Intellectual integrity is impossible without verifiable primary sources, and this critique rightly exposes the laziness of claiming evidence doesn't exist. It serves as a sharp reminder that true scholarship requires rigorous documentation rather than mere rhetorical flair.
Install our extension to search inside any video instantly.
"THERE'S NO SOURCES" GNOSTIC INFORMANT EXPOSED
Added:Nothing Alman has been saying about antiquity has been true. Nothing.
Nothing. There's no sources.
>> Never interrupt your enemy when he's making a mistake. That's bad manners.
Eh, >> nothing Armen has been saying about antiquity is true. If you're going to say there are no sources, you've got nothing left. If sources don't matter to you, they don't exist. Like Luke Gorton, the sources don't exist. Everything burned down. There's nothing. everything speculation. You're literally at the end of the rope and this is the end of the line for Gnostic and these people, it looks like because if you're going to sit there and claim there are no sources, then you literally do not want to look at the sources. And I'm going to show you that's exactly what he did when he watched Armen's last stream that had my video in it that he skimmed through all of my parts of the video that he didn't want to reference any sources that I brought up and now he's claiming there's no sources. No, it's you don't want to look at them because it ruins everything that you're saying about Armen and antiquity because you're a liar. And I've shown that many times to claim there's no sources. Holy [ __ ] I'll give you the whole timeline, the whole breakdown, everything he's done, everything he said. And I'm going to show you all the sources and I'm going to show you you can do this work yourself. I'm going to put all the links to all the sources in the description and I've put them on the screen for you as well so you can do this work for yourself. He's saying there are no sources when he knows that you right there. You who's watching this can do this yourself. And I'm going to show you how. So, let's get into this video.
>> LH, his buddy LH also constantly makes videos about me about me being lying and just completely just butchers everything.
>> Now, I'm going to use his own words throughout this whole video because, as I put in the beginning, never interrupt your enemy when he's making a mistake.
And all I'm going to do is use his own words in this video to prove he's going to completely butcher everything. And I'm going to show you how >> we started talking about younger Dus and none of us there have any [ __ ] clue what we're talking about. Any [ __ ] clue what we're talking about? Any [ __ ] clue what we're talking about?
They ended up saying maybe there was two comets.
>> He said they ended up saying maybe there was two comets. What actually happened?
>> There's an older dry right before this period from 18,000 BC to 14,000 BC. So was there another comet? Then >> you're the one that said it. He is a straightup liar. misrepresenting the facts, misrepresenting the evidence, misrepresenting his own words. Lie, lie, lie.
>> I also asked him, would you be willing to come on my channel and discuss some of these topics that you know, you have all this time to make videos about me.
>> Well, actually, I didn't make a lot of videos. I made two videos. Well, three I've made three videos now. I made one a while ago when he lied about my first video that I made with Christing and drugs about his buddy Myth Vision and Ronald McDonald. And then I made two other videos. one that was like a nearly 3-hour breakdown of the debate he had with dunking on Matt Beal's podcast. And I broke down for 3 hours the sources, the evidence, and his lies and his misrepresentation of evidence. And then I made a second video which I showed the clip from with him and Flint Dibble when he went on Flint Dibble's podcast and he misrepresented the evidence and Flint Dibble admitted that he had misrepresented evidence. So I made two videos breaking down his lies and I cut up a bunch of shorts about it. That's all. Now, he's going to misrepresent him saying that he wanted to have me on his show to talk about all this stuff because this video is the video I did after Luke Gorton and Arman Hillman had a debate on Denny Jones and I broke down for an hour in this one and a bunch of other videos how Luke Gorton was lying and obiscating the sources and the reality and the truth of what was going on in the ancient Greek sources relating to ancient Greek and Jesus and the New Testament and everything in that. And I did an hour video breaking that down.
And then I got an email from Steven from Cross Bible, Gnostic's friend, not Gnostic himself. So this was 5 months ago after the debate happened. So here's the email I got. I'm not showing any of the exchange unit. I'm just showing this to show you it was Steven Nelson from Crossbar sent me the email about the Hillman versus Gorton debate review. And that was Friday, January 16th. He wanted to me to come on Gnostic's channel because they were doing a breakdown of the debate. So when Gnostic says I've got all this time to make videos about him, but not go on his channel when he invited me. That's not quite accurate because he invited me back in January after the debate with Hillman and Gorton. Nothing to do with Egypt, the pyramids, Balbeck, anything he talked about in that debate where I did that 3-hour nearly 3-hour breakdown. So, it had nothing to do with that. What actually happened is I posted all those shorts on X or formerly Twitter to show that everyone that he was lying. And what did he do? He blocked me on X to so I can't respond to his lies with the videos proving he's lying. And here's the debate breakdown I did nearly three hours of where I broke down all his lies, all the evidence to show he was disingenuous and misrepresenting evidence. That was the first one I did.
And the second one was him and Flint Dibble lying to everyone and proving that he misrepresented evidence in that first clip I showed you with him and Flint. So, the first video that he responded to that I ever had interaction with Gnostic was last year when I did a video on Christ equals drugs and it was a reaction to Mythvision talking about Christing being drugs and the ancient Greek sources. And then Gnostic went completely disingenuous and said this.
So, I made a video saying, "Hey, he's being disingenuous. Can't you see this?
Here's all the evidence." I'll show you a few clips of this video to show you exactly what he did. Pharmarmacon is the drug. The Christ or drink is how you apply it. He said the Christ or drink is how you apply it. He's claiming that I didn't know that the Christ or drink is how you apply it in this case. That's rubbed on. That's how you apply the ointment. Kriston is how you apply the medicine. In this case, how you apply the pharmarmacon the drug. Like he knows the sources. That's the worst thing about this. He knows these sources. He's read all this stuff. So, he's just being disingenuous. Ston rubbed on how you apply it. Exactly what I said. He's claiming that I never said this and I don't know what I'm talking about.
Anyone who follows Nostic informant, like I'm not trying to do anything to make you hate the dude or not like him or not watch him. These are the claims he's making about me and other people claiming we don't know what we're talking about when he knows. He knows this stuff. So why is he doing it?
Because you can see for yourselves right here. I explained it perfectly. Christ is the application. Pharmicon is the drug. He's lying to you.
>> It's just the different forms of application.
>> Did you hear that, Gnostic? I said it's the different forms of application in these Christings. And cris epic Christos come on epicristos smeared on pharmaca drugs smeared that's how it's applied smeared rub again I said that's how it's applied that's how you apply the drugs in this case he's projecting a false narrative so people who see whatever he says believe this false reality that he's trying to create for himself and his viewers and then he says pharmarmacon is the drug as if I didn't know that but I've already showed you I said it many times pharmicon is the drug pharmarmacon is a drug pharmicon corn is a drug and it's referencing a Christ.
The application Christos Christ freshly spread drugs being disingenuous now and everyone can see it. This is the key bit from this video. Everyone can see it or everyone who has eyes to see it can actually see it. Now, I know from my experience, there's going to be three types of people everywhere. There's going to be people who agree with you.
There's going to be people who disagree with you no matter what. And there's going to be people who are like on the fence. They don't really care. So, I know there are going to be people who watch this and see all the evidence and they're still going to side with Gnostic because they don't care about evidence.
Just like Gnostic doesn't care about evidence because if he did, he look at all this and go, "Okay, I've actually uh here's all the evidence. Here's all the sources that he says doesn't exist." But he doesn't really care about evidence to sources anymore. He just get cares about protecting his narrative. That is absolutely gone now. It's gone. He's got no legs to stand on anymore because he is so disingenuous. And what does that actually mean? And am I right in using that word fornostic informant? It's disingenuous there. Not candid or sincere. Typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does. Yep, that's exactly what he did in his comment. I explained that the farm was the drug many times and I explained that the Christ or drink is how you apply it multiple times. So that shows you he doesn't care about evidence anymore. He's making up lies about people and the sources. Exactly. He's making up lies about the sources and the evidence and about people like myself.
So, as I showed before, this is the video that he wanted to talk about when he invited me or Steven from Cross Bible invited me on the show on behalf of Gnostic. Okay, this is the video and this is the information. Nothing to do with all the other stuff about the pyramids in ancient Egypt where he said, "I've got tons of time to make all these videos about him, but not go on his show." I made those two videos and broke down all those shorts for everyone to see the evidence for themselves and he's still sitting there not referencing the evidence. Disinguous liar. He wants to run away from the sources, project the false narrative like he's still doing, saying there are no sources. This guy, oh my god. So, I'll show you a clip from this video that I made about Luke Gordon and Arman Hillman and show you exactly what I posted and the evidence that Gnostic says they wanted to talk about.
>> By the way, vows are very important in Greek. You can't just substitute them in and out.
>> He's a [ __ ] liar. He just sat there and lied to Danny and Armon and everyone who watched this. Over 400,000 people who watched this podcast with Luke, Danny, and Armon. He just lied about ancient Greek vows being so important that you can't substitute them in and out. These are the people we're dealing with.
>> By the way, vowels are very important in Greek. You can't just substitute them in and out.
>> This is a straight up lie. Now, this is and you can see it can change depending on what dialect you're using. Luke right there just made [ __ ] up and very similar, but you can change the vowels, which is the verb to heal and cure. It also has >> But let's give him the benefit of the doubt and say, "Oh, you know, they're mispronouncing it." Okay, whatever. Let me let me let me going to say that. Stop putting arguments in my mouth. That's disingenuous.
