Muse

Thank you.

We'll be right back. Thank you.

So, we're going to deal with a recent challenge. Now, I don't like faceless challenges because I feel that there's some deceit here, but I'm going to deal with it anyway, just to show you guys, I'm not hiding from anything. So I haven't been in underground at all today, but Jasmine let it be known to me that somebody was challenging my recent Christian video. That's fine. I don't care. But I saw the challenges, and I looked at it. I'm like, oh, wow, somebody really, really wants Jesus to be true. But that's cool. That's cool. I'm going to deal with those challenges. I'm going to show you on the screen. but there are people like like Gnostic Academy and these challenges could be coming from they sound they sound just like Gnostic Gnostic Academy could be coming through coming through him and I don't but I'm really not cool and comfortable with faceless challenges somebody in underground saying that a friend of theirs well you need to identify that friend we need to know who that is and all because I'm going to tell you why. I'm going to deal with this even though I suspect it might be Gnostic Academy, but I've already written him off just like Billy Carson, just like James True, just like Justin whatever his name is. Look, there's some people I'm willing to debate, but I've written off Dan Richards. What's the common denominator here? What is the common denominator between Billy Carson, Jimmy Corsetti, James True, Gnostic Academy, that little Justin twerp on X, the one that Sir Escanor is always exposing. I can't remember his name, Justin something. Justin Nemos, Demos or Nemos. Well, Gnostic Academy fits in that category too. You know who doesn't fit in that category? Graham Hopp. Do you know what category I'm talking about? Graham Hancock doesn't fit in that category. Randall Coulson doesn't fit in that category. A whole lot of other people I've called out do not fit in that category. Matt LaCrow, LaCrow does not fit in that category. The category I'm talking about are people who could not handle the heat I was applying to them, so they defaulted to showing their communities my criminal history from 17 years old. Yeah, that's why I don't like these faceless challenges like that I suspect that this is Gnostic Academy asking these questions, but I'm going to answer them anyway. I'm going to answer these challenges right here for you. I'm going to show you

how weak they are. Once somebody has defaulted to my criminal history as if it's leverage over me, as if the substance of my arguments are weakened in some way because of my life at 17 years old, I'm done with you you can no longer be professionally regarded and that's what Gnostic Academy did so yeah man I mean you guys agree with that I mean I mean I'm a man of prince I got to stand up for something. If I'm not going to stand up for myself, well, shit. These are so good. So, yeah, I would like the identity of the person that said these. Because faceless challenges, I don't know who I'm contending with here. Because after you hear my responses to these challenges, yeah, you're going to be like, man, I feel cheated. Yeah, I don't want some coward hiding behind somebody else. Let me know so they can feel the sting when I respond to these challenges right now. Yeah, I'm a well read individual. It's really, really hard to get something by me. And this guy tried. So, yeah, man, we're going to get to it here in a minute, guys. I called Wes, oh, no, I called Wes Huff out to a debate. And said, no, man, you did handle Billy, but I'm willing to debate in his stead. Yeah, I even did an in-defense of Billy Carson video. I can't believe it leaves a bad taste in my mouth. But I called Wes Helf out formally with an email and all that to debate his Christian beliefs up against the historical record. He said no. And I respect that. He said, I don't owe anybody any beliefs. He emailed me back. I said, I don't owe anybody any beliefs, any debates and all that. And the Billy deal just kind of happened. I said, oh, cool. I respect that. Left him alone. You know what else he didn't do? He didn't post my criminal history. He didn't do none of that shit. Wes Huff kept everything very professional. Come on. so I'm just looking at the chat real quick before I take off on this these Christian video challenges all right cool i'm gonna share my screen real quick because the first thing you're going to see

