: stake would be prioritized, one would hope, before the banks
Speaker 4: and stock markets would is to say exactly, but I
Speaker 4: would hazard to guess that the situation that got pushed
Speaker 4: lowest on the priority list where the airline kerfuffles, because
Speaker 4: that's just inconvenience. And I had a friend who just
Speaker 4: got back literally a day and a half ago after
Speaker 4: being log jammed out in California and then Dallas, and
Speaker 4: it was like a home alone type situation getting home
Speaker 4: for Christmas, and he was just absolutely without you know,
Speaker 4: a remedy, and he was just you know, just biting
Speaker 4: his time, spinning his wheels until he finally got home.
Speaker 4: And I don't know if you've seen any of the
Speaker 4: footage of like luggage carousels with like all the luggage
Speaker 4: got lost and then all of a sudden it was
Speaker 4: found all at the same time when things went back online,
Speaker 4: and it's just like, it looks like a refugee type situation.
Speaker 4: It's insane.
Speaker 3: And of this many of those folks as well. I
Speaker 3: got a lot of folks on the road here. And
Speaker 3: Delta got a special attention from the current administration due
Speaker 3: to the absolute pandemonium, like flights grounded. As you said, Matt,
Speaker 3: flight's delayed. And if you're hearing this, and by God,
Speaker 3: if you were affected by this, we hope you're home
Speaker 3: safe or you started a new life at the airport,
Speaker 3: no judge.
Speaker 2: Hey, there you go, and you can do that at.
Speaker 4: That movie the terminal, you know where you just like
Speaker 4: I live at the airport.
Speaker 2: Find a way into that Delta private club and just
Speaker 2: make yourself at home. I'm telling you.
Speaker 3: It's not Look, it's we can go the next time
Speaker 3: we're on the road together. It's okay. It's a lot
Speaker 3: more like a it's like a corporate golden corral. That's
Speaker 3: exactly what I was, like, a corporate gold.
Speaker 4: Amazing. But my buddy was absolutely, you know, the quintessential
Speaker 4: victim of this. I don't know if you guys saw
Speaker 4: any of animated gifts of all of the flights that
Speaker 4: were the flight paths. There were a few that were
Speaker 4: making the round where it was just all of these
Speaker 4: crazy intersecting flight paths. And that part could have been
Speaker 4: dangerous because I guess air traffic control was potentially you know,
Speaker 4: you mentioned groundings, probably could have potentially caused mid air
Speaker 4: collisions if there hadn't been you know, some quick thinkers.
Speaker 3: Atc infrastructures hanging by a thread anyhow. And one interesting
Speaker 3: thing about those infographics that came out is initially a
Speaker 3: few of them purported to show a twelve hour time
Speaker 3: window of flight stoppage, but it published before twelve hours
Speaker 3: had passed, So we always have to think critically that's
Speaker 3: true about that?
Speaker 4: I think, yeah, I think what it was hinting at
Speaker 4: those still, yes.
Speaker 3: One and there were real ones. You probably saw the
Speaker 3: accurate ones. But yeah, the Delta lounges are great. We
Speaker 3: should go.
Speaker 2: So guys, before we get out of here and head
Speaker 2: to Delta's sky Captain, it's called the Skyline Skycaptain.
Speaker 4: In the world of lounge.
Speaker 2: You have to talk about this. Crowd Strike is number
Speaker 2: one when it comes to end point security for you know,
Speaker 2: a big, big company.
Speaker 4: The tagline it's pretty cure.
Speaker 2: Well they are, that's what they are. They're like the
Speaker 2: name in endpoint security. If you're a huge enterprise company,
Speaker 2: fortune five or five hundred company, the.
Speaker 3: Google is the search engine for most people. Yes, it's
Speaker 3: on that level.
Speaker 2: The number two company for endpoint security is Microsoft. Those
Speaker 2: two companies are is what caused the problem, the Microsoft
Speaker 2: operating system and the endpoint security of CrowdStrike. So like,
Speaker 2: if you're a huge enterprise, one and two just gave
Speaker 2: you massive issues, right, eight point five million Microsoft Windows
Speaker 2: machines got hit. So we're looking at the problem of
Speaker 2: one company like a Google, like a crowd strike in
Speaker 2: this example, like whatever huge company that spans across the
Speaker 2: globe and has its little tendrils in all of the
Speaker 2: various machines that run stuff. We're looking at another one
Speaker 2: of these problems where that situation becomes untenable in a
Speaker 2: major issue, because one company's problem becomes everybody's problem, right,
Speaker 2: And I do have a feeling we're gonna see even
Speaker 2: more of this. These kinds of issues have been ramping
Speaker 2: up and occurring more frequently, and I think it's just
Speaker 2: gonna get.
Speaker 3: Worse because monopolization is bad.
Speaker 4: But did we mention though that the one airline I
Speaker 4: believe that was unaffected was Southwest because they're still running
Speaker 4: Windows three point one.
Speaker 2: Yeah, isn't that nice? But then they had funny that's
Speaker 2: really great. But then they had a plane fly about
Speaker 2: one hundred and seventy five feet above the water before
Speaker 2: it landed this week and it wasn't supposed to do that.
Speaker 4: Was that related?
Speaker 2: The unrelated, unrelate related that happened on July twenty first.
Speaker 2: I think they're reporting out of kron dot Com.
Speaker 3: Also July twenty first hottest day ever on record. So far,
Speaker 3: this has been good news, bad news.
Speaker 4: Yeah, yeah, the name of this segment. Yes.
