Channel
@EthicalSkeptic
On this record: Growth · Engagement · What this channel posts · Reactions · Posts · Citations · Telegram's recommendations · Cite this entry
3,226subscribers
-39 since we began measuring on 7 August 2026
Risers and fallers across the register · movement among entries of 3,162–10,000.
| Telegram ID | -1001531115860 |
|---|---|
| Type | Channel |
| Username | @EthicalSkeptic |
| Created | 6 March 2022 — measured — cross-checked against a third-party dataset (ext.tg_channel) |
| First recorded | 7 August 2026 |
| Last confirmed live | 7 September 2026 |
| Measurements held | 11 |
| Confirmed unchanged | 1 time, most recently 7 September 2026 |
| On Telegram | t.me/EthicalSkeptic |
| Measured (UTC) | Subscribers | Change |
|---|---|---|
| 7 Sept 2026, 04:59 | 3,226 | -5 |
| 2 Sept 2026, 07:13 | 3,231 | -4 |
| 30 Aug 2026, 09:44 | 3,235 | -6 |
| 27 Aug 2026, 17:38 | 3,241 | -8 |
| 25 Aug 2026, 00:33 | 3,249 | -1 |
| 21 Aug 2026, 13:23 | 3,250 | -2 |
| 18 Aug 2026, 08:32 | 3,252 | -2 |
| 14 Aug 2026, 23:46 | 3,254 | -7 |
| 11 Aug 2026, 06:41 | 3,261 | -1 |
| 7 Aug 2026, 21:57 | 3,262 | -3 |
| 7 Aug 2026, 01:32 | 3,265 | first reading |
18 posts held, back to 3 June 2026 — the reader has not yet reached the start of this channel’s public history, so older posts may sit further back, unread. Read across 3 pages of Telegram’s post history, 20 posts per page.
Nothing published in the last 30 days. ERR and ER are rolling 30-day measures, so there is nothing to compute — we hold 18 posts for this entry, the most recent from 7 August 2026. An engagement rate over an empty window would be a number about nothing.
Measured directly from 2 videos with a duration reading, out of the posts we hold for this channel — not this channel’s whole posting history, only the sample this register has actually read. An exact reading to the second, taken from the post itself rather than from Telegram’s own rounded chrome, so it carries no ≈ mark.
516 reactions across 18 posts, in 16 distinct kinds. The most used accounts for 25.4% of them.
| Reaction | Count | Share | Share, drawn |
|---|---|---|---|
| 🔥 | 131 | 25.4% | |
| 👍 | 96 | 18.6% | |
| 💯 | 85 | 16.5% | |
| ❤ | 83 | 16.1% | |
| 👏 | 31 | 6.01% | |
| 🙏 | 28 | 5.43% | |
| 🤔 | 23 | 4.46% | |
| ⚡ | 14 | 2.71% | |
| 😁 | 6 | 1.16% | |
| 👌 | 5 | 0.969% | |
| 😱 | 5 | 0.969% | |
| 💔 | 4 | 0.775% | |
| 🏆 | 2 | 0.388% | |
| 👀 | 1 | 0.194% | |
| 🤣 | 1 | 0.194% | |
| 🤬 | 1 | 0.194% |
No sentiment is inferred, and none should be read in. This table is ordered by count and by nothing else. Emoji do not carry stable meaning across languages or communities — 🙏 is thanks in one channel and mourning in another — so we publish which ones were pressed and how often, and pass no judgement on what an audience meant by them.
Precision. Telegram publishes reaction counts per emoji and short-forms each one — 4.34K, 1.2M — so any single kind at or above 1,000 reaches us at three significant figures, and only counts below 1,000 are exact. The shares above are ratios of those figures and carry the same error. This is also why the total here can differ slightly from a reaction total printed elsewhere on the page: both are sums of the same rounded parts, taken over samples with different edges.
Coverage. Reactions were read on 18 of the 18 sampled posts in this sample. Summed by Telegram’s own count on each post — not by adding up the per-emoji breakdown above — those same posts carry 516 reactions in total: the kind of figure the paragraph above means by “a reaction total printed elsewhere on the page”.
Measured over the 18 most recent posts we hold, published 3 June 2026 to 7 August 2026, using the newest reading held for each. Telegram Stars are excluded: they are a payment, not a reaction, and they have their own section.
