So I'll blow this up. I tried to make life easier by drafting the report already or at least starting to. So here's the participants of our group. We also had a lively series of discussions around this. And I've hopefully, along with Scott's notes and Jeff's notes and a couple of iterations back and forth with Scott, captured what we were trying to do. So the goal, I think, Les kind of put it out there, and I like this. So is to change the practice of medicine to a point where whole genome sequence can be routinely ordered for a patient and to use it to improve their health care. So what would the community agree is a reasonable set of data? They want to accurately interpret from a genome and be able to act on it so that it's useful for patient care. So that's the fundamental broad question. But before WGS can be accepted as a legitimate clinical test, we first need to develop enough data to convince people that this needs to be in the clinic. I think this discussion we're just having kind of illustrates those issues. So the needs in order to accomplish this is a set of standards and best practices. I don't know what happened to the numbers here, but best analyses, best practices for analyses, these may change over time. Alignment issues, representative of different major ethnic groups, de novo sequencing, assembly, accuracy of calls for SNPs, genes, endel, CNVs, et cetera, to know what we find with different search strategies and what to do with that information. Well-defined clinical phenotypes, we're calling it the Tiffany standards, you know, the Miami standards. Those of you that were in the Tiffany room yesterday, appreciate it's a low bar that we can accomplish to have equivalent standards for phenotypes and genotype annotations. What is the baseline we need to have? So we think that's an important question. And then what are the annotation strategies to meet the Tiffany standards and beyond? We need to layer different categories of data, SNP data, standard phenotypes from eMERGE and eMERGE-like, and layer these into EHRs into the genomic sequence. Easy to say. How do we do that? Major issues to think about around that. Variants of unknown significance, what does that mean for a variant of unknown significance? And perhaps that's a wrong term. Maybe it should be undefined or not defined or something else to think about because variants of unknown significance has a very different meaning depending on which area you come from. And I think this last discussion illustrates that. I think the clinical geneticists would have a different view around implementation of variants of unknown significance. Okay. So mission critical. More and more labs are going to be rolling out whole genome sequencing and exome sequencing. So there is a critical need to define standards and meaningful clinical reports. Failure to do so is going to drive up the costs. And here's just a classic example. In the interim, there's going to be pressure to run expensive clinical tests to follow up genome-wide sequencing studies and exomes. So for example, somebody shows up in your office and you're a GI doc and they say they have a SNP for Crohn's disease and they're very worried about Crohn's disease. So how are you going to end up doing a scope? So how do we get around that as being an issue? Because that's going to be a major pressure point. So the group came up with at the, I think, kind of the initial leadership of David Ledbetter around this, which is a grand vision. So we said 100,000. Maybe that's the wrong number. But sequencing 100,000 patients with detailed electronic medical records to build a comprehensive data set of variants, phenotype annotations, and critical information about incidental findings. This would be analogous to the initial goal of sequencing the human genome. Therefore, there needs to be some key pilot projects established to set specific needs and milestones for this project. A white paper could be potentially developed this year to begin the dialogue. Should it be more grand? Should it be all children with birth defects or simply all children or the entire human planet? I mean, we could decide what we want to do with that. So considerations to think as we go forward. Part of the question of getting whole genome sequencing and the routine testing is figuring out how to fund it. Insurance, patients, research are a mix of fuming. I guess that would be funding sources we now use. Sequencing costs will drop if the insurance or patient pays for the sequence, it ends up becoming potentially free for research. It's an interesting dynamic to think about. So we could use research dollars now to build infrastructure to enable it. And pilot projects, such as we've just been discussing for disease specific questions, would also fit into positioning the best approach for the grand division. There's a list of pilot projects. I'll list them and then break them out into, I don't know what happened to all the numbering. I guess I cut it off. Well, anyway. The pilot projects are analytical best practices. A wet lab bake off is number two. Number three is improved reference set for clinical analysis. Number four is established minimum standards for genomic and clinical phenotyping data. Five would be work with NIST on developing standard genome types and create a central repository. So let's break these down into potential goals and projects. So the pilot project one, analytical best practices. The goal would be to develop a set of standards and software tools analysis pipelines for clinical analysis. The goal of this is to do this now. There's many groups in the process of doing this. And so we thought having 10 genome sequences would be a great