Speaker 2: And on July twenty second, the self professed wolfever B
Speaker 2: and B was sentenced to four years. Hey, don't get
Speaker 2: sentenced for four years for stuff like that, guy. We'll
Speaker 2: be right back with more strange news.
Speaker 3: And we have returned. There is great news I'm so
Speaker 3: glad to share with everybody who's been wondering why aren't
Speaker 3: more sharks on cocaine? Recently we learned that sharks off
Speaker 3: the coast of Brazil have been testing positive for cocaine.
Speaker 3: And this is something that maybe gets little misreported, but
Speaker 3: you guys know, I love the stories like the Farrell
Speaker 3: super Pigs and the you know, cocaine bears, the super
Speaker 3: Orca marauders, stuff like that, which we'll come into play
Speaker 3: in a later listener mail program. So there was this
Speaker 3: study that got published July twenty second and day we're
Speaker 3: talking about in just a moment ago found all of
Speaker 3: the Brazilian sharp nose sharks that were tested for biological
Speaker 3: possession of cocaine turned out to test positive. Data concentration
Speaker 3: as much as one hundred times higher than previously reported
Speaker 3: for any other aquatic creatures. Getting a lot of this
Speaker 3: from Sky News thanks to the journalist Dylan Donnelley. This
Speaker 3: is one of those stories that goes viral just because
Speaker 3: we know an executive producer somewhere is going to say, guys,
Speaker 3: they call us producers, but we're really more disruptors. Shark Nato,
Speaker 3: cocaine shark cocaine bear. I'm telling you, guys, the film
Speaker 3: is on the way. That's the conspiratorial aspect of this,
Speaker 3: in my opinion.
Speaker 2: What do you think My theory is that some writer
Speaker 2: has the idea and then, because of the laws of
Speaker 2: the universe, that then has to become an actual thing.
Speaker 2: I think that's what's happening nowadays, right right.
Speaker 3: The causation of fiction in fact, have become reversed, just
Speaker 3: like the polls.
Speaker 2: Yep, somebody has an idea and now it's here.
Speaker 4: I wish I could remember this guy's name, but I
Speaker 4: went to the comedy store in LA not too long
Speaker 4: ago and saw this old school He's like part of
Speaker 4: a multi comic bill, old school comedian wearing like the
Speaker 4: rumpled suit and everything. He had apparently been there since
Speaker 4: the place opened, and he made a joke about a
Speaker 4: recent news story about a boat full of cocaine that
Speaker 4: washed up on a beach in Malibu and said, man,
Speaker 4: I bet all those turtles, which is they had their
Speaker 4: straws back. Yeah, it was that kind of joke. It
Speaker 4: was that kind of one miner comic, but just reminded
Speaker 4: me of this story.
Speaker 3: And we know that the primary reason this is happening.
Speaker 3: It's similar to the studies that found all the cocaine
Speaker 3: residue on euro banknotes and in the water of certain
Speaker 3: Italian towns. It's not because someone had a bunch of
Speaker 3: spare cocaine and decided to party with sharks, although I'm
Speaker 3: sure that has happened at some point, probably in the
Speaker 3: nineteen seventies or eighties. It's because of the massive jump
Speaker 3: in the cocaine trade. The methods are getting increasingly sophisticated.
Speaker 3: We've heard the great stories about the homemade submarines, which
Speaker 3: are objectively impressive. There is a high rate of attrition
Speaker 3: baked into the drug game in general, up to an
Speaker 3: including killing people obviously, so what seems to have most
Speaker 3: likely happened is that there were multiple massive losses of
Speaker 3: cocaine that got ejected as authorities arrived, or got misplaced
Speaker 3: or got shenanigan in some other way. And what I
Speaker 3: think is fascinating about this is this kind of research
Speaker 3: allows us to conduct forensics and get a look at
Speaker 3: how much of this stuff is actually making it to
Speaker 3: the US or another destination point versus how much is
Speaker 3: being just lopped out into the ocean. Because you know,
Speaker 3: let's practice empathy and understand they're very intelligent maritime creatures
Speaker 3: now who are saying the neighborhood is going to hell
Speaker 3: because of all the petroleum products, the microplastics, the and
Speaker 3: now the cocaine. You know what I mean. I wish
Speaker 3: they could move, but they can't.
Speaker 4: Isn't that a thing though? Where like municipal like study
Speaker 4: or I think there was a scientific study into various
Speaker 4: municipal water supplies and how much or sewage I think
Speaker 4: that's what it was. It was like how common it
Speaker 4: was for there to be high levels of addictive drugs
Speaker 4: found in like common sewage. I think it was pertaining
Speaker 4: to like converting that gray water into usable water and
Speaker 4: doing so. There was like a study of like how
Speaker 4: much things like cocaine were found in that it's just
Speaker 4: interesting how much of that stuff just makes it into
Speaker 4: the water supply.
Speaker 3: Like yeah, like the study we mentioned in Italy too.
Speaker 3: And I don't want to sound like we're disparing gene
Speaker 3: the good folks of Venice or Genoa or what have you.
Speaker 2: Guys, have we considered the idea that maybe the sharks
Speaker 2: saw that the cops are coming and they just did
Speaker 2: all the cocaine.
Speaker 3: I think that's exactly what happened. I believe that now.
Speaker 4: Okay, why they always got to keep moving, that's whether
Speaker 4: circling around.
Speaker 3: Have you met sharks, they're already intense. I feel like
Speaker 3: they could be involved in those situations. But I also
Speaker 3: saw an orca recently, a grandmother orca. Absolutely mop a
Speaker 3: great white shark. Move it on. We want to hear
Speaker 3: We'll ask you about this in a in a future program.
