Sabitlenmiş Tweet
How Elon Musk’s 16-million-view retweet of a WikiLeaks post may have been the culmination of an information laundering campaign: a thread.
English
Nico Ayers 🦋🌕 MPW
516 posts
Nico Ayers 🦋🌕 MPW
@NicoAyersSC
american in south africa • photo nerd • ma classical philology, univ. of basel • forensic imaging • machine vision • optimizing pixels for truth 🤙 surf's up
Knysna, South Africa Katılım Aralık 2024
224 Takip Edilen508 Takipçiler
@EddieTopG Absolutely. It's gotta be about the most obscure reference in there, so good catch. I knew Hank when I was a kid because he was a family friend (for some reason).
English
Am i right that the Grateful Dead part has Courtney Love's father Hank Harrison - their former manager - giving her a shot of LSD? I only know this detail because of his book about the Cobain murder...
The_Real_Fly@The_Real_Fly
👀
English
@elonmusk @Maks_NAFO_FELLA Elon having pleasant interactions with the fellas… Throwing out my 2026 bingo card; I won’t be needing it. A win.
English
@EdKrassen @camhigby @gregnmitchell @0hour1 Pretend to be a journalist and wait for Pete Hegeseth to add you
English
🚨 Here is a screen recording of every member of the Minneapolis Isles Rapid Response Signal group.
Keep in mind, @0hour1 leaked this chat so at least some of the accounts here are opposition to the leftist insurrectionists.
English
@elonmusk @TheAliceSmith This take’s spiritual home is a now-deleted 2014 /pol/ post by a fedora-tipping teenager
English
@TheAliceSmith Hitler was a far left socialist. His party was called the national socialists.
English
If socialism and fascism are at the opposite ends of the political spectrum, then why do they overlap so much?
English
@DataRepublican @camhigby He was a nurse you dull twat. Do you not know anyone in trades? Why the hell would a nurse be on LinkedIn?
English
🚨 ALEX PRETTI IN ON SIGNAL CONSPIRACY?
In the highly organized anti-ICE rapid response signal group “Tom O’Hoch” says “WE suspect an ‘observer’ was shot”
Observers are what they call ICE chasers involved in the signal network dedicated to hunting down agents and harassing, antagonizing or assaulting them.
If Tom is correct, this situation is significantly worse than we initially thought.
English
@emrtechnet @RichardHanania You’re thinking of Anthony Weiner (I got them mixed up too for second)
English
@RichardHanania I am just going off of memory. But Hanania - you are wrong! He was a chronic sexter and he did send a 15 year old girl a dick pick. Probably that was an accident? But it's not the stupid bill your talking about. It was because he sent a minor girl a picture of his penis
English
Someone asked me why rightists called Scott Wiener a "pedophile." I decided to finally look into it.
Before State Senator Wiener helped pass SB-145, judges in California had discretion regarding whether to put someone on the sex offender registry in cases of statutory rape where the minor was between 14 and 17 and the offender was within ten years of the victim.
But this only applied to penile-vaginal intercourse. If the offender and the minor had engaged in oral or anal intercourse, the person had to be placed on the registry regardless of mitigating factors like how close the two people were in age. The judge could not take any individualized circumstances into account.
It doesn't seem like there's any good reason for this discrepancy. It simply treats a common homosexual offense as worthy of lifetime stigmatization but not a similar heterosexual offense.
SB-145 gave the judge discretion in each case.
That's it! His law simply mandated equal treatment for acts that were gay and straight.
The right-wing discourse turned this into a claim that California had basically legalized pedophilia. People who say this or express outrage about the law are not serious. State Senator Wiener was brave for adopting this position, which is easy to mischaracterize, and clearly correct.
English
@KareemRifai Reminds me of when they kind of cancelled him in the Green party for tweeting something nice about Navalny that one time
English
They're calling it the most well-adjusted reply section on Twitter dot com
Cornel West@CornelWest
Long Live the Iranian Revolution — 2026 “Let justice roll down like waters…” #TruthJusticeLove
English
@jimstewartson @Acyn Acts like Himmler but don’t forget all the lame self-issued regalia is Hermann Göring cosplay
English
@NicoAyersSC @KareemRifai He is the Sideshow Bob of pedophiles.
