Time Slips: An Explanation for Everything Paranormal?

A challenge to the theory that ghosts, Bigfoot, and UFOs may be slipping through time

Original video: Brittany Barbieri — “THE BENDING OF TIME: Are Ghosts, Bigfoot & UFOs Slipping Through Reality?”

By JM Talboo --- DebunkingDeath.blogspot.com

What if some of the things people interpret as ghosts, Bigfoot sightings, or UFO encounters are actually glimpses of something happening at another point in time? What if time itself is behaving differently than we understand, allowing people to witness events that don't belong to their present?

It's an interesting possibility. Time slips, temporal distortions, and the idea that different moments might somehow overlap are certainly worth discussing.

But there's a problem with using time slips as an explanation for paranormal experiences in general: not all reported paranormal experiences are simply sightings.

Some involve apparent communication. Some involve intelligent responses. Some involve warnings, apparent intervention, and information that witnesses say they could not otherwise have known.

And some involve extraordinary physical events that have very little resemblance to witnessing a person or object from another time.

I'm not writing this to argue that every ghost story is true, that every EVP is a communication from the dead, or that every unexplained event is supernatural. Those are separate questions.

I'm asking something more specific:

How much can the time-slip hypothesis actually explain?

A theory that might account for one category of unusual experience shouldn't automatically be treated as an explanation for all the others.

Let's look at some cases.

---

1. The distinction between residual and intelligent hauntings

One of the most important distinctions in paranormal research is the difference between what investigators often call a residual haunting and an intelligent haunting.

A residual haunting is generally described as an apparent replay of an event. A figure might repeatedly walk down a hallway, cross a room, or appear in the same location without seeming to notice the people observing it.

If such an experience were genuine, a time-slip hypothesis might be proposed as one possible explanation. Perhaps the observer is somehow perceiving an event from another period. Perhaps what looks like an apparition is an image or occurrence from another point in time.

That is at least a hypothesis that attempts to address the nature of the sighting.

But what happens when the apparition appears to respond to someone?

What happens when a voice answers a question, when a presence changes its behavior in response to an investigator, or when an apparition appears to communicate information or warn someone about a future danger?

Those reports are fundamentally different.

An image replaying a past event doesn't necessarily imply intelligence. A response to a question, however, raises the possibility of interaction.

This distinction is central to the cases that follow.

2. The Andover Poltergeist: Knocks that answered questions

One of the more interesting cases of reported interactive paranormal activity is the Andover Poltergeist case in Hampshire, England, in 1974.

The case was investigated by Barrie Colvin, whose report, The Andover Case: A Responsive Rapping Poltergeist, was eventually published in the Journal of the Society for Psychical Research in 2008.

The activity reportedly began with knocking sounds heard by two girls in the family home. They discovered that the knocks appeared to respond to questions.

A communication system developed. One knock meant yes, two meant no, and additional knocks could represent letters according to their positions in the alphabet.

The source eventually identified itself as "Eric Waters."

The investigator reported that the sounds could be requested from different surfaces. When asked to produce knocks on the headboard of a bed and then its metal frame, the sounds reportedly moved to those locations.

The communications also included a request that the supposed communicator's bones be found and properly buried.

There is an important qualification here. Colvin investigated the possibility that a deceased person was communicating, but he could not verify the existence of Eric Waters or find evidence of the claimed remains. His eventual interpretation favored recurrent spontaneous psychokinesis originating from a living person rather than an actual spirit.

That doesn't establish a haunting. But it does make the case relevant to our question.

The reported phenomenon wasn't merely a visual image from another period. It involved knocks that appeared to respond to questions and instructions.

A time-slip explanation doesn't automatically account for that.

Source: The Andover Poltergeist — Psi Encyclopedia

Original research: Barrie Colvin's 2008 investigation (PDF)

3. The Enfield Poltergeist: A voice identifying itself as a deceased resident

The Enfield Poltergeist case is among the most widely discussed haunting investigations in modern paranormal history.

Beginning in 1977, a family living at 284 Green Street in Enfield, England, reported knocking, moving objects, disturbances, and other unusual activity.

One of the most notable aspects of the case was a harsh male voice reportedly associated with 11-year-old Janet Hodgson.

The voice identified itself as Bill Wilkins, a former occupant of the house who had died there. It reportedly gave details about his death, including suffering a brain hemorrhage and dying in a chair.

Investigators recorded many hours of the voice. The case also attracted attention from police officers, reporters, neighbors, and other witnesses.

There are legitimate reasons to be cautious about the case. Janet later admitted that some incidents had been faked, and the authenticity and source of the voice remain disputed. Investigators also considered possible physiological explanations for how the unusual vocal sound could have been produced.

But the case remains relevant because the reported phenomenon involved more than a figure appearing in a room.

It involved a voice claiming an identity, describing a personal history, and apparently communicating with people in the present.

If the account is interpreted as paranormal, what exactly is the time-slip explanation supposed to account for? A recording of a voice? A conversation? An apparent identity?

And if the explanation is that the entire event was misinterpreted or fabricated, that is a different argument. It isn't evidence that the event was a time slip.

Source: Enfield Poltergeist — Psi Encyclopedia

4. An intelligent haunting reported nearly 2,000 years ago

The idea of an intelligent haunting isn't a modern invention.

In a letter to his friend Sura, the Roman author Pliny the Younger described an account involving a philosopher named Athenodorus.

According to Pliny, Athenodorus rented a house in Athens that had a reputation for being haunted. One night, he reportedly encountered the apparition of an old man wearing chains.

The figure beckoned to him.

Athenodorus initially continued writing, signaling for the apparition to wait. The figure persisted, rattling its chains and beckoning again.

Eventually, Athenodorus followed it into the courtyard, where it disappeared.

He marked the location and returned the following day with the authorities. Excavation reportedly uncovered human bones bound with chains.

After the remains received a proper burial, Pliny said the haunting ceased.

Of course, this is an ancient account, not a modern investigation with independently preserved physical evidence. We cannot establish that the events happened exactly as described.

But it illustrates an important point: the historical record contains reports of apparitions that supposedly acted with purpose, directed attention toward something, and appeared to communicate information.

This is not simply the description of a person from another time walking through a room.

Source: Pliny the Younger, Letter 7.27 — English translation

5. An apparition that reportedly warned a woman about a deadly fire

This is one of the most relevant cases in my own research because it involves an apparition that reportedly did something very specific: warned someone about a danger that had not yet occurred.

In an account published on Debunking Death, an anonymous woman described seeing a Victorian-style female apparition in her apartment on two separate occasions.

The figure was described as wispy and somewhat smoky, wearing black Victorian clothing with a raised collar. The witness said that during both appearances she received the same message:

"Fire, get out."

At first, she dismissed the experience. More than a year later, she reportedly saw the figure again and received the same warning.

Approximately a month afterward, a serious fire broke out in the apartment building.

The witness described waking to smoke entering her bedroom and seeing an orange glow outside the window. She attempted to escape through a stairwell filled with smoke, heat, and flames.

During her escape, she reported hearing an internal voice telling her to go forward. She eventually reached the bottom of the stairs and escaped through a door.

She interpreted the experience as assistance from the same spiritual presence that had warned her about the fire.

There are additional experiences in her account, including another apparent precognitive vision involving a building she later learned had burned, unexplained footsteps, doors opening, and activity she and a roommate attributed to a presence they called George.

We should be clear about what this is: a witness account published by a paranormal website. It isn't independently verified proof of a spirit.

But consider the implications of the reported fire warning.

If the apparition was a genuine experience, why did it appear to deliver a warning about a future event? Why would a figure from another period be communicating a message to a living person?

A time slip might be offered as an explanation for the appearance of the Victorian woman. But explaining her clothing and appearance doesn't explain the reported warning.

Explaining what an apparition looks like is not the same as explaining what it does.

Source: Very Convincing Intelligent Haunting Story — Debunking Death

6. The Highway 50 apparition: A sighting that reportedly helped save a child

Another particularly interesting case involves a reported apparition near Highway 50 in California.

In June 1994, Deborah Hoyt and her husband were traveling near Placerville when Deborah reportedly saw a pale, naked woman lying beside the road.

They stopped and reported what they had seen.

When a deputy investigated, no woman was found where the apparition had reportedly appeared. However, the investigation eventually led to a wrecked vehicle down an embankment.