start point. These would be already sequenced. We then provide a set of reference genomes to compare to with the idea being that it's not about how many genomes you have, but how good is your software with the genomes that are available. There's coverage, how much is covered. All those things would be standardized. There'd be a collection to define clinical phenotypes. There'd be six genomes with known variants that cause disease and four genomes with unknown causes of disease but have been analyzed but not found. So the exercise would be interested groups would get the 10 genomes and the reference genomes to conduct their own analysis. Debbie's term of bake off. The goal would then be, and this has been done in other groups, the statistical geneticists have done things like this over the years. And the strategy then would be to have a meeting to compare results and look at the lessons learned. What did these different software package come up with? What did we learn from this? How do we deal with some fundamental questions like if you see a variant in one color but not in the other, which one is real? These are fundamental questions we need to address. So the deliverables would then be a standard reference set for testing and benchmarking future new tools and really answer some fundamental questions around coverage needed. It could develop analytical guidelines around what would be the best practices for the validation of a clinical tool and it may actually weigh in and provide some potentially new novel insights. The other goal is to have a wet lab bake off. This is really to go in and take a look at some issues around sequencing strategies. There's different views on how you should do that. Do you do short reads combined with long reads with clone reads? How deep do you go? Fundamental questions that need to really be addressed. The idea then would be again to get 10 genomes that have been consented, it would be ideal, I would argue. If it's the same 10 genomes that are going to be done in the analytical side, but it doesn't have to be. And the goal then would be the interesting groups would use their platform or strategy to analyze these same genomes. Fundamentally, I think this could be maybe an annual meeting that would come up with where are you? Again, this comes back to what's been done in statistical geneticist groups where you say, hey, how good is your stuff? Deliverables would be coverage needs by platform. There's plenty of different technologies. We've talked about Illumina and we've talked about complete genomics, but there's a large number of other platforms that are out there. This then would provide really knowledge about how would we make that comparator. You think your technology is fantastic? Great. How does it compare? And then again, look at the best practices for sequence generation and that initial calling algorithms and so forth are again major issues we have to think about. The next one would be improved reference set for clinical analysis. So the goals here would be to create a better reference set of genomes and phenotypes. This is the pilot project or one of the pilot projects for the grand vision. The notion would be to have 500 genomes with detailed electronic health records. The ideal again, and these are numbers that were just thrown out there, but I think are in a level that we can discuss. 100 from each of the five major continents with the idea being that much of the reference data we need is dependent upon where the people are from. And if we're going to be practicing medicine better, we need to have those reference resources both from the genotype and from the phenotype. We're going to have to understand the subset of rare variants, what are carriers, what are common known variants in each of these different subgroups. Subsets, so the strategy then would be what other needs do we need from these 100 in each of the five major continents would be some rare variants and carriers, I didn't explain that well, so that you have something that we know what to find. So it gives the analytical group an idea of can you actually find a CFTR carrier or a sickle cell carrier or some of these others. There also we think should be some extremes of common clinical phenotypes. I picked blood glucose. It could be anything. I just threw that out there. If you had the extremes of the distribution, can you now find something around those? Potential sources of samples, eMERGE, eMERGE-like programs, George Church, Personal Genome Project and other existing cohorts, DBGAP. I don't want to specify, but I think there's the goal again would be to do this relatively quickly and not spend the next five years trying to ascertain patients. I mean, I think we really have to be realistic about this is coming quick and the slower we are, the further behind we are. Does this need a grant mechanism? I don't know. It's probably big enough that we need to think about that. Again, there'd be an annual meeting to compare results, advance best practices. Deliverables are similar to what was said before, but an additional leveraging of the difference reference populations, standard reference sets for testing and benchmarking future new tools. Again, coverage needed, analytical guidelines for the different human populations, best practices for validation of a clinical tool, potentially novel insights and knowledge and information about how to think about a grand vision. So when we say we need to sequence 100,000, is it really 100,000? I mean, what is that number? I think we need to have some baseline around that. Project four, now they come back. The numbers come back. Establish minimum standards for genomic and clinical phenotyping