>> Lying to you while giving you the finger. No, I'm the one that knows everything. I'm the one in charge. You shut up and listen to me. No, you're a [ __ ] liar.
>> I'm not going to say that. Stop putting arguments in my mouth. That's disingenuous.
>> So, he said there you can't change the vows in ancient Greek, but I've already shown yes, you can. And right here in the lexicon, it says llama is dorian for lema. So that's just a bit of the evidence that I put in my previous videos showing Luke Gorton classicist lied about ancient Greek vows and them not being able to be interchanged. But the lexicon and all the evidence and the sources that I showed show you different dialects have different spelling and they use different vowels just like uses an alpha and es uses an so you can change the vowels contrary to what Luke Gorton said on the podcast and that's what I brought up. One of the things I brought up, how does Gnostic informant dispute this? You can't. Arman caught out someone else who's being disingenuous. See, see the same people that hang around each other are using the same tactics. Deflection, offiscation, disingenuous. Okay, that's who we're dealing with. And with an extremely condescending tone as well here with Luke Horton. So, after I got that email, Nostic and Steven did the stream. And what did they do? Either this guy right here and they're just going to repeat exactly what you just heard there, not even knowing what that means or what's going on. And they're just going to repeat it. And then when I asked them, hey, come on my channel.
What you just said made no sense. It's nonsense.
>> I don't have to go on your channel. My videos and my work speak for itself. And Luke's lying speaks for itself. And me pointing it out shows you all the evidence you need. You don't need me to go on your channel to prove this to you.
You can watch the video and you can watch this one as well. You can sit there and show this to all your viewers and just show them that Luke lied about ancient Greek vows. I don't need to go on your stream for that. You need to reference the sources and the evidence.
You know what he just said in the beginning?
>> There's no sources >> on a stream. The way he treats people has nothing to do with the sources and the evidence that he claims to want to talk about. So that's why I didn't want to have anything to do with him cuz I knew that he would be like this even with me on the stream. As he's proven with multiple other people and even his chat was saying, "You don't have to degrade people like this. Just use the evidence." He just said there are no sources.
>> Come on my channel and let's go through this. Let's have a discussion. Nope.
They don't want to do it. LH did not LH turned down to come on here cuz he's a fraud.
>> Now, I don't understand how he gets to that conclusion. I'm a fraud when all I did was show that Luke Gorton was lying about evidence and sources, the things he claimed about ancient Greek vows that you can all see. He doesn't explain how I'm a fraud. See, he just uses words to make his audience think something about someone without any evidence. Disinguous gaslighting.
>> If he's intelligent at all, he's a fraud.
>> How? Doesn't explain it. doesn't give any evidence.
>> If he's really dumb, then he just is really dumb. Then I then I kind of feel bad for him.
>> See, these people reveal that they're talking about themselves when they're trying to project that onto other people. And like I've seen these people before. I've dealt with these people before. That's why I don't want anything to do with him because I know he's not going to be genuine. He is proven to be disingenuous as I've done multiple times. And he doesn't want anything to do with the sources because he literally said there are no sources. So where what what's the conversation now?
>> There's no sources. Where's the conversation going when you're claiming there are no sources?
>> If he actually knows what he's talking about, he's he's a fraud.
>> See the mentality? I don't know how this works. This guy's mind. If he knows what he's talking about, he's a fraud. How am I a fraud? I'm showing the evidence to people that Luke Gorton lied on the debate that you wanted to talk about with me. Where's the fraudulence in that? Showing the evidence that Luke Gorton lied. What?
>> He's a fraud. So they can get a little bit of clout on the internet so we can get 200 400 views. I think this is really petty and stupid to say and I wouldn't have said a damn thing about it. But he's the one that referenced it and just cuz I want to be transparent and open and honest and show you the reality. 200 to 400 views. See, he's trying to minimize my impact. And that's what people do when they're scared of the evidence that I'm or people like me are producing because I I didn't want to have to do this, but I'm going to do it just for posterity and show you the reality. The first video I made when I came back to YouTube was based on Cleopatra and her death and showing the similarities between what happened to Arman Hilman and the way that we are taught history from a TV channel about ancient sources that they never read.
And that video is now up to 2,700 views.
And I'm going to show you what I did in this video. Sources that apparently don't exist.
>> There's no sources.
>> Most likely way for Cleopatra to kill herself is some sort of poison. How that was applied. I think we don't know.
>> Prudence Jones, we don't know how it was applied. Professor Classics, PhD from Harvard. You don't know how the poison was applied. Cleopatra was around from 69 BC to 30 BC. So Strabo was around the same time as Cleopatra.
>> There's no sources.
>> So I pulled up Strabo on the Perseus Tus website, which anyone can do. Anyone can do this. I put the in the red text down the bottom. If there's any way for you to copy and paste, I'll I'll put this in the the description as well, this link.
So, you can actually go to this yourself and check all the facts that I'm pulling up on this source that actually exists.
And I talked about it to show you if I can read this for myself and click on these words and bring up what the lexicon says about it. Holy [ __ ] I can do it. You can do it, too. people who are PhDs in classics, they're sitting on TV shows and they're telling us they don't know, which means they haven't read the sources or in a worst case scenario, they've read them and they're lying to us and they're telling us they don't know, which is what Gnostic Informant is doing because he's read all these sources. He knows all these sources exist and now he's turning it around to saying there are no sources.
>> There's no sources.
>> You can pull this up. It's on Perseus Toughs. You can go look at this. Just go on to Perseus Tus and bring up Greek Roman materials and you can see anything. And here's the actual Greek text here. By the application of a poisonous ointment, Baramcoy epictoy.
Barcoy comes from the word pharmarmacon meaning a drug. I did this video before I did the video about Christing with drugs. The one that Gnostic commented on that I showed you. So I showed the pharmarmacon is a drug before he made that disingenuous comment. This is proving more that he's disingenuous because this video came out before his comment claiming I didn't know a pharmicon is a drug and to Christ means to smear the application when I already brought it up in a video before he made that comment. Just more proof he's disingenuous meaning a drug epic which means smeared on she smeared on the fara. That was my first video and then I made this video because I saw myth vision had Ronald McDonald on.
That's the guy. He's he's not a classicist. is a Bible scholar and they were talking about Arman Helman and FIRA with poton to farm. They were saying which of the two drugs the pharmarmacon at the end as I've shown which of the two drugs is it is it a Christ or a drink a proton. So I said look the Christ is the drug in this case if they're asking what drug is it it is a Christ that's what I showed and then Gnostic made that disingenuous comment but look how many views that's got 8,000 views. What did Gnostic say before? 200 to 400 views. 8,000 views.
Next video talking about the Septuagent and cannabis. 2,300 views. But man doesn't know the Bible. Biblical scholar I wrecked him. 3,800 views. Myth vision profiting off lies showing how he's hiding things behind a members only payw wall. And then he's selling Bible courses in his description for all these people who he has on his channel.
Selling courses to make money. 2100 views. Gnostic informant is disingenuous. 3600 views. Okay. 200 to 400. I'm not doing this to say, "Oh, look at me. How many views?" I'm doing this to say look he's lying to you about the numbers to minimize my impact when look 3600 3600 2800 5700 that big one that they wanted me to come on to break down on their stream which I showed Luke was a liar talking about the semicolon that they lied about because I showed in another video in this video there is no semicolon in the ancient Greek lexicon the LSJ in the downloaded version I have from like the 1880s because they pulled up the one right here that shows a semicolon on the online version which is different than the original version. He wanted to play games with a semicolon when it doesn't even exist in the original version. More offiscation and lies from Luke because they didn't want to reference Epipanius's text talking about fellatio right here. Euphemism for fellatio right there. You can watch all those videos for yourself and and see all the evidence and the sources that Gnostic says don't exist. That's when you know you're at the end of the [ __ ] line when all these sources that I'm showing I'm showing they're saying they don't exist. Now, they really, really want people to look away. Look away. They're lying. They're claiming we're lying.
>> There's no sources.
>> What are you [ __ ] talking about? In the Christ of Jesus, I showed you how to translate ancient Greek. 2400 views.
7,000 views showing Luke was lying about ancient Hebrew because it's Phoenician.
Another one on Luc. All these videos on breaking down this debate. 3,700.
Another one on Luke, 4,300. Another one on myth vision and Ronald McDonald lying. 3,600. 5,000 and you said >> nothing Alman has been saying about antiquity has been true >> when that is a lie. That's a straight up lie. And then the videos that he was claiming I was making all these videos on. I made one big video. There you go.
Two nearly 3 hours 2,300 views. And then the one on Flint Dibble, 2,600 views.
And then my latest ones 3,000 nearly 2 and a half thousand over 4,000 now.
There you go. That's just for the numbers to show he's lying.
>> And they're full of [ __ ] They're either really dumb or full of [ __ ] He just says things without any evidence while claiming there's no evidence for what I'm saying and showing you. The world of a narcissistic manipulating gaslighter.
That's what we're looking at into the mind of right now. And I've dealt with these people before so I know how they work. No matter what you give them, they will always twist everything or lie and obiscate from the truth so they don't have to deal with reality. I've seen it before and I know who he is. And I will show you exactly how in this clip is when he gaslights his audience while trying to say the other person is gaslighting his audience. Projection.
>> Then you look at the comments and there's people who actually were like, "It's guess work. It's guess work."