The "scientific community" is not elected, is not directly accountable for its work or its societal impact, is not accountable to vulnerable stakeholders, and largely monitors and validates itself, presenting its conclusions to the public as consensus-backed truth. In many other contexts, this kind of self-governing authority would resemble a privileged or old-world institution of "royalty." To improve trust and ac…
👏12🔥6❤5💯2👍1
Your trust should reside in the one who is genuinely energized when the evidence surprises them. @EthicalSkeptic
👍14💯10👌2
Ignorance is the cement that hardens with the first premature narrative enforced in the face of a novel problem. @EthicalSkeptic
💯20❤4🔥3🤔2
1. Those are not handbags 2. This is not a map of the Levant 3. The pillar has not been 'carbon dated' 4. This was not done by a 'skull cult' It depicts a cataclysm, and tells us when it happened. 160 probabilistic star assignments do not lie. Agencies and syndicates lie. @EthicalSkeptic
👍21❤7🔥6👏2⚡1😱1
The Utter Elegance of ECDO Theory If only the crust displaces, where do we derive the anisotropy necessary to substantiate the 175 sudden cataclysm traditions? The crust, oceans, polar ice, etc., are not even 1% of the way to sufficiency in this regard. And if the Earth's architecture involves one integral object with no decoupling potential, how would we ever observe two rotational states to begin with, as the mon…
👏13🤔7❤1
Fundamental Attribution Error (Behaviorism) A tendency to attribute suffering to one’s behavior, psychological state, or inclination - Men are lazy (see photo) and 'departing' the workforce - before and as opposed to examining for factors which are out of their control, access, or knowledge - Woke social policy biasing the workplace - Always be keenly aware when science is abused for woke policy enforcement. ht…
💯11🔥9👍3
ECDO Modeling Challenge #3 This is why prior experience in model development is important ...why modeling cannot be done by democracy - "highly precise ignorance" We need to begin by modeling the "empire" first, i.e. "Empirical Modeling" Otherwise, we defeat our own purpose. @EthicalSkeptic
❤15⚡5👍1🤔1
Good shots of The Great Sphinx to show you just how small the head is in proportion to the body and how obvious it is that the head was re-carved. @EthicalSkeptic
👍29🔥11🤔8💯5❤1👀1🤬1😱1
Extraction When you help someone directly through the fruits of your own hard work, you are addressing a problem. When you extract from those who work hard and give to yourself first, and then those who despise those you stole from, you are the problem. @EthicalSkeptic
💯30🔥5
My interview on the Jerm Warfare Podcast is out! Understanding ECDO Theory and how The Giza Pyramids play into its tenets. https://youtu.be/h8t4di3UgrU?si=79XM2jfV6jt7Kfb3 @EthicalSkeptic
❤18👍4🔥3
Folleagues already know... 😎 For everyone else, it is just a matter of time. @EthicalSkeptic
❤10🔥8😁4👌3😱3
He points to one of the most dramatic climate shifts in recent geological history: the sudden expansion of massive water bodies across what is now desert, followed by their complete disappearance. The evidence is unambiguous. These weren't small ponds or seasonal wetlands. The scale of water volume required to create the features described by Brecker, Ewing, and Heesen indicates a fundamentally different climate regi…
🔥23❤6👍3
Showing the 12 most recent of 18 posts we hold for @EthicalSkeptic. View and reaction counts are the latest single reading for each post, not a live figure, and a recent post is still accumulating both. A view count marked ≈ was rounded by Telegram before we ever saw it — t.me prints views in full below 1,000 and to three significant figures above, so ≈1,200,000 means somewhere between 1,150,000 and 1,249,999. Unmarked counts are exact. Text is reproduced from the public post preview and truncated for length.
Republished by
Channels on the register that have forwarded this channel's posts into their own feed.
Built only from forwarded posts we have actually read, on both sides. Coverage is early and deliberately incomplete: a missing link means we have not read the post that would prove it, never that the relationship does not exist. Counts are distinct forwarded posts observed, so they only ever go up as we read more.
Named by 3 registered channels — every channel on the register whose own posts have named this one, by its current username or any other username it currently holds, merged from two separately captured readings of the same fact so a namer caught by only one of them is not missed and a namer both caught is not counted twice. A username this channel has since dropped is not matched — that handle may belong to someone else now, and crediting today’s namer to yesterday’s owner would misattribute it.
Named by
Channels on the register whose posts name this channel's handle.
A mention is a weaker signal than a forward and is counted separately for that reason — naming a channel is not republishing it, and a handle in a post body is easy to place deliberately. The post counts beside each row below are distinct posts in which the handle appeared, from posts we have read on both sides — the “Named by N registered channels” figure above is a different count, of distinct NAMING CHANNELS rather than posts, and is not the sum of the rows under it.
The reverse of the list above, and a different kind of signal. This does not require this channel to have ever been asked about directly — each row below is a channel we DID ask Telegram about, whose Telegram-generated list happened to include this one. A channel can appear here with an empty list above it, because being named by someone else’s query is independent of having been queried itself.
This channel appears in 2 seed channels' Telegram-generated recommendation lists in total. Each is Telegram’s list for THAT channel, not this one — see how this is measured.
A live page changes as we take new readings, so a citation should name the measurement it is based on, not just the URL. The line below cites the subscriber count as measured 7 September 2026 — this entry's latest reading, not the date you are reading this.
“Ethical Skeptic” (@EthicalSkeptic), 3,226 subscribers as measured 7 September 2026. Telegram Register, tgregister.com/channel/EthicalSkeptic.
Full measurement history, CC BY 4.0. Every reading this register holds for this entry, not just the latest one, as a dated, downloadable record: CSV · JSON. Free to use with attribution to tgregister.com. Each file carries its own generation timestamp, which is the figure to cite for exactly when the data was retrieved.