Speaker 3: But what do you We want to hear what you
Speaker 3: think the most dangerous large non human animals are on
Speaker 3: the planet, Like who is the apex apex predator?
Speaker 4: Ben? Could you PvP a great white shark on cocaine?
Speaker 5: Which, because you're still okay, okay, if I'm still called sober,
Speaker 5: then I guess it depends on the depth of the
Speaker 5: water fair enough, you know what I mean, it's like
Speaker 5: three feet.
Speaker 3: Then I think there's a fighting chance.
Speaker 4: That would be what would be considered a handicap in
Speaker 4: your favor, right, Yeah, yeah.
Speaker 3: Which I would need. But there's already a handicap because
Speaker 3: you know, we have the thumbs and we're smarter. But
Speaker 3: the main thing is we would have to if we
Speaker 3: were in that situation, we would have to have that
Speaker 3: have that bout decided pretty soon. Because shout out to
Speaker 3: our previous episode on Great Disasters Waiting to happen, Yellowstone
Speaker 3: just laid a nasty, nasty one. I'm sorry yesterday.
Speaker 4: Yeah, there's some reason that's visual because I'm thinking of
Speaker 4: like the sulfuric smell of like grow old faithful, and
Speaker 4: I'm just picturing that like Yellowstone as an entity, like
Speaker 4: took a dump kind of.
Speaker 3: Yeah, it took a squirty part what we know. This
Speaker 3: was reported by Associated Press out there in Cheyenne, Wyoming,
Speaker 3: the Yellowstone National Park guys Are system had an enormous
Speaker 3: surprise eruption just yesterday as we record and people in
Speaker 3: the area. It was big enough that people in the
Speaker 3: area had to run for safety. This thing was sprayed
Speaker 3: and it grew in front of them. It was beginning
Speaker 3: to rain very hot water and debris. People were also
Speaker 3: trying to figure out how safe a distance they could
Speaker 3: get before they turned around, almost like the old biblical
Speaker 3: story of pillars of salt, and so they found themselves
Speaker 3: gathered under these huge clouds of steam. Now, why are
Speaker 3: we reporting this? No injuries that we know of so far. However,
Speaker 3: this hearkens back to the Yellowstone super eruption, super hydrothermic
Speaker 3: eruption that people have been predicting since far before the
Speaker 3: existence of this show. And I've got to ask you, guys,
Speaker 3: do you remember that episode?
Speaker 4: Yeah?
Speaker 2: Uh yeah, I remember early on talking about the caldera,
Speaker 2: learning what that word was, learning how afraid I am
Speaker 2: of that thing that word represents. Yeah.
Speaker 3: The thing is, if there was a Yellowstone super volcanic
Speaker 3: or hydrothermic eruption, I think super volcanics best way to
Speaker 3: say it. If it were to occur, this would be
Speaker 3: an absolutely catastrophic event for a large swath of the
Speaker 3: US and Canada. The last one happened seventy thousand years ago,
Speaker 3: a number that I think we reference in our episode
Speaker 3: all those years back However, the boffins who study this
Speaker 3: are pretty certain that Yellowstone is due to erupt again,
Speaker 3: kind of like how you know if a faucet is
Speaker 3: continually running in a glass into a glass of water,
Speaker 3: you have to empty the glass at some point or
Speaker 3: to overflow. I don't know. I'm thinking if there's a
Speaker 3: time I'm in history where someone would say, also super
Speaker 3: volcanic eruption in addition to all the other stuff, I
Speaker 3: think it's this time.
Speaker 4: Yep, pile it on, guys, just now. I gotta worry
Speaker 4: about volcanic eruptions.
Speaker 3: I'm just you know, maybe the guys that will send
Speaker 3: us a note and say, you dudes were cool to
Speaker 3: me in that last episode. Don't go to Yellowstone, don't
Speaker 3: come to school tomorrow. Oh god, yeah, that got dark.
Speaker 3: Oh yeah, well let's keep Let's keep getting darker than
Speaker 3: because they said, I want to found so much stuff.
Speaker 3: I wanted to cavalcade of these of these stories. Uh.
Speaker 3: Even if we don't travel out to Yellowstone and we
Speaker 3: stay at home, we could be in trouble because of
Speaker 3: a new nifty uh robodog that has been designed by
Speaker 3: the Department of Homeland Security. The neo robot is capable
Speaker 3: of delivering mo bile DDoS attacks and jamming home networks
Speaker 3: and disabling devices, and is specifically built to do this
Speaker 3: during police raids. What could go wrong?
Speaker 2: And that's intense that they've got a robot that can
Speaker 2: do that now, because we talked not long ago in
Speaker 2: one of one of these episodes about home invaders who
Speaker 2: could shut down like Wi Fi networks, right, and they
Speaker 2: make handheld things, but you have to be a human
Speaker 2: being trying to get into a place holding one of
Speaker 2: these things generally. Now that it's on, is it a
Speaker 2: remote controlled dog or is it like an autonomous dog
Speaker 2: robot thing?
Speaker 3: It doesn't have wires, Okay, it does look like it
Speaker 3: could be remote controlled. I imagine there is. It might be
Speaker 3: like a bomb drone, you know what I mean, or
Speaker 3: the robots that get sent in to dismantle or diffuse bombs.