>> Because Luke Gorton in that debate with Almond was saying, "We're guessing about everything." And then he's trying to project a false narrative saying Luke was being truthful and wanting evidence.
Okay. Ridiculous.
>> Because they're repeating the the slogan. This is kind of the gaslighting you see. And he kept going, "So, you're saying it's guess work?" And he's like, "No, I'm not saying it's guess work. I'm saying this is where the evidence is.
This is this is what we know.
>> We don't know.
>> This is what we know.
>> We don't know. Anything we do is guessing. For the thousandth time, we're guessing about everything. Everything is speculation. We don't know anything for sure.
>> It's guess work.
>> Anything we do is guessing.
>> It's guess work.
>> For the thousandth time, we're guessing about everything.
>> It's guess work.
>> Guessing about everything."
>> This is kind of the gaslighting you see.
>> Exactly. This is the gaslighting you see. and that I've put it on display for everyone now. Okay, we just saw he was claiming people were saying it's guesswork and saying Luke wasn't saying it's guessing. I feel like that scene in To Kill a Mockingbird. I shouldn't have to point this out. It's plain as day for everyone to see the evidence.
>> It's guess we're guessing about everything.
>> Come on, there's the evidence right there in front of your face. This >> is kind of the gaslighting you see.
>> Now you see who's gaslighting while saying someone else is gaslighting. This is the operating system of narcissistic manipulators who want to lie and obiscate the truth and gaslight. This is it right here. And when they got nowhere else to go, what does he say?
>> There's no sources.
>> Now, this is just further evidence to prove the person he is and to show his double standard, which I've shown before in previous videos on him. He had Matalena on to talk about ancient texts.
Now, he's talking about Naaniskos and the age of the Naaniskos and saying it's like 20 to 40. I don't really care about the age of the naanisos right here. What I'm talking about right here is he's bringing up Dioynes Leertius talking about Pythagoras. He's using this source from Dioynes to say Pythagoras says aniscos is in like the 20 to 40 year range. Now look what he does when he's talking to Josh another guy when he was on his stream just a couple days ago about bringing up sources that are secondary. So Dioynes was writing this text in the 3rd century AD about Pythagoras who lived in the 5th 6th century BC. So we are 700 years roughly removed from Pythagoras to Dioynes. Not a primary source.
>> We don't have any actual sources from Lionus. You dumbass. We don't have any sources from Lionus. You dumbass.
>> You see how he treats people. If you're right, that's great. You you've proven your point. You are right. To be like you dumbass and treating people like this. Even people in his own chat were saying you don't need to behave like this. So he's saying you don't have any primary sources from Lionus. Now he's citing Wikipedia. So I am going to go ahead and site Wikipedia as well. And it says we have no surviving primary sources written by Pythagoras. So what's his argument here?
>> Lionus has nothing written down. You dumbass.
>> Uh we have no surviving primary sources written by Pythagoras. He never wrote down his teachings. All our knowledge of his life and philosophy comes from secondhand oral traditions and the works of later authors. So he's saying we don't have any primary sources from Lionus. and he's getting all worked up about it when he's using Dioynes to claim Pythagoras who never wrote anything down and we don't have any primary sources from is saying something 700 years after he allegedly said it in a secondary source. So what is he saying about the secondary source then that he is claiming is being brought up on his stream right now?
>> So you just made up a fake source.
>> So he's saying a secondary source is a fake source when he's talking here. But it's okay for him to bring up Dioynes who's 700 years removed from Pythagoras to talk about the age of Anaisos. So by his own words and metrics, this right here is a fake source that he's using.
>> Actually, there's texts that talk about Lionus. Go down >> using his own logic and metrics. Dioynes from the 3rd century AD wrote about Pythagoras who was 700 years earlier. So that's a fake source according to Gnostic informant. So he shouldn't be using it. Iodor siculus didn't write anything down about Lionus.
>> So you just made up a fake source.
>> He's saying you're making up a fake source if you're using a secondary source about Lionus. You're making up a fake source by your own argument here using Dioynes from the 3rd century AD about Pythagoras from the 6th century BC about 700 years after Pythagoras even lived but never wrote anything down. By your own standards, this is a fake source you are citing. And let's look at that fake source that apparently doesn't exist either because sources don't exist anymore according to Nostic informant.
And it says, you can see in English here, 20 is a boy, 20 is a youth, 20 is a young man. Naanisos naan. So he wants to say 20 to 40 is a naanos. Let's take a look at what it says a bit further down after the supposed quote from Pythagoras cuz you can see here poisanas an says on the one hand a neoniscos is a maracion on the other hand naanas is a man what is a moracion I put the definition down the bottom a maracion is a boy a lad stripling and I've looked at it before in a previous video I can be up to the age of about 20 I'm not saying this is how we're going to define it.
It's interesting to see that the definition down the bottom according to Plato who wrote this source that doesn't exist in 385 BC which is just over a century after Pythagoras died. He is saying that a Makion is a boy of about 14 years old. Interesting that uh Plato says it's a 14year-old boy roughly and here it's saying on the one hand the Naniscos is Moracion. Interesting what this fake source that doesn't exist says. And if you look even further down in the English addendums, the pretended explanation, he spoke thus because introduces an extract from a work which like all those attributed to Pythagoras must have been a late forgery. According to this right here, we can't even say that this is a true statement from Pythagoras saying that Anaisos is at the age range of 20 to 40 because Dioynes is number one 700 years later. Number two, by his own standards and metrics, it's a fake source because it's a secondary source. Number three, it doesn't exist.
Apparently, >> there's no sources.
>> Number four, they're saying this must have been a late forgery. So, it's a forgery. So, he's bringing up a source that is quoted to be a forgery. And remember what he said about something else being a forgery in the uh ancient Egyptian text. He said, "If you consider that a forgery, then he can't take you seriously." Well, he can't take himself seriously now because the same source he brought up that maybe he didn't even want to read. He just wanted to bring that little excerpt about Nanisos 20 years to 40 years old. Maybe he didn't read this bit saying it's a late forgery. So, he can't take himself seriously by his own standards and metrics and his own words. It just gets worse and worse for him. He's digging his own hole and I'm going to let him keep doing it because I'm bringing all the sources and his own words and his own logic to his arguments.
>> So, you just made up a fake source. So, this is the inventory stuff. This is later. his 26th dynasty.
>> Now, this was when he was talking about primary sources on the debate with Dan Richards. Okay? He wants to claim that this was a primary source that was made 2,000 years after the time supposedly the pyramids in Egypt, the Great Pyramids were built. He's claiming something 2,000 years later is a primary source.
>> I'm showing you it's a primary source.
>> Much later.
>> Much later. But I'm just showing you primary sources.
>> Well, I I'm you can't really call that primary source.
>> Thank you, Dan. What? Why? Why? What else would it be?
>> I mean, if I wrote something down now that says Jesus died on the cross, is is that a primary source?
>> Perfect comeback. Perfect comeback because look at the dates of the fourth dynasty when the pyramid was supposed to be built. About 2500 BC and the 26th dynasty was 664. It's about 2,000 years later. So, you want to say 2,000 years removed is a primary source. Okay.
>> It's not a um eyewitness account. So, you just made up a fake source >> by his own metrics. He just made up a fake source. The Diogenesis one isn't as bad because it's 700 years later. This is 2,000 years removed from the original claimed source of the building of the pyramids. 2,000 years and he's claiming it's a primary source. What in the world is this guy doing? What is the definition of a primary source? It is an original firstirhand account or raw piece of evidence about an event, time period, or topic. These sources are created by someone directly involved 2,000 years later, present 2,000 years later, or experiencing it firsthand 2,000 years later. And they provide uninterpreted direct access to the subject. Well, that is not a primary source.
>> If I go to Italy right now and I start asking him about the building of the coliseum, what can I expect for these people to know?
>> Exactly [ __ ] right.
>> 400 years is a long time.
>> So, I showed a video of him moving the goalpost because he said 400 years is a long time. 400 years is a long time, but 2,000 years is is good enough for a primary source for him.
>> So, you just made up a fake source.
>> According to his own metrics and his own logic, he made up a fake source.
>> You are making up sources that don't exist.
>> Yes, you are, Gnostic. You are making up sources that don't exist. Your words fit perfectly here. Thank you for projecting everything that you are onto me because I can use your words perfectly back to you with evidence and sources that you claim does not exist. Thank you for giving me your own words to bury you with.
>> Remember the guy in the yellow chair is passing himself off as a classist.
Right. Riot. He's he's taking it's not only stolen honor, but it's disingenuous.
>> It is disingenuous as I've proven already. But I still got another 20 minutes to this video to break down. So, let's see how long that's going to go and how much evidence and sources I have for you. Oh my god. And right now, I'm just going to do a bit of a breakdown of the timeline of what happened. This guy Rodri posted something on my ex about the dating problem with the radiocarbon dates and the Great Pyramid. And this table is from Mark Lena, who if you know anything about Egyptology, is like the second in command to Zahi Hawas. He's been on like all the TV shows, everything. I broke down that in that big 3h hour nearly 3-hour video with all the evidence there and all I said was this table of carbon dates from the Great Pyramid prove what I said it was constructed over centuries and this is from Mark Laner. I didn't say Mark Laner said it was built over centuries. I said his data right here in the carbon dating is saying that look at the dates. So it was supposedly built the Great Pyramid around 2500 BC in like a 20 to 25 year period. Even Herodotus, I don't trust Herodotus on this because he said it was built in 20 years and he was taking that claim 2,000 years removed from when it was supposedly built. So that's the same thing. I'm not going to use Herodotus as a primary source to say when the pyramid was built and how long it took. Just based on the carbon dating from Mark Laner, one of the top Egyptologists in the world, the dating ranges from 3809 BC to 2853 BC. Okay, that is a thousand years in range of carbon dating for the Great Pyramid. So, it looks like by this evidence here, it was built over at least centuries, even with the old wood theory. That's what I said. And then what does Gnostic do when I posted all those shorts of him lying, which I've shown you, he says this, you're an idiot. Don't even know how to read the data. Like, everyone can read the data.
