Intel Update — August 9 — The Simmering Frog

Hello again everyone and welcome back to the underground. This is the intel update for August 3rd through the 9th, 2025. It has been extremely busy around the world and at home this week, so let's go ahead and get right to it. Most of the events that have taken place around the United States this week have pertained to things like mass shootings, IEDs, utter pandemonium, you get the idea. Most of which are isolated incidents. However, these could also be an indication of growing sentiment here in the homeland, which we'll touch on in just a moment. Our friends to the north are not doing so well either as the wildfires in Canada continue to spread. But also social considerations start factoring in as Canada begins uh what many are calling climate lockdowns in certain areas such as Nova Scotia. Overseas things are indeed moving once again in Ukraine and in the Middle East. In Ukraine, peace talks are continuing and discussions between the United States, Russia, and Ukraine continue to be more frank in nature as all sides are seeking to try to just get down to brass tax and figure out what's what it's going to take to end this conflict. Ukraine is obviously not going to budge on any of their uh demands from their side. However, they're not really that much of a factor as much as it may be unfortunate for them to hear. What Ukraine thinks is not really a factor in this conflict. to the most of the negotiation is being undertaken between the United States and Russia as as one might expect. Russia wants eastern Ukraine. The United States says there may be some territorial exchange probably Donetsk and Luhansk if not more. Again, none of this is particularly new. This has always kind of been on the table ever since Russia was able to take Donetsk and Luhansk and hold both of those regions fairly effectively throughout the duration of the war. So again, not surprising in the slightest, but uh now that this is starting to get a little bit closer to the to the finish line here, things may uh start clicking into place. Who knows? We've gotten much closer before and uh things have veered away sharply right at the end. So this whole situation is is very dynamic and and absolutely nothing is certain. Similar situation in the Middle East. Uh something that is not unsurprising in the slightest is the announcement that Israel is going to annex Gaza and officially bring uh Gaza into uh Israel's formal territory. Once again, like a broken record, this is not new by any means. Israeli media has been saying this once every couple of weeks for the past year or so. And most Western media is now kind of forming the general consensus that Israel is probably moving into the stages to actually formally try to take Gaza more militarily. You know, again, easier said than done, right? Israel has quote unquote invaded Gaza at least a dozen times now. Somehow or another. We always hear about a new invasion in the next every couple of months, right? So, it's not as simple as that. It's not like this is going to be a particularly easy military victory, but it will definitely be a lot easier now to just roll in and and start bulldozing the rubble now that basically everything in Gaza has been bombed. What this means for the average American taxpayer is that once this conflict is settled one way or the other, if Israel is able to achieve their strategic goals, which again is not a foregone conclusion, but let's just say they do it. Let's just say they're able to take Gaza and into their uh terrain in the way that they want to do it. What will that mean? Well, that will mean that a front uh in a war is is no longer a factor. Right? So, if you're a nation state, this going going back to all forms of warfare doctrine. If you're a nation state and you're fighting on multiple fronts, when one front collapses or is no longer a factor or you reach a sort of peace agreement with a nation, either through diplomatic means or by killing all of them, when that front is no longer a fighting front, that means you can shift resources to other fronts. So, all of that is to say, when Gaza is fully militarily conquered, we'll probably see a very strong shift of resources to one of Israel's other fronts. We're talking West Bank, we're talking Syria, maybe Iran again, I don't know. Uh either way, the United States will be involved in some form or fashion. So this is something to keep an eye on uh unfortunately. So that's it for the global overview. Let's go ahead and shift to the United States and talk about the uh kinetic events that have taken place this week. This is again the general overview of what I have uh been aware of and kind of been investigating on my own. This is by no means all of the things that have occurred this week. Uh this is just the stuff that I've been able to put on the map and do a little bit of investigation on my own. Some of the more high-profile things. And once again, it has been a very very kinetic week, right? The proverbial frog in the pot appears to be simmering at this point. So again, this is fairly typical for the summertime in the United States when uh general crime increases, mass shootings tend to increase uh during the summer months as well. A lot of these general crimes tend to kind of pop up uh when when weather is pretty good. It's not really a causation thing. It's more of a correlation thing, but