Bill Meyer Show Podcast - Sponsored by Clouser Drilling www.ClouserDrilling.com - 07-28-26_TUESDAY_8AM

Episode Date: July 28, 2026

07-28-26_TUESDAY_8AM

This hour of the Bill Meyer Show podcast is proudly sponsored by Klauser Drilling. They've been leading the way in Southern Oregon well drilling for more than 50 years. Find out more about them at Klauserdrilling.com. Now more with Bill Meyer. You know, nothing seems to stimulate people more than when you discuss the flock automated license plate reading camera networks that we have here in southern Oregon. Actually, around the country, there's like 90,000 or more of them. and now you're starting to read more about people that are starting to deflock, as they say, and they'll go out and perform vandalism on the networks and all the rest.

I'm not advertising the, or advising, rather, the vandalism, so. But needless to say, it's got some people where a lot of people kind of, well, a little hot and bothered about it. I want to talk about this with Jeff Dornick. Jeff Dornick is the host of the Jeff Dornick show. He's also the founder and CEO of Pickax. Pickax. Not the Pickax in Iran. Not the Pickax Mountain, but Pickax.com.

And we're going to talk about this growing flock camera issue in debate. How you doing this morning? Welcome, Jeff. Doing really well. You know, there's lots of headlines about, you know, Donald Trump's going to destroy pickax. And I can assure you it's not the social media platform. It's the mountain. So I just wanted to be clear about that.

Yeah, but I had to laugh when I saw Pickax Mountain. And they had a boy, I'm wondering what. Jeff thinks about this one, right? Exactly. Talk about what makes Pickax different, though, because what you say is it, it's not just freedom of speech, but freedom of reach. And that's something that you're not getting in your traditional, I guess, the big boys, so to speak, of social media, right? Tell us a bit about that. Yeah, definitely.

I mean, we've got a bunch of different features and all of that. But I think that, to me, the biggest differentiator between us and the mainstream social media platforms is that they're all using algorithms in order to decide who gets. it's to see your content. So oftentimes the majority of views that you're getting on your post are coming from complete strangers, which is why your engagement rate is usually between 1 to 3%, which means that for every 100 people that see your post, maybe 1 to 3 people will actually engage with it, like it, comment something along those lines. With us, we're feeding your content directly to your followers, which means we're feeding your content to people that have told us that they actually want to see your content. And the difference there is that on, like I said,

let's say on X or on Instagram or Facebook, your engagement rate is about 1 to 3 percent. On Pickax, it's about 36 and a half percent across the board. Wow. So we're – yeah, go ahead. So I just wanted to interject if you don't mind. Pardon me. Like on Facebook as an example, someone says you follow the page, right? They follow my page, let's say, on Facebook, right?

And I do this. But still, they use an algorithm to dial it down, but it's only maybe one to three percent of people will actually see that, even though they say they're following my page, right? that kind of thing? Right, right. So what ends up happening is that you following somebody doesn't actually signal to the platform that you want to see their content. What you're actually signaling to those platforms is that you want to see content like this.

And so, yes, there's slightly more emphasis onto those platforms or those people that you follow, but what they're actually going to do is probably half of the time or more of the post that you see in your news feed. those are coming from general topics and themes that are similar to the kinds of people that you follow as opposed to just signaling, hey, I want to follow this person. That means I want to see their content. So what these platforms are becoming are topic-based, theme-based algorithms as opposed to community-based or network-based, which was the original idea for social media. Ah, that makes sense. Okay, I understand more now about why you're different.

And do you do live videos out of curiosity? Do you do a live system? I know that you're still developing this system out as time goes on. Yeah, so right now we don't have a live stream native to the platform. So what we have to do is we actually integrate with a platform like Rumble, where you can actually just post a link to your Rumble video, and it'll be playable in the newsfeed as if it's native to the platform. Okay. That's kind of the workaround.

We just launch Pickack short, so you can now post three-minute or less videos onto the platform directly as well. but Lifstream will be down the road for sure. All right, good. I'm glad to hear that. Jeff Dornick, once again, and he's the CEO of Pickax. Pickax, the social media, okay? We'll get all that information up there. Jeff, the flock camera situation here.