It's It's not hard. 3,800 BC all the way down to 2853 BC. Plus orus 104. It's not plus or minus a thousand years. Everyone can see 38 to 28. That's about a thousand years of range. Mark Laner doesn't say the pyramids were built over centuries. I never said he said that.
See the disingenuousness again? See the lies again to project a false narrative about someone. I never said that. I said his data does. This is what he said. I already asked you to come on and defend your positions in real time and you couldn't see how he's projecting another false narrative. As I showed you before, he asked me to come on. Well, Steven from Crossbar asked me to come on to talk about the debate between Arman Hillman and Luke Gorton. Nothing to do with what we're talking about here with the debate between Gnostic and Dan Richards on Matt Beal with ancient Egypt and ancient sites which we'll look at.
So, he's projecting another false narrative because everyone here who's looking at his ex is going to think I didn't want to go on and talk to him about the dating of the pyramids and all this information that I put out in my videos. See, people are going to think that. That's not true. Because if he asked me on to talk specifically about all the information and the evidence that I put out in those videos, I would have gladly done it and said, "Sit here.
We're going to watch all the evidence that I put out in my video about you and your audience has to watch it." Are you okay with that? There's no way he would let that happen. No way. And I'm going to tell you right now, the only way I would ever go on a stream with Gnostic Informant, the stipulation is we have to sit here first before we say anything.
And on the stream, we are going to watch this video that I'm making right now in its entirety. Not one comment to be made, not one pause to be made. And everyone on your stream who's watching it has to watch this and all the evidence and all the facts and all the lying, all the misrepresentation, all the disingenuousness from you, Gnostic.
That's the only way I'm going to sit on a stream with you. You have to play this and all the evidence that shows you're a liar to your entire audience. If you agree to that, then maybe I'll consider it. You can't just sit there and skip over the parts that you don't want to look at like I'm going to show that you did when you were watching Armon stream.
Conveniently skipped over all my evidence and then calls me an idiot again like he did here because he doesn't want people to see the reality.
And look at him now. He's shaking. He's saying there are no sources. Oh man. So that's what he did. He lied. And then what did he do? So I was going to reply to him straight away and say, "Hang on, here's here's the evidence." What did he do? H blocked me. He blocked me. So I can't respond to anything he does or says on X now. Because if I could, I would be posting the [ __ ] out of all those clips that I made, all those shorts that I made to show he's lying.
He comments on something and then misrepresents it and then runs away.
>> Why don't you jump on my channel?
>> Cuz I don't have to. As I said, my work speaks for itself and my evidence that I show speaks for itself.
>> I don't know [ __ ] I'm just an idiot, right?
>> Any [ __ ] clue what we're talking about?
>> I couldn't get past unit four. Then why can't you jump on a stream and prove to me that I'm wrong and you're correct?
Because we both know what will actually happen.
>> We know what will happen if you do agree to my rule. Then we are going to sit here and watch all this evidence of you lying. And so this is what's going to happen.
>> And the mortar goes all the way down in the core of the pyramid. And that mortar carbon dates to exactly the reign of Kufu. literally talking out of his ass right now.
>> He misrepresents it. Your paper that you showed had nothing to do with the pyramid.
>> Completely just butchers everything.
>> Oh, thank you for this clip. I love it.
Completely just butchers everything. You just completely butchered the sources you were given by Flint Dibble. He just said >> he misrepresents it. Your paper that you showed had nothing to do with the pyramid.
>> The paper that you brought up that Flint gave you has nothing to do with the pyramids, but you just said >> mortar goes all the way down in the core of the pyramid.
>> Your paper that you showed had nothing to do with the pyramid.
>> Completely just butchers everything.
Gnostic was citing a paper talking about mortar in the core of the pyramid. This paper that he brought up says nothing about that. Flint on his show brings up a separate paper that is completely different to whatnostic is citing. So he is misrepresenting the evidence. Gnostic isn't as bad as Flint because Flint gives him the information. Whereas Gnostic's just a useful idiot on this podcast and they admitted it openly.
>> I was the one that actually shared this paper with you before the debate.
>> There you have it. Right from his own mouth. You're a useful idiot going along with it. completely just butchers everything. You are making up sources that don't exist.
>> Gnostic used it to site the stone in the pyramids. This is [ __ ] right here.
He wrote that next to that not knowing what this paper said at all.
>> You're a liar.
>> So you claimed I was making up sources that don't exist when you're the one that wrote next to a scientific paper that has nothing to do with what you were talking about. You wrote this right here. You wrote this carbon dating of organic material found within the mortar, which this [ __ ] paper right next to it has nothing to do with what you just said. Flint even said it has nothing to do with the pyramids.
Confirms the Egyptian pyramids were built 4,500 years ago. Nothing to do with the py you wrote this.
>> You are making up sources that don't exist.
>> And you know what that makes you? By writing this, >> you're a liar. Peer-reviewed paper right there. That's what I'm citing.
Completely just butchers everything.
>> He just said he was citing this peer-reviewed paper that has nothing to do with what he said it is. That's called misrepresenting the evidence or it's called gaslighting if you knowingly did it. And we know he's done that before.
>> It's gas work.
>> Gasling about everything.
>> This is kind of the gaslighting you see.
And none of us there have any [ __ ] clue what we're talking about.
>> Flint just said to Nostic and everyone else nothing to do with the pyramids.
And Nostic sitting there going, "I've just told everyone this paper cites the mortar from the core of the pyramids and the dating to Kufu.
>> I don't know. [ __ ] Completely just butchers everything."
>> Gnostic sitting there going, "I look like a [ __ ] idiot." which yeah, you have for a long time man.
>> He just lied to my face and I took him for his word.
>> Yeah, Flint lied to your face and you took him for his word. He gave you data which you completely misrepresented.
>> Completely just butchers everything.
>> You are just like a a [ __ ] liar.
>> Yeah, good job, Flynn. He completely butchered everything in your own words and you made up sources that didn't exist by writing things that had nothing to do with what you were talking about.
>> Prove to me that I'm wrong and you're correct.
>> All right, I'll do that right now.
Remember how you lied about Balbeck and the ancient Greek sources that you quoted and cited that don't exist?
Apparently, >> we know they can lift that stuff. Have you read Vivious in the 1st century BCE in book 10 talks about gigantic stones of heavy weight describe how it's done completely just butchers everything >> in the hoisting class. Heavy weights are removed by machines which raise them up and set them in position. Section five.
But if the loads of material for the work are still more colossal in size and weight, we shall not entrust them to a windlass but set in an axle tree. For extreme weights such as the massive 70 ton marble drums on Trajan's column or the 100 ton blocks in the temple of Jupiter in Balbeck. So the maximum amount of tonnage that an ancient Roman axle tree could hold was 100 tons. The trulon at Balbeck in Lebanon weighs approximately 800 tons. You would need eight ancient Roman axle trees to lift just one trilithon stone. And they were elevated approximately 7 m off the ground. So that's a big point here. It's not just moving them around. It's lifting them off the ground by about 7 m. And if the Romans were able to move this, why couldn't they move the stones that were right there sitting next to them in the quarry?
>> The one I'm standing on weighs 1,000 tons.
>> You would need 10 axle trees. They could lift 100 tons with one axle tree. And we know they can lift that stuff.
>> So why is it still sitting there?
Exactly. You just said we know they could lift that stuff. If we know they could do it and the Romans did it, why is this gigantic stone still sitting in the quarry? That doesn't make sense. If the Romans could do it like you said, then why is it still sitting there?
>> Completely just butchers everything.
>> Yeah, you do. You just butchered your own [ __ ] sources and your own words.
>> Why didn't the Romans record when they built it?
>> He said they did. They did. There are no known surviving Roman writings that document the construction method, states, architects, or engineers of the colossal temple complex at Balbeck.
Roman accounts of the construction are notoriously missing.
>> Completely just butchers everything.
Completely just butchers everything.
You're a liar.
>> Yes, you are, bro. You're a [ __ ] liar.
>> You are making up sources that don't exist.
>> Never once talked about building after this is built. He talks about this whole temple. I have not seen it myself, but it is both mega large and arion ancient.
So, the sources he's quoting do not say they can lift 800 ton stones. And the other source, Lucian, does not say anything about the construction of the temple or anything about the complex. He just says, "I haven't seen it myself."
>> You're a liar.
>> You're a big liar. You want to play one side saying, "Oh, you can't use secondary sources. You're making up fake sources." When you're claiming >> talk about building after this is built, >> then everyone's talking about building it and then you said, "Yeah, Lucian."
See, framing it like, "Yeah, Lucian talked about how they built it." And then you say, "After this is built, >> after it's built, >> he talks about this whole temple."
