Youtube comments of (@SeanMunger).
-
Indeed. I have been called stupid, an idiot, a fool, a gullible dupe, a (insert ableist slur), accused of being a CIA agent, a Communist, a fascist, and buying the views to this video (they're all organic). Sometimes they try to hit my other videos saying, "Don't listen to this guy, he has no credibility, he thinks Oswald acted alone!" 🤣🤣🤣
462
-
382
-
195
-
151
-
143
-
133
-
131
-
123
-
118
-
107
-
103
-
94
-
93
-
84
-
82
-
81
-
77
-
71
-
71
-
71
-
71
-
71
-
71
-
70
-
63
-
62
-
59
-
53
-
46
-
46
-
44
-
42
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
37
-
37
-
36
-
35
-
30
-
29
-
27
-
Thanks for your thoughts, and thanks for being respectful. Many fans of the show who comment here are not as respectful as you've been.
What we're dealing with here in the case of the History Channel show is a deception by subtle misleading and inviting the gullible audience to jump to conclusions. The show's veracity as a historical source is fatally tainted by the fact that none of its supposed discoveries are backed by any reputable documentary evidence. What about that "Roman sword" they found that proved to be a toy souvenir manufactured in the 1970s? The producers of the show were not very transparent about this, and there's a reason: being honest about it would have undermined their audience's faith in the central premise of the series, which is to keep you watching in the hopes that they'll unearth treasure there. They won't.
Still, of all the things you point out, the only one that's factually inaccurate is your claim that the "flood tunnels" have been found. They haven't been. What was found were the remains of access tunnels built by the 1862/63 treasure hunt expedition who tried to come at the "treasure" site from below. Their workbook, documenting exactly where and how they built the lumber and stone-lined channels, is documented and was catalogued by historians in 2014 (a fact I would imagine the History Channel show would rather not have its viewers know). The 1862-built tunnels were found previously on the 1897 excavation. The fact that they aren't the "flood tunnels" famed in the legend is self-evident from the fact that the "treasure" pit was not discovered immediately afterwards, which it would have been if they were part of a treasure operation.
Nevertheless, all the other supposed discoveries made by the show producers don't support the treasure hypothesis. They are, in fact, artifacts of previous treasure digs. Every time someone digs a 200-foot shaft on the island, fails to find treasure, goes bankrupt and gives up, they fill the holes they dug back in with the junk and detritus they originally dug out. What this means is that debris from previous treasure hunts has been continuously and repeatedly buried, re-exhumed, re-buried, dug up again, and churned multiple times over the last 150 years. Everything you mentioned--a stone pathway, lumber and boulders, iron ox shoes, barrel staves, tools, a pine kiln, waterproofing materials, a man-made swamp--every single thing is entirely consistent with what you would expect from previous large-scale treasure digs. None are consistent with an operation existing prior to the first treasure hunt. Furthermore, contrary to all the treasure stories, the island has been continuously inhabited (by Native Americans, among others) for hundreds of years. Thus the discovery of human remains going back centuries is, again, exactly as consistent with an island that never had a "treasure" operation on it, as it is with one that did--a real-world example of which, I might add, is virtually unknown in documentary history anyway.
Why, if the Borehole 10X video was supposedly conclusive, did it wind up "in a large archive in the guy's house"? You would think if it's the slam-dunk proof that he claimed it was, decades before the Lagina brothers ever heard of the place, he would have been shouting it from the rooftops. This is a telltale sign of fraud.
If by the "history of the place" you mean the history of previous treasure hunts, you're entirely correct--that's the history that they're exhuming, at great profit to themselves and the History Channel's advertisers. I'm not sure what other "history" remains there to be uncovered. There is no evidence of anything other than a scam, and a series of treasure hunts by gullible investors beginning in the early 19th century.
None of the methods that historians use to verify and document the past, or to build plausible hypotheses about what happened in the past, are being used by the producers of this show. In fact, the show is an example of not to do history, and how pseudohistorical narratives can be used to manipulate the conclusions that people jump to, largely for the commercial gain of their advertisers (and the Lagina brothers themselves, who I am told have gotten rich renting the heavy excavating equipment that they own back to the producers of the show). If you really step back and think about what you've been shown, I think you'll conclude that it doesn't add up to even a shadow of what its purveyors so fondly suggest might be the case.