data. So here the goal would be what's the minimum standards for data annotation for genomic and phenotype data? Sounds pretty easy, but I think if you start to come up with what's the basic level of standards? This is something that was done for microarrays. It really helped improve how we exchange knowledge. It really helps the programmers think about what information do they have to make sure that's being maintained. These are critical issues. So the needs would be a work group for genome annotation minimum standards, a work group for phenotype annotation minimum standards. I think those are two different cultures. I think there needs to be some haggling going on there first. And then maybe a joint group to align the genotype phenotype minimum standards is one potential approach. How would we do this? What could be done through meetings and or conference calls? I think the goal here, the deliverables would be some position papers or a paper around this, as well as the beginnings of this potential variant catalog for clinical references. There's ClinVare, there's a variety of other sources, but it would be great if we could kind of standardize those around these basic minimum standards so we know what we're sharing and how we're comparing. Number five is to work with NIST. This is the National Institute of Standards. Is that the correct? Standards and technology. These are the people that tell you how long is a yard, a meter, an inch. And they're working on standard genome types. I think we would like to make sure that whatever NIST is establishing is a standard would kind of fit into what we think are standards around which we want to make comparators. So I think that's just something that needs to be worked at. We don't know enough about this, but the goal then would be to make sure that if we're going to do this pilot or grand vision that at the end of the day the NIST standards are part of that. I think that would be a mistake not to do that. Create a central repository of whole genome sequencing for the clinical labs to compare against. So I think a goal would be a short-term solution. This group or a subset, as Eric Topol said, he's willing to share his genomes. I think this is something we can do quickly if we want to. In order to make this happen, I think there would need to be some data sharing agreements MOUs that would establish what that is. Data security and data sites. How would we do this? And rules for data use. I think this is something that could be done very, very quickly with a concerted group of dedicated individuals and wouldn't require resources and a lot of thinking about this. We need to share data somehow. Long-term, obviously, is the PAN NIH project that Eric Green mentioned earlier today. I think that's potentially, I don't know the details, but the likelihood of that would be a longer-term issue. I think we could jump-start some of these. So hopefully I've captured those discussions and distilled them into what you all agree with. So can I start from the people from the group? Did I capture that accurately? Okay. Questions? So, Howard, I just wondered if you were aware or in the group about the Huck and Huck and Arson's program at CHOP where they have 100,000 kids and 20,000 parents, they brought GWAS all of them, and now they have 10 high-seeks with BGI, and they're going to sequence all of them, and they're getting pretty, they're cooling up pretty fast. What about that resource to potentially work with to accelerate this whole thing? Sure. Absolutely. That's why I didn't put a statement on what the populations need to be or where they come from. I think that's a discussion point for what would be the best sources. And the timing.  So that actually leads into my point, which is one of the lessons we learned in Emerge is that all subjects and all electronic health records are not created equal, and so that the oldest subjects have actually been informative for virtually all the phenotypes across the sites, whereas the younger people haven't had time to develop the adult onset diseases. And so different cohorts had different utilities. And so if you're going to focus on children, you're just not going to get those phenotypes. So that's something to think about. And then the other thing is that the electronic health records from places like Kaiser and HMOs where they're capturing all the medications the patient have took, all the diagnoses are very valuable in a way that electronic medical records from, like we didn't even propose the University of Washington. We used group health because we see people for a couple weeks and then we don't see them for five years. We don't capture most of their health care. So finding those electronic health records that actually capture most of the health care, and in particular the prescription drugs, is also much more informative than not. So that's a consideration when you're marrying those things that we learned in Emerge. Yeah, Howard, so during the discussion yesterday, we talked, I think, more about ensuring that the different groups that were doing this came up with the same answer. We talked less about whether that answer was correct. I'm hoping that during the validation process people would make sure that that was also a high priority. So that's why we have six knowns. So we actually can then benchmark against what is known and then the four unknowns would be then for discovery potential, yes. OK, and the second point I wanted to make is bake-offs are good and needed. I just want to make sure that a project like this would take into account that if you do bake-offs with early technologies, particularly, you could squash any new technology coming into the field. So we have to be very, very careful about that. One of the challenges, of course, is all these technologies are changing so fast. And by the time you implement something, the company has a new kit available. But moreover, some of these are relatively mature, but we have new technologies emerging. We don't want to eliminate the possibility for those to come on. Can Debbie answer that? I think the goal was to take a look at what are the drivers of what we can see and what we can't see. And I think that will also lead to the development of new technologies and understanding how to drive the field of clinical genomics forward.  