>> He talks about the whole complex. No, that's not true. You just cited an ancient source, two of them now. One of them Vuvius, which no, that's not what it says. They couldn't lift stones that big. And the stones are still sitting in the quarry. So if it was the Romans, there wasn't them because the Romans would have had the,400 ton stones out of the quarry and they're still sitting there. And then the second source, Lucian, which you say, oh, he talked about the complex. What did Lucian actually say about the complex men or I haven't seen it looked upon it myself?
Mega mega. It is large, great, and what is it? Arion.
He hasn't seen it himself. Lucian says, "You're making up fake sources like you claimed. You're lying to people like you claimed I was. You're a manipulating projectionist who doesn't care about sources, who doesn't care about the truth, just wants to lie to project some false reality that you keep living in because I don't know, maybe you can't handle reality as it actually is because here it is right here sitting in front of you." Now, this is where he was watching Almond's stream from a couple days ago, the fall of Iron Danny Jones, when he brought up a bunch of my video talking about what happened with Danny Jones. Just have a look at this.
>> And look what he says. Look what he shows Danny Jones doing later on in the video. Oh, that guy is a [ __ ] idiot, by the way.
>> Oh, yeah. You want to have me on your stream, but you keep calling me a [ __ ] idiot and all this [ __ ] You block me. Like, what? If you really want to have me on a stream, why would you treat people this way? You really want to talk about sources and evidence and all this? It's about who you are, man.
No one wants to [ __ ] deal with you because you're lying, projecting, disingenuous, and this is how you act.
And it's hilarious because he he says, "I scrub through ancient Greek and just flash up ancient Greek while he's literally trying to scrub through this stream of almonds to get away from my sources and all the evidence that I'm bringing up because he would expose him as the liar that he is." Claiming that I don't talk about sources and I'm lying about the evidence and sources when I'm literally bringing up sources and evidence. It's hilarious. This is This is so funny.
>> The New Testament. And you got >> There you go. I'm talking about the New Testament. Yeah. You got a source that doesn't exist to this guy apparently.
>> Some >> the clip where I showed you. He's saying was so there was two comets. That's the clip. He didn't want to play it, did he?
He wants to scrub through it all because he's trying to find some AI rendering that he wants to talk about. He doesn't want to talk about the sources and the evidence of himself lying to everyone on his audience who's got like 800 people watching. He can't have that, can he?
>> Where is it?
That's where Armon said, "Hey, this guy's pretending to be a classicist."
The guy in the yellow chair. Can't have that plank, can he?
>> Where is it?
Here it is.
>> Oh, what the [ __ ] that? The New Testament sources. The top half is in Greek. The bottom half is in English.
And where is this coming from? This is from the Perseus Toughs website. I think I even put the the link in. I'll put the link in there for everyone to go see because the sources that he says doesn't exist. It's right there. It's the [ __ ] New Testament, man. The Greek is right there. Do you want to read some of it? Scandalis.
What does it say? In order that we do not get scandalized. And what is it talking about? I think I bring it up in this video. It's talking about how the apostles are all children under the age of 20. See why he didn't bring this up?
Because it would show what he's trying to lie about and obiscate. that the apostles were all children. That's what the text says. You know the text that doesn't exist that I brought up that I just flash on the screen and oh my god, >> you are making up sources that don't exist.
>> The New Testament doesn't exist. I just made this up. Yeah, I pulled it off the Percy's TUS website which is all made up according to this disingenuous liar >> and you flash Greek on the screen to people and give them fake translations of it that don't that aren't real.
>> Well, if the Perseus Tus is a fake translation and there it is right up the top. You can go to that website right there. You just type it in. go to that website. It'll bring you up Matthew 17 and you can read this for yourself and you can click on all of these Greek words. It'll take you to the definitions of all these words. So if he's saying the Perseus toughs the LSJ website are fake sources and fake translations, then he's never allowed to use the Perseus Tus or the LSJ again ever because he's claiming that it's a fake source and a fake translation. So, if he doesn't want me to use the LSJ cuz it's fake, then he's not allowed to use the LSJ on his own accord because it's a fake source and a fake translation. You see the unreality we're living in with this guy's mind trying to project this crazy false narrative. And I don't know how people sit there and don't see through it. But, as I said, there's always going to be people who are on both sides.
There's going to be people who are on the fence. That's always what it's going to be. And I'm okay with that. I'm just showing you. Look at it. Look at this.
The reality is right in front of you. If you can't see it, you're never going to see it. Now, I'm going to show you the part of my video that he skipped over conveniently so his audience doesn't see exactly what I said. I brought up the sources that are showing how the apostles are all children.
>> There's no sources.
>> Oh, [ __ ] Math 18, a learner, a pupil, Latin decipulus, heapa. Interestingly, it says especially of children. And if you see it right here, especially of children, and then right here, paid, ancient Greek word for child or children. Paidas, a child. here in Matthew 17:24-27.
>> There's no sources.
>> Who do the kings of the earth receive toll or tribute from? Their sons or from strangers. So their sons means not adults because it says the sons are exempt. Take that and give it to them for me Jesus and you Peter. Now how do we know that they were under the age of 20? It says everyone that passes the survey from 20 years old and upwards shall give the offering. Peter was of age looking like he would have had to pay the tax. So at least 20 years old.
But all the rest of them, the other 11 disciples, apostles, didn't have to pay the tax. So they would have been at least 19 and below. That's what the text says. Now, this is where he's scrubbing through more. And you can see the part where I brought up Bettany Hughes, a separate source from Arman Hillman saying a farmer is a drug.
>> This is driving me crazy.
>> I brought He says, "This is driving me crazy." Why is it driving you crazy? Cuz I'm literally bringing up sources in front of you.
>> I brought up the sources. And then I literally said, I brought up the sources. That bit I just showed you.
See, if he played this, him and his audience would see I just explained it.
All the apostles are children based on the text. The sources is the drug.
>> This is driving me crazy.
>> I brought up the sources.
>> There's no sources.
>> Brought up the sources that are that equal.
>> See, he just skipped through it. I'm explaining. Look, it says right there, everyone that passes a survey from 20 years old and up shall give the offering. Showing this the apostles are all kids. He didn't want to play that for his audience. He's skipping through the New Testament where I'm showing it's a kakgoy which is what the two men in Luke are called who are crucified with Jesus. Kakuggoy and in Matthew and Mark they're called laci and lacas. And what does Jesus say in Mark 14:48? The text the New Testament that doesn't exist the source that doesn't exist. Oh, it says Jesus says I am not a lacon.
I don't even need to read that. I showed you here's what lest peri is in hikius a fifth century lexographer you know another source that doesn't exist where I showed what's a pyase and you can see right there at the bottom line Greek lace so it's showing lace is a pirate in the LSJ all this exists and I'm showing it to him and he's showing it to his audience but he's skipping through it like it doesn't exist he wants to get away from it quick quick don't show don't show my audience that all this exists and all these sources are real because I've just told everyone there are no sources and Armon's lying Everyone, it's all right there for you to see. Anyone can do this. It's not just me and Armon. Anyone can do this. I put the site up there, the website. It's already there. Percy is tough. Go look at it right now. Everything this guy is saying right now is a [ __ ] lie. And he doesn't want you to see it because he's scrubbing through my all my evidence.
>> You flash Greek on the screen to people.
>> While he was flashing all my Greek on the screen to people, not going into the detail of it because he wants people to believe that's all I do. So he scrubs through it all instead of going into the depth in a 43 minute video that was that he was watching >> and give them fake translations of it that don't that aren't real.
>> The LSJ is fake according to Gnostic informant right here. The New Testament is fake as well because I brought up ancient Greek and then I brought up look on the right here in the black and white text that is the King James version English. So the King James is fake and the ancient Greek of the New Testament is fake according to Gnostic informant.
You just heard him. Okay. All this stuff I'm bringing up is fake and it's a fake translation. This has nothing to do with me or I'm this is what the text says.
moreius saying peri is a kakugoy and a lesty and they're the two words that are used for the dudes who are crucified with Jesus and the word that Jesus was saying I am not a lace as we just saw right here lestain uh Mark 14:48 the New Testament that doesn't exist this according to this guy >> there's no sources >> if Danny brought up the sources to his face he could have said hey look here it is Matthew Mark and Luke they all say leasuroy here we have lea Is it equal to kakoy?
Oh, that's the word we just saw, isn't it? Now it's a perase. A pirate. One who makes attempts or attacks on ships. And this is the word that Jesus is saying when he's being arrested. I'm not a this. And in earlier Greek, it was a lace >> and give them fake translations of it that don't that aren't real.
>> So when we go into Mark 14:51, the word is used and this is the verb. And what does it say? follow along with or closely accompany. Follow with the mind to attend. Follow with a sense of obeying like a servant or a slave would obey or attend to someone. And so he's saying these translations that I brought up are fake. So the LSJ is fake according to Gnostic informant. By his own logic, he is never allowed to use the LSJ again because it is a fake translation. Do you see the ridiculousness of this? Where's that Danny Jones? That was the perfect bit to bring up. Where's that Danny Jones? I'm showing the different Danny Jones from before when he was talking to Armon being skeptical and inquiring compared to him saying he doesn't know. He brought this up and he skipped right past it. So, I'm going to show you exactly what that was and what led up to that point. Danny Jones, >> he's a lace, >> which is a pimp, >> which is basically a trafficker >> which was frowned upon back then >> because it's an active organized crime.