is the pdf from that christian video this is important you have to understand guys people love to cherry pick people love to cherry pick so all i know is i got a text from jasmine talking about somebody wanted wanted to challenge me to a debate okay well this this does not qualify The reason it doesn't qualify is because that video has over 90 data points showing why the story of Jesus didn't happen. So somebody cherry picking out of over 90 data points and they pick out five things that they think they can argue, that is not a debate. because even if I just say, I don't want to waste my time, you know what? I relent and I give you all five arguments. I still won the debate. Do you follow me? I still have over 85 data points that are uncontested. So it's not a proper challenge. You may challenge, whoever this invisible person is, they may challenge me on some points, but they don't overturn the substance of the video at all. Let me show you. Let me show you how ridiculous this becomes. A lot of people just don't realize it's in the act of challenging, cherry-picking your challenges that you actually reinforce the thesis. You make it more powerful. You strengthen the arguments against you by what you choose to argue. And that's what happened here. I'm going to show you guys. I don't know why people keep thinking I'm a fool, keep thinking they're going to try and trip me and all that. I don't know why. I told you guys from the very beginning, I am never going to let something fall out of my mouth publicly unless I absolutely believe it. I'm not telling you it's true. I'm just telling you I believe it. I can be made to believe in something false. It happens. And then I change my behavior. So let's look at this. So you understand what this faceless challenger is actually proposing. Because after a while, it's going to get real, real ridiculous the more you see this. This faceless challenger wants to debate, but only picks five out of this right here. Let me share my screen. Yeah, it's ridiculous. Because. I'm actually doing them a favor. I'm actually doing them a favor. I don't know who they are, but I'm actually doing them a favor. Because if I was to have them on my channel, not only would I make them go through every one of these data points and either say yay or nay, and the community would realize right then and there, say, yeah, you're full of shit, dude.

You're full of shit. If you got no information to contest these other 85 points, My community would see it like that. Even if I just gave you those five arguments. Yeah, I wouldn't make them go because you're not going to cherry pick five arguments and think we're going to do a video debate just on those. No, you took those out of the structure of this video. This entire synthetic presentation was to overturn the story of Jesus as historical and show that it was literary. You cherry picked five little things out of this entire composition and then want to challenge for a debate. And it's childish. It's childish. This this is this is the PDF. Well, this is the Microsoft Word file right here. That's the intro right there. All these ancient texts. This is the intro. so what 200 years of biblical scholarship has discovered so you remember i showed a whole bunch of books on christianity do miracles in text satisfy the burden of proof so we got jesus walking on water we got turning water into wine we have to we have to go through every single one of these yeah you don't just get to pick five and then and then challenge something no we're going through the entire thing again and we're going to deal with those five. You're not going to walk away talking about you beat Jason in a debate when you cherry-picked your arguments out of a wealth of data that you can't even refute. No. That's what Christians do. I'm not a Christian. So, is there any first century evidence of historical gospel Jesus? all this data, this guy, whoever this faceless challenger is, this guy is ignoring all these data points. All this stuff you see on the screen going by is ignoring all of this just to cherry pick five arguments. Yes, you can't do it. It's no good because they're more than welcome to come on my channel. They're probably not going to want to as soon as I give you the answers to these challenges but uh yeah they're more than welcome but i'm going to put them i'm going to put their feet to the fire i'm going to read every single data point i'm going to say hey well i mean you got you do you have any data man that that counters this because this is the conclusion of scholarship it's also the conclusion of christian academia what what say you we're going to go through every single one of them yeah man all this it's a lot guys this is a lot had to pass up all this stuff

just so I could have my phone blow up with somebody telling me somebody's calling me out for a debate and when I look at the arguments like what what about the other 85 arguments you're going to pass all this up this is how stupid that's why I regarded it as stupid as soon as I read it saying oh man I got me another one. Got me another one. Going to ignore all this material. Now, granted, there is five. Well, I only read four. She only sent me four. She said there's five arguments, but I only got four in the text. So, yeah, all this. Got to ignore all this forgery and a very stupid one, too. How are you going to ignore all of this? Yeah, man, this is somebody who just wants to make a name for themselves. You don't get to eliminate a massive corpus of data that you can't deal with just to cherry pick a few arguments that you think you can argue. You think you can until I respond to it here in a minute. Yeah, that's why you're faceless. That's why you didn't email me personally with this bullshit. Yeah, man, it's stupid. Look at this. What did the early church fathers really say about Jesus? Let's go through. Oh, this is a good one here. Here's one of the points of contention. Our Lord's miracles. Yeah, this guy here is going to get upset when he sees my response. Because he's trying to gaslight me saying that that Helena Blavatsky in ISIS Unveiled invented that. She did not. Those documents are in the. church's possession today of this direct quote. I'm going to show it. Way before Helena Blavatsky was ever born. Yeah, man, I don't know why I keep dealing with these suckers, man. I do get tired of it. I do get tired of it. But I'm doing this for your benefit so you can see because they put this in the underground. And I don't want anybody thinking I'm running from a challenge. So I'm dealing with it right now. Here's another point of contention about Hierocles. We're going to deal with that too, philolethes, because he's wrong about that too. Really wrong. I pulled out whole quotes. I pulled whole quotes out of these ancient texts. Yeah, man, how do you ignore this? Church father, Augustine of Hippo, 430 AD, there was no authentic portrait of Christ, absolutely no knowledge of his appearance for 400 years of Christianity. No, man. Why did you ignore that? No, man. We're going to deal with irenis of Gaul. We're going to go all the way through here. How did you ignore all this just to bring these to my attention and call it a challenge? No, man. Even by simple arithmetic, it's not a challenge.