And there is always a rake nearby
English
This is one of the most violent community note violations I've ever seen
English
@P_Kallioniemi Humbly, me. You already follow all the accounts I might recommend.
English
Recommend small pro-Ukraine accounts that need more followers!
English
Predictable irony alert: Musk’s subsidies questioned by Trump. The brazen bull strikes back with DOGE in play.
English
Katchanovski mischaracterizes the verdict. It doesn’t prove a Maidan sniper false flag, just that SBU officers were unproven culprits, with shots possibly from occupied areas. This is speculation, not the settled truth you imply. Please try running the original Ukrainian language court ruling through Google Translate, or to Grok. This narrative that there's now some judicial validation of the Euromaidan false flag theory is dead wrong:
reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/1265432…
English
Anyone who knows more than the headlines knows the infamous Maidan snipers were a false flag op. There is not a single person acting in good faith who does not know that. Everyone who claims otherwise just benefits personally from the lie.
English
If you feed Grok the original court ruling in question (it's in Ukrainian of course), it shows Dr. Katchanovski fairly seriously misrepresents it. Without giving Grok direct access to the primary source, it seems to rely on his account in formulating its answer.
x.com/i/grok/share/z…
English
@modadGeoP @grok is it true? West ukraine investigated Maidan massacre and found a false flag by the right?
English
The Ukrainian judicial system confirms that the Maidan massacre was done by right wing radicals, and not by state authorities. The whole narrative around Ukraine has simply collapsed.
Ivan Katchanovski@I_Katchanovski
Wow! Declassified text of Ukrainian court verdict in March 2025 confirms false flag shooting of Maidan activists in Khmelnytsky by far-right Maidan activists during Maidan massacre & confirms my study findings. Expert examination of videos, forensic ballistic and medical examinations, on-site investigative experiments, and witness testimonies & investigations by SBU & Ukrainian military prosecutor showed that gunshots made from SBU veranda, which was occupied by Maidan activists, killed elderly female Maidan protester & wounded 4 others. Verdict acquitted ex-head of Khmelnytskyi SBU & SBU Alfa officer for shooting of these Maidan activists because of lack of evidence and because of such evidence of false flag shooting. The verdict cites various eyewitnesses who testified that several Maidan activists broke into veranda (extension) of SBU building, that gunshots at Maidan activists came from this veranda when it was occupied by "radical" Maidan activists & that accused SBU officers did not make these gunshots. The verdict states that investigation after it was transferred to the same special department of Prosecutor General Office that investigated Maidan massacre "was not conducted fully and comprehensively, and was also obviously biased" and "committed a number of significant violations of the requirements of the Criminal Code, as well as the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, which entailed the recognition of evidence as inadmissible." Relevant parts of verdict: (automatic translation): - Security Service of Ukraine "commission, based on the results of an official investigation involving specialists in firearms and tactical and special training of the CSO "A" of the SBU, concluded that "the burst of shots from automatic weapons that rang out on February 19, 2014 at 12:36 p.m. and as a result of which some civilians who were near the administrative building were injured, was fired from the vestibule of the central entrance of the Department, where at that time unidentified individuals from among the aggressive protesters were located"; - expert's conclusion based on the results of the ballistic examination of weapon traces, gunshot traces and situational circumstances of the shot under No. 5935/5936/16-33 dated 01.07.2016, from which it follows that: 1. According to the results of the investigative experiment dated 12.04.2016, 18.03.2016 and 25.02.2016, it can be concluded that under the known circumstances and materials of the criminal proceedings, it was not possible to fire shots into the lower right static sash of the glass extension to the central entrance to the department, nor from the second floor of the administrative building, nor from the steps between the first and second floors of the Department. 2. The shots were fired from the middle of the glass extension of the central entrance of the Department of the Security Service of Ukraine in Khmelnytskyi region, outside. 