>> So, that's a lace. That's what Jesus is saying. Horse lane. So that's from my previous video on Bartman where Danny was sitting on with Bartman, a biblical scholar, and bringing him sources.
>> There's no sources.
>> If you look at my video, Bart lied to everyone. He said the word is not being used. It's creo, the verb. And it's like that is not what's happening because he doesn't know it.
>> Doesn't this say that he uses the word Christ?
>> No, it's using the word creo.
>> Oh, for [ __ ] sake. Look, there's no sources. What's that source down the bottom? I think I showed you before with the myth vision video. That is Uripidolus Fisra. What drug is it? Is it a Christ or a drink? Danny goes, "Isn't he saying the word Christ?" And he said, "No, he's using the word creo, which is the verb." And I face palm because I'm like, "This guy is an idiot." Or he's lying. He He doesn't know Greek and he's trying to project that he knows Greek by gaslighting, saying, "No, that's the creo." Everyone can see the word right there is Danny tripped him up on it.
Where's that Danny Jones? There you go.
That's what led to that moment. Where's that Danny Jones that is pulling up a biblical scholar on the Bible and proving that he's lying or misrepresenting gaslighting in real time cuz he doesn't know what he's talking about. Where's that Danny Jones?
>> And you flash Greek on the screen to people.
>> It's over here.
>> While he's flashing up Greek to people.
Oh, this is a perfect one. Look. Piske.
Piske is a feminine of pyiscos. a young boy or slave, a dimminionative of Pice.
See, naanisos, naanisos, the very word that is used in Mark 14:51 of the servant who was attending accompanying Jesus. And it's saying it's the feminine version of a piscos, a young boy or slave. That's a paid. And it says to caisos for that definition. Now they're saying young boy or slave. This is the Greek English lexicon of the New Testament. people who are doing the New Testament lexicon. This isn't outside biblical studies. Now, this is within biblical studies. These are the people that are putting this together and they're saying it's a slave or a servant. So, you have to at least concede that whoever Jesus was with that Naaniscos was a slave or a servant. Now, apparently this doesn't exist cuz it's a source and it's when Jesus is in the garden. It's 1433. What it says, he's in Gethsemane. He's with his Matias. And what does he do? He's with Peter, James, and John. And what does it say? He's ek them based on and I'll show you what those words mean from the LSJ which apparently is a fake translation according to Nostic.
>> You flash Greek on the screen to people and give them fake translations of it that don't that aren't real.
>> He is sorely troubled or dismayed and he's in anguish and then ekto on the bottom to be amazed and astonished.
>> You're a liar.
>> You're a liar, bro. These are the people, man. This is who we're dealing with. Liars lie. That's who they are.
That's what they do always. Even when they're caught in a lie, they keep lying. I've witnessed it firsthand outside of YouTube and the internet.
Okay, I know these people. It's a psychological mental disease that they cannot accept reality even when it's presented to them and it can be quite dangerous. So, what could be putting Jesus in this state of being sorely troubled, anguish, and amazement?
>> You are making up sources that don't exist. And up there we see in the English in Mark 14:35, "And he went forward a little and fell on the ground and prayed that if it were possible, the hour might pass from him." See, he fell on the ground and he is in a state of being in anguish, amazement, and astonishment. And I said at this video, at what what is he amazed and astonished at and falling on the ground from? If he's not on drugs, >> it was the voice.
>> That was the antidote to it.
>> It is the antidote. He says, "Let this cup pass."
>> And give them fake translations of it that don't that aren't real.
>> All right. King James is a fake translation of the Bible according to Gnostic informant right here in 36. And he said, "Aba, Father, all things are possible unto thee. Take away this cup from me. Nevertheless, not what I will, but what thou wil." This is King James.
Now, we're going to see what is that cup.
>> What is that cup? Apocalypse, the revelation.
>> Yes. And the woman was arrayed in purple for furus and scarlet having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication sexual fluids. Now I show the purple here because it says arade in purple and then puron here. There's muststerion right here. But what is the delugma? An abomination an idol offering to idols.
Disgust filthy nastiness disgusting abominable to behave in a beastly manner. Deleria, beastly conduct, want of shame and decency, brutal passions.
But Deleria like bedelma is talking about beastliness, brutal passions. And we're talking about a cup of fornication and porna, which is about sexual fluids.
That's what you drink. And it's talking about it being a beast, a theak. Okay.
It's not just because of that. It's also because what other drugs they're using in it come from beasts. It's interesting to see that it's saying beastly conduct and brutal passions when we're talking about having a golden cup full of abominations and filthiness of fornication. That's the cup that you drink. And it's in Revelation, the Bible. Filthiness of her fornication, sexual fluids. You drink the cup of her abominations.
>> And the great enemy of God is that lady's cup which is full of you have to drink the boy's >> to survive. in order to survive.
>> Now you see, so the enemy of God is the woman's cup. But what is God's cup in this case? The boys. Now we're going to look at the famous Mark 14:51-52 verses with the boy or the naaniscos and what he was doing with Jesus and a certain naaniscos. Now this is the LSJ which Gnostic wants to say is fake. A youth young man. But let's look at number two because it says down there, my young man, i.e. a servant, which is what I showed you before, servant in the Greek New Testament lexicon. And that's from Lucian's Alexander, which I'll go through and I'll show you a bit of so we can see what's going on with Jesus, which I showed before in my previous videos. But then you look there, EV Mark 14:51. So it's referencing the neonos as a servant. It says naanisos. Now this is the Greek English lexicon of the New Testament. It says naaniscos used of a young attendant or servant. Pidiske, feminine version of paidiscos, a young boy or slave. C. Neanisos. You can see down the bottom here, used of a young attendant or servant. Mark 14:51. And then I brought up BAG, the biblical lexicon that Dan Mlelen brought up on Danny Jones. So, this is the biblical lexicon. All right. The Bible people are making their own lexicon. And what does it say? It says number two, a young man functioning as a servant. Mark 14:51.
And that's a source, but it's a fake source that I bring up apparently. So the BAG lexicon is a fake source according to Gnostic as well. The biblical lexicon Bdag, a young man functioning as a servant, which can also be in our modern terms a slave. Suna kalut was attending to him. Not just following, he was attending to Jesus like a servant or a slave would attend to someone while he was clothed with a synona, a linen bandage upon kumn, his nakedness. So let's go down and break it down with the wording in Greek because we've looked at naanisos. So that's a youth or servant. And then we looked at sun the verb. It says and a certain youth servant was attending or accompanying not just following tending to him. Jesus perios which is wrapped with a synindona synindon which is a fine cloth usually linen and also buses telmon used for mummies and surgeons bandages they're the kind of linens we're talking about wrappings so you don't wear wrappings like a robe which is what the biblical people want to go to he was wearing a robe and they just ripped it off him that's not what happened it says he was wearing fine cloth usually linen kind of like the one you can use for mummies those wrappings and that was epigumno upon his nakedness. All right, so he's got wrappings upon his nakedness. We looked at this busos. What is busos?
That came up in the first podcast with Danny and Armen. And let's listen to this. Business fine linen bandage, right? They give you at the top. But then look at the reference on the second line. That's Uripides Bakkey.
>> There's no sources.
>> This is something that they're using within some kind of religious ritual.
Roman numeral number two. Porus, that's his.
>> There's no sources.
>> Well, let's look at the Purus and Puros, which I've shown before. You have different vows in different dialects, which I showed to prove that Luke Gorton was lying about the different vows. I want to put a side note in here cuz this is this is a fun one. Of the rainbow number three, to which a supernatural purple nephillet is compared. Nephil means a cloud. Go check this yourself.
Nephil means a cloud or a mass of clouds. So it's talking about a rainbow being a part of a supernatural purple cloud. Nephil Nephilim is not what you think it is in ancient Greek. It is a cloud and in this case a part of the rainbow purple cloud and you got purple of stuff and then you've got purple cloud purple people fura purple color spots. So it's purple. So what we're talking about is that synindon which is the linen bandage used for mummy cloth is referencing synindon busos in Uripides bakai which is talking about religious rituals and what are we talking about rights and religious rituals with Jesus. If you follow the line of the lexicon the bandage is used in religious rituals and it's relating to purple bandage wrapped around the naaniscus the servants's nakedness. If we follow this line of the lexicon that's what that's saying. and they arrested him. Now the word for arrested is here and it comes from and you can see right down the bottom to hold to hold sway to rule. Number four to lay hold of. So you can say to seize to hold lay hold of. So that's what it's using.
Katusen they laid hold on him alon laid hold on him arrested him. He then kalipon he left. He left. So catalippon from leo which down the bottom right means to leave or quit. So he left what?
He left tenindona the bandage and eugen fled gumnos naked. So let's break that down. He left the bandage, the synindon.
And then fugen is from ferugo, which is to flee or take flight or run away. So he fled gumnos right here, gumnos. And he fled gumnos naked or unclad the exposed parts. So we just broke down my 1451-52 word by word. And now we can take that and a certain servant attending to him Jesus wearing wrapped covered with a synindon a linen bandage covered in purple upon his nakedness and they arrested laid hold on him. He then Catalippon left behind the synindon the bandage the purple bandage and Eugen fled Gumnos naked or unclad or exposed.
There you go. has to break down word by word from Mark 14:51-52 according to the different lexica and definitions and entries we've just looked at.