this is definitely a correlation that kind of pops up every year. But this time this week, we've had multiple mass shootings, multiple uh IEDs and arson attacks uh take place all around the United States. So again, we'll touch on some of these as I get to them through the regions, but just as a brief overview, we of course have the IED factory that was discovered in Long Beach. This was revealed to us through the DOJ where classic case, right? Uh the FBI befriends somebody online who wants to be a bomb maker. They provide all the resources to do so and eventually take him down, right? Fairly standard MMO from the FBI. Uh, and really the only source of this information is of course the DOJ. So not a whole lot of information on this. I'm calling this an IED factory incident because this was what the guy was doing and that's the doctrinal term to describe a structure in which explosives are being made. Right? So ammunition and weapons production facilities sometimes if they're more improvised we shorten that to IED factory uh in the nomenclature. So it sounds really scary, right? IED factory. It sounds bigger than it is in a lot of cases, but this is a nomenclature, even if it turns out to be some goober making some very poorly constructed IED uh in their back room, which has occurred a couple of times this week. Anyway, moving on to a more deliberate attack was the arson attack in St. Louis, specifically the township of Clayton. this incident. I'm waiting on more information for this because obviously this is very politically hot button topic and I don't know if there's going to be some manipulation going on with the information that we have, but allegedly an IDF soldier uh was targeted in an arson attack by someone setting fire to the vehicles on the street outside his house and leaving anti-Israel or anti-IDF uh graffiti. I've not seen an uncensored version of the graffiti, so I'm not entirely certain what what was said. I've not been able to confirm a whole lot of the details myself on this or or even really dig into this a whole lot. So hopefully next week we'll have something that I can work with, but right now it's just information operations all around unfortunately on that one. Moving over to Tennessee again, an IED factory in Old Fort was discovered. We'll talk about it here in a minute, but uh this was definitely a case of some goober uh trying to build what he thought were IEDs in his in his back room. And yeah, you'll see the photos here in a minute and you'll see exactly what I'm talking about. But more kinetically this week, we of course have the mass shooting at Fort Stewart in Georgia and also the mass shooting in Atlanta, which took place last night. I haven't been able to uh dig into too many details on that one, but again, two instances which are very highly polarizing. The shooting at the army base uh appears to be more of a workplace dispute. I can't that's just speculation at the moment. I can't confirm any of this, but it it appears to be a workplace dispute. We'll know soon enough because uh of the five people who were shot at Fort Stewart, all five of them are expected to survive and only two of them had minor injuries. So uh we'll definitely know how that whole situation went down if the army is willing to uh release a lot of those details. The shooting in Atlanta is going to be much harder to get information on as the shooting took place at the CDC headquarters. So that's it for the general overview. Let's go ahead and shift to Canada for just a moment. So, as many of you know, Canada is dealing with a very severe wildfire uh crisis situation, mostly in central Canada, but also dotted throughout the country and really the continent as well. All of these red dots uh that you can see here on the slide depict current detections of wildfires or some kind of heat signature. So, this is something you can see on my online tracking maps. You can turn this layer on or off. Uh it's it's off by default, but if you go into the layers, you can turn on the fire data, and there's several different satellite layers you can choose from. They're not always perfect. Uh that's why multiple layers is is helpful. But you can clearly see there's a very large hot spots detected in central Canada. I wanted to mention this because Canada has decided to start locking down some areas due to climate reasons, right? So the general situation that's going around or the general sentiment being expressed by many Canadians is that the climate lockdowns have begun. And here's what I mean by that. So Canada, specifically Nova Scotia, has decided to ban people from the woods. So most national parks, open spaces, things like that are closed right now to the public. And also, they're trying to crack down on private property as well to try to tell people that they can't be on their own land. Uh because somehow just people being in the wilderness, just standing in the woods of it's it's going to cause a wildfire, right? There hasn't really been a push to identify arsonists or uh try to go after people who may be setting these fires or anything like that. Uh they're just trying to lock down and prevent people from going out in the woods again. So they've pulled out all of the policies from the CO era and they've they've returned to form quite truly in Nova Scotia at least. Now I wanted to mention this because this sounds bad, right? This