Previous Update....... Updates Index.......My Post-Trib Book


July 5 - 11, 2022

NASA Reveals a Sun Less Than 20 Million Miles Away
Richard Branson of the Virgin Islands

If you're waiting for Jesus to return, see Post-Tribulation Rapture

I often catch myself spelling the second word in the list below when I intend the first word, or vice-versa too. Some of these words have the wrong letter two and three keys apart, meaning that my brain hijacks my intention to another word altogether (is there a name for this?) that spellchecks don't catch. The "not" versus "now" does much damage to a sentence:

our out
or of
of on
now not
think thing
my by
is if
not nor

I do other words too, like the two in this sentence from someone else: "I've caught myself writing (typing) 'possible' instead of 'possibly' a few times over the past few days, while I do intend to write "possibly". Only upon rereading the sentence I notice my mistake." I chalk it up to brain rebellion against me for getting mentally exhausted with too much keyboard work. Or, my brain tries to make me more absent-minded to find some relief from too much keyboard work. It could be interpreted as sloppy. Typing is learned by training. We automatically know where the keys are, most of the time, without thinking about where they are, but when the brain often (not always) types the same dictionary word in place of one we intend, that's malfunction in training. It could get worse. Sorry if some sentences I write don't make sense due to these wrongly-added words. I don't know what to do with myself as I'm locked up in the house from November to late April. So I spend all day on the computer (makes time fly), knowing it's not good for me. It's a lot like being in jail with the right to go shopping.

The following was added to the last update:

[Update July 6, 2022. After talking about this page along with the Apophis asteroid in my 1st update of July, 2022, I came back to this page to make some changes for better / easier understanding. After reading the parts immediately above, a new way to find solar distance struck me.

I tried downloading a free draw package, Gimp, but I couldn't even figure out how to move or enlarge a simple circle on the page. Today's programmers are stupid in their higher intelligence, not making the workings of their software obvious in how to use it because that "cheapens" the way the software appears. They say Gimp is not malware, but this was weird, and the Gimp logo looks like a nasty spy with one eye bigger than the other. I deleted the program from my computer.

I don't have a credit card to buy a draw package, and so I'll do my best not to lose you by asking you to draw a simple drawing. The situation is such that there is a line going to the edge of the sun from the core of the earth. Draw that on your paper, with the earth circle directly below the sun circle, and put this line (to the sun) on the left side of the vertical zero-degree line. The latter is from earth core to sun core (you don't need to draw it, just remember it's there). The line to the sun's edge starts upon the zero-degree line at the core of the earth. Okay, you are done with the first line.

At the July-16 eclipse, this line was at an angle of .524554/2 degree. That's NASA's offering, not my figure, because NASA claims the sun to have been at an angular diameter of .524554 degree at that time. We want just half of that angle because we are using only half the full picture. We are using the zero-degree line through the middle of the sun along with another line to the edge of the sun, but the full angle of .524554 is when one line goes to one edge of the sun, and the second line goes to the opposite edge of the sun.

Okay, so half of .524454 is .262277 degree. You have that line on your drawing leaning over to the left side of the vertical zero-degree line. You exaggerate the angle of that line, you don't make it an actual teensy-weeny .262277-degree line. Just make it near vertical but give it some distance from the zero-degree line.

Next, likewise on the left side of the zero-degree line, we have a second line starting 3,960 miles over from the zero-degree line. It starts at the left edge of the earth and goes to the left edge of the sun. This line was established above at .241 degree. It's not as large as .262277, meaning that the latter will catch up to the .241 line, and meet it at the sun's edge. I could not find an online, irregular-triangle calculator that would compute the distance at which the two lines meet. I therefore had to find my own way of doing it, when something struck me, allowing us to get the correct solar distance with the reliable right-angle-triangle calculator.

Here's what we do. We subtract one line from the other. That is, we subtract .241 from .262277 to find that the angle between them is .021277. Voila! We now need to find the distance that two lines meet when one is at zero degree, with the other is at .01277 degree, and this allows us to use the right-angle-triangle calculator. There are two ways we can do the calculation: 1) put .021277 into the alpha-angle box of the calculator, with 3960 in box, a; or, 2) subtract .02177 from 90 degree, and put the result, 89.97872, into the beta-angle box with 3960 in box a. Either way, hit the "Calculate" button. The first option gets a solar distance of 10.423 million miles, and the second option gets 10.662 million. They're not exact due to lack of all decimal points, but close enough. The correct distance may be exactly midway between the two, or 10.553 million. In my calculations not using this method, I had arrived to 10.482 million.

The correctness of this solar distance depends on the correctness of the umbra line, and therefore on the umbra size as given by an astronomical source...End update]

The 5th update in December, 2021, shows strong evidence that NASA's eclipse data gets a sun in the ballpark of 17 million miles from earth. However, as that update progressed, I was able to find that NASA's eclipse numbers are inconsistent at times, and when finding new numbers for the eclipse of July 16, 2000, the sun turned out to be 10.5 million miles away. ZOWIE, if this is the more-correct distance, this will make the apophis asteroid come even closer to earth than the 3,600 miles I calculated in the last update, using a solar distance of 17 million. The closer the sun, the closer apophis will miss the earth. The closer to the earth it is tracked to come, the greater the risk of its being pulled in by earth gravity to strike the earth.