>> You have to drink the boys >> to survive >> in order to survive. It's why we're a crowd and we're angry and we want Jesus crucified. Now you understand why there was a freaking crowd there. A little bit brutal with them, weren't they? Well, yeah, they had good reason to be.
>> These are the people that Jesus is crucified with. He brings up what it has to do with the kid that Jesus is arrested with in Mark 1451-52 because this is in 1448. He meaning Bartman on Danny Jones. So he brought up what does the kid have to do with lacy. I showed in here what it has to do with it because kako is what is a kak goss the guys who were crucified with Jesus according to the gospel of Luke and it's to do evil work wickedness. So it's saying in ancient Greek that the guys who were crucified with Jesus were evil people who did wickedness and they crucified Jesus as if he was a wicked person. What would be considered doing wickedness? Being arrested with a naked servant who's got a bandage upon his nakedness and then he leaves it and flees naked. And don't forget you had Peter, James, and John who were also in the garden. Now, Peter could be about 20, which is what we saw before, but the other two are definitely underage. So, he's got underage kids standing with him while he's got a servant with him who has a bandage upon his nakedness and then runs away naked when he's arrested.
Now, that's why they're doing this. And he's saying he's crucified with lei or kakuroy guys who are really wicked. See the same kind of guys who do this stuff.
He brings up what it has to do with a kid that Jesus is arrested with in Mark 145152 because this is in 1448. He says why have you come out against me like a lace and all these words are equating in the ancient Greek lexicon according to aius and it's saying canaro laci pyi right there. You know what we're talking about the ancient definition pyraastes a lover of boys mostly in a bad sense.
That's the Victorian saying it's a bad sense. If you're saying he's a pyest, that means he's a child. You know exactly what is going on here with a py.
And that's the word that's saying a lace canaro kakulcoy can also be a py. And Jesus was I showed you arrested with a naked youth servant. That's why he's crucified like he's one of these people.
Well, he's claiming he's not. And in the Danny Jones podcast with Bartman, he wanted to claim that Josephus was saying a lace is a seditionist. But I showed a periase lace thai kakugoy are not the same thing as a starace which is a seditionist or a rebel. And it says it there in Mark 15 and Josephus who Bart cited. Leas is not a starace anywhere in ancient Greek definitions and lexica. We only find this in the biblical definitions in BDAG because nowhere in ancient Greek do they connect these two definitions. Only in the biblical narrative which is right here in the BDAG which is what Dan Mlelen cited as being a revolutionary insurrectionist according to Josephus as a staron right here in Mark 15:7. They made this up. The Bible scholars and biblical definition people made this up as I said before in a previous video to make it look like a starace is a lace in the same definition when that is not true in any definition outside of this biblical definition. This is the lie to make you think that he was a rebel insurrectionist against the Roman government and that's why he was crucified. We cannot trust the biblical definition here. This is a lie. To protect Jesus and a narrative that wants to paint him as an insurrectionist or a revolutionary against the Roman government, not as what he is actually arrested and crucified for. This is the biblical lie. And people like this are sitting here lying to you to obiscate the reality of every piece of evidence that I've shown you, that Armon's shown you, that Armen's shown Danny, that I've shown Danny that he hasn't watched or if he's watched, he doesn't want to reference it at all. Just like how Gnostic skipped through all my video that was on the stream of almonds that he was watching because he doesn't want to go in detail showing his audience all the evidence that I've just shown you now cuz it's so much easier to lie and obiscate so his audience does not see the reality that is right in front of their eyes and they only see what he wants them to see. Look at it. It's all there for them to see.
>> Nothing Almond has been saying about antiquity has been true. Nothing.
Nothing. Nothing. Nothing Armon's been saying about antiquity is true. Nothing.
Okay. Well, let's look at two independent sources separate from Arman Hillman and see what they say about the sources and what is actually going on in ancient Greece.
>> Thei takes two drops of blood from Medusa. One from the left hand side of her body and one from the right. She gives them to the god of healing, Eskeipius. Drop of blood from the left hand side of Medusa's body is lethal, a deadly poison. the drop of blood from the right hand side of her body. The Greek word is Sotarion, savior. It can revive you from the dead.
>> It's the pharmarmacon. Sautaras. That's interesting. She just said Sotarion is a savior. And what is this? An older video from Armon showing a pharmarmacon, a drug, is a sautas, a savior, a drug savior. And she's saying Medusa is a savior with her blood.
>> Medusa has always been the monster who could save us. And here's another show with Bettany Hughes. She does great shows on like history and ancient Greece and other ancient sources and stuff.
She's really good to watch. She did one on like the temples and healing of Eskeipius and ancient Greek medicine.
And this is what she said.
>> Greeks were massive pioneers in medicine. Our word pharmacy is basically an ancient Greek word. It comes from pharmarmaca which means drugs.
>> See that she said our word for pharmacy comes from the ancient Greek farm meaning drugs. Sourc is independent of almond. Nothing Armen has been saying about antiquity has been true.
>> How can you take this guy seriously?
I've just shown you two separate sources independent of Arman Hillman showing Medusa's blood is a savior and he showed you the pharmarmacon is a savior and Betty Hughes said ancient Greek healing and medicine and our modern word for it is based on the ancient Greek pharmarmacon for drugs. Two separate sources independent of Arman Hillman just proved that Gnostic informant is lying right now. Nothing. Nothing.
There's no sources. You're a liar.
>> There you go. Two independent sources separate from Alman Hillman referencing drugs and medicine in the ancient Greek world and talking about how the blood is a salvation. Now, I brought up the video I did before on this. So, in in the Christ of Jesus, so it's so in the dive there. So, it's two for by with in orat and thenu is in the genative. So, it's of or from. So you would translate in Christ Yesu of Jesus in the Christ of Jesus. That's how you would translate that. And I'm going to show you exactly what his Christ is. And what does it say in John? It says he spits on the ground and mixes earth and spit and epichrist the man's eyes. It's cut off there. So it's epusen right here with that circle and there's an epsilon or on the front.
So it's epusen and then it says koen created a palon a mix etos out of his spit. He put the palon upon my eyes. And then at the bottom the man said the man said yes.
He created a palon and epicen epiced musamos my eyes. Jesus is a Christ and he has a Christ and he created the palon the mix of earth out of his puzzmats which is his saliva his spit and he epiced my eyes that is his Christ his ability to mix those drugs from his body and put it in a man's eyes so he can see again that's a Christ and Danny loves to bring up the best cup that he brought up first with Almond Helman that talks about human body fluids drugs found in ancient Egypt >> analyzed the proteins and metabolites.
The authors found that the mug contained residues of psychotropic substances that included harmala, Syrian rue, blue water lily. Also found evidence of human blood, bodily fluids such as oral or vaginal mucus and breast milk.
>> And what did we just look at before?
Revelation with the cup of abominations from the fluids of her fornication.
Vaginal mucus. That's literally what we're talking about in Revelation. They found the cup in ancient Egypt, but tomic Egypt. They put psychotropic drugs and either oral or vaginal mucus, body fluids, and human blood and breast milk.
They're mixing all of these drugs with body fluids, and the evidence is right here.
>> Nothing Almond has been saying about antiquity has been true. Nothing.
Nothing. There's no sources. You're a liar.
>> Danny brought it up. It's the archaeological evidence in the cup. And then we have the revelation evidence with the cup of her abominations. What do you mean there's no sources and there's no evidence? It's right here in front of you. If you can't see it, you're never going to see it and you don't want to see it.
>> Did Greek priestesses do drugs? Uh um >> what is the word mantaa? Because the oracles were priestesses. And what is a mantaa? It is from prophesying, being a prophet, divining an oracle. And we know that a pharmarmacar is a drug.
Pharmarmacantis means either one who is at once pharmacos drugged and mantis aracular. So yes, Greek priestesses did use drugs to divine or be mantic. Now we're going to look at John 13 which is another source that doesn't exist according to Gnostic informant because it's the New Testament. So it's a source and he does says they don't exist. There are no sources. But what does John 13 say about Jesus and the little children apostles disciples he has? Well, here's what it says.
>> It's with those 12 underage kids in that room washing feet. And you got to get when you wash feet. Have you ever washed somebody's feet now?
>> Not that I can recall.
>> How about a 12-year-old boy?
>> No, absolutely not.
>> Now, why wouldn't you? Do you have some kind of problem with Jesus?
>> Apparently, I do.
>> See how he's reacting? Apparently, he does. When he hears what Jesus was doing from the actual text, >> there's no sources.
>> He arose from supper. Jesus and laid aside his outer garments. He took a towel and wrapped around his waist. He then poured water into the basin, began to wash the disciples feet. So, he's got a little towel or a cloth around his waist. That's it. And then he began to wipe them with the towel that was wrapped around him. So, he's wiping the children's feet. We know the apostles are children. I've already shown you that he was wiping their children's feet with the towel that was around him. So he is as Ammon said, naked as he's washing the disciples feet, the children's feet. And I told you Jesus was a Christ because he was able to spit on the ground and epic someone which means his body, his body fluids or by touching him, he is able to drug you.
He's drugging these kids. There you go.