Speaker 3: In that there would be somebody perhaps controlling it to
Speaker 3: a degree. We don't know how much autonomy it would have,
Speaker 3: but we do know. The primary calculus for this is
Speaker 3: it comes from a case when a person suspected of
Speaker 3: child sexual abuse used his doorbell camera to see FBI
Speaker 3: agents at his front door serving a search warrant, and
Speaker 3: so with that information from his you know, from his
Speaker 3: cloud connected doorbell camera, essentially he opened fire on the
Speaker 3: agents and he killed two of them and injured three
Speaker 3: more So, the idea here, the proposition which I would
Speaker 3: argue is valid, is that this will help save people's lives.
Speaker 3: But then there's the other side of it, because this
Speaker 3: is the United States, which means that if you were
Speaker 3: getting up to something untoward, you could use this to
Speaker 3: make sure that your actions had far less of a
Speaker 3: chance of ever surfacing in court or an investigation. You know,
Speaker 3: you an'll have to turn off a body camera, you
Speaker 3: can turn off a house yay.
Speaker 2: Wow, yeah, really good for a serial killer too.
Speaker 3: Yeah, because you know, the question is then how long
Speaker 3: will it the technology? How long will it take for
Speaker 3: someone to build this on their own?
Speaker 4: Right, It's just a more elaborate version of the old
Speaker 4: cutting the power, cutting the phone line thing. It's just
Speaker 4: like a much more all encompassing version of that trope.
Speaker 3: That, Yeah, I see. I think it's an escalation because
Speaker 3: even if you cut the power in the you know,
Speaker 3: the proverbial phone lines or the internet cable, ninety plus
Speaker 3: percent of people are still going to have some sort
Speaker 3: of wireless device that will allow them to contact the
Speaker 3: outside world and foil whatever you're trying to accomplish. Whether
Speaker 3: that is very very good or very very bad, I
Speaker 3: don't know. I hate to be one of those both
Speaker 3: sides entities. I feel like this, this thing which is
Speaker 3: built using the quadruped unmanned ground vehicle or fugouve uh,
Speaker 3: I feel like it's inevitable, but I feel like things
Speaker 3: are going to go wrong with it? Is that alarmist?
Speaker 3: What do you think?
Speaker 4: No? I mean, we know that when certain technologies or
Speaker 4: capabilities exists in the I guess you could call it
Speaker 4: law enforcement sector, they usually find their way into the
Speaker 4: hands of the public sector, you know, whether it be
Speaker 4: something like radar detectors or you know, certain types of
Speaker 4: surveillance gear. You know, usually there becomes like some sort
Speaker 4: of version of it that trickles its way into being
Speaker 4: able to be purchased and utilized by anyone.
Speaker 3: And I still can't buy an M wrap, you know
Speaker 3: what I mean?
Speaker 2: I wish you could, dude, I.
Speaker 3: Think we would look sick in an M wrap.
Speaker 2: The You know, the one thing about this is that
Speaker 2: it cannot affect wired devices, So even if you cut
Speaker 2: the power. If you had a battery backup system and
Speaker 2: wired cameras or something, it couldn't affect that, which is
Speaker 2: a good and terrible thing, because I feel like people
Speaker 2: who are getting up to terrible stuff may already be
Speaker 2: thinking about that, because there's less chance for those systems
Speaker 2: to get leaked or be snooped on by a neighbor
Speaker 2: or something.
Speaker 4: Whenever I hear about stuff like this, I always think
Speaker 4: back to the pretty terrible John Carpenter movie Escape from La.
Speaker 4: Spoiler alert for a very bad and decades old movie,
Speaker 4: see Escape from New York. Escape from La sucks. It's
Speaker 4: worth watching if only to see how bad it is.
Speaker 3: But snake has an eye patch.
Speaker 4: Man, he has an eye patch. Yeah, that's this thing.
Speaker 4: But Escape from La just isn't very good. It's got
Speaker 4: some of the it's got this scene where he's like
Speaker 4: surfing and it's the worst CG kind of green screen
Speaker 4: looking thing you'll ever see in your life. But there
Speaker 4: is a pretty cool plot device that stuck with me
Speaker 4: when I was a kid or into my adulthood after
Speaker 4: seeing it in the theaters when it was originally out.
Speaker 4: Is this idea that, through some sort of crazy network
Speaker 4: of satellites. And again, this technology is absurd. They could
Speaker 4: like make batteries stop working. They could wirelessly basically set
Speaker 4: humanity back into the dark ages. I always think about
Speaker 4: that whenever I hear about, you know, the new technology
Speaker 4: that can you know, wirelessly turn things off, or can
Speaker 4: wirelessly you know, invade your home.
Speaker 3: Run Yeah it also you know, it turns out in
Speaker 3: general that a lot of films based in LA about
Speaker 3: La end up not being that great. I'm just gonna
Speaker 3: leave that point there. I don't want to make anybody
Speaker 3: too angry the manufacturer of the neo dog or or
Speaker 3: a good yeah well yeah, LA Confidential is good, but
Speaker 3: the majority of them, I think, well, anyway, I don't
Speaker 3: want to mess I don't want to anger the producers
Speaker 3: in the big wigs of the world, because I don't
Speaker 3: want to end up like that top Russian economist who
Speaker 3: died after falling out of a window. Another demonstration, Yeah,
Speaker 3: eighty two years old. You can check out the full story,
Speaker 3: which is there's a short reference to it now that
Speaker 3: you can find in Western outlets like Newsweek, Valentino Bondarenko.
Speaker 3: And the most interesting thing is, I would say to
Speaker 3: look at the growing list of Russians who have fallen
Speaker 3: out of windows since Vladimir Putin launched the invasion of Ukraine.