Guys, you know when I call somebody out for a debate and when I'm challenging somebody, what do I do? I don't leave a single detail out. If they say something is true about a phenomenon, I deal with every bit of it. In Ken Wheeler's video, he only asserted five facts about Atlantis, and I dealt with all of them. It's what I do. It's what I do when I do my call outs. I stay very, very professional. I look at everything from 360 degrees. I want to cover all the bases because I never want somebody doing to me what I'm doing to this faceless challenger right now. Here it is. Here it is. Look how long this document is. These are all data points, guys. How do you ignore all of this to stick your chest out and have a friend because you're not going to do it yourself, post in one of my communities a challenge to debate when you actually chose 5% of an argument. You chose 5% wagging your tail because you think you tripped me up on five things, but you're going to ignore everything else. It's ridiculous. What I say a lot is pedantic. I do get tired of it, having to do it, but this right here, it interested me. This one kind of interested me because I'm like, wow, this sounds pretty good. So let's check it out. Look at this. Look at this document. How do you ignore all this? These are church fathers, patristic fathers. These are church documents, early manuscripts. How do you ignore all this that I had in this original presentation, all in one presentation? Get triggered. I don't get it, man. It's got to be psychologically damaging. How do you shelve all this material that you cannot disprove? How do you shelve it? How do you do that to still believe in this fiction of Jesus? How do you do it? I don't get it. Because there's no way in hell you have arguments for all this, or you would have asserted them. You wouldn't have just sent five. look at this man how do you ignore all of this just to bring to our attention four or five things you disagree with out of almost 85 to 100 data points how do you do it how did you ignore all this doesn't even make sense doesn't even make sense I'm just dealing with it man because y'all brought it to my attention

I did not have any intention of even talking about this. Today was going to be open Q&A. It still might. We'll have time. We'll have time. It's going to be open Q&A. Yeah, man. How do you ignore all these facts? Oh, yeah. And then the Typhonian deals. Well, I forgot about that. Didn't get any arguments from this either. let's show this let's show this I'm going to show these too oh damn it stop screen I'm showing it all because it was ignored. This is what I condemn all the time. It's called practicing exclusions. Yeah, man. So dumb. Telling you guys all the time, man, this is something I am not going to do. This is practicing exclusions. Okay, my faceless challenger, you didn't try to overturn any of this stuff. This is all a part of Jesus being the fulfillment of the Typhonian. The sacrifice to save the son. It's the only reason the son darkens in the gospel account because it's not in the historical record. All this is about the sacrificial victim is taking place of the red heifer. The red heifer is sacrificed to stay the son's course. It's all in this old book. all this data about Jesus being the fulfillment of the Phoenix concept I mean why'd you ignore all that I don't get it yeah man there's the I don't need to show all those you guys know from that video I showed a bunch of clips too about the Phoenix concept and how Jesus fulfilled it and all the verses in the New Testament that I mean, all the actual quotations from the early church fathers showing that they knew all about the phoenix. They all knew all about resurrection, and they were linking Jesus to the concept of the phoenix. But the phoenix itself, there isn't a hint of it in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. And that's for a reason. They didn't want to draw attention to it that early. Now, let's look. Let's look at the substance of these arguments. So bringing to my attention four or five arguments in light of this massive corpus of data that