Inside was Christene Skubish, who had died in the accident, and her four-year-old son Nick, who was still alive.

The child had been trapped in the wreck for several days.

The mystery surrounding the sighting is that the woman Deborah described did not appear to correspond to someone physically lying beside the road.

Some interpretations suggest that Christene's spirit appeared to draw attention to her surviving child.

There are alternative explanations and disputed details. In particular, some accounts raise the possibility that the motorist saw the child rather than an apparition, and the precise sequence of events has been debated.

We should not present the spirit interpretation as established fact.

But again, the case raises a question that a simple time-slip explanation doesn't resolve.

If the sighting was genuinely anomalous, why would it appear to direct attention toward a child in danger?

A temporal image of a past event doesn't inherently explain purposeful intervention.

Sources:

• Vision on Highway 50
• Mysterious Woman Leads Rescuers to Dying Boy
• Unsolved Mysteries — Highway 50 case

7. EVPs: When the alleged voice answers back

If I had to choose one category that deserves particular attention in this discussion, it would be electronic voice phenomena, or EVPs, and the broader field of instrumental transcommunication.

An EVP is generally described as a voice-like sound captured on an electronic recording that wasn't recognized as an audible voice at the time of recording.

Of course, recordings can be misinterpreted. Background noise, radio interference, auditory pattern recognition, and other ordinary explanations must be considered.

Not every recording that sounds like a voice is evidence of communication.

But there is another category worth examining: recordings that appear to contain responses to questions, personal information, or voices reportedly recognized by people who knew the deceased.

That is a different claim from simply hearing an unexplained sound.

I've written about this subject in my own research article:

Undebunking EVPs — Debunking Death

That article discusses several examples of reported instrumental communication, including the work of Marcello Bacci, voice comparisons, and interactive recordings.

Marcello Bacci

Marcello Bacci was an Italian researcher associated with instrumental transcommunication. For decades, he reportedly conducted sessions in which voices emerged through radio equipment.

Some accounts describe parents participating in sessions in hopes of communicating with deceased children. The reported voices allegedly addressed people by name, responded to questions, and sometimes spoke in ways that relatives believed were recognizable.

These reports are not equivalent to independently proving that the dead were communicating. The recordings, experimental conditions, and interpretations deserve scrutiny.

But the important question remains: if a voice appears to answer a question or address a specific person, how does a time slip explain that interaction?

Reported voice comparisons

My article also discusses research involving comparisons between recordings of people while alive and purported communications recorded after their deaths.

One example involves Edna, a young woman who died in a traffic accident. Her mother reportedly recognized her voice during instrumental communication sessions.

Researcher Daniele Gullà reportedly conducted acoustic comparisons between a recording made during Edna's lifetime and a purported communication afterward.

The reported results were presented as evidence of similarities between the voices.

We should not turn a reported acoustic match into a definitive forensic identification. The methods, sample quality, and interpretation matter. But the case is relevant because it raises a question about identity, not merely the appearance of an apparition.

Interactive recordings

My article also describes reported EVP recordings in which a deceased person's voice appears to respond to questions or use phrases that relatives considered distinctive.

The distinction matters.

A recording that sounds vaguely like a voice is one thing. A recording that appears to answer a question, respond to an investigator, or contain information associated with a particular deceased person is a substantially different claim.

A time-slip theory might be proposed to explain an image from another period. But what is the time slip in an interactive recording?

Is the theory proposing that a conversation from another time is somehow being replayed? If so, why does it appear to respond to the present-day question? How would it account for an answer that appears to contain information specific to the person asking?

These are not rhetorical tricks. They are legitimate questions about explanatory power.

The more interactive the reported communication becomes, the less adequate a simple temporal-replay explanation appears.

8. Other reported phenomena: The wider picture

I also want to include several other categories, not because they necessarily establish ghosts, but because they illustrate how broad the range of anomalous reports actually is.

Near-death experiences reported by atheists

My post Near-Death Experiences of Atheists collects reports from people who identified as atheists or nonbelievers before their experiences.

These accounts describe experiences during medical crises that sometimes involved apparent encounters, unusual perceptions, and significant changes in worldview.

There are many competing explanations for near-death experiences, and the existence of an NDE does not by itself prove that consciousness survives bodily death.

But these reports are not simply sightings of people from another historical period.

They concern experiences of consciousness under extreme circumstances. A time-slip hypothesis would need to explain why it is being applied to these experiences in the first place.

Reported phenomena involving Buddhist monks

Another research page of mine examines reports associated with Tibetan Buddhist practices and the phenomenon known as the rainbow body.

Paranormal Feats of Buddhist Monks Lending Credence to the Rainbow Body Phenomenon

The page discusses reports involving thukdam, unusual preservation after death, meditative heat generation, alleged levitation, and other extraordinary claims.

These reports vary considerably in evidentiary quality. Traditional religious accounts, individual testimonies, and modern observations should not all be treated as equally established.

Still, they illustrate another category of claims that cannot simply be folded into the idea of a person appearing from another time.

Reported miracles and extraordinary physical events

Another example from my research is this article:

EXORCISM: WOMAN LEVITATES TO CHAPEL ROOF — MIRACLE: GOD TURNED 12 PUDDING CUPS INTO 300 FOR KIDS

The poat discusses reports of extraordinary events, including alleged levitation during an exorcism and a story about a miraculous multiplication of food.

Whether these reports are authentic, exaggerated, misunderstood, or otherwise explainable is open to investigation.

But a claim that a person levitated is not automatically a time slip. Neither is a claim that food multiplied.

These examples are supporting material, not the foundation of my argument. The strongest challenge to a time-slip explanation remains the reported interactive communications and purposeful behavior associated with intelligent hauntings.

---

9. What does the time-slip hypothesis actually explain?

I want to be fair to the idea.

There may be unusual sightings that resemble glimpses of another period. A witness might report seeing a person in historical clothing, a building that looks different from its present appearance, or an event that seems to belong to another time.

A time-slip hypothesis could be proposed to explain such reports.

But proposing a hypothesis is not the same as demonstrating that it explains the phenomenon.

And even if time slips were eventually established as real, that wouldn't establish that every ghost sighting, every EVP, every UFO encounter, or every other anomalous experience was caused by one.

Consider the different questions raised by the cases we've examined:

• Why would an apparition appear to warn someone about a future fire?
• Why would an apparent presence direct rescuers toward a child trapped in a wreck?
• Why would knocking sounds respond to questions and instructions?
• Why would a voice identify itself as a deceased person and describe its supposed death?
• Why would an electronic recording appear to contain a response to a present-day question?
• Why would relatives reportedly recognize a voice associated with someone who had died?

A theory that explains the appearance of a historical figure still has to explain the behavior of that figure.

A theory that explains an unexplained image still has to account for an apparent conversation.

A theory that explains a visual anomaly doesn't automatically explain a reported intervention.

These are different explanatory problems.

There is also a possibility that more than one phenomenon is being grouped together under the word "ghost." Some reports may involve misidentification, environmental effects, psychological experiences, or ordinary events misunderstood by witnesses. Others may remain unexplained. And some may involve phenomena that are genuinely different from one another.

We shouldn't assume that one explanation must account for all of them.

10. The question isn't whether time slips are possible. It's whether they are sufficient.

I don't need to establish that every apparition is a deceased person to make this argument.

I don't need to prove that every EVP is genuine communication.

I don't need to establish that every miraculous survival involved supernatural intervention.

And I certainly don't need to claim that time slips are impossible.

The argument is much simpler.

If someone proposes that ghosts, Bigfoot, UFOs, and other anomalous sightings might be explained through time slips, that possibility deserves consideration. But the theory must be evaluated against the full range of reported experiences, not just the cases that seem to fit it.

The intelligent-haunting reports are especially important because they involve apparent interaction rather than passive observation.

The EVP cases are especially important because they reportedly involve communication, responses, and sometimes claimed recognition of individual voices.

The protective-apparition accounts are especially important because they describe apparent purpose and intervention.

These categories raise questions that cannot be answered simply by saying that someone saw a person from another time.

Perhaps some of these cases have ordinary explanations. Perhaps some have been exaggerated. Perhaps some are genuine anomalies that we don't yet understand. Perhaps several different explanations are needed.

Those are all possibilities worth investigating.

But a theory should not receive credit for explaining phenomena it hasn't actually explained.

Time slips may be one possible piece of the paranormal puzzle. They are not automatically the entire puzzle.