Speaker 4: I would say scientists need to take heed and just
Speaker 4: stay away from windows. Yeah.
Speaker 3: Yeah. If someone offers to walk you to a window,
Speaker 3: say no. Treat it like a secondary location. Yeah, get
Speaker 3: a closer look and shout out to the XCIA agent who,
Speaker 3: in a total rookie move, just appears to have turned
Speaker 3: on turned for South Korea intelligence. For the price of
Speaker 3: designer handbags. You can find that story. It's all the
Speaker 3: key words you need. The power is yours. We're going
Speaker 3: to pause for a word from our sponsors and we'll
Speaker 3: be back with one more piece of strange news.
Speaker 4: And we returned with one final piece of strange news.
Speaker 4: Ben I really enjoyed that grab bag. By the way,
Speaker 4: some lighter stuff in there definitely cut a little dark.
Speaker 4: I'm gonna turn it back to the lighter side, I think,
Speaker 4: I hope. With a story out of Wellington, New Zealand.
Speaker 4: We're talking about art. There is a museum called the
Speaker 4: Mona which is in Tasmania. It is the museum of
Speaker 4: Old and New Art. It recently revealed that the paintings
Speaker 4: featured in a very controversial exhibition that were purported to
Speaker 4: be by Picasso were in fact by the curator of
Speaker 4: this exhibition, a woman by the name of Kersha Kashey.
Speaker 4: This was after some inquiries from the Picasso administration, which
Speaker 4: is in France. They go about the business of making
Speaker 4: sure that art that is on display that is purported
Speaker 4: to be by Picasso is in fact by Picasso, among
Speaker 4: other things.
Speaker 3: And being like treated appropriately, treated appropriately.
Speaker 4: Or the appropriate amount of you know, respect that is
Speaker 4: due the genius Pablo Picasso. And I am a pretty
Speaker 4: big Picasso fan. I remember a time where it was
Speaker 4: like I could do that, yeah, but but did you?
Speaker 4: And also Picasso was in fact a classically trained painter.
Speaker 4: He just created an aesthetic and a style that has
Speaker 4: been emulated.
Speaker 3: You know. Now he's a person, horrible, not a good dude,
Speaker 3: but very talented artist. I had the same experience over
Speaker 3: when I've seen picasso early earlier work, Like he he
Speaker 3: got to god mode level before he got to the
Speaker 3: stuff that people might object to artistically, the price, let's
Speaker 3: call it.
Speaker 4: But he was also fabulous at political at just creating
Speaker 4: these politically charged like Guernica and just you know, just
Speaker 4: absolutely these striking images that can evoke all kinds of
Speaker 4: emotion just through shape and form and flow and anyway,
Speaker 4: big fan. But this exhibition was inherently almost like a
Speaker 4: work of performance art, and it took a couple of
Speaker 4: years for the Pacasto administration to even get wind of it.
Speaker 4: But let's talk a little bit about what the exhibition
Speaker 4: was in the first place. These supposed Picasso paintings have
Speaker 4: been on display for more than three years in the
Speaker 4: ladies restroom, the Lady's lounge, as they referred to it,
Speaker 4: of the Mona.
Speaker 3: As Pablo would have wanted, As Pablo would.
Speaker 2: Have want, wasn't that lounge created specifically?
Speaker 3: Though?
Speaker 4: Well no, no, no, hear me out. Okay, there's more
Speaker 4: to the story. So I believe what they're referred to
Speaker 4: is the lady's lounge is actually the restroom. This was
Speaker 4: after an exhibit was curated by by this woman that
Speaker 4: I'm talking about, who works at the museum, and I
Speaker 4: believe her husband actually owns the museum or is like
Speaker 4: the you know, the top official at this Mona museum.
Speaker 4: It was part of an exhibit that was in the
Speaker 4: museum proper originally that was intended to be for women's
Speaker 4: eyes only, so men were not allowed. They were denied
Speaker 4: admittance to this exhibit, which included these again supposed Picasso
Speaker 4: paintings in addition to some other works. They weren't named,
Speaker 4: but they were supposedly supposed. They were supposed to be
Speaker 4: from other highly regarded artists, and in the pieces that
Speaker 4: I've found, I haven't seen direct reference to who those
Speaker 4: artists were meant to have been. But essentially what happened
Speaker 4: was this created a more or less gender war type
Speaker 4: situation where men were objecting to the fact that they
Speaker 4: could not get in to see these supposed, very rare
Speaker 4: and valuable works of art, and this led to a lawsuit,
Speaker 4: and that is what led to the paintings and the
Speaker 4: exhibition being moved into the women's restroom. And apparently at
Speaker 4: the hearing that took place as a result of this kerfuffle, Kashelle,
Speaker 4: I'm sorry if I'm mispronouncing that it's k A E.
Speaker 4: C H E L E. And a kind of coterie
Speaker 4: of other women who were involved in this basically attended
Speaker 4: in protests simultaneously or synchronously crossing and uncrossing their legs
Speaker 4: at various points of the hearing and then they kind
Speaker 4: of marched out in solidarity. Let's hear a little bit
Speaker 4: more about this hearing. So the Tasmanian Civil and Administrative
Speaker 4: Tribunal held essentially a hearing. I'm not quite sure about
Speaker 4: the exact details of what terms are used in Australian
Speaker 4: litigation or Australian civil service versus over here, but the
Speaker 4: proceedings were overseen by a gentleman by the name of
Speaker 4: Deputy President Richard Gruber, and he had this to say
Speaker 4: about the art exhibition. The participation by visitors in the
Speaker 4: process of being permitted or refused entry is part of
Speaker 4: the artwork itself. I'm just going to quote from this appiece.