this person has ignored means that we're starting this exercise with me having already won the debate. I can actually just take a knee and say, my brother, you can have all four or five of these arguments. They're yours. I'm not even a contended, and I still won the argument overwhelmingly that Jesus was only literary because the challenger did not bring to the table anything opposing the other 85 data points. Do you see what I'm saying here? Why practicing exclusions is terrible? It's absolutely terrible. I don't do it. When I'm focused on somebody, I take them apart piece by piece by piece so there's nothing left. So this is a huge difference between me and everybody I'm coming into contact with. Yeah, I mean, it's just crazy. It does get old. It gets old after a while. But let's look at the substance of their beliefs. Here, I'm going to share this right now. We're going to end this shit real quick. All right. The very first challenge that they made, Paul didn't write about Jesus' bodily resurrection. I said that, that Paul did not write about Jesus' bodily resurrection. I'm citing biblical scholars, academics, people who have done the homework that have studied the Pauline text. There's a distinction here. Paul never wrote about the passion in Pilate, never wrote about being whipped, Jesus being whipped, stabbed with a spear, never describes the crucifixion. Everything to Paul was a concept. Christ and him crucified. This is why scholars have over and over had a problem with Paul, because he seems to be regurgitating stuff, not telling a historical story. He seems to be quoting a doctrinal belief and not something that actually happened. This isn't my arguments, guys. This is massive in academia. So, blowing up my phone right now, man. so i wrote that paul didn't write about jesus's bodily resurrection and i stand by that yeah there's a bunch of verses where he talks about christ and him crucified yeah that's not the same so the challenger asserts my faceless challenger asserts that paul does talk of jesus resurrection and

equally admits that scholarship argues between this being spiritual or physical resurrection. So the very first problem my challenger has with me is immediately diminished by himself. He brings a point of contention and then weakens his position by admitting that Paul's references to the resurrection could actually be referring to a spiritual phenomenon, not physical resurrection. It's a very weak argument from the beginning. So the problem for scholarship is that Paul provides no resurrection account. He provides no historical details of Jesus coming out of the tomb, talking to the people, flying up into the sky, none of that. Scholarship, notice that Paul twice says, Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day, according to the scriptures. What scriptures? Paul's the very first author. The Pauline writings are way older than Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. This is the problem scholarship has always had with this right here. Because it looks like centuries later, because we have no original Christian manuscripts, centuries later, when the church was making copies of the Pauline writings, they inserted things like, according to the scriptures, Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the scriptures. Yeah, man, this isn't me saying this. Academia has already condemned this as an interpolation. An interpolation is a phrase that gives it away, that somebody has added like a prepositional phrase or interjection in the text. Because Paul himself would have never said, according to the scriptures, he was writing the scriptures, the writings of Paul, later ended up in the New Testament. Now, Paul had no direct knowledge, therefore scholarship deems this very weak. Paul is citing doctrine from texts, no different than Christians today. Remember, remember, Paul never met Jesus, never saw Jesus, wasn't even alive when Jesus was, didn't know anything as far as the apostles of Jesus, didn't know nothing.

Paul, Paul, his whole conversion story and all this could have been written by the church. Many academics believe it was, but it doesn't even matter. It doesn't even matter. Let's assume Paul was a follower of Christ. Well, he never met him. He is not a first-hand witness to any of the gospel events at all, at all. And the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John had not been written yet. Two of those books aren't even apostles. Two of them had never met Jesus, and yet they're a part of the four gospels. So what scriptures was Paul referring to? He's not. Somebody added that. It's a dumb mistake, according to the scriptures, according to the scriptures. Trying to make it look like Paul knew of a Jesus who had died and resurrected. These are the scholarship. This is academia. But you know what? I'm a pretty altruistic guy. And even though I just gave you all these hardcore facts about how academia has a problem with Paul even believing in a physical resurrection and that it looks like the texts are doctored, I will give this faceless challenger this argument because I don't need it. I don't need it. My faceless challenger ignored 85 data points to bring this to my attention. So I just give it to him. They can have it. Next. Next. Justin Martyr. Our Lord's miracles are preserved by tradition alone, but those of Apollonius are more numerous and actually manifested in present facts. My faceless challenger asserts this was invented by Helena Blavadsky. Wow. So, this text actually comes from a later pseudo-Justinian work called Question... and responses of orthodoxy, of the orthodox, often abbreviated, it's an academic text QRO, specifically question and response 24. This is a collection, oh, I don't even know how to say that, guys, Erdapokrisis, question and answer literature, in the style of patristic dialogues, which Justin was famous for. Modern scholarship dates it to the 5th or early 6th century, possibly as late as the first half of the 6th century, likely by an anonymous Antioch or Syrian theologian, not Justin, according to the church.