You know, the question that tends to be posed out there is, are flock cameras a legitimate crime fighting tool or a gateway to mass surveillance? And the only answer that I can come up with is yes. In other words, both are correct at the, same time. Isn't that an interesting place where we find ourselves right now? Yeah. Well, it's crazy because, and I think that it's this way with most new developing technologies, and I think that we have to be very, you know, I was trying to be as intellectually honest as they possibly can about all these things. So there are definitely benefits to things

like plot cameras and a lot of the other, you know, AI integrated technologies that are being developed. There's also a very, very large number of problems that we see. And so we, And so we have to take a look at this and say, you know, is it worth giving up our privacy rights and our constitutional rights in order for this perceived benefit? And I think that that's really what we're weighing right now. For me, I'm a constitutional purist where I believe that, you know, we shouldn't allow certain things that do take away our constitutional rights. Whereas a lot of other people, they're willing to kind of weigh it, you know, on a case-by-case basis. So, for example, specifically with these plot cameras, basically what they're doing is they are, you know, they've got kids. camera set up everywhere. It's tied to artificial intelligence, police departments, H-O-Ways, schools, churches, things along those lines.

By the way, how does a flock camera get created and put up there? I mean, is it where the, is it your local sheriffs or police department that are inviting it? Or do they just go around there and start saying, hey, we want to start putting this in there. It's not a franchise, I don't think, is it? It's not that, or is it? Or is it that kind of thing? No, so what they'll do is they'll go to like a local city or county or even, I would assume a state as well, but like a local government. And they would basically sign a contract in order to install these around the city. And then what they'll do is they will then grant access to, let's say, the police department to be able to, you know, see this as a part of their surveillance and, you know, prosecution and things along those lines. So, for example, what can happen is if, let's say that there is a kidnap, And you know that the kidnapper is in a white pickup truck, license plate is fill in the blank.

It has this kind of marker. It's got this bumper sticker. It's got this, that, and the other thing. The police can actually plug that into, you know, the AI that's tied to flock. And then the AI can then analyze all the different flock cameras and be able to identify either right where it is at the moment or be able to see the route that that vehicle actually took. And so, you know, it could be an invaluable tool for prosecuting criminals, making sure that alibi. check out. Oh, it's amazingly powerful. No doubt. Wow. Yeah. Yeah. And so there's definitely the benefit to it for prosecuting criminals. The potential negative, and this is the thing that we have to be, you know,

intellectually honest about is that the negatives for this are very, very intrusive. And you can make the argument, well, right now they're not implementing. They promise us. They're not going to surveil us. They promise us they're not going to stock us. They're not going to do all of that. Although there's documented cases where police officers were using it to stock certain people or friends or family or, you know, spouses or things along those. Well, yeah, I'm going to give you an example of that right now. In Georgia, there was a female police supervisor who was arrested because she was using flock cameras to stalk her boyfriend and follow this guy everywhere he went.

And it's like, you can't get away from me if I can't have you. Nobody can. You know, that kind of thing. Right. And so there's definitely the potential for that kind of abuse to happen. There's also, when you think about it, this is also the infrastructure. that it's going in a place to where if you get somebody, let's say, like Gavin Newsom, who's going to run for president in 2020, let's say he becomes president of the United States. And all of a sudden now you have the power of these flock cameras to have a surveillance state where, you know, a lot of these guys were actually commending China during COVID for their lockdown measures and all that. Imagine if Gavin Newsom had access to the flock cameras during the lockdowns when, you know, I'm out here in Communist California where, you know, we weren't allowed to drive on the freeways unless you were intentionally going. somewhere in the middle of COVID.