Speaker 4: I think it's a little confusing. Gruber ruled that the
Speaker 4: man who made the initial complaint had suffered a disadvantage.
Speaker 4: He wrote in the decision that found the exhibition to
Speaker 4: be discriminatory in part because the artworks in the ladies Lounge,
Speaker 4: which is what it was originally called before they moved
Speaker 4: it to the restrooms. Just want to clear that up
Speaker 4: here real quick, were so valuable. Cashelley had described them
Speaker 4: to the hearing as a carefully curated selection of paintings
Speaker 4: by the world's leading artists, including two paintings that spectacularly
Speaker 4: demonstrate Picasso's genius. The tribunal ordered the Museum Mona to
Speaker 4: stop refusing men entry, and Gruber also gave the group
Speaker 4: of women who attended a hard time for those actions
Speaker 4: that I was describing to you earlier. They were being disrespectful.
Speaker 4: One woman, he said, this is weird, was pointedly reading
Speaker 4: feminist texts for shame. Bizarre, and he also lambassad the
Speaker 4: group for leaving the tribunal in a slow march led
Speaker 4: by Ms Caschelley to the sounds of a Robert Palmer song.
Speaker 4: I wonder which Robert Palmer song? It was addicted to love?
Speaker 4: Maybe I don't know. It's hard to say, and really
Speaker 4: quickly it's a little confusing. I apologize if I got
Speaker 4: this detail wrong. They didn't move the exhibit to a
Speaker 4: women's restroom. It continued to be referred to as the
Speaker 4: ladies lounge, and Kashelle actually brought in a working commode
Speaker 4: and installed it into the space for all intents and purposes,
Speaker 4: converting this gallery space to a women's restroom, and allowed
Speaker 4: them to continue to refuse men's entry to the exhibition.
Speaker 4: And I don't know. In some of the reporting that
Speaker 4: I read, it made it sound like you literally moved
Speaker 4: it to the women's restroom. And also because this had
Speaker 4: been in place for I believe it's been three years
Speaker 4: before this news story came out. Because of the entry
Speaker 4: of the Picasso administration, I was maybe thinking, like, they
Speaker 4: just hung these in the women's restroom, so my mistake there.
Speaker 4: Apparently one of them, though for this entire time, was
Speaker 4: accidentally hung upside down. And there's a pretty funny quote
Speaker 4: from the curator again of this exhibit, when she admitted
Speaker 4: very recently that she in fact had painted these pieces herself.
Speaker 4: She said, I imagined that a Picasso scholar, or maybe
Speaker 4: it's a Picasso fan, or maybe just someone who googles
Speaker 4: things would visit the Ladies Lounge and see that the
Speaker 4: painting was upside down and expose me on social media.
Speaker 4: But that didn't happen.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I've got I got to say, though, the ruling
Speaker 3: there is very interesting to me. The idea of a
Speaker 3: piece of art being defined in part by the experience
Speaker 3: of seeing it or being denied from seeing it, that
Speaker 3: that concept is really fascinating to me. But also it
Speaker 3: reminds me a bit of fellow conspiracy realists. Part of
Speaker 3: personal anecdote tell us more importantly if you have experience
Speaker 3: with this. But it reminds me of some literary shows
Speaker 3: that I've seen here and abroad in Atlanta, most particularly
Speaker 3: an event called Blue Stockings, and they would they would
Speaker 3: have shows where everybody could go, and then they would
Speaker 3: also have shows that were women or female identified only.
Speaker 3: And there were a few people in the crowd about
Speaker 3: the temerity to get upset about that. I don't know.
Speaker 3: I mean the idea that you would you tell me,
Speaker 3: you guys, the idea that you would choose this as
Speaker 3: the hill to die on to say that I as
Speaker 3: a dude and being discriminated against.
Speaker 4: I guess the reason that I described you as sort
Speaker 4: of a work of performance art is And I think
Speaker 4: you're right about the judges really. But the most interesting
Speaker 4: part of the rerling to me was the fact that
Speaker 4: he said it was the value of the art that
Speaker 4: made it unfair to not permit men to come and
Speaker 4: see it, and the fact that the art was fully counterfeit.
Speaker 4: That was part of the whole point, you know, I
Speaker 4: don't think she was kind of being sneaky and trying
Speaker 4: to make it sort of seem like they were legit,
Speaker 4: but a lot of the literature around it and the
Speaker 4: way it was promoted it was very tongue in cheek,
Speaker 4: and she never actually said they were by Pacasta said
Speaker 4: they represented the genius of Picasso, and they're certainly in
Speaker 4: the style of Picasso, which, as I sort of mentioned
Speaker 4: at the top, without knowing his background or appreciating, you know,
Speaker 4: the way he particularly is able to do this stuff,
Speaker 4: you could fool probably some layman into thinking this is
Speaker 4: a Picasso because the style can be copied and has
Speaker 4: been copied, you know, ad nauseum. So that to me
Speaker 4: was the whole point. And I got to wonder if,
Speaker 4: with the way they acted in the tribunal, that was
Speaker 4: part of it too. I think it's pretty genius. Larger game, yeah,
Speaker 4: I think it's kind of very seven, you know, very
Speaker 4: like it was all planned out ahead and we played
Speaker 4: right into our hands. Not to compare women with serial killer.
Speaker 3: I definitely yeah, again, I'm definitely not mad at it.