We also thought it was really important. We talked about what is it that would make an ideal, let's say, electronic medical record for what would be the kinds of things you would look at for the genotype that you could link. So I mean, all of these things would be more integrated than they are currently.  And I think that's not what the point is. The point is it's a competition with the goal of knowledge, not for declaring a winner and a loser. So we can modify that language. And it's really about creating an environment where there can be comparators so that new technologies, new strategies can come to bear. But there's a way to benchmark them.  Yeah. And as we move forward, obviously, we would have a really good knowledge base to compare new technologies against. But part of the point in this design was that we wanted to create a system where anybody in the room or beyond could have a set of standards and a sort of best practices to refer to. Because if somebody got their genome done on the Illumina platform in a health care system in California and then moved to Boston, would it be a different kind of sequence that they would get in Boston? Hopefully not. And we wouldn't have to repeat it. So if we kind of standardized things, and it's going to be a little bit of a moving target, but that the whole process, I like Howard's analogy with the Miami system, that we would have a set system that we all agreed on, what kind of medical records data would go in when you did a sequence, how much coverage would you have, minimum, what kind of quality would you have, what kind of, you know, at certain positions maybe you would have to be able to know that there was an internal reference that you called accurately. So these are things that we can do as a group to sort of facilitate a uniform approach down the road. So this is another follow up on the Miami comment. So I think it's very hopeful that you are involving NIST into this process. I'm hoping it won't be as an afterthought, but it will be right at the beginning. Because since the Miami days, there is a new layer of technology, and there is no convergence between technologies and databases. And I'll just add another reference to that line, which is the data.gov initiative. So all sorts of databases are now being integrated together. There are new toys to play with. The other thing that we talked about, and I'm not sure it's gotten enough attention, is the defining what a perfect phenotype looks like. So we touched on the idea that we at Vanderbilt, Josh Denney specifically at Vanderbilt, have been doing FIWAS based on ICD-9 codes. And we think we probably need a better definition of what a reference phenome should look like. And I don't think we got much further than that. But what elements would you want to see in a standard electronic medical record? What kinds of things would you like to know people have and didn't have? And the didn't have is sometimes better than the have. What phenotypes tend to travel together, the sort of the hack map for the phenotype, for the phenome, those kinds of issues probably need to be addressed as well if we're going to do phenotype correlations. I wasn't involved in the session, but we had kind of a dinner sequencing conversation looking at training for people to help with the interpretation of all this data, and it's an issue that all the programs are running into, not having enough bioinformatics. And one suggestion that came up was that take genetic counselors and train them in this, and then we said, well, they're not enough. Genetic counselors are shorter there. But all the genetic counseling programs do a good job of providing the genetics training. And their rate limiting factor is that they don't have enough clinical sites. So if you created a companion track, we're rather doing clinical sites, someone could do an informatics intensive, so they use the same coursework. And we thought that would be something that we should look at to see if that's a viable possibility. Also take seriously relating to the phenotyping issue, I think that a priori we're not going to be able to develop a perfect phenotype for a variety different reasons. One I think will be hard to define, probably the more important reason, is that the way phenotypes get entered is highly idiosyncratic, and it's very difficult to sort of extract that. So I think we really need to take Les's points from his talk earlier very seriously, which is the idea that we shouldn't assume that when the phenotype goes in that that's going to be what's going to remain there, that if we develop interesting associations, questions, variants, whatever, that we develop a mechanism by which our subjects are consented such that we can recontact them to enrich phenotypes in an iterative fashion. I think that's the only way we're going to solve it, because we'll always want information that we don't have, no matter how much information we have on the front end. OK, I think this has been a great and helpful discussion, but we're running a little late and probably need to move on.