3. The shots were fired from inside the glass extension of the central entrance of the Security Service of Ukraine in Khmelnytskyi region, to the outside; the weapon, at the time of the shots, was behind the back of the victim PERSON_131, at the level (or below) of the belt; - expert opinion based on the results of the forensic examination of the video recording dated 12.08.2016 No. 10358/10359/16-35, from which it follows that... according to their general and individual acoustic parameters, the experimental shots fired in the extension of the USBU administrative building in Khmelnytskyi region correspond to the shots of the second stage (out of eight shots) recorded in the studied video recordings; - protocols of investigative experiments with the participation of PERSON_22 [accused SBU Alfa officer] as a witness dated 09.03.2016, conducted by the previous pre-trial investigation body, from which it follows that from the place where PERSON_22 was on the 2nd floor, it was not possible to fire shots at the lower part of the door of the central entrance of the office covered by an anti-vandal roller shutter. Under such circumstances, the court finds the information from the aforementioned investigative experiments and expert conclusions not refuted. On the morning of February 19, 2014, Colonel PERSON_21 was informed by the head of the USBU in the Ternopil region, Colonel PERSON_141, about the movement to the city of Khmelnytskyi of a group of radical individuals numbering about 80 people, whose goal was to organize the seizure of the USBU building in the Khmelnytskyi region and gain access to the storage areas of weapons and ammunition. This information was confirmed by the ZND department of the USBU, in addition, it was established that in the courtyards of residential buildings located near the administrative building of the Department, radical individuals who arrived from the western regions of Ukraine were preparing for future active actions, in particular, filling glass bottles with an incendiary mixture. Taking into account the available information, the leadership of the USBU concluded that radically minded protesters were preparing to implement a planned scenario of seizing the building of the Department, as happened on February 18, 2014 in Lviv, Ivano-Frankivsk, and Ternopil regions. Under such circumstances, the defense's claim, with reference to the evidence presented, regarding the possibility of causing bodily harm to the victim on February 19, 2014, at 12:36 p.m., near the USBU in Khmelnytskyi region by third parties is not excluded, which in turn makes it impossible for the court to make a decision beyond reasonable doubt on the involvement and guilt of PERSON_22 in the charges brought. Taking into account the above, the court comes to the firm conviction that the conclusions of the pre-trial investigation body on the guilt of PERSON_21 [Khmelnytsky SBU head] and PERSON_22 [SBU Alfa officer] in the presented accusation were based mainly on assumptions not confirmed properly by admissible, reliable and sufficient evidence. Not only the involvement of the accused in the commission of the criminal offenses with which they are incriminated, that is, the causal connection between the actions of the accused and the consequences in the form of causing bodily harm to the victim, but also the generally unlawful nature of the actions of the accused remained unproven." reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/1265432…
English
@aaronjmate Aaron, please stop sharing Dr. Katchanovski's work if you're not going to make even a minimal effort to verify it. He links to the Ukrainian court opinion in question, which can easily be machine translated, and grossly misrepresents it in this rambling tweet.
English
False flags do happen:
Ivan Katchanovski@I_Katchanovski
Wow! Declassified text of Ukrainian court verdict in March 2025 confirms false flag shooting of Maidan activists in Khmelnytsky by far-right Maidan activists during Maidan massacre & confirms my study findings. Expert examination of videos, forensic ballistic and medical examinations, on-site investigative experiments, and witness testimonies & investigations by SBU & Ukrainian military prosecutor showed that gunshots made from SBU veranda, which was occupied by Maidan activists, killed elderly female Maidan protester & wounded 4 others. Verdict acquitted ex-head of Khmelnytskyi SBU & SBU Alfa officer for shooting of these Maidan activists because of lack of evidence and because of such evidence of false flag shooting. The verdict cites various eyewitnesses who testified that several Maidan activists broke into veranda (extension) of SBU building, that gunshots at Maidan activists came from this veranda when it was occupied by "radical" Maidan activists & that accused SBU officers did not make these gunshots. The verdict states that investigation after it was transferred to the same special department of Prosecutor General Office that investigated Maidan massacre "was not conducted fully and comprehensively, and was also obviously biased" and "committed a number of significant violations of the requirements of the Criminal Code, as well as the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, which entailed the recognition of evidence as inadmissible." Relevant parts of verdict: (automatic translation): - Security Service of Ukraine "commission, based on the results of an official investigation involving specialists in firearms and tactical and special training of the CSO "A" of the SBU, concluded that "the burst of shots from automatic weapons that rang out on February 19, 2014 at 12:36 p.m. and as a result of which some civilians who were near the administrative building were injured, was fired from the vestibule of the central entrance of the Department, where at that time unidentified individuals from among the aggressive protesters were located"; - expert's conclusion based on the results of the ballistic examination of weapon traces, gunshot traces and situational circumstances of the shot under No. 5935/5936/16-33 dated 01.07.2016, from which it follows that: 1. According to the results of the investigative experiment dated 12.04.2016, 18.03.2016 and 25.02.2016, it can be concluded that under the known circumstances and materials of the criminal proceedings, it was not possible to fire shots into the lower right static sash of the glass extension to the central entrance to the department, nor from the second floor of the administrative building, nor from the steps between the first and second floors of the Department. 