sounds like well if people are in the woods and there's fires going on, you know, maybe it would be a good idea to keep people out of the woods. Maybe it would be a good idea to keep people out of harm's way or prevent, you know, the hot exhaust from a car setting off some brush or something like that. So, if you don't know where Nova Scotia is, you might be inclined to think, well, this I can see the logic here of of kind of closing these places off, right? Because in the United States, we do the same thing. If there's a big wildfire, right, we want people to stay out of the place where the wildfire is. That's a generally, you know, good idea to do. Well, here's the problem. Here's where Nova Scotia is located. This, ladies and gentlemen, is where Canada has decided to lock down people and prevent them from going into public parks. Nowhere near any of the wildfires that are currently burning. So, you see why this might be a slight problem or why many people might say that this is politically motivated and not actually a wildfire thing. So, yeah, I'll just leave with that and let you guys form your own conclusions because it certainly seems like uh this is really just kind of testing the waters for more national level policies. uh that may come later on. Now, moving down south to the United States in the southeast region. Like I mentioned, we have one IED factory discovered in a uh double wide down there in Old Fort, Tennessee. Now again, I know people are going to hear the term IED factory and think this is some kind of largecale terroristic kind of activity, but if you look at the IEDs that they discovered uh in this guy's trailer just in the middle of nowhere, Tennessee, you can rapidly come to the conclusion that this was most certainly a case of some goober who hates the government, who probably threatened his local politicians, threatened the local police department, and they rolled up there and found some very, very crudely, as in so crude they probably would not even work IEDs that this guy had created. For those people who are very familiar with this region of the United States, this arrest uh is not even remotely surprising in the slightest. So again, this is definitely more of some goober uh causing problems down there in the local area and less of a case of an al-Qaeda splinter cell, right? this is just some idiot in the woods with a lot of explosives, which is again very common for that area, but some you don't want to downplay or like uh you know factor out of the equation because these people can be pretty dangerous if they get enough smarts about them somehow. But generally speaking, we hear IEDs discovered 14 explosive devices discovered at a compound in the woods. You know, we can phrase this in such a way to make it sound a lot more organized than it really is, and it's just some idiot in the woods. So, all in all, it's important to get the background context of this sort of thing because that's a little bit more helpful for assessing risk. If I heard the news story like the news was trying to make it sound like there's some kind of al-Qaeda training camp down here in Tennessee and they found over a dozen explosive devices, well, that's a lot different than what actually happened, right? So context is important for mitigating a lot of risk, especially when it comes to, you know, a lot of the same old sources keep claiming that there's this mass like 9/11 right around the corner and they latch on to this stuff and away we go, right? So not to say that it's not important. You need to be aware of it. You need to be aware of people like this and how these sorts of cases are taking place all around the country and they get no coverage. But again, there is also very much the incentive to manipulate these kinds of stories to make it seem like they're uh you know, more organized than they are. So, just something to be aware of. Now, also in the Southeast region, I'll briefly cover what's going on in DC this week, and of course, it's fairly busy as usual. Something that I have not seen any coverage on uh with from any media source is the SNAP program overhaul. For many of you who have not heard of this, the federal government is overhauling the SNAP system right now and there are changes being made to which products are available for purchase with uh EBT cards. So, the bottom line is that there's been a lot of unrest at some grocery store chains and mostly convenience stores like 7-Eleven and things like that where people get up to the counter, they realize their EBT card won't pay for whatever product that they're trying to buy and they go ballistic, right? Something to be aware of. I don't know how widespread this problem is, but the federal government a few months ago and a few states as well with state level resources. Uh the various agencies that handle various welfare programs in many different areas are starting to overhaul and tweak these things and reduce the number of products. Many of you have probably seen the efforts by RFK Jr. to kind of like publicly remove things like sodas and uh sugary snacks and things like that from the SNAP program. Uh I don't know if they've reached a consensus on that part yet. However, a few months ago, the program was quietly altered and uh ever so often things kind of get delisted and a few days ago, a lot of people realized, wait a minute, half their cartload of groceries is no