Recently, we covered the incredible reports made by a Russian known as Mr. Kasatskin, deep within a coal mine in Rostov. Dated at over 300 million years old, it is these types of finds which are often suppressed from the public. It's seen by some as an imperative task to conceal such information, and this next object is no less fascinating or controversial. Considered as being a mere 50 million years younger than our prints deep within the mine, another artifact, thankfully exposed to the world. The stone, with a mysterious apparent chip embedded within its form, was discovered accidentally by local fisherman Viktor Morozov in Lubinsk, a town in Krasnodar Kri. Understandably perplexed by this marvelous find, he quietly notified local university professors regarding his intriguing discovery. After donating the stone to these said professionals, it was discovered that the strange alien object embedded within this pebble is indeed a processing microchip of a clearly unknown origin. Amazingly, it has also been found to still contain processing data which has not yet been deciphered, which when captured and translated, could quite possibly shed light on a once existing advanced civilization here on Earth. Or more, it could also in all possibility give us a tiny glimpse at an ancient alien civilization who are at this time possible candidates as the creators of this advanced and very ancient chip. The team began to discuss the confusing artifact with other professionals within similar fields of study, and predictably it was not long until debunking efforts engulfed the investigations. A number of prominent figures coming forth to passionately denounce such research being made public, or indeed being undertaken, with explanations of it somehow only being a mere fossil subsequently being publicly launched, the stone cataloged as such by the majority of the trusting public. This clearly in staunch rejection of reality. The fragment of a once larger microchip contains information we are yet to extract and decipher, information of clearly ancient and possibly alien origin. We just hope the specialists bestowed with the task of this important research now convinced they have discovered that which will eventually rewrite the history books. Do not discover that the object has disappeared without trace. A fate suffered by many other artifacts stumbled upon within our modern age, artifacts of an unexplained or otherworldly nature. Just who or what could have created this chip? What was its purpose? We will endeavor to keep an eye on this research. There has been a wealth of documented artifacts found within very ancient sediment, coal seams, minerals, and even stones and geodes, all indicating that a vastly different story has taken place upon our earth, to that of what the majority stubbornly persist in assuming. So many pieces of evidence, in fact, it seems that it has been an impossible task for an unknown group of tyrants who, for whatever reason, have attempted to conceal or suppress such discoveries, or more importantly, hide the historical tales in which they are all trying to tell us. And these next three are no exception. The Lanzhou Stone, discovered in 1999 by Zhilin Wang in a remote mountainous area in northwest China. Upon research being undertaken, it was established to be unexplainable. The rock is made of an unknown material and the metal artifact embedded within may quite possibly have alien origins, as reported in the Lanzhou Morning News on June 26, 2002. More than ten geologists, physicists, and other specialists from such institutes as the National Land Resources Bureau of China, the Institute of Geology and Minerals Research, and the School of Resources and Environment, all eventually studied the possible origins of the stone. The results of these examinations, the possible explanations for its formation, or indeed origin, were never released. Amazingly, however, the scientists unanimously concluded that the stone is currently one of the most valuable in China or possibly the world. When pressed for further explanation, it was disclosed that the rock will apparently be extremely important for future research and, quote, archaeological studies. Any further disclosure regarding the scientist's discoveries has remained elusive. The Wolfsegg Iron has a similarly suppressed story. Over 20 million years old, this extremely ancient and clearly once worked cube of iron may also have come from space. Indeed, that is a conclusion many educated researchers arrived at. Although attempts to discredit such claims involve recent testing, which has shown the cube lacks usual elements present in meteoric material, they all avoid mentioning its strong magnetic characteristics. A signature uncannily similar to that found in meteorites and other objects with an other worldly origin. It was discovered when a workman at the Braun Iron Foundry in Scherndorf, Austria, was breaking up a block of lignite that had been mined at Wolfsegg. In 1886, mining engineer Adolf Gehlt reported the object to the Natural History Society of Bonn, who noted that the object was coated with a thin layer of rust, was made of iron, and had a specific gravity of 7.75. Early descriptions of the object appeared in contemporary editions of the scientific journals Nature and Lestronomy, identified at the time by numerous scientists as being a fossil meteorite. Now, virtually unanimously concluded to have been man-made, it has thus been unexplainable, stolen at one point. It was strangely returned to another museum, now without a compelling mainstream explanation. It has simply been condemned to the history books as some form of elaborate hoax. Impossible artifacts have been found in the most unusual of places. For example, a seemingly unbreakable piece of unknown metal, possibly a ring of ancient or according to man's official history, alien origin found within a geode encapsulated for over 200 million years. Most people begin with good intentions, but sadly, are often allured away by various means of temptation, subsequently allowing such relics to disappear into the archives of the past. This report and the accompanying image, it seems, is all that we will ever see regarding this compelling artifact. A mysterious fate experienced by many such artifacts. For example, sadly only the wolf-seg iron now remains in the public domain for future testing. What secret within our past is felt by some clearly powerful people as an imperative to keep concealed from the majority of the world? Maybe the question should be, will we ever be ready or indeed able to find out? In a small place, once