Thanks again for your comment.
27
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
24
-
23
-
23
-
22
-
22
-
21
-
21
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
18
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
John, thanks for the great question. Actually the "oak platforms" are not an undisputed fact--nothing said to have occurred pre-1849 can be documented in the historical record. However, it is true that individual oak trunks and branches are sometimes found, quite deep down, in excavations on Oak Island. The reason for this is that due to the geology of the island, deep sinkholes often form and can (and have been observed to) swallow entire oak trees. This is why, in the real history of the island, an incident that occurred in 1878 when a sinkhole opened up right under a person plowing their field is important. If there were digs pre-1849 that found wood underground, this is where it came from. It was easy enough, as the treasure legend was fabricated, to take a statement like "we found oak timbers every 10 feet" to "we found a PLATFORM MADE OF oak timbers every 10 feet..." and such. I probably should have addressed this in the videos!
16
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
That's a really good question! I don't know that he had any specific destination in mind, or, if he did, that he had any realistic hope of reaching it. As the police were closing in on him, his actions became more and more impulsive and irrational. I mean, why duck into the Texas Theater (without buying a ticket, which was how he was caught), which had no obvious way out? My best guess is that he expected to be killed or captured almost immediately after the assassination--which is why he gave all but $13 of his money to his wife that morning. He went to the rooming house to get the revolver because it was all he had left to defend himself, but knew he couldn't stay there because the police would eventually track him there. He may have thought that, now that he'd killed the President, there was a 1-in-1000 chance that if he could get away in the near term, Cuba or the USSR might give him asylum, if he could get somewhere where he could get access to Cuban or Soviet officials. Just speculation, but he could have been trying eventually to hop a bus across the border into Mexico and return to the Soviet embassy in Mexico City where he'd attempted unsuccessfully to get entry papers for Cuba back in September. But the hardest thing would have been to get out of Dallas itself in the immediate aftermath of the assassination.
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
You seem to forget that indigenous peoples have inhabited all parts of the Americas continuously since the end of the Ice Age, and also that there were European settlements in North America, albeit not permanent ones, considerably earlier than Jamestown. The island was not uninhabited; it's been continuously inhabited for centuries, so it's no surprise that a piece of a human bone might be found there, especially one dating from post-Columbian contact. And even if it's not an indigenous person (how can they tell?) you're wrong about Jamestown. It was not the first British settlement in America; it was the first settlement that was continuously inhabited. Numerous other settlements, by Britons, French and Spanish, were established in many parts of maritime North America; those proto-colonies, dating back to the 1500s, all failed for one reason or another. They also traded (and intermixed genetically) frequently with Native populations, so the ethnicity of any human remains you might find there will definitely be diverse. If you think about it logically, these discoveries, even assuming they're genuine (i.e., that a gonzo reality TV show that exists solely to entertain its viewers, not for historical scholarship), are entirely consistent with the hypothesis that nothing particularly special went on at Oak Island--which, given the logical problems with believing in a treasure operation, is the overwhelming front-runner among explanations of the island's history. In short, I continue to remain unimpressed.
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
Sorry, Zach, I am not impressed. This is another species of the argument, "There's treasure because the TV said so!" I suggest you read this article from Rational Wiki which explains why the random junk that was found is not, in fact, evidence of what believers want to think it is: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Oak_Island_money_pit#What_was_actually_found Any claim presented by the television show is suspect. Consider this: if there was evidence that there was NOT treasure there, do you trust the makers of the show to present it to their audience honestly? I have no intention of watching the show; if its findings are valid they will be independently assessed and proven valid by legitimate scholars, and it is at that point that, if the findings can rebut the logical conclusion that nothing's buried there, they should be assessed as such. Until that happens, it's a bunch of spurious claims by a gonzo reality show on a television network that has proven itself to have little interest in historical fact.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
I see two logical flaws in your analysis. The first is that you elevate possibility to the same level as plausibility. Whether or not it is possible that Captain Kidd or someone else buried treasure here and then was somehow, by some bizarre and convoluted chain of events, prevented from returning for it, is beside the point. The question is not whether such a thing could have happened, but whether the evidence indicates that it did happen in this particular case. This conflation of "could happen" with "did happen" is the same faulty reasoning used, among others, by conspiracy theorists.