Speaker 3: And as I mentioned at the top, you know, Picasso
Speaker 3: is really cool in terms of the visual art. Check
Speaker 3: out the Prado if you ever get a chance and
Speaker 3: you're out that way. One of the one of the
Speaker 3: things that I could say, having read, uh read a
Speaker 3: bunch of old stuff about Picasso in the bat in
Speaker 3: the I was going to say, in the back of the.
Speaker 2: Day but in the day rooms.
Speaker 4: Famous bastard.
Speaker 3: Yeah, yeah, Like I said, it's a terrible person. But
Speaker 3: I think he I like to think he would enjoy
Speaker 3: this kind of uh disobedience towards the system, right, this
Speaker 3: sort of discordinated discordianism, I think would speak to him.
Speaker 4: Completely agree.
Speaker 3: He would hit on the women doing it one.
Speaker 4: Hundred and I completely agree. And I will just wrap
Speaker 4: this up by saying that we now have her from
Speaker 4: the Picasso administration and they apparently are not seeking any
Speaker 4: kind of you know, retribution or you know, doing anything
Speaker 4: to try to you know, harm this woman financially or
Speaker 4: the institution. Let me see if I can find the quote.
Speaker 4: Here we go. Family of Pablo Picasso chooses not to
Speaker 4: take action against Tasmania's Mona for Kirsha Kshelly faked artwork.
Speaker 4: This from an Australian news agency. I believe AMP dot
Speaker 4: ABC dot net dot au. The family of artists Pablo
Speaker 4: Picasso has chosen not to take action against Tasmania's Museum
Speaker 4: of Old and New Art after sending it a letter
Speaker 4: challenging its exhibition of several fake paintings that were falsely
Speaker 4: portrayed as Picasso's. It was this letter from the Picasso
Speaker 4: administration that prompted her to come clean after three years
Speaker 4: of these paintings being on display, It says, the Picasso estate,
Speaker 4: through Picasso Administration, recently contacted Mona over the exhibition of
Speaker 4: several works by Picasso whose nature seemed doubtful. Mona immediately responded,
Speaker 4: expressing its regrets and declaring it was ready to take
Speaker 4: the paintings down. While we can only regret the situation
Speaker 4: in the current overexposure, we believe that this matter is
Speaker 4: now closed. We also specify that we in no way
Speaker 4: hold this against the museum itself nor the artists. The
Speaker 4: urgency of creation sometimes makes us forget that there are
Speaker 4: principles of law protecting the interests of authors, which applied
Speaker 4: to everyone. Mistakes are also part of learning, and we
Speaker 4: have no doubt that Mona will make sure to call
Speaker 4: on authors when necessary in the future. I think that
Speaker 4: is a very thoughtful and level headed response in the
Speaker 4: spirit of the work. If not the life and negative
Speaker 4: actions of Publo Picasso.
Speaker 3: Well, also that administration had to uh. The Picasso administration
Speaker 3: has famously really up to their diplomacy game because they
Speaker 3: had to make peace with some pretty serious disagreements between
Speaker 3: family members or descendants of Picasso's estate, so they they can.
Speaker 3: It's also national thread the needle day while we're recording,
Speaker 3: so they are very good at threading the needle.
Speaker 2: Ah, very nice guys. I think I have an answer
Speaker 2: to the question Ben that you posed a little earlier,
Speaker 2: like why when and why would you get upset about
Speaker 2: something like this where you are not admitted?
Speaker 4: Right?
Speaker 2: I think in my head the scenario is every person
Speaker 2: that walks through the door to something pays the same
Speaker 2: price for admission, but because of the intrinsic properties of
Speaker 2: some of the people who pay that admission price, they
Speaker 2: don't get to experience the entirety of whatever it is
Speaker 2: they paid for. I think that's messed up, thought out right,
Speaker 2: and I think anybody would have a problem with that,
Speaker 2: no matter what the thing is that's being pointed at
Speaker 2: and saying you can't because of this.
Speaker 4: But you know you're saying with admission to the me
Speaker 4: is the improper you should have access to everything that
Speaker 4: everyone else if paying that admission has access.
Speaker 2: Well, I'm saying that is a general situation, right, So
Speaker 2: if I don't know how much it costs to go
Speaker 2: into this museum, it might be donation kind of thing,
Speaker 2: like the High Museum here in Atlanta or place.
Speaker 4: Something like that. Most most are meant Yeah, and if
Speaker 4: it is that, actually a lot of modern a lot
Speaker 4: of modern art museums do have a hefty price tag,
Speaker 4: though sometimes.
Speaker 2: Well, I don't know that those specifics. I'm just saying
Speaker 2: I think that's the situation where you do get upset
Speaker 2: and you're like, ah, that's kind of messed up, because
Speaker 2: then it is like you're singling people out basically.
Speaker 3: You know, which would be different from the example of
Speaker 3: say creating ah as it's called a safe space for people.
Speaker 3: It would be. But this argument then becomes moot, largely
Speaker 3: because these are not the real McCoy picassos, you know,
Speaker 3: and that and that that ruling seems to depend on
Speaker 3: the idea of fame or prominence in the discourse of
Speaker 3: visual art. But I stand with your point. I think
Speaker 3: that's beautifully recent and highly astute. There.
Speaker 4: I saw a thing recently that reminded me of this.