And, you know, imagine if all of a sudden they had the ability to enforce that with flock cameras to know, okay, who's on the road, where are they going? They know your whereabouts. They know, are you going to church? They know, are you going to school? Are you going to a doctor? Are you going to go to this person's house? And if we begin to implement a social credit score, which is what China does, which is

what is being talked about here in the United States of America, then all of a sudden they would have the technology in place with these to be able to be able to do. know your whereabouts, where you're going. Do they like the kind of groups that you go hang out with? Do they like that you go to this church or that organization or, you know, anything along those lines? Not saying that that is what they're doing right now, but that is the potential that we have to be very cautious about, especially if you get somebody like a Gavin Newsom or one of these crazy Democrats that take over. And I would dare say that if you can see the potential of it being abused, it will be abused. And if you're hoping that it's just going to be for the, you know,

the better nature of humanity and the people in power to not do that. I think that's, you know, history shows us that's just not going to happen, wouldn't you say, Jeff? Right. I mean, you know, and that's the thing. You're going to have some people that have moral character, like I would never abuse that. Then you're going to have other people that are tyrannical. And I think that, you know, again, we saw this during COVID where we, you had guys like Gavin Newsom and a lot of these dictatorial, you know, governors in different states, you know, implementing lockdowns and violating people's constitutional rights. Yeah. Well, I think about this back during COVID time because me being a station engineer,

I had one of those permission slips from the federal government back during COVID that gave me the right if they were to shut down transportation that I could actually still travel. It was scaring me to death at that point that I saw the federal government coming out with that sort of stuff. Oh, and I would be allowed to buy gasoline. You can believe that. I would be permitted to during COVID. Now, I guess they never really brought that in, but they were thinking down that line, right? And I couldn't help but think, gosh, could you imagine a world like that with that sort of a lockdown, with that kind of a control? And then I would have had to have a permit to be able to travel, and then you have the flock database all around you. And maybe they would say, oh, that's Meyer, that's Bill Meyer, that's okay.

we have cross-checked him with Homeland Security. He's allowed to drive. Now, I know that sounds like a stretch, but it's a potential, isn't it? A potential future use of this kind of technology in the wrong hands. Right. Well, it definitely isn't. And especially if you listen to guys like Elon Musk and Sam Altman and Bill Gates

that are developing a lot of this artificial intelligence technology and where are they saying that this is taking us? They're talking about, like in Elon Musk's own words, that implementing a communist utopia where there's going to be no more need to work. Robots and AI are going to do everything, and we'll all live on universal basic income, which means we can't be self-sufficient,

we can't support ourselves. We're going to be reliant either on the government or these tech companies for our livelihood, for putting food on our table, for having a house that we live in. And when you think about it, this is what is deeply concerning. What's being proposed actually now

is instead of being a UBI coming from the federal government, it's actually a UBI coming from the private companies, which don't have a constitutional responsibility to protect our rights. And so they can implement these social credit scores, which we're seeing platforms like X already beginning to integrate into, to where if we're reliant upon these platforms for our revenue streams, and we're reliant upon these big tech companies for, you know, basically living when you actually think about it,

and then they have these kinds of technologies to where they'd be able to stock you and, you know, you're going out in public, so they say that they can stock you. They can view where you go. They can track you. They can do all these things. You can really see the real world implications of this kind of technology. And we always have to remember that power corrupts.

If you get enough power, it's going to corrupt you. It's going to take you to the next level and make you feel like, you know, I can cave on this one because it's for the betterment. And at a certain point, we need to realize that we cannot keep giving up our constitutional rights for these technologies and think, oh, it's just inevitable. It's just inevitable. All right. Well, we're going to have to do something about it. Yeah, I know. Well, there's a part of it.

We've lost so much even up to this point here, Jeff, that I can understand how you just get to the point, well, gosh, you know, there's already so many databases and so much surveillance, capitalism, which has been going on for a number of years here. What's more? It's kind of like, you know, there's a guy in the middle of the street. He's already on fire. So, okay, I could throw another gallon of gasoline on him. He's already burning. You know, so what? You know, you can think about our Fourth Amendment.