And that's the challenge I'd leave with Brittany:

Even if time slips explain some sightings, how do they explain intelligent hauntings, interactive EVPs, apparent communication with the deceased, and apparitions that seem to intervene to save lives?

That's the question I think deserves an answer.

---

Sources and further reading

Original video

• Brittany Barbieri — The Bending of Time

Debunking Death research

• Very Convincing Intelligent Haunting Story
• Mystery Surrounds 18-Month-Old Lily's Miraculous Survival
• Undebunking EVPs
• Near-Death Experiences of Atheists
• Paranormal Feats of Buddhist Monks and the Rainbow Body Phenomenon
• Exorcism, Alleged Levitation, and the Pudding Miracle

Additional cases and research

• The Andover Poltergeist — Psi Encyclopedia
• The Andover Case — Barrie Colvin's research paper
• The Enfield Poltergeist — Psi Encyclopedia
• Pliny the Younger, Letter 7.27
• Vision on Highway 50
• Mysterious Woman Leads Rescuers to Dying Boy

Note: These sources include personal testimonies, historical accounts, paranormal investigations, and research publications. Their inclusion does not mean that every claim has been independently verified or that every interpretation is accepted. The purpose is to compare explanations and examine what each theory can and cannot account for.

Is Sasquatch the evidence evolution theory is seeking?

The mainstream scientific establishment is overall very much against creationist theory. Why then are they so opposed to studying Bigfoot?  🫈 Seems odd.  I'm not making a statement. I'm simply posing a question. If someone wants to give me an answer please do email with it at: jmtalboo@gmail.com 

But do not say it's because there is no scientific evidence for the existence of Sasquatch, because simply is not true!

Evidence isn't absolute proof of course, but otherwise what a load of absolute rubbish! There are plenty of highly-credible scientists in the most relevant of disciplines who correctly think otherwise and therefore this statement is BUNK! 

1. Dr. Jeff Meldrum — Anatomy, Anthropology & Locomotion

Jeff Meldrum is an anthropologist and anatomist at Idaho State University whose specialties include foot morphology, locomotion and the evolution of bipedalism in humans and other primates.

His examination of alleged Sasquatch footprints is particularly relevant because the evidence falls directly within his areas of expertise.

Meldrum has repeatedly emphasized that his argument is not that the evidence constitutes absolute proof, but that it warrants investigation. His book Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science examines footprints, dermal ridges, photographs, hair, DNA and other evidence.

2. Dr. Jane Goodall — Primatology

Jane Goodall hardly needs an introduction.

The legendary primatologist has publicly expressed an open mind toward the possibility of Sasquatch while acknowledging that existing evidence has not satisfied most scientists.

That's an important distinction.

She isn't saying, “Bigfoot has been proven.”

She's saying the question shouldn't simply be dismissed.

3. Dr. Grover Krantz — Anthropology & Human Evolution

Anthropologist Grover Krantz studied alleged Sasquatch footprints and handprints from an anatomical and evolutionary perspective.

His work included analysis of alleged dermal ridge patterns and the unusual anatomical characteristics claimed in some footprint casts.

Again, agreement with Krantz isn't required.

The relevant fact is that an academically trained anthropologist considered the physical evidence worthy of detailed analysis.

4. Dr. John Bindernagel — Zoology

Canadian zoologist John Bindernagel devoted substantial attention to the possibility of a large, undiscovered North American primate.

His work examined the ecological question of whether such an animal could theoretically exist in North America and whether the reports deserved scientific investigation.

His work is another example of someone with relevant scientific training treating Sasquatch as a zoological question rather than merely a campfire story.

5. Jimmy Chilcutt — Fingerprint & Primate Dermatoglyphics

Jimmy Chilcutt is particularly interesting because his expertise is directly relevant to one of the strangest categories of alleged Sasquatch evidence: dermal ridges.

Chilcutt worked in law enforcement as a fingerprint examiner and has examined alleged Sasquatch track casts for fingerprint-like ridge patterns.

His conclusions regarding some casts were controversial, but they were based on an area of forensic examination in which he had professional experience. Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science specifically discusses his examination of dermal ridge evidence.

6. Dr. Henner Fahrenbach — Hair & Physical Evidence

Dr. Henner Fahrenbach investigated alleged Sasquatch hair and other physical evidence and also conducted statistical work concerning reported Sasquatch characteristics.

Hair attributed to Sasquatch has been subjected to multiple forms of analysis, including DNA testing. Some samples have ultimately been identified as human, which is important evidence against simply assuming every unusual hair represents an unknown animal.

But the existence of the investigations themselves demonstrates that physical samples have been collected and subjected to scientific examination.

7. Dr. Daris Swindler — Primatology & Anatomy

Daris Swindler was a prominent primate anatomist associated with Washington State University.

He examined the controversial Skookum cast, along with other researchers including Meldrum and primatologist Esteban Sarmiento.

Whatever conclusion one reaches about the cast, the fact remains that trained primate specialists were brought in to examine it anatomically.

8. Dr. Esteban Sarmiento — Primatology & Human Evolution

Esteban Sarmiento, a primatologist and researcher associated with the American Museum of Natural History, was another specialist involved in examination of Sasquatch-related physical evidence.

His participation is particularly relevant because primate anatomy and evolution are directly related to evaluating claims of an unknown large primate.

That doesn't make every interpretation of the evidence correct.

It does make the subject difficult to accurately characterize as something that qualified scientists have simply never investigated.

9. Dr. George Schaller — Wildlife Biology

George Schaller is one of the world's most respected wildlife biologists and conservation scientists.

Schaller has expressed skepticism about whether the existing evidence establishes Sasquatch, but he has also recognized the value of critically examining the evidence.

In his comments about Meldrum's work, Schaller described Meldrum as bringing scientific rigor to the question and praised his footprint analysis.

That's an important example because scientific engagement doesn't require accepting the final hypothesis.

10. Dr. Robert Benson — Bioacoustics

Robert Benson examined alleged Sasquatch vocalizations using computerized acoustic analysis.

His area of expertise is particularly relevant to reports involving unexplained sounds and vocalizations.

Again, the existence of an acoustic analysis does not automatically establish that the sounds came from Bigfoot.

But it demonstrates that alleged Sasquatch evidence has been subjected to specialized scientific analysis rather than simply accepted or rejected based on someone's personal opinion.

11. Dr. Craig Newton — DNA Analysis

Craig Newton was involved in DNA testing of biological samples associated with the Skookum site.

The results and limitations of such testing are part of the larger debate over alleged Sasquatch biological evidence.

And this is precisely why DNA evidence needs to be discussed carefully.

Some alleged Sasquatch samples have produced ordinary human or known-animal results. Others have generated questions about contamination, sample quality, identification and interpretation.

That's evidence to investigate—not automatically proof of an unknown primate.

12. Dr. Russell Ciochon — Paleontology & Human Evolution

Russell Ciochon is a paleoanthropologist whose work includes fossil primates and human evolution.

His involvement in Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science provided another perspective on the possible relationship between reports of giant unknown primates and extinct primates such as Gigantopithecus.

This does not mean Gigantopithecus has been demonstrated to be Bigfoot.

It means that questions about unknown or extinct primates can be examined through legitimate disciplines such as paleontology, anatomy and evolutionary biology.

So, the vast majority of relevant qualified scientists not looking for this possible missing link for evolutionary theory they vehemently defend are proving themselves to be quite dogmatic. Maybe pseudoscience is their religion? 

Undebunking Bigfoot

Debunking Pseudo-Skepticism Regarding the Topic of Sasquatch

Best Evidence & Content that Counters Pseudo-Skepticism Regarding the Topic of Sasquatch

• Debunking Bigfoot Debunkers
• Highly Probable, Possible, Inconclusive, and Widely Rejected Sasquatch Videos and Photos
• Best Evidence for the Existence of Sasquatch - Forensic, Audio, Video, Photo, Statistical Data

One More Thought...

Some people have suggested that Bigfoot could actually be connected to the Nephilim mentioned in the Bible.

I'm not saying that's true.

But if you're looking for ways to put some of these creationist ideas to rest, perhaps it's time to get on the Bigfoot case ASAP.

After all, if Sasquatch turned out to be a real, previously unknown primate, that would be a pretty damn interesting development for evolutionary science.

So what are we waiting for?

Investigate the Bigfoot. 😂

And Since We're Talking About Bigfoot...