What I would like to show here is that the new and simple method of calculating solar distance works. As an example, I'll show my data on finding solar distance for this same eclipse BEFORE I found evidence that the umbra size was larger (5,801.7 miles) than the 5,736 miles claimed by NASA on its eclipse page:

Lunar eclipse of July 16, 2000, shadow radius .6518

moon radius 14'43.2" (= .490666 diameter); sun radius 15'44.2" (= .524554 diameter):

shadow diameter = 1.3036 / .490666 = 2.6568 moons;
shadow diameter 2.6568 x 2,159.1 = 5,736.3 miles;
lunar-eclipse-line spread = 3,960 - (5,747/2) = 1091.85 miles
1,091.85 / 252,140 = .00433033; (360 / .49066 x 2159.26 / 2pi = 252,140)
1,079.63 / 235,851 = .0045776; (360 / .524554 x 2159.26 / 2pi = 235,851)
.00457844 - .00433033 = .00024727 mile catch-up, per mile toward the sun;
then 3,960 / .00024727 = 16.015 million miles to the sun

Without re-explaining what all those numbers mean, we want to use the umbra-line angle shown as, 1,091.85 / 252,140 = .00433033 radian, and then we want to use it along with the angle of a line to the edge of the sun, a line dictated by the .524554-degree figure that NASA gives (which you can see in the calculation above). To convert .00433033 radian to degrees, put 1091.85 in box, a, of the calculator above, and put 252140 in box, b. Hit "calculate" to see that the alpha angle (I prefer it over the beta-angle) is given as .248 degree = .0043303 radian. Beauty, we have got out umbra-line angle. We now just subtract it from .262277 (because the latter is half of .524554), to find that the angle difference between the two lines is .014277 degree. Understand: the two lines begin the race to the sun 3,960 miles (on earth radius) apart, and the angle difference between them is .014277 degree. To find how far into space the two lines meet, we need to create a situation at the calculator in which a triangle is formed with one line at zero degree, and the other at 90 - .014277 = 89.98572 degree. We put the latter into the beta-angle box along with 3960 into box, a (gets 15.889 million). Or, if you want to do this without the subtraction, just put .014277 into the alpha-angle box, which is what I do. It gets a solar distance of 15.892 million versus the 16.015 million that my long-winded calculation above obtained.

By the way, if you leave even a decimal point in a box that's supposed to have nothing in it, the calculator won't work. Make sure you delete the decimal point out of a box when deleting a number from it.

I challenge the seasoned astronomer to find what I'm doing wrong by this new method. But most of these jackasses won't listen because they are so sure that the astronomy wizards have got their 93-million-mile figure correct. It's this absolute trust in the science masters that corrupts the modern world, with trusting, useful idiots everywhere. The scientists themselves have become the useful idiots in ways.

If you don't quite trust this new method because you think there can be some trick to it, let me do it a more-complicated way that could give you more confidence. You can't just read along here, you need to do work on paper. You have drawn the two lines, one from the core of the earth to the left edge of the sun, and the other from the left edge of the earth to the left edge of the sun. The first line is at an angle of .262277 degree, and the second is .248 degree. Neither line is perfectly vertical, and so what we will do is to lean the top of the first line (bottom of the line stays put) toward the right until the line is vertical, because we want it smack on the zero-degree line so that the sun line will now go through the core of the sun. We are doing this in order to use the right-angle-triangle calculator. With this line vertical, and the 3,960-mile line horizontal, we now have the makings of a triangle with a 90-degree angle at the core of the earth.

In order to complete the triangle, we need to lean the umbra line toward the right too, as we did the sun line. As we leaned the top of the sun line .262277 degrees toward the right in order to make it vertical, we now lean the top of the umbra line by the same amount. The umbra line, because it's smaller than .262277 degree, will now go past the vertical position and will therefore lean toward the right. It's going to point to the core of the sun. Right? Yes, it's going to meet the first line at the core of the sun. Before they were leaned over, they met at the edge of the sun, but now they will meet at the core. Right? YES.

The umbra line (starts at .248 degree toward the left) will now lean toward the right (toward the earth core) by the amount of .262277 - .248 = .014277 degree (same number as we had above). So, at the calculator, put .014277 into the alpha-angle box, and put 3960 in box, a. Finding the solar distance was never this easy because the cruel masters were hiding this from us ever since they started recording eclipse data to the point of knowing umbra diameters (where the moon passes through it). None of these numbers are mine. They are all NASA's numbers. Take another eclipse, and do the same method with the four numbers in italics:

April 4, 2015, shadow radius .6522 degree;
moon radius 14'49.9" (= .494388 diameter); sun radius 15'59.6" (= .5331 diameter)

shadow diameter = 1.3044 / .494388 = 2.6384 moons;
shadow diameter is 2.6384 x 2,159.1 = 5,697 miles;
lunar-eclipse-line spread = 3,960 - (5,697/2) = 1,111.5 miles
1,111.5 / 250,242 = .0044417; (360 / .494388 x 2159.26 = 250,242)
1,079.63 / 232,070 = .0046521; (360 / .5331 x 2159.26 / 2pi = 232,070);
.0046521 - .0044417 = .0002104 mile catch-up, per mile toward the sun;
then 3,960 / .0002104 = 18.821 million miles to the sun