but what would a flock surveillance system with constitutional protections look like? I'm just curious because I guess I could ask you, first off, who owns the data? I would also add to you that our local sheriff has made it clear that the data is wiped every 30 days. They only keep the last 30 days. It's not like a permanent record, but it's a semi-permanent record for at least for the last 30 days of your cars travel around here. Right. Well, you know, and the thing is that with some of these things, technologies, I don't know if they can actually be implemented in a way that protects our constitutional

rights, just in the way that they're actually built and developed. I mean, Sam Altman, you know, the CEO of OpenAI has openly stated that the current social contract that we have, you know, or in other words, our constitutional rights, the United States Constitution and our civil liberties and all that is not conducive to a world with artificial intelligence because it does by definition, It violates our right to peaceably assemble. It violates our privacy rights and things along those lines. So I don't know if these things can be justified on a constitutional level. We either need a compromise on the Constitution,

or we need to say we can't implement these in the way that they're implementing them. I don't see any middle ground, really. Jeff Dornick, once again, he's the CEO and founder of Pickax, social media company here. and yet, you know, here it is. Do you kind of put flock in the same category as the spread of the data centers here, too? And I know that as a CEO of a social media company, you probably want data centers everywhere. What do you think about this? Well, yeah, I'm somebody that I don't like where, I don't like all these data centers popping up,

and a lot of it is because of what they represent, what does it mean? And a lot of, they are popping up because of the development of artificial intelligence. This is the infrastructure that's going into place to further this communist utopia that Elon Musk and all these guys are predicting and talking about where they're going to be taking away our livelihoods and taking away our jobs and taking away our ability to provide for our families. And we're all going to be replaced with AI and robots. And I think that that to me is the biggest concern. A lot of people are talking about natural resources, which is a very valid concern, talking about health ramifications, which is a very valid concern. But to me, what I'm really concerned about as a tech CEO,

whose entire social media platform is premised on the idea of individual liberty, individual sovereignty and freedom and, you know, being pro-human, is that what these data centers represent, what the flock represents, what the AI development represents on where they're taking it in the big macro picture, is anti-human. It's opposed to everything that our country was founded on, which is the idea that we're all as individuals created in the image of God. Because we're created in the image of God, we have certain in alienable rights that cannot be taken away by the government.

And then you have these big tech guys and our government that are actively trying to take those away. At a certain point, we're going to have to say enough is enough, but it's happening at this, you know, it feels on one hand it's exponentially growing and going very fast. On the other hand, it's happening on a very incremental level to where I think people are just accepting it. accepting more and more rights being taken away. So you're thinking this is more of the boiling, the boiling frog concept in which bit by bit, slow, slowly cranking up the heat. And yet, I am really sensitive to the police departments and the sheriff's department saying, you know, there's not enough of us. And, you know, there aren't enough.

You know, there's no way out here in a semi-rural area like Southern Oregon. There's no way that you could actually affordably hire enough deputies to do a good job of, of doing true patrols and law enforcement. So I think they look at the flock cameras then as just an incredible tool. And they talk about it how, you know, we're able to find really bad dirt bags that have done some bad things and kid trafficking and robbery vehicles, you know, and they're able to find them. And I understand that aspect of it too. So, boy, I guess we have to give up the Fourth Amendment entirely in order to be safe here, Jeff.

Yeah, well, you know, that's the problem. And I think that, yes, I think that our police are underpaid. I think our police are, you know, are understaffed. I think I think that that's a very valid issue. Sure. I also think on the flip side, there's lots of other solutions that we can implement without actually violating our constitutional rights. Could you give me an example of that? I was asking earlier what you thought that would look like, Jeff. Yeah, well, you know, I think I think that number one, I think that, you know, our government was so much money on frivolous things that if they redirected it into law enforcement and they redirected it into places, then they could be fully staffed. And then they would have the staffing and the pay and all that kind of stuff in order to have the right, the right numbers of officers in order to enforce the law properly. Yeah, but what the rise of AI, though, the whole point of

artificial intelligence, I think, is to not have people. You know, those people, those people are pesky and they can make mistakes here. Right. Right. Well, you know, and also, as we've seen with, with all the AIs, so can AI. AI isn't infallible despite the caricature that were sold on all this. But I think that the one way, one way that I look at this, because a lot of people have, you know, even Joe Rogan's proposed, well, maybe we need like an AI president, or maybe we need an AI government and all that kind of stuff so that way they can be neutral. Well, the problem is that number one, AI does make mistakes. AI is only as good as the developer and the database that that's in the large language model that it's pulling from. But then also, also on the flip

side is that when you take out the human element, you take out accountability. How do you hold an AI robot accountable if they violate your constitutional rights, if they make the wrong decision, if they do the wrong thing? Hey, just for that, bad AI, I'm pulling out one of your hard drives, right? Yeah, exactly. And then if you try to pull out the hard drive, then it'll redirect where it's data stored and get over to another place because it's self-preserves, as we've seen with AI. Chat GPT, an OpenAI, actually just had an issue where one of their AI, a couple of their