Speaker 4: It was like a pr kind of I guess, pop
Speaker 4: up sort of happening thing that Payless Shoes did in
Speaker 4: Los Angeles where they created a storefront and called it
Speaker 4: Plessi and had all of these like celebrity influencers show
Speaker 4: up and had all of these Payless shoes behind glass
Speaker 4: and had them all priced at like six seven hundred
Speaker 4: dollars and they sold a ton of them, only to
Speaker 4: reveal at the end that it was all Payless shoes. Now,
Speaker 4: one could argue that some influencer who was taken in
Speaker 4: by this and perhaps embarrassed, could come out and say
Speaker 4: that was messed up, but they were sort of the
Speaker 4: trap was laid for them and it was meant to
Speaker 4: prove a point. So I got to wonder, like, is
Speaker 4: there a room for litigation in a situation like that?
Speaker 4: Where is it false advertising? I guess Payless gave them
Speaker 4: all their money back, So I got to wonder, like,
Speaker 4: what is the lynch pin of what makes something, you know,
Speaker 4: I guess, actionable in that way versus not when there
Speaker 4: is deception involved.
Speaker 3: Yeah, it depends on a couple of other things. Because
Speaker 3: then from a legal perspective, you could also ask what
Speaker 3: about those taste tests where they say, actually, you know
Speaker 3: Lucciano like the Saturday Night Live sketches. Obviously, actually Luciano's
Speaker 3: is not a real Italian restaurant. You've been eating Domino's
Speaker 3: pasta or whatever. Yeah, it's not to beat you to death,
Speaker 3: but the idea there is maybe going in through like deception,
Speaker 3: really hinges on the concept of expectation, right, those are
Speaker 3: the two sides of the coin. So if you expect
Speaker 3: to see a pacasto and someone's actively telling you that
Speaker 3: you are, and it is not a fact Picasso, perhaps
Speaker 3: you would have legal grounds. But if you have a
Speaker 3: taste test to go to an Italian restaurant you've never
Speaker 3: heard of, and you sign a bunch of stuff that
Speaker 3: you don't read, then you have removed, you have indemnified
Speaker 3: the tricksters. So I think it's a really interesting question.
Speaker 3: Be great to hear from a legal beagle in the
Speaker 3: crowd about this.
Speaker 4: I think it also, at the end of the day,
Speaker 4: depended largely on whether people are good sports about it
Speaker 4: or not. You know, like it was only one complaint,
Speaker 4: it would seem that led to this tribunal, and that's
Speaker 4: probably all it takes. But I would argue that the
Speaker 4: women responsible for curating this event probably appreciated the fact
Speaker 4: that it led to that, and they were able to
Speaker 4: do their kind of escalation of the protest by you know,
Speaker 4: doing all of these kind of very obvious actions during
Speaker 4: the tribunal to protest even that. So I think it's neat.
Speaker 4: I think it's kind of iconoclastic and a bit badass.
Speaker 4: So I just thought i'd bring it up. But I
Speaker 4: think that's about the gist of that one yo.
Speaker 3: And the gist continues. The jig is up, but the
Speaker 3: gist continues.
Speaker 4: There we go. I don't know.
Speaker 3: We'll work shop it.
Speaker 4: Folks.
Speaker 3: Thank you so much as always for tuning in. We
Speaker 3: can't wait to hear from you your opinions about this,
Speaker 3: the nature of art, the nature of CrowdStrike, whether or
Speaker 3: not you could PvP a shark. What's the largest land
Speaker 3: animal you could PvP? This will be important later in
Speaker 3: the meantime. Let us know these answers and just anything
Speaker 3: else that's on your mind. Reach out in the darkness.
Speaker 3: You try to be easy to find online.
Speaker 4: That's right. You can find us at the handle conspiracy stuff,
Speaker 4: where we exist on x FKA Twitter, on Facebook, where
Speaker 4: we have our Facebook group Here's where it gets crazy.
Speaker 4: And on YouTube with video content coming at you on
Speaker 4: the regular, on Instagram and TikTok. However, we are conspiracy
Speaker 4: stuff show guys.
Speaker 2: I just watched Peter Fonda and Kurt Russell write us
Speaker 2: tsunami on surfboards on to the top of Steve Vashemi's
Speaker 2: really awesome red car.
Speaker 4: But isn't the bad looking though, it's terrible.
Speaker 2: If you've got a movie or a book or some
Speaker 2: kind of thing that has that moment in it that
Speaker 2: is just insane, send us those recommendations. Give us a
Speaker 2: call one eight three three std WYTK When you call in,
Speaker 2: give yourself a cool nickname, and then you've got three
Speaker 2: minutes say whatever you'd like do. Let us know if
Speaker 2: we have permission to use your voice and your name
Speaker 2: and all the good stuff your whole message on one
Speaker 2: of our listener mail episodes. If you got more to
Speaker 2: say then can fit in that three minute message. Why
Speaker 2: not instead send us a good old fashioned email.
Speaker 3: We are the entities that read every piece of correspondence
Speaker 3: we receive. This is a fantastic way to reach out
Speaker 3: and touch faith in the darkness between the Stars. Particularly
Speaker 3: thankful for the creative work that people have been sending,
Speaker 3: actually responding to some folks about some treatments and some
Speaker 3: fiction later deeper into this evening, very excited about that
Speaker 3: you can contact us Edy Old Time, tell us a
Speaker 3: response to a listener mail or strange news program. Even
Speaker 3: more importantly, pitch us ideas for future episodes, because some
Speaker 3: of the best ideas this show has ever encountered come
Speaker 3: directly from you will find you soon conspiracy at iHeartRadio
Speaker 3: dot com.
Speaker 2: Stuff they Don't Want You to Know is a production
Speaker 2: of iHeartRadio. For more podcasts from iHeartRadio, visit the iHeartRadio app,
Speaker 2: Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to your favorite shows.