The angle of 1,111.5 miles versus 250,242 miles is .254 degree. The solar angle used for the calculation is .5331 / 2 = .26655 degree. The umbra line must therefore lean toward the right by .26655 - .254 = .01255 degree. Put the latter in the alpha-angle box, with 3960 in box, a, and the solar distance given is 18.079 million miles. The reason that this number is off so much from the 18.821 above is that the calculator gave us .254 rounded off. If we make it .25448, for example, the number we enter into the alpha-angle box becomes .26655 - .25448 = .01207, which then gets a solar distance of 18.798, much closer. In other words, my method is better than this new method unless we have a calculator with more decimals given in the umbra-line angle.

BUT, the method works, meaning we can easily find the solar distance without doubt, by having the correct umbra size diameter where the moon passes through it. Aren't you amazed that little-ole me discovered this against the entire world of mad-dog clowns who want respect as super-intelligent astronomers? SPIT! Not one of them has had the guts to buck against the establishment. It's time for truth and guts. Liars should not have charge over the world.

In the 5th update of last December, I reported the following solar-distance calculations:

18.962 million; .52450: June 25, 1964
16.015 million; .524554: July 16, 2000 (problematic eclipse, sore thumb)
17.8777 million; .524832: June 15, 2011
17.188 million; .526277: May 26, 2021
17.63 million; .52661: August 17, 1989
18.207 million; .53144: April 15 2014
18.821 million; .5331: April 4, 2015
18.892 million; .5393: November 18, 1994
17.483 million; .544776: July 26, 1953

My suspicions were that NASA fudged the umbra numbers in order to get solar distances as high as the 17-19-million ballpark when the establishment knew that the reality is less. The sun sizes are shown above for every eclipse. The larger the size number, the closer the sun to the earth, yet the solar distances obtained by the math is inconsistent with the solar sizes. NASA's numbers are faulty all over the place. This is not irresponsibility. This is corruption. There's an evil reason(s) that they entered faulty data.

Don't be fooled by the umbra radius that the NASA pages give for eclipses. For example, where it gives .6518 degree for the eclipse of July 16, 2000, that does not refer to a line from the umbra to the edge of the earth and then further to the sun. That is a line from the core of earth to one side of the umbra. The umbra diameter is twice that number, 1.3036 degree, the apparent size in the sky if a person could see it with their own eyes. One can test this number to see if it's correct, but it's not something I've stressed. It's probably time that I did it using my moon-distance figure for this eclipse. Why do you think NASA gives no moon-distance figures in the eclipse pages?

Okay, so we want a right-triangle with its apex (point) at the core of the earth. The base of the triangle is where the moon passes deepest through the umbra. This triangle base a straight line, not curved like the lunar orbit. I'll assign it a distance from the earth core of 252,140 miles, because that's how far the moon is said to have been at greatest eclipse i.e. when the moon was in the dead-center of the umbra. NASA doesn't tell this distance outright, but does so indirectly by giving the moon's apparent size at the eclipse. We are left to figure out the distance with pitiful data to go on, because online data on lunar distances seems to be confusing by design. But I found a way to know that the given apparent size, .49066 degree, conforms very nearly to 252,140 miles.

Okay, we are now ready for the test. In the right-angle-triangle calculator above, we want .6518 in the alpha-angle box, and 252140 ("my" figure) for box, b. When we hit Calculate, we expect line, a, which is the base of the triangle, to be half the diameter of the umbra as given by NASA, if NASA is telling the truth on the umbra diameter. The calculator gives 2,868 miles for line, a, the exact number given indirectly by NASA for the umbra radius. That number is exactly half of 5,736.3 miles, which is the diameter I arrived to, last year, like so:

July 16, 2000, shadow radius .6518 degree
moon radius 14'43.2" (= .490666 diameter); sun radius 15'44.2" (= .524554 diameter);

shadow diameter = 1.3036 / .490666 = 2.6568 moons;
shadow diameter = 2.6568 x 2,159.1 = 5,736.3 miles

So, we not only checked NASA's umbra radius to find it bang-on, but we simultaneously checked my method of finding the moon's distance. It means that my moon-distance figure is bang-on correct (give or take a very few miles). If my distance figure were not correct, the calculator result above would not have proven NASA's umbra radius bang-on. A better way to put it is: we used my moon-distance figure to prove that NASA's umbra radius corresponds to it, not at all meaning the NASA's umbra radius is necessarily correctly given. But if that umbra radius is not correctly given, then neither is the stated moon size at the eclipse, for I obtained my moon distance from the stated moon size. If NASA did give the correct umbra and moon size, then I would conclude that the sun was indeed 16 million miles away at the time, as per the full calculation that went like this:
July 16, 2000, shadow radius .6518 degree
moon radius 14'43.2" (= .490666 diameter); sun radius 15'44.2" (= .524554 diameter):

shadow diameter = 1.3036 / .490666 = 2.6568 moons;
shadow diameter 2.6568 x 2,159.1 = 5,736.3 miles;
lunar-eclipse-line spread = 3,960 - (5,747/2) = 1091.85 miles
1,091.85 / 252,140 = .00433033; (360 / .49066 x 2159.26 / 2pi = 252,140)
1,079.63 / 235,851 = .0045776; (360 / .524554 x 2159.26 / 2pi = 235,851)
.00457844 - .00433033 = .00024727 mile catch-up, per mile toward the sun;
then 3,960 / .00024727 = 16.015 million miles to the sun