known as Mineral County, in West Virginia rests a very special rock. Known as Waffle Rock, it is a huge piece of something very ancient, lodged in the ground where it must have been struck many thousands of years earlier. No longer visible to the public due to it being several meters below the water level of a dam built in the area which forced the residents of Mineral County away forever. After a petition by many of the locals, two pieces of Waffle Rock were thankfully preserved for future study. One stayed relatively local to the area, while the other is preserved within the Smithsonian Institute. Dr. Jack B. Epstein of the U.S. Geological Survey said, quote, Four sets of joints are apparent in the Waffle Rock. Just what could have made Waffle Rock clearly remains a mystery, and any hypothesis that links it to possibly having been part of a larger artificial craft quickly shouted down as absurd. The truth is, no one really knows what Waffle Rock is, but such hostility directed towards any extraterrestrial possibilities is something we always find interesting. Waffle Rock appears to have a metallic gridding which runs through some of its form. Interestingly, a case we cover in another video regarding another less-mentioned find of a very similar, strange suspected rock formation was found nearby. Were these fragments once pieces of an ancient spacecraft? We find it highly suspicious that the powers that be chose to submerge such a curious thing, subsequently hiding it from the world. Lake Superior, the largest of the North American Great Lakes. It is also the largest freshwater lake in the world by surface area. Believed to have first been inhabited 10,000 years ago after the retreat of the last Ice Age. However, there exists copper mines upon many of the lake's islands, which many researchers have concluded to be prehistoric. A sophisticated array of tunnels litters the islands, or more specifically, all of North America. Scarred by ancient mine pits as deep as 150 feet, carbon-14 testing of wood remains found in sockets of copper artifacts indicated they are at least 5,700 years old, although artifacts and evidence at some sites have suggested a date far older than what has been put forward. For example, some investigators believe that the mines were not even built by humans, but are the remains of a sophisticated mining operation that was once undertaken by alien visitors many thousands of years ago. Similar in scale to the ancient Carolina mica mines, mica being a material which we use in electrical components. It must be noted that all of these prehistoric mines show evidence of being abruptly abandoned. Whether this is evidence of the death of an unknown king or queen, or evidence for catastrophe is unknown. All along Lakeshore are vestiges of this one's highly successful ancient operation. The most astonishing of remnants catalogued publicly has to be the enormous lump of pure copper found in 1771 near the bank of the Antonigan River. In 1945, it was floated downriver on a raft by a James K. Paul and was eventually appropriated by an agent of the United States government. It was then shipped to Detroit and on to Washington, where it eventually slipped into the bowels of the Smithsonian. Known as the Antonigan Boulder, it weighs 3,708 pounds. It was apparently well known to Native Americans. According to the Kiwenawe Bay Indian community, the boulder was used by tribe members to make offerings to its manateau, or spirit, to seek improvement in their health and well-being. Just how old is the Antonigan Boulder, or indeed the mine from which it came? Although many would like you to believe the mines are less than 5,000 years of age, we think many factors surrounding them suggest that they are far older than that. In 1972, a French factory began importing high-quality rare uranium ore from Oklo in Africa's Gabon Republic. Many quickly began to wonder where they had acquired such a difficult thing to make. It turned out that the uranium had come from a place which should have rewritten the history books, yet it seems to have been quietly brushed into the archives of the past. They found the site of origin had functioned as a large-scale nuclear reactor. Amazingly, though, this reactor was in operation some 1.8 million years ago, and was functioning for over 500,000 years. These unbelievable claims were not made lightly, or indeed by anybody. They were conclusions by some of the greatest minds on Earth. For example, Dr. Glenn T. Seaborg, former head of the United States Atomic Energy Commission and Nobel Prize winner for his work in the synthesis of heavy elements, explained to the press why he believed it wasn't a natural phenomenon and must have been a man-made nuclear reactor. He stated that for uranium to burn in a reaction, very precise conditions are needed. The water must be extremely pure, much purer than exists anywhere naturally. The material, U-235, is also necessary for this type of nuclear fission to occur. One of the isotopes not found naturally in uranium. Additionally, several specialists in reactor engineering have also come forward to testify that they believe the uranium in Oklo could not have been rich in U-235 enough for a reaction to take place naturally. It must have, somehow, been a man-made operation. And new research has only deepened the mystery, confirming that water regulated the nuclear reactions in a cyclic pattern similar to that of a geyser. Alex Meschik and his colleagues at Washington University of St. Louis have determined that the Oklo reactor, which comprises several separate sites, ran for 30 minutes and then shut off for two and a half hours before starting over. The time is characteristic of water infiltrating rocks and then being boiled off once reaction started. When the water all boiled away, the reaction stopped until new water percolated back down. This geyser-like activity also prevented a runaway reaction. It's amazing it didn't explode, Mesch said. Instead, it efficiently released energy in short pulses for an extremely long period of time. Just who could have possibly been around over 1.8 million years ago? Or, more specifically, able to enrich uranium and create nuclear power. Is man's history on Earth really that old? It seems, according to numerous nuclear specialists and the compelling evidence they present, that is exactly the case. If you enjoy our content, if you think our battle worthy, please help us to continue our voyage of discovery in unraveling the mysteries of history. Links to donate can be found within the description. Without you, we cannot survive. Thank you.