That's the breakdown of the English translation. That is a fake translation according to Gnostic Informant on the Perseus Task website which I will put in the links below. So that's who Jesus is and that's what he's doing with his math 18 his students his disciples who are mostly all underage. There might be one Peter who's not underage but all the rest underage as we saw before. So he's washing children's feet while he is naked. That's what Jesus is doing as a 33year-old man with the ability to drug you with his body fluids and by his touch. He's putting his hands in the water. Those kids are definitely getting drugged from that. And now going back to Bart Urman, biblical scholar who gets so much wrong on the Bible, which I proved before. He wants to talk about the resurrection. And I'm going to show you what it said, what he said about the resurrection. So, let's see if the Bible scholar knows what's in the Bible in the sources that he is supposed to know because he is a Bible [ __ ] scholar.
Now, let's go to the resurrection and see what Bart has to say about that.
Because in Mark's gospel in particular, Jesus is raised from the dead and his tomb is empty.
>> His tomb is empty. Did you hear that?
His tomb is empty.
>> There's no sources. And you flash Greek on the screen to people and give them fake translations of it that don't that aren't real.
>> Mark 16:5. All right. There's no sources. And this is fake. Well, you can all go look at it for yourself. There's the link down the the bottom if you want to do it from there or I'll post the link in the description below as well.
So, you can all go do this for yourself.
This isn't just me do. You can all go do this for yourself. And I'm encouraging you all to do it for yourself so you don't keep listening to this liar who says there are no sources. So what does Mark 16:5 say about the resurrection?
16:5 There was a Naanison in the tomb.
Entering into the tomb, they saw a young man, Naaniskos, sitting on the right side dressed in a white robe, and they were amazed.
>> I don't know [ __ ] I'm just an idiot.
Completely just butchers everything.
>> I mean, yeah, 100% I agree with that.
There is a female underage dude called the Pidisa. When Jesus Christ is in his trial, his followers won't admit there is followers. It's the whole you're going to deny me.
>> There's no sources. You are making up sources that don't exist.
>> Yep. I'm making up the source called the Bible. Bro, the [ __ ] is wrong with you?
There's a couple of PISCON. We looked at PYS before. So, it's an underage female prostitute. So, there are multiple underage female prostitutes right here.
Pisone. You can see that there are multiple underage female prostitutes >> and you flash Greek on the screen to people and give them fake translations of it that don't that aren't real.
>> Piske a young female slave especially a prostitute.
>> You are making up sources that don't exist. So, I just made up the source called the New Testament and the Gospel of Mark that doesn't exist according to Gnostic Informant, which is right here, >> and give them fake translations of it that don't that aren't real.
>> And the LSJ lexicon showing you what the words mean that is in the New Testament is not real and is a fake translation.
So, the LSJ is a fake translation of the New Testament, which doesn't exist. None of anything you're seeing on the screen is real. Apparently, you see the level of insanity we're dealing with. You have to be living in a different reality if you genuinely believe the things that Gnostic is saying or he's the most disingenuous liar on the internet. Hi Diske, a young female slave, especially a prostitute.
>> I don't know [ __ ] I'm just an idiot.
Completely just butchers everything.
>> So there's two of them right here to identify Peter as being with the Nazarene. Yesu. And then it references another Piske down here. Peter is being identified by multiple underage female prostitutes as being one of Jesus's boys.
>> I don't know [ __ ] I'm just an idiot.
Completely just butchers everything.
>> He was a guy who walked around with kids. Was he the only one doing that?
>> That's perfect. Um, no, he's not. It's called being a lace.
>> And lace, as I showed you before, can be a canaros pyace pirate trafficker. Now, I'm going to show you the Lucian text which talks about what a lace is and what they do. If you haven't seen this before, I'm going to highlight the similarities between this person that's being spoken about, written about, Alexander, the false prophet, and the similarities between him and Jesus. And see here up the top, I've got highlighted kakan because that's based on the same root of the word kakugos, who Jesus was crucified with. Many a drug that was good in a compound and many a bad one. Lucian says, all of which Alexander inherited and took over.
Now this is from Lucian's Alexander the false prophet and it is written at the same time contemporary with the gospels which is what Dan Mlen a biblical scholar also said contemporary with the gospels this story and it's telling you what a lace stace is followers of the notorious appalonius so there's a notorious person someone who's doing wicked things and he is in the ancient joke trade we've got drugs what else have we got he was a servant he himself was professedly a public physician what's Jesus in Greek it means is a healer and physician. So if you go to what Jesus's name is, that is what I showed before, it comes from the root which I showed before with Luke Gorton and those two vows interchange. And that is the root for healing, curing. So that's what Jesus is. He's a healer and a physician. And I showed you that because he epic the man's eyes to heal them. And we know all these other stories in the Bible. What was Jesus doing? He was healing people.
He was healing the sick, raising people from the dead. Now let's look at what this guy was doing. Alexander that's being written about around the same time or just after Jesus and the gospels written position. He healed the sick.
Does that sound familiar? And in some cases he actually raised the dead.
This is who Lucian is talking about.
Alexander the false prophet. He was healing people. Talking about oracles which we just talked about. He was talking about laci. There's the word up here lacas. And he was raising people from the dead. This wasn't uncommon in ancient Greece in the first 2nd century.
This dude was doing it, not just Jesus.
And they called him a false prophet.
This is exactly the same thing as Jesus is doing. What else is he doing there?
They saw great serpents. Mark 16:18.
Jesus said, "You're going to lift up snakes and drink death inducing drugs."
Theimon >> there's no sources.
>> And how do we know it's a drug? Because Josephus at the same time is writing pharmicon metanasimon. Death inducing drugs. Jesus death inducing drugs. So there you go. Josephus and Jesus around the same time, first AD, talking about the same things, drugs that induce death. You will lift up snakes, you will drink deathinducing drugs and you will not be hurt. That's what Jesus says. Now this video is from Stones and Serpents and it's got classicist Arman Hillman on the right. And then you got another classicist Aina Vioni talking about why we've never seen any of this before and why Armon seems to be the only person that is talking about this. Can I ask you, have you had much of a chance to look at any of the medical or drug stuff? Traditionally, that stuff is not taught in American universities.
>> You're right. It is not taught not only in the US, but nowhere in the world. I think maybe you're one of the few people that have the privilege to to analyze this text.
>> So, Aina just said there, no one in the world is teaching the stuff that Armon is bringing up. That's why when everyone says, "Oh, how did we all miss this? Why is he the only one bringing it to the world?" He quoted that KL Ruck said there's only four people in the world that can do what Armon does. And Aina just said there's nowhere in the world that teaches the things that he is specifically teaching us. All these ancient texts, no one reads it because no one teaches it. That's what she said.
This is what the head of his classics department said to him when he wanted to get his PhD. All the sources that showed ancient drug use, >> take out the chapter on recreational drugs or we're not going to give you the degree. kind of sounds like whatnostic's doing right now. She said, "Take out all the the chapter on the drug, the recreational use of drugs." And Gnostic saying, "There are no sources that exist that say what it says, what I'm saying, what I'm saying. The sources don't exist. Look away. Look away. Shush.
Don't believe your lying eyes. None of it exists. See, he's running scared. He knows he's on the downfall. This is what they're doing. They're trying to remove history from us. Trying to rewrite history to say never existed. [ __ ] Go do this yourself. We need everyone to start looking at all these sources and putting them out there to overwhelm these people to say, "Hey, stop lying.
We know the sources exist. Everyone can read them." I met with the head of the department. She said, "The Romans just wouldn't do such a thing."
>> What? That is someone who doesn't want to look at the sources. They don't want to believe what they're hearing. That is not science. They might as well be doing biblical studies. And that is it.
Exactly. The people who are in charge of all this might as well be doing biblical studies, obiscating the narrative, saying that there are no sources.
Armon's not backed up by any evidence in the sources in antiquity. Just lie to people and try and obiscate and remove reality from people to say it doesn't even exist. We're not taking it anymore.
No more [ __ ] No more lies. I've shown you all the sources and the evidence here that these people don't want you to look at. And I'm going to put all the links in the description to show you that you can do this yourself.
Go and click all these links. Go on the Perseus website. Go and click on whichever word you don't know or you want to look at and it'll bring up the definitions and you can go and read them as I've done here. You don't need to listen to Gnostic informant. You don't need to listen to any PhD which I've shown you. They haven't even read their own sources in that Cleopatra video I did. We don't need these people anymore.
We can read it ourselves and we can share all this knowledge. We don't need these liars anymore that want to hide the reality from everyone. Even when it's in your face and you can see it plain as day. Go and check out all the sources for yourself. Go and click those links. Go and start the [ __ ] revolution.
Related Videos
Juneteenth NYC: A celebration of history and culture
PIX11News
687 views•2026-06-19
Who Benefited from Karl Liebknecht's Death? The Murder That Changed Germany
TheRedCentury
169 views•2026-06-18
Why Kursk Didn't Destroy Germany's Tanks (Something Else Did)
TheDictatorLab
2K views•2026-06-18
Japan Called Truk "Untouchable" — America Erased It in a Day
SinceWWII
4K views•2026-06-19
THE BELGRADE MEET THAT TITO'S UDBA TURNED INTO A MANHUNT
WarStoriesInspiredbyBillyWaugh
743 views•2026-06-19
How a jobs crisis helped Tibet become the centre of the Buddhist world
ThePrintIndia
2K views•2026-06-22
The Mogilev Pocket: The Soviet Encirclement That Became a Mass Grave – WW2 Documentary
HistoryCommand
589 views•2026-06-21
How WWII Became a Global War - Pearl Harbor, U-Boats, and the Fall of Empires
WW2VaultChannel
187 views•2026-06-21