Here are two recent songs from my music featuring lyrics about Bigfoot, along with videos and pictures of me with Bigfoot.

Follow/subscribe on TikTok: @Crashout.Royalty

Bigfoot song #1 — TikTok

Bigfoot song #2 — TikTok

Before we get started, please bookmark my music site and check it out after reading this article. And while you're at it, follow me on TikTok at @Crashout.Royalty. That's where you can find more of my music, videos, artwork, and whatever else I'm creating next.

Here's my most recent Hip-Hop release as of this publishing date...

https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZPLjkEnsM/

And here is my old organic Hardcore/Punk Band ILLITHED

https://mindtreasury.blogspot.com/2018/02/hardcorepunk-band-illithed.html

The AI Music Debate I May Never Have — Because I Value My Time

Hello, I'm the account "Crashout Royalty" for those that are unaware. Multidisciplinary artist and activist researcher JM Talboo AKA BishopNeoWinstonSmith leader of the music group and collective of artists known as #CrashoutAristocrats

Before the imagined debate ensues I want to first acknowledge positive conversations are happening as evinced by the screenshots below. 

I say this because what sparked me writing this is a lot shit talking is taking place online from those opposed to AI music. Makes me wonder if they are industry plants Ad hominem attacks are not an argument, I can talk smack and lay one down too lol but I'll focus on substance and positivity while they act like the miserable people they msst be.

What would happen if I actually debated someone who believes AI-assisted music is inherently inferior to human-made music?

I may never find out.

And that's okay.

One of the reasons I use AI in the first place is because I value my time.

So rather than spending hours arguing with somebody on the internet, I decided to run the entire hypothetical debate through my head.

Here's how I'd approach it.

Not by assuming I'd win every argument.

Not by rigging the experiments.

And not by pretending AI is automatically better than human creativity.

I'd simply ask that we actually examine the claims being made.

And there's an important distinction right from the beginning:

I'm not simply an "AI music maker."

I'm a multidisciplinary artist.

I make music. I write. I perform. I make videos. I make physical artwork. I make digital artwork. I work with photography, animation, costumes, props, locations and visual effects. I showcase other artists and artwork. I use technology. I collaborate with other people. And sometimes I use AI.

Sometimes I use none of it.

That's the bigger picture.

I Don't Like Being Pigeonholed

I've never been particularly interested in being shoved into one category.

Why would I limit myself to one medium just because somebody else wants a convenient label?

If I have an idea that works as a song, I'll make a song.

If it works as a video, I'll make a video.

If it works as an image, I'll make an image.

If it works as physical artwork, I'll make that.

If somebody else's artwork communicates something I want to showcase, I'll showcase it.

If a costume communicates the idea better than words do, I'll put on the costume.

If animation makes the idea stronger, I'll animate it.

If AI helps me accomplish something I couldn't otherwise accomplish—or lets me accomplish it faster—I'll use AI.

I'm not interested in technological purity.

I'm interested in communication and creation.

There Isn't One Way I Make Music

This is where I think a lot of conversations about AI immediately go wrong.

People talk about "AI music" as though there's one standardized process.

There isn't.

I've been making music for years.

I've been in a successful band.

I can perform.

I can rap live.

I've made music without AI.

And I still make music without AI.

AI is simply another set of tools I've added to a much larger creative toolbox.

Sometimes I might use an AI-generated beat and put my own real vocals over it.

Sometimes I might perform the vocals myself and use an AI voice filter as an artistic effect.

Sometimes AI might be involved in the music while the performance itself is completely human.

Sometimes I might use AI for production but write and perform everything else myself.

Sometimes AI is involved in several elements.

Sometimes it's barely involved at all.

Sometimes it isn't involved whatsoever.

So when someone says:

"You're just letting AI make your music."

My response is pretty simple:

Which song?

Which part?

The beat?

My vocals?

The voice effect?

The lyrics?

The concept?

The production?

The video?

The artwork?

What exactly are you talking about?

Because you're imagining one workflow that doesn't actually describe what I do.

I make music in a lot of different ways.

AI is one set of tools I sometimes use within that larger creative process.

The Same Thing Applies to My Videos

And then there's video.

I'm not simply making songs and attaching a generic video to them afterward.

The visual production is its own creative process.

And just like music, I'm interested in using every possible way of making the thing.

AI animation.

Real photographs.

Real video.

Digital imagery.

Physical imagery.

Stickers.

Effects.

Costumes.

Props.

Settings.

Locations.

Practical elements.

Digital manipulation.

Found imagery.

Whatever works.

Sometimes I'll create an entirely artificial image.

Sometimes I'll film something in the real world.

Sometimes I'll take a real photograph and build something around it.

Sometimes I'll make physical artwork and photograph or film it.

Sometimes I'll create digital artwork.

Sometimes I'll take physical artwork and use AI to animate it.

Sometimes Dawn makes physical artwork and I incorporate that into what I'm doing.

Sometimes I'll showcase another artist's work.

Sometimes I'll visit or showcase art in a museum.

Sometimes the strongest visual is simply something I happen to encounter in the real world.

And sometimes I'll combine several of those methods in one project.

That's not a contradiction.

That's the medium.

The Best Results Are Often Hybrids

Think about modern filmmaking.

Computer-generated imagery didn't eliminate practical effects.

Practical effects didn't eliminate sets.

Digital effects didn't eliminate actors.

Photography didn't eliminate painting.

And computer animation didn't eliminate live-action filmmaking.

In fact, some of the most effective visual work comes from combining different techniques.

You can have a real actor standing in a real environment while interacting with a digitally created world.

You can have a physical prop enhanced with computer effects.

You can have real footage combined with animation.

You can have photographs turned into moving imagery.

The best solution isn't necessarily:

"Use only the human method."

It may be:

"Use the right combination of methods for this particular idea."

That's what I'm doing.

The Image Can Say Something the Song Doesn't

There's another reason I care so much about the visual side.

The video doesn't have to simply illustrate the lyrics.

Sometimes it reinforces the song.

Sometimes it expands upon it.

Sometimes it provides another interpretation.

Sometimes it deliberately creates irony.

Sometimes it communicates a completely different but related idea.

You can say a thousand words with an image.

Sometimes more.

A single image can establish a mood, tell a story, suggest a political idea, create symbolism, or make someone question what they're seeing.

I might put something like a They Live flyer into a video.

Maybe the song doesn't literally say the same thing.

That's okay.

The image creates another layer of communication.

The audience makes the connection.

That's part of the artwork.

Visual Language Is Different From Verbal Language

An image isn't simply a paragraph without words.

Visual language works differently.

A costume can communicate satire.

A setting can communicate danger.

A photograph can communicate nostalgia.

A surreal image can communicate an emotional state.

A juxtaposition can create an argument without anybody speaking.

A symbol can make someone think about an idea without spelling out the conclusion.

And sometimes an image can communicate something in a way that a literal statement simply can't.

That's one of the reasons I'm interested in visual storytelling.

I'm not just making a music video.

I'm building another layer of the message.

Physical Art Counts Too

And this is another reason I don't want to be reduced to "AI artist."

I make physical art.

I work with physical objects.

I showcase artwork other people create.

Dawn makes artwork that I can incorporate into the larger creative world.

I make digital artwork too.

And sometimes I'll take something that physically exists and use AI or other digital tools to animate or transform it.

So now we've got:

physical → digital → animated → combined with video → combined with music.

Where exactly are you going to draw the line and tell me which part is the "real art"?

That's the wrong question.

The better question is:

What did the artist create, and what was the artist trying to communicate?

Technology Has Always Disrupted Art

And this isn't even a uniquely modern argument.

We've been having versions of this argument for centuries.

Whenever a new technology changes who can create, who can distribute art, or what art can sound or look like, somebody eventually says:

"This is going to ruin everything."

Sometimes that person has a point.

Sometimes they're completely wrong.

Usually it's more complicated than either side wants to admit.

But the pattern is worth recognizing.

There were people who were suspicious of ordinary people having widespread access to writing.

Then came the printing press.

Suddenly information could be reproduced and distributed on a scale that was previously impossible.

Then came newspapers and mass publishing.

Then radio.

Then recorded music.

Then television.

Then home video.

Then the internet.

Then digital recording.

Then digital photography.

And now we're dealing with generative AI.

Every one of these technologies changed the creative landscape.