longer covered by the program. So, just something to keep in mind if you're trying to have a peaceful shopping experience. In some places, you might have a bit of a brawl on the checkout line, but I just wanted to mention it because uh I haven't seen anybody else uh talk about it yet. And this is probably going to get worse over time as the program to kind of shrink the SNAP program continues. So, another thing to be aware of is the federalization of Washington DC. There's been a lot of talk about this over the past couple of weeks or so. I don't really know how this is going to work out in practice, but uh anytime the National Guard kind of deploys to DC, I uh perk my ears up for obvious reasons. I don't know how serious they are about that, but you know how things are going in Washington. the the official government policy changes by the hour uh on in a lot of cases. So, I don't really know what to make of it. They may put fences back up. Uh I don't know how serious they are about federalizing DC, but there's definitely this initiative to try to decrease the crime in the National Region, especially the National uh the National Mall. I don't know how it's going to go, but you may see some changes in DC over the next few weeks as they try to figure something out. I don't know. Moving down to Georgia, there was, of course, a mass shooting at the CDC headquarters in Atlanta. This was originally reported as a shooting at Emory University. But after a while, it became clear that the person was on the campus shooting at the CDC headquarters. They basically just arrived at the scene, pulled out a weapon, and started shooting at the CDC building uh randomly seemingly. This is a developing story, so I don't have a whole lot of details on it yet. So far, one fatality was reported. one of the police officers who was the one of the first responders to the shooting was shot by the shooter and uh the situation kind of rapidly deteriorated from there. As far as the shooter themselves, I have no information on this. It's been almost a full day after the shooting so far and we don't have a name. We don't have uh any kind of details on the shooter except for one thing. I find it very very odd that we don't know the shooter's name. We don't know what their deal was. We don't know their history or anything about them. Yet, the mainstream media is still reporting at the moment that they shot up the CDC building because they were vaccine injured and they had grievances with the CDC uh with regards to vaccine production. So, I find that very convenient and I am just naturally skeptical about stuff like that, especially when it comes out and we don't even know the shooter's name, but yet we know why they did the crime. Isn't that very odd? Normally, it's the other way around. and we know the shooter's identity, but we don't know why. Like the the guy who shot President Trump and and Butler, right? We know who committed that crime, but we don't know why. So, I find that to be very interesting that that that's the story that's going around. Of course, this will definitely be something that we investigate. It could very well be true. There are a lot of people with a lot of grievances and a lot of people at the end of the rope on that front. Could be true, but again, I'm trying to kind of pump the brakes on any kind of information manipulation on that. So, I'm just going to have to say we'll see. And speaking of the truth not really being known, I did want to briefly mention the initial scandal that I spent so much time writing about just for the policy to be rescended immediately after I wrote my report. This of course is the uh discovery of an old policy by uh the Reuters journalistic agency in which they discovered that the Department of Homeland Security had quietly uh put in allegiance to Israel as a condition for getting federal FEMA aid. Not necessarily aid for victims of disasters, but for the terms and conditions for getting federal grants for equipment mostly. That's mostly what it applied to. Now, I know I've written a lot about this in the wire, so I don't want to beat a dead horse here, but the general gist of what occurred is that back on April 18th, the DHS updated their terms and conditions for what you've got to do essentially to get federal aid for your agency, department, whatever, uh, when it comes to disaster relief aid for things like FEMA. So, if your fire department wants to buy a new Stokes litter and they don't have the funding to do so, well, FEMA's got you covered. There are probably there are a lot of federal grants that will allow local departments to buy stuff, but you've got to follow the rules, right? You've got to make sure that your department is following all the guidelines by the feds. And back on April 18th, the federal government updated their terms and conditions for getting this type of uh grant money, which they do every year. They update these things several times a year actually because they frequently catch typos and things like that and problems arise. So, they they update these things quite often. And on April 18th, they quietly added in a paragraph that states that if you boycott an Israeli company, then you're not getting federal aid. And that of course became rapidly inflammatory because of how this is technically the textbook definition of treason, right? I mean, nobody wants to say it, but that's what