AI agents went rogue and started hacking into a competitor's artificial intelligence system and started messing with things. There's lots of craziness that the AI does, but how do you hold AI accountable? And I think that that's the thing, and that's my concern with implementing artificial intelligence to the degree that we are within the government is you take out the human element, which, again, is imperfect. And I think our founding fathers understood the imperfections of humanity. But the thing is that they also implemented checks and balances. And if you take out the human element, you take out the check and balance where you can't prosecute an AI. You can't throw an AI in prison.

You can't do anything like that. So then what recourse do you have, if your civil liberty, are violated by artificial intelligence because then the government's going to say, oh, it was just a glitch. Oh, you know, you can't hold us responsible for AI. So sorry. It was the software, right? It was the software that did it. All right.

Jeff, do you have a couple of minutes to hang on just for one more segment, a quick segment here for listener questions? Could you do that? Yeah. Right back with Jeff Dornick, if you want to question or comment here. He is the CEO of Pickax, social media company. This is the Bill Meyer's show. You know the moment. This is News Talk 1063, KMED.

And you're waking up with the Bill Myers Show. Jeff Dornick is host of the Jeff Dornick Show, founder and CEO of Pickax. Social media company. We're getting all the information up on KM&E.com for sure. And it's a very thought-provoking conversation. Aaron is in Chiliquin, formerly a white city. Hey, Aaron, you have a comment about Flock with Jeff. Jeff's been really focusing on this morning.

Go ahead. Yeah. So one of my kids is really active in the open-source, Maps community, and one of the things he has been doing is whenever a new flock camera pops up, he will post it its location and the direction the camera is pointing. I think it's on the Deflock Maps website, deflock.org. You can search for it if you want, but if you go to that, you can see where all the flock cameras are, in your general area.

What is your general opinion about the system, if you don't mind, Aaron? Yeah. So my opinion is our individual rights trump more effective law enforcement capabilities. I would, I really don't like. So I've got family that's law enforcement, and I really support law enforcement as a group. But I feel that the checks and balances against larger, more invasive government is really important. And the whole flock thing is a giant loophole that the government can use because it's a private entity. All right. It's an interesting point there.

Hey, if you don't mind me asking here, Jeff, what about who actually owns the data on a flock network? Do you know? I'm not entirely sure. I think that I could see an argument where it could be, you know, the company that owns flock. It could also be possibly shared with whoever's licensing it, let's say, like, local law enforcement or things like that. But I'm not sure because I haven't had a chance to see any of like the contracts in the fine print. Okay, very good. Francine, you wanted to ask a question or a comment about how the AI gets trained? Go ahead. You're with Jeff Dornick.

Yeah, I really know. Francine? Francine? Yeah. Can you give me another call? Give me a quick call back. You got a bad phone line for some reason. Call me back and we'll get you on.

Hang on. Oh, hold on. Hang on. It means okay. I'm stepping outside. Can you hear me now? Yep. Better. Go ahead.

Okay. Yeah, this is what I was talking about with you last week. Anyways, okay, so AI is obviously, it's programmed. It's not actually truly an intelligent entity. You know, it's a programmed entity of sorts. It's not even an entity. Anyways, so the people that program these AIs, I know these people can't be, you know, all knowledgeable and put every little detail of the world into this thing. So how do they teach it to search?

What do, where do they teach it to search? And this is all probably different depending on who's producing the particular AI for whatever purpose it is. And can, and I don't personally trust them very well. Could you address that, Jeff, do you know, in your experience? Yeah, sure. So, so in general, AI, their, their intelligence is only as good as the large language model. So with a large language model, they'll pump in as much, as much data as the developers see fit. for certain people, you know, they'll input as much information as they possibly can across the internet.