And every time, there were people who looked at the new technology and said, in one form or another:

"That's not real art."

"Video Killed the Radio Star"

There's a reason a phrase like "Video Killed the Radio Star" became culturally memorable.

It captured a real fear about technological change.

Radio didn't literally disappear.

The radio star didn't literally die.

Instead, the culture changed.

Television created a new requirement: artists could suddenly become visual personalities in addition to being voices.

That changed what a successful performer looked like.

And then television itself was eventually challenged by cable, home video, the internet, streaming and social media.

The old medium doesn't necessarily disappear.

The ecosystem changes around it.

That's an important distinction.

The Printing Press Didn't Destroy Human Culture

The printing press is another good example.

Imagine living in a world where books are expensive, labor-intensive objects that have to be copied by hand.

Then suddenly you have technology capable of reproducing text on an enormous scale.

You could reasonably be concerned about misinformation.

You could be concerned about low-quality writing.

You could be concerned about people flooding society with garbage.

You could be concerned about political propaganda spreading faster.

Those concerns wouldn't necessarily be stupid.

But the answer wasn't:

"Therefore, nobody should print books."

The technology created enormous new possibilities while also creating new problems.

That's often what technological progress actually looks like.

Newspapers and the Internet

The same thing happened when the internet disrupted newspapers.

People worried about what would happen to journalism.

Some of those concerns were absolutely justified.

The internet created incredible opportunities for independent publishing, but it also created misinformation, clickbait, declining traditional revenue models and all sorts of other problems.

So I'm not going to make the simplistic argument that every technological disruption is automatically good.

Sometimes we should be wary.

Sometimes older ways of doing things really do contain wisdom that we shouldn't throw away.

But that's different from saying:

"New technology exists, therefore everything created with it is artistically worthless."

Those are two completely different arguments.

The Guitar Didn't Stay the Guitar

Music has gone through this process constantly.

The acoustic guitar existed.

Then amplification changed what the guitar could do.

Then the electric guitar arrived.

And there were plenty of people who thought it was loud, obnoxious noise.

Then people figured out what could be done with it.

Entire genres developed around that sound.

The instrument didn't become objectively "better" than the acoustic guitar.

It became different.

And different artists wanted different things from it.

That's the key.

Three Chords vs. Stevie Ray Vaughan

I remember the kind of argument people made about bands like Nirvana and other grunge artists.

You'd hear the criticism:

"They only know three chords."

That's obviously an oversimplification, but the criticism illustrates something interesting.

Someone could look at Stevie Ray Vaughan and admire his technical ability, musicianship and complexity.

And that's perfectly legitimate.

But that doesn't mean the aesthetic of Stevie Ray Vaughan is automatically superior to the aesthetic of a stripped-down grunge song.

Sometimes three or four chords are exactly what the song needs.

Sometimes technical complexity is the point.

Sometimes simplicity is the point.

Sometimes virtuosity communicates.

Sometimes restraint communicates.

The question isn't:

"Which musician worked harder to master technical complexity?"

The question is:

"What is this artist trying to communicate, and does the chosen method communicate it?"

That's an important distinction for AI too.

A technologically complicated production isn't automatically better than a simple one.

And a technically simple production isn't automatically worse.

Complexity isn't the same thing as quality.

People Fear Change for Good Reasons Sometimes

This is where I don't want to turn the argument into some simplistic:

"Old people fear technology and young people understand progress."

That's bullshit.

People sometimes fear technological change for legitimate reasons.

Some technologies genuinely cause harm.

Some things that were once celebrated as progress turned out to have consequences we didn't understand.

Sometimes the people saying "slow down" were right.

Sometimes the people saying "this is going to cause problems" were right.

We should be willing to listen to them.

But there's another lesson from history:

Being concerned about a technology isn't the same as proving that everything created with that technology is worthless.

And that's where I think the AI conversation often goes off the rails.

Technology Changes the Definition of Possible

Every major creative technology expands the range of things an artist can do.

The microphone changed singing.

Recording technology changed songwriting.

Multitrack recording changed arrangement.

The electric guitar changed rock.

Synthesizers changed electronic music and eventually countless other genres.

Sampling changed hip-hop.

Digital audio workstations changed music production.

Digital cameras changed photography.

Computer graphics changed filmmaking.

The internet changed distribution.

Smartphones turned almost everybody into a potential photographer and filmmaker.

AI is doing something similar.

It's changing the distance between:

"I have an idea."

and

"I made the thing."

That's enormous.

So Let's Actually Test the Music

Suppose someone tells me that AI music is obviously inferior to human music.

Okay.

Let's test it.

I'd propose ten songs with broadly comparable themes.

Peace.

Humanity.

Love.

Freedom.

Overcoming hatred.

Making the world a better place.

Five would involve AI assistance.

Five would be entirely human-made.

The listener wouldn't know which was which.

But here's the important part:

I wouldn't initially ask them to identify the AI songs.

I'd ask them to judge the music.

Which songs communicate their message most effectively?

Which are best written?

Which are most emotionally powerful?

Which are most memorable?

Which would they actually listen to again?

Which make them think?

Which make them feel something?

Then, after they've made their judgments, we reveal how the songs were created.

Only then would we test their ability to identify AI involvement.

Because those are two completely different questions.

Can you identify AI?

And:

Does AI involvement make a piece of music worse?

Being good at the first doesn't automatically prove the second.

What If They're Really Good at Spotting AI?

Maybe they are.

That's entirely possible.

Maybe they've listened to enough AI music to recognize certain production characteristics that most people don't notice.

Great.

Let's test that too.

We could compare their results with other listeners.

Musicians.

Non-musicians.

People who listen to enormous amounts of music.

People who don't.

Maybe they absolutely crush the test.

Maybe everybody does.

Maybe nobody does.

Maybe some people are extremely good at it and others are terrible.

Whatever happens, that's useful information.

I'm not afraid of an experiment simply because it might produce a result I don't expect.

That's what makes it an experiment.

And if somebody really is exceptionally good at recognizing AI music, I'd rather find that out than pretend otherwise.

But identifying the technology is still not the same thing as proving that the art is inferior.

Then Let's Remove the Blindfold

Now let's make it personal.

Take one of my songs.

Let's use something like Naptown.

I'll perform the song for you myself.

Live.

No AI.

Just me.

Then I'll play you the AI-assisted version I created.

Now tell me which vocal performance you prefer.

Maybe you'll prefer mine.

I'd actually expect that in some cases. I'm a performer. I'd hope my live performance has strengths that an AI-generated performance doesn't.

Maybe you'll prefer the AI version.

That's possible too.

And here's the funny part:

Either result is interesting.

If you tell me my live performance is better, I'm not going to throw a fit.

I'll probably say:

"Yeah. I'm a performer. I'd fucking hope so."

But then we have to ask what we've actually demonstrated.

The Part People Leave Out: Reality

Maybe when I made that song, I didn't have a studio available to me.

Maybe I was going through some difficult shit in my life.

Maybe I didn't have the money for studio time.

Maybe I didn't have musicians available.

Maybe I didn't have the time to sit there and record thirty takes of the same line.

Maybe AI allowed me to turn an idea into a finished song that otherwise would have remained an idea.

That's not a hypothetical benefit.

That's how technology works.

People sometimes look at the final product and completely ignore the circumstances that made the product possible.

If my human vocal performance is slightly better but the AI-assisted version allowed me to actually finish the song under circumstances where the alternative was not making the song at all, then what exactly have I lost?

And what have I gained?

I gained a finished song.

I saved time.

I saved money.

I didn't need a studio.

I didn't need to coordinate multiple people.

I didn't need to spend hours and money getting another take every time I flubbed a line.

And I could move on to the next idea.

That matters.

What If They Prefer the AI Version?

Now let's turn the tables.

Suppose they listen to both versions and say:

"Honestly, I like the AI version better."

I'm not going to pretend I lost.

I'm going to say:

"Well, shit. Great."

Because I wanted the song to communicate.

If I had something I genuinely wanted to say, and the technology helped me say it in a way that somebody found more enjoyable, understandable or emotionally effective, then the technology accomplished something useful.

I don't need the human version to win every comparison.

The song winning is enough.

And What If They Say the Human Version Is Better?

That's useful too.

Maybe the human version has something the AI version doesn't.

Maybe I have a vocal characteristic that can't be replicated.

Maybe the human performance has a particular imperfection that makes it more compelling.