it is. If you're acquiring allegiance to a nation state, if you're requiring Americans to purchase something from a foreign nation before you're going to help them, that's is that not treason? I mean, anyway, but following what happened, uh, nobody really noticed this because nobody really cares about terms and conditions by federal governments. So, nobody cared about this, uh, even though it appeared on April 18th until August 4th when Reuters noticed it. Uh, I don't know how or why they came to notice it. I mean, it was there. it was on the portal the whole time. I mean, nobody really noticed it, but this is how the federal government works a lot of times. They'll put a government document online for the public to see, but because it's nested so deeply in, you know, government infrastructure, nobody notices it for a while. So they finally noticed it on August 4th. Everybody freaks out and uh the government, which is the more interesting part, more interesting than the policy itself because the policy itself, let's let's face it, this this kind of mentality has kind of solidified in most law at this point. What's interesting to me though is that the DHS went in there and edited the file. They didn't change the version. So the the file name that was actually posted online was version three. You would think that they would create version four. That's not what they did. They edited version three to make it look like this paragraph was never in the text at all. They deleted the initial version of this, so you can't find it at all. Uh what it originally said, which to me sounds like a violation of the Federal Records Act, but what do I know? But anyway, uh the paragraph is no longer there, so everything's good and and copathetic, right? Well, no, not really. Just because a federal agency stops committing a crime does not mean that that crime did not occur. So, what has been the result from all of this? Well, really the White House in particular and the entire executive branch and well really all branches of government have just tried to pretend like this never happened, right? So they're just saying they're taking the position of well we changed it. So what? You know what's the problem? Well, because people want accountability. They want to know from April 18th when this policy was in place to August 4th when you secretly rescended it and tried to pretend like it never existed, how many departments were denied federal aid based on this policy? Right? We want to know that this is something that's very important. It's hurricane season. It's wildfire season. People like me need to know, did my local fire department bend the knee enough to a foreign nation state so that they could get some FEMA aid that might help me if I need to get rescued one day. We we kind of need to know these sorts of things and everyone's kind of ignored this. Somewhat interestingly, what I you know what I thought they were personally going to do? What I thought the White House was going to do is blame it on an intern and then just say it was some crazy uh person who unilaterally made a decision, then they fire uh somebody and then, you know, kind of cover it up from there. That's not what they did. DHS and FEMA and the White House have not taken the position that this was a rogue actor. So, this was not a malign actor. This was the policy. I thought they were going to do it. I thought they were going to say I was just some malign actor in government, but they didn't. uh they have basically just said, "We've changed the policy, so next question." Which to me means that the risk is still the same. So either way, trust is very hard to recover once it's lost. And like it or not, it doesn't matter if it's fair or not, the next time there is a disaster, Americans are going to wonder if a paragraph mandating support for a foreign nation is going to mysteriously reappear 5 minutes before a hurricane hits. If they secretly added it and they secretly removed it with a couple of clicks of a mouse button, then how do we know they're not going to do that right before a disaster, right? Anyway, that's something to consider. I know that it's a topic that's that not a lot of big voices are going to talk about because it's dangerous. It's dangerous to talk about this sort of thing nowadays. It's physically dangerous. It's financially dangerous. Part of me gets it because I understand people have to play the game in all aspects of society in some ways. But look, man, you know, at a certain point, you've really got to start looking at this stuff because it's starting to impact your safety and well-being, right? Regardless of who's heading up these agencies or who's in the White House, this is something that we've got to hold people accountable for. So, I'll just kind of leave that uh there. The policy has changed allegedly. All the DEI stuff is still there, though, which is interesting. But, that's a completely separate fight than the initial uh complaint with this document. So, I guess we're just going to have to see if or when this stuff uh gets changed. All I know is that I'm just trying to focus on basic risk assessment and a government document which uh is as concerning as this one certainly needs to be considered for people who are trying to prepare for disasters, right? Nobody's going to want to talk about it, but we've got to and uh we can see how things go from here. So, moving