Maybe the Sun is 10 Million Miles Away

However, the same eclipse page has two other ways to obtain the umbra radius, and my calculations found the sun to be 10.5 million miles by doing so. Here's how it worked in the 5th update of last December:

The U1 to U3 time is the full passage [of the moon] through the umbra exactly, and the trip is said to be from 11:57:17 to 14.49:06 on the clock. That's 2 hours, 51 minutes, 49 seconds = 2.8502 hours (math = (49 / 60 / 60) + (51 / 60) + 2). The U1 to U2 time is equal to the distance of one lunar diameter = 2,159.26 miles, and as that time is 1 hour, 4 minutes, 48 seconds = 1.06688 hours, the speed of this moon is found with: 2,159.26 / 1.06688 = 2,023.89 miles per hour. The umbra diameter should therefore be almost exactly (to within a couple of miles): 2,023.89 x 2.8502 = 5,768.5 miles. HOWEVER, compare the latter to the umbra diameter as found by this method:
July 16, 2000, shadow radius .6518;
moon radius 14'43.2" (= .490666 diameter); sun radius 15'44.2" (= .524554 diameter);

shadow diameter = 1.3036 / .490666 = 2.6568 moons;
shadow diameter = 2.6568 x 2,159.1 = 5,736.3 miles;

The difference between 5,768.5 and 5,736.3 is 32.2. That's incredible. Why bother counting the seconds of a lunar eclipse if one can't use the exact times to have a precise umbra diameter? We're out by 32 HUGE miles in the comparison. That distance is about 57 seconds of moon travel. Was the man with the stop-watch drunk?

Let's redo this eclipse calculation with this different umbra size as dictated by the U1-U3 times above. As the difference between the two umbra sizes is 5,768.5 / 5,736.3 = 1.0056 times, we can absolutely do .6518 x 1.0056 = .65546 degree, for the new umbra radius, to get the new solar distance:

July 16, 2000, shadow radius .65546;
moon radius 14'43.2" (= .490666 diameter); sun radius 15'44.2" (= .524554 diameter):

shadow diameter = 1.3109 / .490666 = 2.6717 moons;
shadow diameter 2.6717 x 2,159.1 = 5,768.5 miles;
lunar-eclipse-line spread = 3,960 - (5,768.5/2) = 1,075.75 miles
1,075.75 / 252,140 = .00426648; (360 / .49066 x 2159.26 / 2pi = 252,140)
1,079.63 / 235,851 = .0045776; (360 / .524554 x 2159.26 / 2pi = 235,851)
.0045776 - .00426648 = .0003111 mile catch-up, per mile toward the sun;
then 3,960 / .0003111 = 12.729 million miles to the sun

In other words, if we take the clocking of the July-2000 eclipse as correct, its eclipse data gets the sun at only 12.7 million miles away when it's at nearly its furthest-possible distance. This could be a real breakthrough virus on NASA's fat nose. Time for a good wipe, wouldn't you say? Other astronomers might have independent clocking of this and other equatorial lunar eclipses. We can't trust NASA.

Put some hot butter on your popcorn. The same eclipse page has the time from U1 to U4, that distance being the full umbra diameter plus one full lunar diameter. The U1 to U4 time span is 3 hours, 56 minutes, 38 seconds = 3.9335 hours. As the moon is moving 2,023.89 miles per hour, this time span provides a shadow diameter of 3.9335 x 2,023.89 - 2,159.26 = 5,801.7 miles, and now this is even larger, by a whopping 33.2 miles, than the new 5,768.5 one in the calculation above. Look at that 33.2, because, by the first clocking method, of U1 to U3, we found the shadow diameter different between 5,736.3 versus 5,768.5, too small by a difference of 32.2 miles. What's going on?

So what we're seeing here is that NASA reported the shadow to be 32.2 miles thinner than what the U1 to U3 clocking provides, and then removed another 33.2, that's discernible in the U1 to U4 clocking. In short, the 5,801.7 mile shadow diameter found in U1 to U4 is 65.4 miles larger than the 5,736.3-mile diameter one gets when starting with NASA's umbral radius of .6518:

July 16, 2000, shadow radius .6518

moon radius 14'43.2" (= .490666 diameter); sun radius 15'44.2" (= .524554 diameter);

shadow diameter = 1.3036 / .490666 = 2.6568 moons;
shadow diameter = 2.6568 x 2,159.1 = 5,736.3 miles;

It would be mind-boggling if NASA played this scam on this one eclipse alone. The computer program makes no "mistakes." The programmer is guilty of entering a flawed program that makes the mistakes. Let's now see what the eclipse data gives for a solar distance by reducing the shadow diameter by 65.4 miles. Somebody call Aristarchus to come join the party:

July 16, 2000, shadow diameter = 5,736.3 + 65.4 = 5,801.7 miles;<

lunar-eclipse-line spread = 3,960 - (5,801.7/2) = 1,059.15 miles
1,059.15 / 252,140 = .00420064; (360 / .49066 x 2159.26 / 2pi = 252,140)
1,079.5 / 235,851 = .00457844; (360 / .524554 x 2159.26 / 2pi = 235,851)
.00457844 - .00420064 = .000377797 mile catch-up, per mile toward the sun;
then 3,960 / .000377797 = 10.482 million (!) miles to the sun

Following numbers is tough reading, I know. But this is important, hang in there. You are one of the few people on the entire planet that can now know the better ballpark for the solar distance, which begs why the astronomers keep to a lie. I'll eat my words if I'm making a mistake, but so far I can't see one, and I've redone the math to check it many times, and reconsidered what I'm doing many times. The next calculation to do is: 5,801.7 / 5,736.3 = 1.0114 times, to find that the umbra radius coughed up by the U1-U3 and U1-U4 data combined is 1.0114 times larger than NASA has showing on its eclipse page as .6518 degree. Consequently, the moon's angular size, which NASA gives on the page, is as faulty as the umbra size that it gives...IF, that is, the umbra size is faulty. I don't know yet that it is. All I can say for sure is that it's not consistent with the U1-U3 and U1-U4 durations. Perhaps the latter two have the errors.

Assuming that the umbra size is faulty, then neither of the two calculations above -- the one getting 12.729 million, and the one getting 10.482 million -- are quite correct. For, in both calculations, I used a lunar distance of 252,140 miles, the distance dictated by the angular size of the moon that NASA gave. But as we saw, if the umbra size is given wrong, so is the given angular size of the moon. The first thing to do in assuming that the U1 to U4 durations are all correct is to increase the moon's angular size to conform to the new umbra diameter of 5,801.7 miles, and to do so, we do: .49066 degree x 1.0114 = .49625 degree.

Ahh, BIG PROBLEM NASA. In a full circle, there are 360 / .6518/2 = 276.16 umbra diameters at the size of that NASA gives for this umbra. (You can do 360 / 1.3036 if you wish). With each umbra measuring 5,736.3 miles, which is NASA's figure when combined with NASA's moon size, a full circle around the earth thus has 5,736.3 x 276.16 = 1,584,137 miles. If we then divide that lunar-orbit distance by 5,801.7 miles, we get 273.04 umbra diameters fully around the earth (along the lunar orbit). When we divide 360 by 273.04, we get a new umbra diameter of 1.31849 degree. In order for the latter number to get us an umbra diameter of 5,801.7 miles, the moon's size needs to be .4907 degree, which is almost bang-on the .490666 that NASA reports on its page! It may mean that NASA decreased the size of the umbra while not altering the true apparent size of the moon.

As we saw, the moon size of .490666 = 252,140 miles. The lunar orbit above of 1,584,137 miles provides an average lunar distance of 252,123 miles when we divide that figure by 2pi. That's pretty close, tending to assure that NASA did give the correct lunar size, and consequently the correct lunar-orbit distance (a lunar orbit / pi / 2 = the average lunar distance). It therefore seems that the U1-U3 and U1-U4 times are CORRECT, with the only problem being NASA's giving a too-small umbra size. Note that this was done on a near-perfect lunar eclipse with the moon passing the near-perfect center of the umbra, which allows people to use this eclipse to find the solar distance more easily...if anyone has a mind to. But if everyone trusts the modern, evolutionist pigs, then no one's checking up on them. And that's their main game, to win your trust by appearing super-intelligent in comparison to you.

When we do .490666 / .4907 (to find the ratio), and then multiply by 252,140, we get 252,122.5, which is almost the 252,123 above. So, our new calculation looks like the following, with an umbra radius of .65925 degree; below that one, I'm adding the old calculation as dictated by the NASA page in case you'd like to make a comparison:

July 16, 2000, shadow radius .65925 degree
moon diameter .4907 degree;

shadow diameter = 1.31849 / .4907 = 2.68689 moons;
shadow diameter = 2.68689 x 2,159.26 = 5,801.7 miles

July 16, 2000, shadow radius .6518 degree
moon radius 14'43.2" (= .490666 diameter); sun radius 15'44.2" (= .524554 diameter);

shadow diameter = 1.3036 / .490666 = 2.6568 moons;
shadow diameter = 2.6568 x 2,159.1 = 5,736.3 miles

Okay, we are now ready for the new test, as done earlier in this update. In the right-angle-triangle calculator above, we want .65925 in the alpha-angle box, and 252,123 for box, b. When we hit Calculate, we expect line, a, which is the base of the triangle, to be half the diameter of the umbra, or 5,801.7 / 2 = 2,900.85 miles. The calculator happens to show 2,901.08! Bang-on good enough. It means that the larger umbra size, along with the moon size as given by NASA, is a viable combination. I cannot help but show the calculation above again, the one with the umbra diameter of 5,801.7 miles, only this time with the lunar distance of 252,123 miles (hardly makes a difference from the 10.482 million above):
July 16, 2000, shadow diameter 5,801.7 miles;<

lunar-eclipse-line spread = 3,960 - (5,801.7/2) = 1,059.15 miles
1,059.15 / 252,123 = .0042009; (360 / .49066 x 2159.26 / 2pi = 252,140)
1,079.5 / 235,851 = .00457844; (360 / .524554 x 2159.26 / 2pi = 235,851)
.00457844 - .0042009 = .0003775 mile catch-up, per mile toward the sun;
then 3,960 / .00037775 = 10.483 million (!) miles to the sun