The church doesn't want it to be Justin, but in the dialogues, it is attributed to Justin, though, that says thought, that should say though. So in the dialogues, it is attributed to Justin, though the church deems it spurious. Of course they're going to deem it spurious. They can't have one of the very earliest church fathers saying something like this. that's why they didn't canonize that's why they didn't canonize this text but they canonized his other writings you see the problem here I don't know why this guy didn't know this so anyway the problem for the church is that the earliest editions claim it was a quote of Justin the earliest editions of this text from the 6th century say it was Justin But it's the church later saying, nah, that wasn't Justin. That's spurious. Come on, man. Stop it. Now, the 1593 Justin Martyrus Opera edition reads similarly to what you quoted. Look. How is it that the talismans of Apollonius have power over certain parts of creation? And while the miracles wrought by our Lord are preserved by tradition alone, those of Apollonius are more numerous and manifested to us in the very moment of their occurrence. Yeah, you, you, you have no argument here. I will not concede this point to you. Where you got to this, the origin was Helena Blavatsky, I don't know. Where are you got to claiming that this wasn't an actual text from the church? Yeah, it's in the possession of the church. Yeah, you don't win this argument. Anything else about this is just splitting hairs. Printed editions appear under Justin's name in 1593, Greek edition of the opera, page 316. There's multiple copies of this on record. It does not appear in Justin's genuine works. That's the first and second apology and the dialogue with Trifo. These are the ones that were canonized by the church. They were canonized by the church because Justin didn't get out of line. He didn't get out of line in those dialogues. But in this other text, dated all the way back to the 6th century, they couldn't canonize that text because Justin got out of line. And he admitted what was found in Hierocles' text about Apollonius of Tyana is the real origin of the story of Jesus. Yeah, man, they couldn't have a church father saying that. So they got to call it spurious. These are the church canon Justin text.

It's obvious why the church would not canonize Justin's other works and why they would be forgotten. Again, the challenger admits that the argument was indeed made about 300 AD, thus weakening the substance of his challenge. Both times, my faceless challenger has brought something to our attention now. He also admitted why his argument was much weaker. Yeah, it's not good. It's not good. You certainly don't deserve a debate. I'm actually sparing you now here's the next challenge Heracles I guess it's Heracles Heracles wrote that the gospel of Jesus was a fraud modeled directly from the life of Apollonius yeah I didn't There's nowhere in there where I said it exactly like that, I don't think. But it doesn't matter. You get the gist. I did write that Heracles wrote that the gospel of Jesus was modeled after... the life of Apollonius. So this is his challenge. And he's saying it's not true. So the challenger claims this to be untrue. So I'm going to have to educate you guys real quick about Salsianus Hierocles right here, who was a Roman about 303 during the Diocletian, the Diocletian, I should say Diocletian. I don't know why it says that. Diocletianic Persecution. Okay, he's the author of Philolethes. This lost work compared Apollonius of Tyana favorably to Jesus, arguing that Apollonius performed greater or more credible miracles, yet he was not deified. While Christians exaggerated a few acts by uneducated liars, Peter and Paul, etc., to make Jesus a god. source found on Christian website tertullian.org but here's where it gets interesting I took out whole quotations from Philolethes the challengers claim that the work does not survive is patently stupid it is a dumb argument he said that twice in his challenge oh but this text doesn't survive man stop be quiet Almost no texts survive from the ancient world. They only live on in the memory of all those who quoted them later. And he knows that. He may be trying to soften the blow from the fact that it was a Christian author who actually preserved this right here. What I'm about to read to you was preserved by a Christian father of the church. It comes from Philolethes. Here it is.