The second logical flaw is that you seem to presume that the "Curse of Oak Island" TV show is a reliable source that has anything worthwhile to contribute to the subject. Personally I remain unconvinced of this, because no one has ever explained to me why the TV show's assertions should be given any weight at all. This show appears on the same network that told us "ancient aliens" were a thing. To any legitimate historian, that's an insurmountable credibility problem. If any of the show's assertions do prove to be real, they will work their way into legitimate scholarship. If then, and only then, do they deserve to be taken seriously. Until that time, the "Curse of Oak Island" might as well be a Saturday morning cartoon. No real historians credit it; it makes no genuine contribution to the body of scholarship, such as it is, about Oak Island. It's a game show. Its viewers are unwilling contestants in a contest based entirely on deception. I can't fathom why most people don't understand this.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
I do doubt their existence, and here's why. The "oak platforms" are not a documented fact--nothing said to have occurred pre-1849 can be documented at all in the historical record, and physical remains of the "platforms" have never been found. It's simply part of the origin story, just like the initial discovery by kids, which we know is false. However, it is true that individual oak trunks and branches are sometimes found, quite deep down, in excavations on Oak Island. The reason for this is that due to the geology of the island, deep sinkholes often form and can swallow entire oak trees. This is why, in the real history of the island, an incident that occurred in 1878 when a sinkhole opened up right under a person plowing their field (and an oak tree they were near to) is important. If there were digs pre-1849 that found wood underground, this is where it must have come from. It was easy enough, as the treasure legend was fabricated, to take a statement like "we found oak timbers every 10 feet" to "we found a PLATFORM MADE OF oak timbers every 10 feet..." and such. So, no evidence for the existence of "platforms."
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
There are a number of reasons for this. First, the island has been continuously inhabited by native peoples for thousands of years (the Eurocentric belief that the island was "uninhabited" before 1795 is obviously nonsense). Second, whenever a treasure company pulled up stakes and left after another failed attempt, they would bulldoze all of the debris from the dig to fill in the holes they had dug, some going down more than 200 feet. Most of this was done since 1900. So, it's obvious there are modern structures buried deep down. Third, no other maritime island has been as extensively excavated and churned up as this one has. We have no way of knowing if the finding of human remains that deep is indeed "normal," which I suspect it is given the island's long history of human habitation. Yes, something big happened: a bunch of failed treasure hunts, in the 19th and 20th centuries. But before that, it was just an ordinary island.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Absolutely false. These are the usual garbage talking points disseminated by MLM cult members, and they were as false 40 years ago as they are today.
- "Amway follows rules by the FTC." No, they don't. They violate these rules every single day; the FTC won't enforce their own rules. What percentage of Amway's sales are to parties outside the distribution structure? 10%? Less?
- "Dexter Yager died as making the most money in Network Marketing." No, he didn't. He made his money in the tools cult, not from distributorships or selling Amway products. He sold tapes and seminars and rally tickets, and made his money that way, not by selling Amway.
- "You can't say people are not successful." Yes, I can, because they aren't. Over 99% of people who join Amway make no money at it. And the less than 1% who do aren't making money from distributorships or selling Amway products. A tiny elite at the very top makes money by selling tapes, seminars and rally tickets to members of the cult. That is neither the success that Amway promises, nor the success that the diamond kingpins themselves falsely lead their downlines to believe will be theirs. They are not successful.
Stop scamming people. Get out of Amway and MLM. They don't enhance people's lives, they destroy them.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Thanks so much! Glad you're enjoying these. What I meant with my "party switch" comments is considerably less expansive than it seems the way many people have interpreted my intent. You're absolutely correct that the Democratic Party is, historically, the party of slavery and white supremacy. I also never said, or intended to assert, that individual politicians switched parties; you correctly point out that very few did. What I was referring to is that it is incorrect, and a form of historical denialism, to assert that today's 21st century Democratic Party has not changed since the 1860s-1870s and still retains exactly the same positions regarding race relations today as it did then. This is, bizarre as it sounds, a talking point on the far right and I've encountered various disingenuous people who claim this is true. With regard to post-1968 Republicans, the very existence of Richard Nixon's "Southern Strategy" proves that a shift in party ideology was cemented about that time. It has nothing to do with individual politicians changing their party affiliations, though a lot of people have assumed, erroneously, that's what I meant. In retrospect I probably shouldn't have said it at all in this video and just quietly handled the trollish comments in the moderation queue, which is what I've always done generally without complaint (except for the trolls themselves, of course).