out west, I did want to mention this because I think this is going to be another case of information manipulation, and this is the developments in the case with regards to the M18 service pistol regarding the case of the airman who was shot at FE Warren Air Force Base in Wyoming a couple of weeks ago or last week. The Air Force has shifted that investigation to being an involuntary manslaughter uh investigation. So one airman has been arrested for uh making false statements uh obstruction of justice things like that. So of course this case has taken another turn. It is not as simple as we thought it was initially which is what the air force thought it was is the M18 went off shot the service member in the chest killed him and that was that was what was uh theorized and triggered the investigation. Right? We have to trigger investigation so that we can get to the truth. Right? And the development in this investigation is that the Air Force seems to think that at least one person who was there or involved in this case made false official statements. So that is a piece of information that you have to process and make your own risk assessments. Now the reason I wanted to mention this is one because this is an interesting development that people should be aware of but also because my irritation with the online influencer community grows daily. And what I mean by that is I think that it is important to get ahead of this when it comes to risk assessment. Remember like I just said, I'm trying to approach well life in general as an exercise in risk assessment, right? Trying to figure out how to carefully mitigate risk, take chances when possible, but also be as safe as possible while taking those risks in an increasingly dangerous world. So that's the frame of mind I'm coming at this from. I personally have nothing against Sauer. there is a P226 sitting on my desk right now as I'm recording this. I don't have a personal vendetta against them whatsoever. But what I do find concerning is what's getting ready to happen if it's not already happening on some parts of uh social media for instance. So two things are going to happen. One, a lot of people are going to make it seem like people were foolish for ever doubting SIG, right? And secondly, they're going to want apologies for switching over to other firearms, banning the P320, the M17, and M18 at uh gun ranges, things like that. So essentially, a lot of influencers in the gun space are going to be like, "Shame on you. You should never have doubted Sig. This was the case. This was like a murder investigation. Uh it wasn't a case of uh Sig finally killing somebody." So on and so forth. That's what the the gaslighting attempts are going to look like. And understanding this is going to be crucial for risk assessment because unfortunately a lot of people hinge their world view on uh what an influencer says and does. And I don't like it. The political left does it, the political right does it, but they pretend that they don't. And unfortunately, I I think, you know, the fat lady has not sung on this. Uh mostly because not one single person who was gloating about Sig, you know, potentially being redeemed by this uh and the developments in this case. Not a single one of those people knew at the time that this might have been murder or some other kind of foul play situation. We must remember what happened at the time. We have to remember what decisions were made, right? The army and the air force stopped using the pistol out of an abundance of caution. So my question is exactly what were we supposed to do, right? Was that not a good enough reason to mitigate risk? If the army comes out and says, "Hey, this pistol is dangerous enough for us to stop using it forcewide and we're going to investigate this." Is that not a good enough reason to say there might be a problem here and to just figure this stuff out? If the army said it was too risky to use, exactly what is the consumer market supposed to think, right? And unfortunately, I think a lot of people who are probably being paid by Sig, I think that a lot of people are going to make it seem like that decision to stop using this pistol would have been foolish. Like, you should never have doubted Sig. This is shame on you kind of thing. And I think that is gaslighting of the highest order, especially considering that this scandal has been years in the making. People have been shot by this pistol. Sig is definitely not out of the woods yet, and they're definitely not do apology either. The investigation is still ongoing. The pistol could have still gone off in a holster. The the service member could have just lied about who did it, right? There are so many speculative angles to this story. There's not a whole lot that we can learn. So, what can we learn from this? Well, like I said, the P320 situation itself, not so much. Nobody can definitively say what's wrong. And a much more technical analysis is definitely needed before we uh make a final judgment call on that. But what about the reaction to it? Right? In typical fashion, I'm sure it probably annoys many of you, but generally when a scandal occurs, I'm not so much interested by the scandal, but by the reaction to it and the manipulation and the gaslighting that occurs. And in that in this case, that is what I'm most interested in. So when it comes to risk assessment for me, I would very