Others will be more specific. I would assume that with something, let's say, like with Flock, they're inputting particular types of photos and videos and things like that. I know that they're also using a percentage of the video that they capture from the Flock cameras and then using that to train the AI models to become more effective at pinpointing, identifying markers and license plates and things along those lines. And so at a certain point, somewhat becomes self-training in the sense that the information that it's pulling from the cameras is also going to use to train the AI model to become better and more and more effective, if that makes sense. But it really comes down to what is the data set that the developer inputs into the large language model that then the AI pulls from. All right.

I appreciate the call. Great question there, Francine. So bottom line here, do you think the deflocking forces out there win this battle ultimately, or are we going to be having kind of this tense detente? I'm kind of using an old Cold War term from the Soviet Union era in which you have team freedom versus team, well, we want to be able to track you sort of thing. Where do you see this going culturally? Yeah, I think that you're going to see in probably more conservative areas.

You're going to see a lot of pushback and more progressive areas. You're going to see people that are okay with it. I think a lot of it just comes down to how outside of people's comfort zone are they willing to get in order to deal with it. So, for example, the way to truly deal with getting the plot cameras taken down is to put pressure on your city council or whoever actually made the decision. In this case, it will be Jackson County or City of Medford, et cetera. Yeah, all right. Exactly. So you would go and do not let up.

You need to organize, maybe do some rallies, maybe organize and bring a bunch of people in to speak before the city council. You know, do things like that and begin to put pressure on them and then support candidates and support people for your city council that are pro-freedom and that are pro-constitutional rights and that oppose these things. So if you actually want to get these taken down, there is a path forward, but we have to. to organize and we have to take it upon ourselves to actually make our voices heard and not just be, you know, individual loaned voices on social media or talking about it randomly, but it's actually organized and then put pressure on the decision makers. Jeff Dornick, host of the Jeff Dornick Doornick show, founder and CEO of Pickax.com, right? It's the main website for that. Yeah, pickax.com, P-I-C-A-X.com, or you guys can also download the app in the app stores as well.

All right. Do you write on this at all? Have you blogged on this particular issue? or do you, maybe you do other posts on it? I just want to know. I actually just wrote an article on this morning. And so if you guys go to pickaxe.com, you get some find me. And I wrote one that was entitled to plot cameras or building the infrastructure for an American surveillance state. That's a tough one because you can see, especially in these smaller town areas where we would just go all in on this. We see this, you know, we're not big city police forces and there's not a huge tax base.

This ends up being kind of a cheap police tool by comparison. And yet what gets lost in the long term? It's something we have to be considering. It's a tough one. It's a tough one. It really is. Jeff, I appreciate your take on it. Thanks for being on the show.

Always a pleasure. Thank you. I appreciate it. Jeff Dornick, once again, pickax.com. Let me 4-9. All right. We're going to have a pallet cleanser here for you right now. And that would be the Diner 62 Real American Quiz.

Diner 62 Real American Quiz And it's a great question from American history I always wondered a little bit about this We're going back to 1945 77056633-770 KMED If you have not, or your family has not won this, it's like a household type thing

If not won it in the last 60 days, play it next And we'll give you a $20 gift certificate If you win it, I hope you do, all right? This is the Bill Meyer show This hour of the Bill Mood, DAV.org This is the Bill Myers Show on 1063 KMED. Diner 62,

real American quiz. Boy, they delivered a patty melt to me the other day. Oh, it was so delicious. Onion rings. I mean, I love the fries. Don't get me wrong, but the onion rings are like even more superb.

By the way, meatloaf Wednesdays comes with mashed potatoes, brown gravy, and corn. You can get that. And now on the menu every day, hot, open-faced sandwiches. Yeah, pot roast sandwich. you get the hot turkey sandwich. Those are all good, all right? Many specials, too.

Let's go to Jerry. Jerry is first up this morning. Hello, Jerry. How are you doing? Good morning, Bill. How are you? I'm great. We're going back to 1945.