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Color me unimpressed. The Secret Service shooting theory is the brainchild of Howard Donahue, an armchair researcher who became obsessed with finding an assassin, any assassin, other than Oswald. When he (Donahue) contacted George Hickey to get his comment on this theory, Hickey found it so ridiculous and so unworthy of taking seriously that he refused to cooperate. If this is what had happened, wouldn't Hickey himself have confirmed it? Furthermore, Hickey testified, for years, on multiple occasions, that he did not fire the AR-15, and no one else in the Secret Service detail saw or heard him do so. As for the dent on the shell found in the TSBD, there was testimony at the HSCA that it obviously occurred when the shell was ejected from the gun--after Oswald fired the round. Furthermore, for this cockamamie theory to work, Donahue/Menninger have to play the greatest hits of the conspiracy nuts about the autopsy being botched, Warren Commission corrupt, etc., for which we know there is zero evidence, and he also relies on Jean Hill, a clown witness who made up her story years after the assassination. This is a nonsense theory. Really. It is. I won't spend any more time on it.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Thanks! The problem with the History Channel show is that none of its so-called "discoveries" have been verified by independent historians, and some have been completely refuted--such as the "Roman sword" that was, despite assertions made on-screen, proven to be a souvenir toy manufactured in the 1970s. If and when anything the show purports to have "discovered" is vetted and verified by reputable scholarship, they will be incorporated into the historical record and evaluated on that basis. To date, none have been, which leaves me skeptical that the show is even worth the time of any real historian. Until those discoveries are independently validated, the show is basically worthless as a source because nothing it asserts can be verified. I don't know of any historian worth their salt who takes the TV show seriously.
You're wrong, unfortunately, in your assertion that the "flood tunnels" have been discovered. What has been discovered are tunnel works made by previous treasure hunting expeditions, as documented by the 1862/63 excavation workbook, transcribed in 2014 (before the show began production), which documents the building of these tunnels. Again, the series is not presenting honestly the vetted historical record; for that reason anything it purports to show, if it is genuine, must be independently validated by outside sources before being taken seriously.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Actually, that's not true, it's a bit more nuanced. Under the law, vicarious guilt for a crime--being an abettor or accessory--attaches only when a person knows that what she's doing is in furtherance of a crime. Driving the getaway car for a bank robber is itself a crime because you know you're facilitating the crime of bank robbery. What Stephanie Stearns was guilty of was abetting boat theft and Walker's flight from prosecution--if she genuinely did not know Walker had murdered them, she can't be guilty vicariously. Under the law, the state could not prosecute her for murder unless they can prove (and it's the prosecution's burden to prove, not hers to disprove) that what she knew was going on was Buck Walker's murder of the Grahams. She insisted she did not know; she continued to believe they died in an accident. Under the circumstances that belief was probably not reasonable, but because it was a criminal case, where mens rea (actual state of mind of the defendant) is an element of the crime, the state could not convict her on a "Well, you should have known what was going on" standard. If I was on that jury I would have voted to acquit, even if I felt, as in fact I do, that her belief that the Grahams died in a boat accident was not reasonable. She deluded herself, and she abetted many of Walker's crimes, but murder was not one of them--at least, she didn't abet that crime knowingly, which was what the law says you had to prove to convict her. This is why, as a legal matter, her ducking the police at Ala Wai Harbor is not prima facie evidence of her guilt, at least guilt of murder.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
That's a good question and hard to answer concretely. My observation, just on the basis of comments, feedback and some YouTube demographic data, is that a substantial portion of my audience is probably between 30 and 60, but a smaller, though still substantial, portion is younger than that. On the Pan Am video I expected to receive lots of comments both to the effect of "I remember Pan Am and flew on it/worked for them, etc.," and also "I'm too young to remember when they were around," and I've gotten both kinds. Which section of the audience is larger? No idea, and it may not be representative of my channel as a whole, because people with a personal connection to Pan Am are probably more motivated to comment than other kinds of viewers.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1