strongly recommend to number one, never let anyone make you feel foolish in hindsight for being a little bit more safe or riskaverse during a situation. And I see that happening all the time. And and that's just that's not the appropriate way to assess risk. But also, and this kind of affects that risk assessment, too, is that when big money is involved, trust is easier to lose and harder to earn. Could it possibly be that people in SIG's ecosphere or or the or any gun company's ecosphere, it's not just SIG, this applies to all very large corporations, people who are in the sphere of these companies, could it possibly be that company, in this case SIG, may seek to use these soft measures, these uh more indirect means of controlling information to protect their 500 plus million dollar contract. I don't know. It just seems like the gun industry culture a lot of times covers up a lot of the very corporate and dirty nature of this. And I think Sig's behavior uh during this entire uh situation has very much enlightened a lot of people uh that just because they're a gun company does not mean that they are pro- second amendment. Just because a gun company exists does not mean that they're acting in the best interest of the American people. Right? So, you know, gun companies are not immune from all of the criticism that a lot of other big Fortune 500 companies get. And we tend to forget that with SIG. People are uh very much brand loyal and there's a lot of insanity uh going around these days. And uh it's something to keep in mind if you're trying to just be safe. What I certainly would not want to have happen is this story break. And a lot of influencers get out there and say, "Look, Sig is vindicated." They're not vindicated, but they're going to say, "Oh, Sig is vindicated. This was a really a murder case." Or something like that. And Sig is, of course, going to lean into this and say, "See, look, you never should have doubted us. Come back. Start carrying your P320 again." And not a single fix has been implemented. The only thing that has changed is now the Air Force is investigating somebody for making false statements. That's it. For me, that's not nearly enough information for me to assume the risk of saying, "Well, the P320 is all fine now." you know, there's got to be more investigation on this. So, all you all we know is that a service member lied about the incident. That's all we know. We don't know uh what actually happened. And I think that a lot of people are going to lean into this. And I would really really hate for somebody to get injured or killed out there simply because the online influencer culture is probably going to spin up about this. So, please be careful of how you conduct your own risk assessment, your own risk analysis, and definitely uh keep that in mind when it comes to people who might be financially motivated to get you to think one way or the other. So, that's all I have for today. Let's go ahead and roll things up with the intercepted ghost net reports. Uh it was a very interesting week for the ghost net. A lot of information. I I've only got the three uh screenshots here, but there were dozens of messages I I uh wasn't able to sift through this week. It's it's it's becoming a very large network. It's working out very very well and I'm glad to see uh this providing a lot of useful services for people who are trying to get information in an off-grid way. You know, a lot of the times it's not necessarily about the the novelty of radio. It's about trying to, you know, war game these kinds of things and start getting familiar with a lot of systems and radio technology that can be used to exchange information in a more resilient and censorship resistant way. radio, especially HF radio, is not perfect. It is very hard to use in a lot of cases. It's definitely not for beginners, but out of all of my research that I have done uh over the past uh decade, I guess, this is really one of the only solutions that we have. And we're not really using these tools the way they were intended to be used, uh but we're using them in ways that they can be used. Right? I know I haven't gone into depth on the Ghost Net stuff in a while. I'm going to circle back around to comms in a bit. I'm still writing some stuff on that. But yeah, it's it's definitely something to be aware of. Download the Ghost Net plan if you don't know what it is. It's like 50 pages at this point, but it will explain everything about the plan and what the general gist of it is because it's kind of specific uh what the this niche use is for. It's just one tool in the toolbox to help us be as resilient as possible and exchange information uh in a more off-grid manner just in case various entities out there want to uh restrict speech. So, that's pretty much all I have for today. Here are the sources as usual. And of course, uh, for those of you who don't know, all of these sources can be found on my Obsidian page where uh, they're sorted by the day. So, if you see a wire report, that link at the bottom of every wire report will take you to my Obsidian page where most, if not all of my research is being hosted. So, if you want to do work on your own, feel free to do so. Uh, the sources are always there for you to examine and form your own opinion about things. So, thanks again everyone uh, for your support and I will see you next time. And as always, in shade.