I'm showing this again because NASA seems to have slipped up, giving the true U1-U3 and true U1-U4 durations, and thus accidentally giving up the truer solar distance of 10.483 million. Put it this way: if NASA accidentally gave the wrong U durations as mere mistakes, how could the calculations above be so perfect when using the 5,801 figure dictated by those U durations? How could the moon size work out to .4907 degree, dictated by the 5,801 figure, almost exactly the .490666 size given by NASA, if the U durations are pen-stroke mistakes, or copied wrongly/accidentally from some other eclipse data?

As most solar distances work out to 17-18 million, it appears that NASA deceptively fudged, or tried to, the umbra diameters of ALL eclipses. But how could it possibly think it could get away with such a thing? That's a hard question to answer. Did it end up hanging up the phone when someone called in to contest its umbra sizes? Possibly, more or less.

Checking the Penumbra Angle

If the sun were 93 million miles away, the penumbra line should conform to that picture. They say the sun is 865,370 miles in diameter. Okay, so we need a right-hand triangle to find the angle of this line, easy as making an evolutionist look like a crooked rat's tail. For our drawing, we put a vertical line on the page from the right edge of the earth to the right-side interior of the sun. This line is parallel with the zero-degree line going from earth core to solar core, but passes one earth diameter to the right of the sun's code. Easy as making the evolutionist look like a fraud scientist.

Next, from the line going to the right-side on the sun's interior, we attach a horizontal line to it, acting as the triangle's base, to the furthest, left edge of the sun, and this line would be the distance of one earth diameter + one sun radius. If the solar radius is, as they say, 432,685 miles, then we want that amount, plus 3,960 miles, for a total of 436,645 in the calculator's box, a. For box, b, we want 93,000,000, and so when we hit the Calculate button, we get the angle of line, c, which is the penumbra line from left edge of the sun to right edge of the earth and beyond. It turns out to be 2.67 degrees (not to be confused with .267), more than ten times larger than the umbra line as dictated by NASA's eclipse data. Does that sound right to you when merely looking at the drawing? It sounds way too large.

For the purposes of finding the true penumbra-line angle, call the paragraph above, Step 1, and redo it below with the new solar diameter as dictated by a sun at 10.483 million miles.

Next, we do Step 2. We form another triangle, this time with a vertical backbone line (line b) off the right edge of the earth, and extending the lunar distance of 252,140 miles (the distance dictated by NASA's eclipse data). To this line we attach the triangle's base line (line a), horizontal toward the edge of the penumbra. When it gets to the penumbra, we want to know the angle of the triangle's remaining line, c, and we have it already, the 2.67 degrees above, because this third line is the penumbra line. Therefore, we want to enter 2.67 into the alpha-angle box, and for line, b, we want 252140, so that when we hit Calculate, it tells us the distance of line, a, which is how far out into space, from the earth, the penumbra line passes at the lunar orbit. The calculator says, 11,758 miles. This makes the penumbra diameter equal to 11,758 x 2 + 1 earth diameter = 27,476 miles.

Finally, for Step 3, we want to find what the diameter of the penumbra that's on NASA's page (we are still at the July 16 eclipse). For this, we need to find the duration between P1 and U4, which are 10:46:36 (U-Time) to 15:53:55, for a total of 5 hours, 7 minutes, 19 seconds. That's 5.1219 hours, and we multiply this by 2,023.89 miles per hour, because that's the moon's speed as per the U1-U2 time (calculation was shown above). Okay, so the umbra diameter, according to NASA's page, is 5.1219 x 2,023.89 = 10,366 miles, not even close to the 27,476 required of a 93-million-mile sun. Plus, if NASA anted to fudge a number with low risk, the penumbra line, which few rarely study, would be it. That is, can we even trust that NASA entered the correct penumbra diameter? Let's see.

We redo Step 1 in accordance with a moon 10.483 million miles. We first find the new solar diameter of the sun. The stated difference between the nearest-possible and furthest-possible sun is about 1.034 million miles. As 10.483 million is greater than the average solar distance, I've divided my ballpark average distance of 10.44 million by their stated average distance of 92.956 million, to get a ratio of .1123. Therefore, as solar distance versus solar diameter is proportional, the new solar diameter becomes 865,370 x .1123 = 97,181, and thus the radius is 48,590 miles.

Step 1 above included: "If the solar radius is, as they say, 432,685 miles, then we want that amount, plus 3,960 miles, for a total of 436,645 in the calculator's box, a. For box, b, we want 93,000,000, and so when we hit the Calculate button, we get the angle of line, c, which is the penumbra line from left edge of the sun to right edge of the earth and beyond. It turns out to be 2.67 degrees..." We now re-write that quote as:

If the solar radius is 48,590 miles, then we want that amount, plus 3,960 miles, for a total of 52,550 in the calculator's box, a. For box, b, we want 10,483,000, and so when we hit the Calculate button, we get the angle of line, c, which is the penumbra line from left edge of the sun to right edge of the earth and beyond. It turns out to be .287 degree...