2. The shots were fired from the middle of the glass extension of the central entrance of the Department of the Security Service of Ukraine in Khmelnytskyi region, outside. 3. The shots were fired from inside the glass extension of the central entrance of the Security Service of Ukraine in Khmelnytskyi region, to the outside; the weapon, at the time of the shots, was behind the back of the victim PERSON_131, at the level (or below) of the belt; - expert opinion based on the results of the forensic examination of the video recording dated 12.08.2016 No. 10358/10359/16-35, from which it follows that... according to their general and individual acoustic parameters, the experimental shots fired in the extension of the USBU administrative building in Khmelnytskyi region correspond to the shots of the second stage (out of eight shots) recorded in the studied video recordings; - protocols of investigative experiments with the participation of PERSON_22 [accused SBU Alfa officer] as a witness dated 09.03.2016, conducted by the previous pre-trial investigation body, from which it follows that from the place where PERSON_22 was on the 2nd floor, it was not possible to fire shots at the lower part of the door of the central entrance of the office covered by an anti-vandal roller shutter. Under such circumstances, the court finds the information from the aforementioned investigative experiments and expert conclusions not refuted. On the morning of February 19, 2014, Colonel PERSON_21 was informed by the head of the USBU in the Ternopil region, Colonel PERSON_141, about the movement to the city of Khmelnytskyi of a group of radical individuals numbering about 80 people, whose goal was to organize the seizure of the USBU building in the Khmelnytskyi region and gain access to the storage areas of weapons and ammunition. This information was confirmed by the ZND department of the USBU, in addition, it was established that in the courtyards of residential buildings located near the administrative building of the Department, radical individuals who arrived from the western regions of Ukraine were preparing for future active actions, in particular, filling glass bottles with an incendiary mixture. Taking into account the available information, the leadership of the USBU concluded that radically minded protesters were preparing to implement a planned scenario of seizing the building of the Department, as happened on February 18, 2014 in Lviv, Ivano-Frankivsk, and Ternopil regions. Under such circumstances, the defense's claim, with reference to the evidence presented, regarding the possibility of causing bodily harm to the victim on February 19, 2014, at 12:36 p.m., near the USBU in Khmelnytskyi region by third parties is not excluded, which in turn makes it impossible for the court to make a decision beyond reasonable doubt on the involvement and guilt of PERSON_22 in the charges brought. Taking into account the above, the court comes to the firm conviction that the conclusions of the pre-trial investigation body on the guilt of PERSON_21 [Khmelnytsky SBU head] and PERSON_22 [SBU Alfa officer] in the presented accusation were based mainly on assumptions not confirmed properly by admissible, reliable and sufficient evidence. Not only the involvement of the accused in the commission of the criminal offenses with which they are incriminated, that is, the causal connection between the actions of the accused and the consequences in the form of causing bodily harm to the victim, but also the generally unlawful nature of the actions of the accused remained unproven." reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/1265432…
English
Thank you. This is some of the laziest sneakiness Dr. K has pulled. He's so confident his followers won't bother doing a quick machine translation of the court opinion he actually links to that he knows he can twist it however he wants.
English
@aaronjmate This decision does not “confirm” a false flag operation in a definitive way, but rather acquits the SBU officers on the basis of insufficient evidence that casts doubt on their responsibility. That is not confirming a "false flag" and is about selling books.
English
He really will go on any show that asks him.
English
Ro Khanna always presents himself as being on the left of the Democratic Party, but he's the errand boy for Silicon Valley oligarchs.
Emma Vigeland@EmmaVigeland
Pathetic
English
He looks like a minor character from Austin Powers universe
Maine@TheMaineWonk
This 22 Year Old Was Appointed by DHS to lead Terrorism Prevention. trib.al/iyKjShK
English