But in the time of our own ancestors, during the reign of Nero, there flourished Apollonius of Tyana, who from mere boyhood, when he became the priest of a guy in Cilicia of Asclepius, the lover of mankind, worked any number of miracles, of which I will omit the greater number and only mention a few. Eusebius, church historian. And this point is also worth noticing, that whereas the tales of Jesus have been vamped up by Peter and Paul and a few others of the kind, men who were liars and devoid of education and wizards, The history of Apollonius was written by Maximus of Agaia and by Damas, the philosopher, who lived constantly with him, and by Philostratus of Athens, men of the highest education, who, out of respect for the truth, their love of mankind determined to give the publicity they deserved to the actions of a man, once noble and a friend of the gods. talking about Apollonius Tyana is the original and Jesus is the fiction of liars who took that Apollonius template and put it on Jesus. Here it is in the historical record cited by a Christian by a Christian church historian 1600 years ago. Can't yeah there's no not giving up that. I'm not conceding that argument. My faceless challenger lost that argument as well. Now here's the good news for my challenger. Irenaeus was referring to the Gnostic who claimed Jesus was not resurrected. Okay. My challenger is claiming that Irenaeus, one of the early church fathers, never denied the resurrection of Christ. There's a lot of books out there that quote Irenaeus, and his wording is real ambiguous. Church fathers have written long diatribes showing that Irenaeus was actually arguing the Gnostic side before he responded with the other one. Listen, I'm not going to get into that minutia. I'm not. I'm going to concede this argument. Just like the first argument, which I don't think this guy won, I'm going to concede it. And I'm going to concede this one too, but I'm going to concede it by also weakening the argument because my faceless challenger was real quick to point out that the wording could go the other way and he may be right, but he definitely omitted the other thing

that Irenaeus mentioned that academia has always been mystified about and the church can't stand it, but they admit he said it and they say it's a mistake. The church says it's a mistake, but Irenaeus literally said that Jesus, Jesus. was still alive at almost 50 years old yeah that right there completely does away with the new testament chronology because if jesus was still 50 years old then then paul would have met him known him all the whole christian entire chronology has jesus dying at 33 years old on the cross so anyway long story short that's all i got that's all i got right there this is what what Jasmine texted me. But here it is. Right here. I'll probably post these on X for everybody to see. But that's it. That's my response to those four arguments. Two of them, I'm not relinquishing at all. And the other two were very weak. They were weakened by the challenger himself. But in the end, in the end, it doesn't merit a debate. it doesn't merit because it's cherry picking it's practicing exclusions anybody who wants to debate if jesus was literary or not i'm gonna put their feet to that fire of the entire 85 86 points that were not mentioned by my challenger yeah i'm not practicing exclusions that debate i'll come fully loaded with everything and then make them in the debate either say yeah or no is this true or not man. And then after a while, even if they deny it and deny it and deny it and deny it when it's obviously true, the chat will realize, okay, man, this dude's just full of shit. Easy to do, man. So easy to do. Listen, I've been dealing with this all my life, guys. I've told you in the past. You think I have no experience in debate? The guys in maximum security were not going to let me make it. yeah, man. Some of those guys are still there. A lot of them have died since I've got out. A bunch of them were already there 10, 20, you know, 25 years before I even showed up. But one thing they do is think and they, and they read. And I would put, put arguments together and put my theories together and all that. And I would take them out to the day room. And let me tell you something. These guys gave me the business. I am the way I am because they did not let me make it. People in maximum security are not scared of hurting other people's feelings. They let me, they let me effing have it. Any, any chinks in my arm or any weaknesses in my arguments, whatever, they exposed them. Because I gave, it was like an intellectual jousting. I gave them something to do and they took off. Yeah, man, I sharpened for years.

I sharpened my sword against men who had nothing better to do than to try to find, trying to find holes in my theories. that's it I don't know I was raised for this there's no doubt in my mind I was raised for this almonds are so good almonds are so good I wish that those guys could see me today. I know a bunch of them are dead, but I wish they could see me today. The monster they unleashed on the public. They would be so proud. I know some of them guys. They would be so proud. They're like, damn, man, that's our boy there. Man, he took that shit to the street. Yeah, man. Been many times I went back to my cell with my paperwork in my hand, my head bowed, my tail tucked between my legs, back to the drawing board many times. I don't know what you mean by did you guys establish a framework for your day room debates? only framework I remember all your responses have to be within two minutes like I used to debate those Toastmaster guys during the Toastmasters class you gotta keep your responses within two minutes you learn the art of abbreviation real quick Thank you.