Step 2 follows: Above, it was this: "Therefore, we want to enter 2.67 into the alpha-angle box, and for line, b, we want 252140, so that when we hit Calculate, it tells us the distance of line, a, which is how far out into space, from the earth, the penumbra line passes at the lunar orbit. The calculator says, 11,758 miles. This makes the penumbra diameter equal to 11,758 x 2 + 1 earth diameter = 27,476 miles." We now change this calculation to:

Therefore, we want to enter .287 into the alpha-angle box, and for line, b, we want 252,140, so that when we hit Calculate, it tells us the distance of line, a, which is how far out into space, from the earth, the penumbra line passes at the lunar orbit. The calculator says, 1,263 miles. This makes the penumbra diameter equal to 1,263 x 2 + 1 earth diameter = 6,486 miles.

But wait. The NASA page has the penumbra 10,366 miles wide. What's going on? I think I know. NASA plugged in an umbra diameter as per a moon about 16 million miles away, because it's data gets a moon that far away if one ignores the U1-U4 duration, and instead goes by the stated umbra radius. When we divide 10.483 million by 16.015 million, we get a ratio of .6546 times. And so when we multiply the 10,366 by that ratio, we get 6,785, almost the 6,486 above. It's not perfect because even their 16 million is out of whack from other eclipses that get in the ballpark of 18 million. But one thing is sure: even their own penumbra size does not anywhere-near affirm a sun 93 million miles away. LIARS, and they've known this all along. Liars hired anti-Christ liars to top posts to keep the secrets, generation after generation, for as long as they invented the 93-million-mile sun.

Their Solar Distance From an E-Trick?

You can search all day on how the goofs "found" the distance to the sun, but nobody reports it from the data of a perfect lunar eclipse. Why not? It's so simple a method, and so reliable? Doesn't it make you the least-bit suspicious?

NASA doesn't give the moon's velocity during eclipses because NASA knows its eclipse data doesn't get a 93-million-mile sun, not even close. The lunar velocity gives a person a good idea of the true umbra size, and consequently it can give a good approximation of solar distance to anyone with high-school math. It's hard for someone like you-and-me blokes to discover the lunar velocity exactly unless we have a near-perfect eclipse to work with, and the July-16th one virtually perfect with the moon passing through a virtual dead-center of the umbra. That makes the U1-U2 duration equal to a full lunar diameter, give or take a couple of miles (won't change solar-distance figure by much).

Plus, a moon passing the dead-center of the umbra also coughs up the umbra diameter with the U1-U3 duration. Where the moon does not pass not through the dead-center, we will have a hard time knowing umbra diameter closely because the U1-U2 duration is not a full lunar diameter. There are ways to get the lunar diameter perfectly with moons not passing through the center, but for average people, this can be challenging. A determined person can do it, and I think there should be thousands of determined astronomers doing it to prove the establishment a liar, and yet we don't hear from them. This is not unlike doctors fearing to buck against the medical establishments for fear of losing job / reputation. The astronomy establishment is a brute, a bully. The establishment evolutionist is a goon with a nice-guy face mask.

From the last update: "The U1 to U3 time is the full passage through the umbra exactly, and the trip is said to be from 11:57:17 to 14.49:06 on the clock. That's 2 hours, 51 minutes, 49 seconds = 2.8502 hours (math = (49 / 60 / 60) + (51 / 60) + 2). The U1 to U2 time is equal to the distance of one lunar diameter = 2,159.26 miles, and as that time is 1 hour, 4 minutes, 48 seconds = 1.06688 hours, the speed of this moon is found with: 2,159.26 / 1.06688 = 2,023.89 miles per hour." The only way to assail that velocity result is if the stated size of the moon, in miles, is erroneous. If it's not 2,159 miles wide, that velocity figure is wrong, and consequently the solar-distance figure arrived to is also wrong.

Have you ever wondered how they peg the size of the moon? One cannot know it by alone counting how many moons there are in a circle around the sky. One also needs to know how far from earth the moon is so that one can therefore know the length of the lunar orbit. It's about 1.5 million miles, they say, and so if they count 700 moons, they just divide 1.5 million by 700 to get the lunar diameter. But how do they find the lunar distance to begin with? How reliable is their method of choice? I reject their claim that they can bounce a light beam off the moon, and then "feel" it as it returns back to earth to a sensitive piece of equipment. I don't think a light beam reflecting off a moon a quarter of a million miles away will be felt by a sensitive piece of equipment after traversing an additional quarter-million miles. I think it's a trick because the kings of astronomy have been proven to be con-artists, magicians, wizards in fool's hats. I think they want to be able to trick us into proving the distance to Venus by this bouncing-light method. They know that when they have correctly figured the distance to Venus, they can also arrive to the correct solar distance.