Fine.

Then I've learned something about the strengths of human performance.

That doesn't prove AI has no value.

It proves that humans and AI can have different strengths.

That's called having different tools.

The Mother's Day Problem

There's another experiment that I don't think an AI critic can solve with a simple production argument.

Suppose I make a tribute song for my mother.

She's getting older.

I have things I want to say to her.

I use AI to help turn those thoughts into a song quickly.

She hears it.

And she cries.

Now somebody tells me:

"Yeah, but it was made with AI."

Okay.

So?

Does that make her tears less real?

Did the emotional response somehow disappear because I used a machine to help construct the song?

Did the love I was trying to express become less genuine?

Did the words suddenly stop meaning what they meant?

No.

The technology doesn't get to rewrite the emotional experience that happened afterward.

My mother didn't cry because she performed a philosophical analysis of my production process.

She cried because I made something for her that meant something to her.

That's important.

Efficiency Doesn't Equal Emptiness

There is a strange assumption that if something becomes easier to produce, it must become less meaningful.

But that's not how technology has historically worked.

A camera didn't make photography meaningless.

Digital editing didn't make filmmaking meaningless.

The synthesizer didn't make music meaningless.

The electric guitar didn't make songwriting meaningless.

Recording technology didn't make live performance meaningless.

Technology repeatedly changes the distance between an idea and its final form.

And that's exactly what AI does for me.

I have more ideas than I could possibly execute using traditional methods alone.

AI reduces the distance between:

"I have an idea."

and

"I made the thing."

That's not necessarily a reduction in creativity.

Sometimes it's an expansion of creativity.

The Real-World Economics Matter Too

Artists don't create in a vacuum.

People have limited money.

Limited time.

Limited access to musicians.

Limited access to studios.

Limited physical energy.

Limited opportunities.

Sometimes you're dealing with family obligations.

Sometimes you're dealing with work.

Sometimes life is simply kicking your ass.

A person might have ten songs in their head and only enough money to record one.

What happens to the other nine?

AI can sometimes change that equation.

Maybe it doesn't produce the same result as a professional studio.

Maybe it does.

But if it allows someone to create something that otherwise wouldn't exist, that's not automatically a negative.

The alternative isn't always "human-made masterpiece."

Sometimes the alternative is:

nothing.

And I'd rather have another imperfect song in the world that genuinely communicates something than have a great idea remain trapped in somebody's head because they couldn't afford the conventional production process.

I'm Not Claiming AI Does Everything

I don't need to claim that AI is superior to humans.

I don't need to claim that AI can replace musicians.

I don't even need to claim that every AI-generated song is good.

Some are garbage.

So are some human-made songs.

Human beings have been making terrible music for a very long time.

The existence of bad AI music doesn't prove that AI music is inherently bad any more than the existence of bad human music proves that humans shouldn't make music.

What matters is what happens when a particular person uses a particular tool to create a particular piece of work.

And Sometimes I Don't Use AI At All

This is worth emphasizing because it destroys the idea that I'm somehow dependent on AI to make music or art.

Sometimes I use it.

Sometimes I don't.

Sometimes I use it heavily.

Sometimes I use it for one small component.

Sometimes I might use AI for a beat but have real vocals.

Sometimes I might have real vocals and use an AI voice filter as an artistic effect.

Sometimes the music is human and the imagery is AI.

Sometimes the music is AI-assisted and the video is AI-assisted too.

Sometimes I'm mixing all of these things.

Sometimes I'm using physical art.

Sometimes I'm using digital art.

Sometimes I'm filming reality exactly as it exists.

Sometimes I'm taking something physical and transforming it digitally.

Sometimes I'm working entirely without AI.

The point is that I choose the tool based on the project.

I'm not pledging allegiance to a machine.

I'm making art.

The Human Is Still Here

This is the part that gets lost in a lot of these arguments.

When I use AI to make music, I'm still here.

I'm deciding what I want to say.

I'm choosing the subject.

I'm writing and shaping ideas.

I'm directing the process.

I'm deciding what works and what doesn't.

I'm rejecting things.

I'm rewriting things.

I'm making artistic choices.

Sometimes I'm performing.

Sometimes I'm using real vocals.

Sometimes I'm combining human performance with AI.

Sometimes I'm using AI for parts of the production.

Sometimes I'm using it because I simply don't have the resources to do something another way.

The fact that a machine participates doesn't mean the human disappeared.

So What Exactly Makes It "Fake"?

At some point I'd stop talking about individual songs and ask the fundamental question:

What exactly makes an AI-assisted song illegitimate?

Is it the sound?

Then let's listen.

Is it the songwriting?

Then let's compare the songwriting.

Is it the emotional impact?

Then let's see what listeners actually experience.

Is it the amount of human labor?

Okay. Let's discuss what the human actually contributed.

Is it the fact that a machine was involved at all?

Now we're no longer talking about whether the music is good.

We're talking about a philosophical objection to the tool.

That's a legitimate position for somebody to have.

But it's important to call it what it is.

The Tool Doesn't Have to Win

This might be the most important part of the whole argument.

I'm not trying to rig these experiments so that AI wins.

Every single comparison is a crapshoot.

Maybe the human song wins.

Maybe the AI song wins.

Maybe the results split right down the middle.

Maybe the person I'm debating identifies every AI song correctly.

Maybe they completely screw it up.

Maybe they identify AI correctly but still prefer several AI-assisted songs.

Maybe they can't identify them at all.

Maybe my live performance beats the AI version.

Maybe the AI version beats my live performance.

I'm willing to live with any of those outcomes.

Because I'm not trying to prove that humans are obsolete.

I'm trying to challenge the idea that the presence of AI automatically determines the value of the finished work.

The Same Principle Applies to the Visuals

If somebody tells me:

"That image doesn't count because AI made it."

My answer is basically the same.

Okay.

Let's look at the image.

Does it communicate?

Does it create the intended mood?

Does it tell a story?

Does it make you curious?

Does it reinforce the music?

Does it create a useful contrast?

Does it make you feel something?

And if the answer is yes, then the fact that AI participated tells me something about how it was made.

It doesn't automatically tell me whether it worked.

Likewise, if I take a real photograph, add stickers and effects, animate part of it with AI, put it over my music, and then combine it with footage I shot myself while wearing a costume in a real location, what exactly is the "real" part?

All of it.

Because all of those are materials I intentionally assembled into a finished piece.

The Question I'd Eventually Ask

At some point I'd ask:

"What exactly are we trying to measure?"

If we're measuring whether somebody can recognize AI, let's measure that.

If we're measuring vocal performance, let's compare vocal performances.

If we're measuring songwriting, let's judge songwriting.

If we're measuring emotional impact, let's see what actually moves people.

If we're measuring efficiency, let's discuss how much time and money different production methods require.

If we're measuring artistic authenticity, then we'd better define what we mean by authenticity.

But let's stop treating all of those questions as though they're the same question.

They're not.

My Position Isn't "AI Is Better"

My position is much simpler.

AI is another tool.

Sometimes it's the right tool.

Sometimes it isn't.

Sometimes human performance is better.

Sometimes AI-assisted production is better.

Sometimes the combination is better than either one alone.

And sometimes I don't use AI at all.

The fact that I can make music and art in different ways is not a weakness in my argument.

It's the argument.

I've already made music without AI.

Now I have additional tools.

Why would I voluntarily pretend those tools don't exist?

I'm a Multidisciplinary Artist

That phrase might sound fancy.

Maybe it is.

But I think it's accurate.

I'm not limited to one artistic medium.

I don't want to be.

I've never liked being pigeonholed.

I'm interested in whatever medium best communicates the idea.

Sometimes that's a song.

Sometimes that's a photograph.

Sometimes it's a painting or physical object.

Sometimes it's a digital image.

Sometimes it's a video.

Sometimes it's animation.

Sometimes it's a costume.

Sometimes it's a combination of all of them.

Sometimes it's somebody else's artwork that I think deserves to be seen.

Sometimes it's Dawn's artwork.

Sometimes it's something I encountered in the real world.

Sometimes it's AI-assisted.

Sometimes it isn't.

That's not inconsistency.

That's creative freedom.

Everything Is Material

There's another philosophy behind all of this.

I tend to see almost everything as material.

An argument can become an article.

A strange experience can become a song.

A photograph can become a visual.

A physical object can become artwork.

A piece of artwork can become animation.