This is Chris Pike. My friends call me Bigsy. I'm back again guys. Today we got a whole bunch of stuff to talk about. In particular, we're gonna go over Freedom Online with a focus on Mortal Kombat X. Yesterday, if you didn't get to watch the video, watch it. If you did, you're gonna remember that I asked the Freedom Partners for Mortal Kombat X videos. Well, here's the thing. Here's what happened. You guys delivered. In fact, you like blew away my email inbox. It was crazy, but we got tons of content. I'm still going through it. I am posting it non-stop guys. We've got stuff up already, and we've got more stuff coming, but that aside, let's do some shout-outs here. We had some really exceptional content come in. So I'm gonna do some partner promo right now. First thing, we got D-Cubed. D-Cubed is a Freedom Partner, and they submitted a whole bunch of videos, but my favorite video of theirs was the tutorial. They do a video tutorial. It's about 23 minutes long and well, guess what?  All right, I can read pop-up books and coloring books, but whatever guys, joking aside, yes, awesome content. Link to their channel is in the, is below, is below wherever the heck that is, and you should check out their stuff. It's pretty well. The second one I want to talk about is Travis. Travis, what's his last name? One second. Wagoner. Travis Wagoner. That's his name. I thought it was something like that, but whatever. Travis Wagoner sent us in a whole bunch of fatality videos like we asked for, and you know what? If we ask for something, you guys deliver, guess what? We're gonna give you a shout-out. We appreciate that. So check out his channel below. He's got a whole bunch of fatalities, brutalities, all that good stuff. The third guy we want to talk about is East Ham 2010. He went way out of his way and delivered all the fatalities for every character, except for some hidden characters, which I don't know anything about, but I think we've got like 40 or 50 fatalities in one video. So we're gonna be posting that obviously, but if you want to watch those and you want to check that stuff out, it's in the link below as well, guys. Click on his channel. Check him out. Support your fellow freedom partners. Awesome. The next thing, and this is the big one guys, is game reviews. We need game reviews, video, and written. That's what we're looking for. There are launches for games pretty much every day. I mean, AAA titles tend to clump up around Tuesday, and sometimes if it's a Nintendo, it's on a Wednesday or Thursday, but whatever.  So the point is, is there's always games launching, and that means we want to get content for those games. In particular, we want previews, reviews, video reviews. So if you want to be an author and you want to write a review, because that's your thing, you need to contact me, Curtis, at freedom.tm. The info is in the link below, but guys, check that out. If you want to do that, awesome. I'm telling you that as well, because we did get a Mortal Kombat X review, and because it was good, it was a good written review, and it was a good video review. Guess what? It's on Freedom Online. Yeah, Mortal Kombat X review. It's up there, and it's getting promoted. That was sent to us by TanDuriBiscuit, and he went out of his way, man. He wrote that review, he did the video review, and guess what? His link is below. Check out his channel. Awesome. We want that kind of content on the website. The last topic we want to talk about today, and I'm going to touch on this real briefly, is Grand Theft Auto V. As you're probably aware, it's released for PC, and it's awesome. All of the reviews are giving it 10 out of 10s, 9.5 out of 10s. It's basically unbelievable, and here's what we don't have. We don't have a lot of footage for that, so here's what I need you to do. Just like you did yesterday, please put YouTube links, so put your links in the comments below for your GTA V footage. Whatever you got going on there, the cooler the footage, the better. We're going to take those videos, and we're going to take a whole bunch of them, the really good ones, and we're going to put them on Freedom Online, and we are going to promote you. Guys, we are going to get you more views. That's what this is all about. So put your links below, and underneath your link, if you're really, really cool, write a description, or maybe a reason why we should put that video up. This isn't so we can be picky, but it's so that when we put your post up, or when we put your video on Freedom Online, we have a description so that when people search, they're going to know what they're getting. So that written part isn't for me necessarily, it's for you. So write up a good description as to why this is a good video and it should be posted. Guys, that's pretty much it for now. If you've done a GTA V PC review or a video review, also get in touch with me. This is what we've got to do. So long story short, reviews, video reviews, written reviews.  