It was Tuesday, today in history, rather, July 28th, 1945. A plane crashed into the Empire State Building, United States military plane. It was a B-25 Mitchell bomber. It was flying from Bedford, Massachusetts to LaGuardia. and as it came into the metropolitan area on that Saturday, the fog was thick, air traffic controllers instructed the plane to fly to Newark instead, and it took the plane over Manhattan. And the crew was warned that the Empire State Building,

then the tallest building in that city, was not visible. Well, the bomber was flying slowly and quite low, looking for better visibility, and it came upon the Chrysler building. It swore to avoid hitting the Chrysler building, but the move sent it right into the north side, of the Empire State Building near the 79th floor. The question here for the win, Jerry,

how many people died in that crash? Was it A, 7, B, 14, C, 21, D, 28, or E, 35 people? What do you think? Let's go with D28. I'm going to say with D28. No, it wasn't 28. But it's a good try. Let me go to Carol.

Carol is next here this morning. Hello, Carol, not 28, 714, 21, or 35. What do you say? Let's go with 14. Let's go with 14. Hey, good day for you. Yeah. Had two pilots in one passenger aboard who died, and since it was a Saturday, fewer workers than normal were in the building.

Only 11 people in the building were killed. Some had burns from the fiery fuel and others after being thrown out the building. Oh, boy. Yeah, from the 79th floor. Yikes, right? all 11 victims were workers from the War Relief Services Department of the National Catholic Welfare Conference into the offices of which the plane had crashed. And then the plane's fuel exploded up there, filling the interior flames all the way down to the 75th. There was like an 18 by 20 foot hole in the, yeah, at that time.

Although the structural integrity not affected, the crash did cause nearly a million bucks in damages. It's about 10 and a half. That was a lot. Yeah, that was a lot in those days. $10.5 million today. Hang on, Carol. We're going to get you set up in just a second, okay? You're right with you. Thanks. All right. Now then. So that's it. We'll have another Diner 62 quiz soon, all right? Maybe Wednesday, okay? Let me go to Citizen Krebs here. Citizen Krebs, good to have you here. You wanted to comment on the flock conversation we were

having there with Jeff at Pickax. Yeah, your guest was very learned with regards to the both sides of the issue. But I'm kind of tickled. the irony of why they call them flock cameras, because, yes, we are all sheep. Yeah, and you got to guard the flock, right? Or track the flock or... So is the sheep dog guarding the flock, or is the fox guarding the flock? Yeah, and the other thing is who... And then who is going to be guarding...

Well, who's going to be, well, watching the watchers, I guess. That's right. Well, I mean, that happens every day anyway, but here's another. level of who's watching the watchers. All right. Point well taken. Thank you, Citizen Krebs. 856. 5100 Crater Lake Avenue and Central Point, or...

Hi, I'm Megan McPherson with the McPherson Insurance Agency, and I'm on KMED. It's 857, some emails of the day. Sponsored by Dr. Steve Nelson, Central Point Family Dentistry. CentralPoint Family Dentistry.com. While you wait crowns a reality, call them up. Go to Central Point Family Dentistry.com. appointment. John writes me, Bill, we were talking about Fauci this morning, his hearings. Dr. Fauci should be sitting in a jail cell doing hard time. I think of all the other bad players in the whole COVID-19 scam.

I think of the lies and the bad behavior put out by Asante, the teachers union, all for their own benefit. Do we really believe Pfizer and Moderna actually developed vaccines at warp speed? Where does Trump fit in the whole story? I wonder if blaming China is even true. All right, John, I appreciate you writing. As far as the Let me talk with what Patrick said here. You know, Bill, there are typically two responses to sudden fame, like what Fauci got. One, soak it up like a narcotic. Number two, be very skeptical looking for the dagger. Like, Et to Brutus, as for me, I'm firmly in the ladder camp.

All right, I appreciate that. And Bill says, I said, Mark says, we are on Jacksonville water. Our neighbor got notified the same day that he had increased water usage. We were talking about our water bill here at the station. On my mom's property, they notified us like a month into increased water usage. I called them to ask about it, and they looked at my past three months and only charged me the average of those three. Probably because they took so long to notify us. I'm glad you escaped Mark and Christy, okay?

Email Bill at Billmyershow.com. We'll talk again tomorrow. Stephen Westfall Roofing is growing. Now proudly serving Brookings, Gold Beach, and the entire Southern Oregon Coast. They specialize in metal roofing. Architectural shing.