A conversation can become an idea.

A walk can become a video.

A costume can become a character.

A location can become a setting.

A random image can become symbolism.

Even an annoying argument with somebody on the internet can become useful.

That doesn't mean I'm exploiting every moment of my life for clicks.

Quite the opposite.

Sometimes the desire to create content actually gets me out there living more life.

Maybe I want to film something, so I take the dogs for a walk when I otherwise might have stayed home.

Maybe I'm outside and the sun hits the snow just right.

Maybe Harley's shadow falls across a church.

Maybe I capture that.

Now I've had a novel experience.

I've spent time with my dog.

I've gotten outside.

I've created something.

I've broken up the routine.

And I've given myself another memory.

The content becomes a reason to participate in life rather than a substitute for living it.

And sometimes those novel experiences are valuable precisely because they make time feel more substantial in retrospect.

So even the act of creating can feed back into the life that I'm creating from.

That's the loop.

Life produces art.

Art encourages me to experience more life.

Those experiences produce more art.

And around and around it goes.

The Entire Toolbox

That's ultimately why I reject the idea that I need to choose between:

human creativity

and

technology.

Why?

Why can't I have both?

Why can't I use my own voice and an AI beat?

Why can't I make physical artwork and then animate it digitally?

Why can't I photograph something real and add artificial elements?

Why can't I use a costume, a real location, practical props and computer-generated imagery in the same video?

Why can't I showcase another artist's work alongside my own?

Why can't Dawn make something and I incorporate it into a project?

Why can't a museum inspire a video?

Why can't a fictional image communicate a real idea?

Why can't a machine help me turn an idea into something I can actually show people?

Why would I deliberately limit the toolbox?

So What Am I Actually Asking?

I'm not asking anybody to worship AI.

I'm not asking anybody to abandon traditional art.

I'm not asking anybody to pretend that AI-generated material is automatically brilliant.

I'm asking for something much simpler:

Judge the work.

Judge the song.

Judge the performance.

Judge the image.

Judge the video.

Judge the message.

Judge the emotional impact.

Judge the craftsmanship.

Judge the choices.

And then, if you want, ask how it was made.

But don't reverse that order and decide whether something has artistic value before you've even looked at it.

Because ultimately, I don't think the most important question is:

"Was AI involved?"

I think it's:

"What did you do with it?"

And if somebody still wants to debate me after reading all of this?

Fair enough.

Bring your arguments.

I'll bring mine.

But remember:

I value my time.

So if you want to debate me, you're gonna have to pay me.

Have a nice day.

12 Time Travel Stories, Claims and Theories That Refuse to Go Away

10 Odd Facts About Penguins — And the Penguin Conspiracy Rabbit Hole

Because penguins are much stranger than they look

Penguins look like somebody dressed a bird in a tuxedo and told it to waddle around Antarctica.

But underneath that adorable exterior is one of the weirdest groups of animals on Earth.

They can drink saltwater.

They can get rid of salt through specialized glands.

They can make themselves faster underwater by releasing bubbles.

Some lose essentially all their feathers at once.

Some fathers stand on an egg for roughly two months without eating.

Scientists can locate entire colonies from space by looking for penguin poop.

And one species can survive Antarctic winter temperatures that would be deadly to a human.

So let's take a look at ten odd facts about penguins.

---

1. Penguins Can Drink Saltwater

Penguins spend much of their lives surrounded by ocean water.

That's a problem if you're a terrestrial animal because drinking seawater gives you more salt than your body can normally handle.

Penguins have a special salt-excreting gland above their eyes called the supraorbital gland.

It removes excess salt from their bloodstream, allowing them to deal with the salt they ingest while feeding in the ocean.

They can then expel that concentrated salt through their nasal passages.

Evolution basically gave penguins a built-in desalination system.

---

2. Penguins Have No Teeth

You might expect an animal that eats fish, squid, krill and other slippery creatures to have some serious teeth.

Nope.

Penguins are birds.

And birds don't have teeth.

Instead, penguins have specialized structures inside their mouths that help them grip and direct slippery prey toward the throat.

So if you ever look inside a penguin's mouth and think:

Holy shit, those look like teeth!

They're not.

They're basically nature's internal fish-conveyor system.

---

3. Penguins Can Shoot Through the Water Using Bubbles

This might be one of the coolest penguin tricks.

Some penguins release tiny air bubbles from their feathers before accelerating through the water.

Those bubbles reduce drag.

The result is an enormous increase in swimming efficiency and speed.

Penguins can also use a swimming technique called porpoising, repeatedly launching themselves out of the water.

The gentoo penguin is among the fastest penguins, reaching roughly 22 miles per hour underwater.

Imagine being chased by a predator and thinking:

**Fuck it.

Activate turbo mode.**

WHOOSH.

Penguin rocket.

---

4. Their Tuxedos Are Actually Camouflage

Penguins look like they're dressed for a formal dinner.

But the black-and-white coloration isn't fashion.

It's camouflage.

From above, a penguin's dark back can blend into the darker ocean.

From below, its white belly can blend with the bright surface of the water.

So the penguin isn't wearing a tuxedo.

It's wearing active stealth technology.

Nature's answer to camouflage:

Make him look like he's going to a wedding.

---

5. Penguins Have a “Catastrophic Molt”

This sounds like something that happened during a failed military experiment.

It isn't.

It's biology.

Most birds gradually replace feathers.

Penguins undergo what's called a catastrophic molt.

They lose and replace essentially all of their feathers during a relatively short period.

Because their feathers are critical for warmth and waterproofing, penguins can't simply continue living normally in the ocean while this happens.

So they prepare by eating heavily beforehand and building up energy reserves.

Basically:

**Winter is coming.

Better eat everything.**

Then:

Bald penguin mode.

---

6. Emperor Penguin Fathers Incubate Eggs on Their Feet

Here's one of the craziest things about emperor penguins.

The female lays a single egg.

Then she transfers it to the male.

He balances the egg on top of his feet and covers it with a warm fold of skin.

Then he stands there.

In Antarctica.

During winter.

For roughly two months.

The female returns to the ocean to feed while the males remain with the eggs.

They huddle together for warmth while enduring some of the most brutal conditions on Earth.

The males can go for weeks without eating while incubating the eggs.

Talk about a dad bod.

Actually, don't.

The penguin dad bod is elite.

---

7. Emperor Penguins Can Have Feather Surfaces Colder Than the Air

This sounds impossible.

It isn't.

Researchers studying emperor penguins with thermal imaging found that the outer surface of their plumage can become colder than the surrounding air under certain conditions.

That sounds like a terrible survival strategy.

But it actually helps reduce heat loss through radiation, while the penguins' insulation keeps their body heat inside.

It's one of those cases where nature seems to say:

**Let's make the outside of the animal colder than the environment.

Trust me.**

And somehow it works.

---

8. You Can Find Penguins From Space by Looking for Poop

This one is absolutely ridiculous.

Scientists studying Antarctica use satellite imagery to locate penguin colonies.

How?

Penguin poop.

Large colonies leave enormous stains on the otherwise white Antarctic landscape.

Those stains can be visible from satellites.

Scientists have used this technique to locate previously unknown colonies, including a 2023 discovery of an emperor penguin colony estimated at roughly 500 birds.

Even more bizarrely, researchers can sometimes learn things about penguin diets from the color and spectral characteristics of their guano.

NASA has documented scientists determining what penguins are eating from space.

So somewhere in the scientific world there is essentially a job description that amounts to:

Look at satellite pictures of Antarctica and find the giant shit stains.

And honestly?

That's pretty fucking awesome.

---

9. Penguins Don't All Live in Antarctica

This is one of the biggest misconceptions about penguins.

Penguin does not automatically mean Antarctica.

Different penguin species live in places including South America, southern Africa, Australia, New Zealand and the Galápagos.

Some even live in surprisingly warm environments.

The Galápagos penguin is particularly strange because it lives near the equator.

So the next time somebody says:

Penguins live at the South Pole.

You can say:

**Some do.

Some absolutely fucking don't.**

---

10. Penguins Can Take Over Human-Made Structures

Penguins aren't necessarily waiting around for untouched wilderness.

Sometimes they look at something humans built and apparently think:

**Yeah.

We'll take that.**

Humboldt penguins have established colonies on man-made marine structures, including breakwaters in Peru.

In one documented case, researchers watched a colony grow from only a couple of birds into hundreds.