We got a job for you and we're going to promote you guys. That's it for today. Tomorrow, I'll be back with a whole bunch more content. I've got a new show called Get Wrecked. That's right. You get wrecked, son. I got Get Wrecked coming up that's going to basically feature all of Freedom Partners wrecking.  I got to beat that out in post. But if you do that, guys, Get Wrecked is coming up too. If you like that idea, please thumbs this up. Let me know. Give me your feedback. Big C checking out. All done. Cheers.


Riedel booth, I was going to say Rietel, but Riedel, the Riedel booth with Dennis Zhadanov and he's going to tell us about what kind of products they have. So hi everybody and as you might know Riedel is one of the biggest developers for business and productivity applications. So we won't keep our users really productive. From now they go even out of the office using just iPad and iPhones. So we create applications like for this old workflow with documents with scanning and printing and then working with PDFs, contracts, agreements and signatures and I can talk to tell you a few words about our brand new product which called Remarks. It's like a remarkable app. So this is a great application for freehand note taking and drawing great for students and teachers and it also reads PDF. So let's say if I want to create a new note I just press this button and then I can write down everything I want in different colors and then I just I just write it down. It's really smooth. I can do it with my finger but what's cool about it was unique. We did wrist protection so we can lay your hand here and it still works. I won't even test an app that doesn't have that feature because it's worthless. My wrist is always writing. You can have text, you can type text in different colors. You have these arrows that diagrams bunch of features and then you can also what's unique about it. It reads different PDFs. Let's say if we go to this site and then go to this magazine PDF magazine then I can go through PDF and say I don't like something here so I want my editor or my co-worker to look at this. This something is wrong here and I think okay let's let's email this file email this file to him and I can do it with annotations or as flattened. So he will get the exactly same annotations so he can work out on that and get back to me like the right copy. Does he get the entire document or just the page you are working on? I can extract pages. Let me show you. So you have a choice on that? Yeah like bunch of features bunch of options but really narrowed it down from PDF experts so we can extract it and I want if I want to extract I just press edit here and I choose which one I need and I press extract or email and it's done. So it's like we focus on great user experience really clean interface and powerful features that's what we do. What is this tool called? It's called Remarks. Let me show you. It's called Remarks. And that's not yet in the App Store correct? It's not yet it's coming soon within two days hopefully two three days it's going to be $4.99 only so you should check it out. And is that cross between a universal app between the iPhone and the iPad? It's so far it's only iPad app because it's much better to have the view your documents and write down your notes on your iPad not on your iPad. Yeah yeah I agree. So just real quickly what are your other apps that you have? So we have have a bunch of apps called Rital Dogs one of the popular file management systems. PDF experts is great for work with PDFs so we can highlight annotate sign documents fill in PDF forms agreements and email them so it does a lot. Then we have printer prom which is great for it's both for iphone iphone and ipad you can print from your device to your wi-fi printer just browsing the web or any type of documents it's really easy to set up and we have calendars which is gorgeous and it takes your google cal or iCal and it's you can swap like you can you can swap events in like drag and drop events and then it syncs automatically and this last one called PDF experts it transforms any type of documents that excel words or even image into PDF right near iPad. Oh that's nice and yeah that's very cool. So that's how it looks I can like get from email attachments or web page or drop both and just just uh transform it into PDF right here. Well it looks like you guys are doing a lot of really cool stuff I wish I wish you luck. Thank you thanks a lot.