Humans built the structure.

Penguins inspected it.

Penguins approved.

Penguins moved in.

Nature is adaptable as hell.

---

BONUS: THE PENGUIN CONSPIRACY

Okay.

Now things get stupid.

Or fascinating.

Or both.

Because once you start looking into penguins and Antarctica, you eventually encounter something called...

The Penguin Conspiracy.

This isn't a scientifically recognized conspiracy.

It's an Internet rabbit hole.

And one of the funniest examples is real enough to document.

The Flat Earth Society forum actually contains a thread titled:

“Are Penguins Bio-Engineered?”

The thread jokingly proposes that penguins were engineered during the Cold War for Antarctic purposes. The bizarre theory even describes them as a sort of walking lunchbox designed to survive the Antarctic environment.

Obviously, that isn't evidence that penguins were actually engineered.

It's evidence that somebody on the Internet was having a hell of a good time.

But it gets stranger.

Penguins are inevitably dragged into larger Antarctic conspiracy theories involving:

• secret Antarctic bases
• hidden civilizations
• the Hollow Earth
• alien installations
• mysterious structures beneath the ice
• the Antarctic “ice wall”
• classified military activity
• and, of course, Flat Earth

Now here's where we need to separate the bullshit from the genuinely interesting stuff.

Antarctica really does contain enormous areas that are extremely difficult for humans to access.

Penguin colonies really can be discovered through satellite imagery without scientists physically visiting them.

And penguin guano really can reveal information about the animals' populations, diets and surrounding ecosystem.

In fact, researchers have even used layers containing ancient penguin remains and guano to investigate thousands of years of Antarctic environmental history.

So the real science is already pretty damn weird.

We don't need to invent a secret penguin civilization.

But that doesn't stop the Internet.

So what do the penguins know?

Probably nothing.

They're penguins.

They're looking for fish.

They're trying not to get eaten.

They're raising chicks.

They're pooping everywhere.

And occasionally they're being photographed from satellites.

But that's exactly what makes the conspiracy funny.

Because the joke practically writes itself:

Who watches the penguins?

Who watches the watchers?

And why the fuck are their poop stains visible from space?

Okay.

That last one actually has an answer.

Because there are a LOT of penguins.

And that's the important distinction.

A weird fact isn't automatically a conspiracy.

A conspiracy theory isn't automatically true.

And an unexplained thing isn't automatically evidence of something extraordinary.

But sometimes the rabbit hole itself is worth exploring.

Facts speak for themselves.

And sometimes...

the facts are wearing a tuxedo.

An Open Letter to Lil Durk’s Defense Team, the Courtroom, and the Public

Dear Mr. Findling, the Defense Team, and Anyone Following the Lil Durk Case:

My name is JM Talboo, also known online as Bishop Neo Winston Smith at TikTok @Crashout.Royalty. I am an independent researcher and writer, and I recently published a long-form article examining the Durk Banks case, the evidence presented publicly surrounding the trial, the use of rap lyrics and other artistic material as evidence, and the broader media narrative that has developed around Mr. Banks, King Von, OTF, and the case.

I am writing this open letter because, after spending a considerable amount of time reviewing the available material, I believe I have assembled a collection of information and sources that may be worth the defense team's consideration—and worth the public's examination as well.

I want to be very clear about what I am—and am not—claiming.

I am not an attorney. I am not attempting to second-guess the defense strategy. I am not suggesting that my interpretations should be treated as established fact.

My purpose is simply to put potentially relevant information in front of people who are in a position to evaluate it properly.

Evidence vs. Interpretation

The central concern underlying my research is the distinction between evidence and interpretation.

There is a substantial amount of material surrounding this case that consists of music lyrics, social-media posts, internet commentary, Reddit discussions, documentary-style videos, and people attempting to connect events after the fact.

Some of those connections may ultimately prove meaningful. Others may not.

But I believe there is a serious danger when interpretation begins to substitute for independently verified evidence.

That concern became particularly important to me when examining the broader body of work produced by Trap Lore Ross and others who have attempted to reconstruct criminal histories and motives from rap lyrics, music videos, social-media material, rumors, and other publicly available information.

I have examined the controversy surrounding his treatment of King Von and Lil Durk, his methodology, his discussion of ongoing criminal cases, and the criticisms made by other journalists, researchers, artists, and commentators.

Some of those criticisms are substantive enough that I believe they deserve to be evaluated independently rather than dismissed as simply internet drama.

Rap Lyrics as Evidence

The larger question of rap lyrics as evidence is not merely an abstract First Amendment issue.

It raises fundamental evidentiary questions about context, artistic expression, authorship, fictionalization, genre conventions, temporal relationships, and whether a lyric actually provides independent evidence of an alleged act—or merely appears incriminating when removed from its artistic context.

A violent lyric can certainly be evidence of something.

But what it is evidence of is the crucial question.

Is it evidence of an actual event? A fictional narrative? A character? An exaggeration? A metaphor? A description of the environment surrounding the artist? A reflection of things the artist has witnessed? Or simply an artistic performance?

Those questions cannot necessarily be answered by looking at the words alone.

I understand that Mr. Findling and the defense team are already deeply familiar with these issues. In fact, I was particularly interested in Mr. Findling's public comments regarding the use of lyrics in criminal prosecutions.

His position that prosecutors and law enforcement can improperly interpret the commercial nature and conventions of rap music as evidence of a propensity toward violence is one of the reasons I thought this research might be worth bringing to his attention.

The Broader Case

My research also examines the broader circumstances surrounding the case, including OTF-related evidence, witnesses and cooperating individuals, music, public statements, and the larger “crates of guns” story that has become part of the surrounding discussion.

I am not presenting every allegation contained in those materials as established fact.

Rather, I have attempted to identify the claims, distinguish them from documented evidence, and leave the ultimate evaluation to the reader.

There is a documentary on the broader “crates of guns” story in the works, but anyone interested in investigating that subject right now can simply go to YouTube and search:

crates of guns

There is a rabbit hole there for anyone willing to do the research themselves.

Why This Matters to Me Personally

There is also a personal reason I became interested in the issue of rap lyrics as evidence.

I make a substantial amount of music myself, and some of that music is posted on my TikTok channel, @Crashout.Royalty.

I have created a number of songs in my own artistic voice that may provide an interesting firsthand example of how violent or incriminating-sounding language can function within rap as artistic expression rather than as a literal confession.

I have also created a substantial amount of music using Lil Durk's voice, in an attempt to speak for “The Voice,” who has now found himself voiceless.

That is not intended as a legal argument.

It is an artistic one.

And perhaps that is precisely why I think the distinction between artistic expression and literal evidence deserves such careful consideration.

The Public Should Examine the Sources

I am not asking anyone to simply believe me.

Quite the opposite.

I encourage people to examine the underlying sources themselves.

The article contains additional research materials, videos, articles, and other sources that allow readers to investigate the questions independently.

Mind Treasury: Beyond “Durk Is Cooked”: Lil Durk, King Von, Trap Lore Ross, Rap Lyrics, the Trial, and the Bigger Story Behind the Evidence

https://mindtreasury.blogspot.com/2026/09/beyond-durk-is-cooked-lil-durk-king-von.html

The article is not intended to declare Lil Durk innocent or guilty.

It is intended to ask what the available evidence actually demonstrates, what is interpretation, what is speculation, and where those categories may have become blurred.

That distinction matters regardless of what conclusion someone ultimately reaches.

A Message to the Defense

To Mr. Findling and the defense team:

I am not asking you to accept my conclusions.

If anything, I would prefer that the defense independently investigate the underlying sources and determine whether anything in them is useful, inaccurate, incomplete, or irrelevant.

My hope is simply that potentially useful information does not get overlooked because it originated outside conventional legal or journalistic channels.

If any portion of this research appears potentially relevant to the defense, I would be happy to identify the underlying sources and chronology behind particular sections.

The legal system has mechanisms for determining what evidence means.

The internet does not.

And in an era when millions of people can watch a documentary, read a Reddit thread, hear a rap lyric, and immediately construct an entire theory of a person's guilt, I believe it is more important than ever to ask a simple question:

What do we actually know—and how do we know it?

That is the question I am attempting to explore.

Respectfully,

JM Talboo
AKA Bishop Neo Winston Smith
TikTok: @Crashout.Royalty
Independent Researcher / Writer
Mind Treasury