When they tell us that they discovered the solar distance by first finding the distance to Venus using a triangle, why should we believe them when the triangles of a lunar eclipse tell a different solar distance? What are you going to believe, the unseen claims of the wizards, or the proof before your eyes in eclipse data?

They can have two telescopes at a far distance from one another. They then calculate the distance between telescopes, and they call it the base line of a triangle. The telescopes then focus on the dead center of the moon, at the same time, and they record the angles at which their telescopes are pointed. It seems simple enough, and unassailable. Therefore, I think they correctly report the lunar distance, and consequently they do have the true lunar diameter.

These days, with satellite tracking of cell phones, two amateur astronomers can point to the moon with their small telescopes, while being on the phone with each other. Their cell phones can reveal to them how far they are from one another, and on what latitudinal line they are situated. Therefore, they each can record their telescopic angle to the moon at any given second, and then form a triangle to the moon by knowing the length of its base line, and the angle of the base line as compared to a straight line to the moon. They could even arrange to set up their telescopes at two locations on the same latitudinal line that is a perfect 90 degrees to the full moon when it's at top-dead center in the sky. That makes the base line face perfectly square to the moon. I doubt very much that astronomy would report a false lunar distance, given the reliability of finding correct lunar distances, in order to get a more-distant solar-distance figure through eclipse data.

The same triangulation can be used to find the distance to Venus, and yet this is precisely what they use to report a fallacious 93-million-mile sun. Therefore, they are tricking us with how they calculate the distance to Venus. Yes they are, and our trick is to find how they are tricking us. Here's what one writes to show that they are tricking us on their claimed distances to nearby stars: "Suppose it was hard for you to measure the two base angles in the triangulation method. This could easily happen if the object were so far away that your instrument could not accurately discern that these angles were different than 90 degrees. For example, if the object is 10 miles away, and your baseline is only 5 feet long, the two base angles would have a measure of 89.9946 degrees. This angle differs from 90 degrees by only 0.0044 degrees which equals 16 seconds of arc (there are 60 minutes or arc/degree x 60 seconds of arc/minute of arc = 3600 seconds of arc per degree!) This would be a very difficult angle to measure even with very expensive modern surveying equipment!"

You can see here what trick they are playing. By saying that angles of .0044 degree are too small to be reliable in calculating the distances of cosmic bodies, they are claiming that the normal / straightforward triangle method of finding the distance to Venus is unreliable, and they therefore need to improvise with a second method that you can't verify...whereas you can verify the simple / straightforward method. In their scheme, with Venus about 25 million miles from earth, the angle to the planet is about .007 degree, you see, too small to measure reliably, they say. But if the sun is at least 5 times closer to the earth than 93 million, the angle to Venus is much larger.

The triangle to the nearest stars is unusable for finding stellar distances because one cannot be certain what the angle is. The liars lie to us whatever lie the establishment biggies have chosen on stellar distances. The same writer, in the same article, writes: "...astronomers can accurately measure angles as small as 0.001 seconds of arc or 0.0000003 degrees." If you want to trust them in this, you just go right ahead and drink their puke. To bump us onto their parallax method of finding cosmic distances, the writer first of all tries to convince us that using a basic triangle method is not good enough due to the small angles involved, and then tries to convince us that their calculated distances, even to stars with much-smaller angles than planets, are reliable thanks to the parallax method. Bow down and worship the NASA wizard, who are you to disagree with its findings?

The quote above continues:

To solve this problem, astronomers don't bother measuring the base angles at all. Instead, they measure..." Uh-oh, I smell a trick. I smell that the angles in the triangle don't give their desired distance to Venus, and so they improvise a trick to get Venus to proclaim that the sun is 93 million miles away. The article is sponsored by NASA:

It goes on: "To solve this problem, astronomers don't bother measuring the base angles at all. Instead, they measure the vertex angle in the triangle. It turns out that this angle is very easily measured using photographic techniques [uh-oh, perhaps this is the dark-room / trick-room]. The method is called trigonometric parallax [TRICKonomatic] or just 'parallax' for short [poof and smoke]. Here's how it works: Extend your arm in front of you, hold your thumb up, and alternately open and close your eyes. You will see your thumb's position move against the more distant background in front of you. Astronomers call this the parallax shift as the figure below illustrates: [not shown here]

By knowing the distance between your eyes (2 x R) and how much this shift measures in degrees (twice the measure of the parallax angle q ), you can calculate the distance to your thumb (D)! The formula that you use is:

Tan (q) = R / D"

Go ahead, person on the street, find the distance to Venus using that formula. Bet you can't. Bet the wizards don't want you to try. "Shift" is their magic trick, it figures.

It goes on: "But this same principle applies to measuring distance to objects far away from you the planets. Today, astronomers use photographs of stars taken 6 months apart. During that time, Earth has traveled from one side of its orbit to the other, and the orbit baseline is twice 93 million miles (150 million kilometers). By measuring how far the image of a star has shifted relative to the far more distant stars in the background between, say, January and June, astronomers can accurately measure angles as small as 0.001 seconds of arc or 0.0000003 degrees." The baseline distance cannot be known when the earth is six months apart from itself, until after Venus has coughed up the distance between itself and earth. When evolutionists go knocking on Venus' door to inquire about that distance, she pukes all over them with a lie, afterwhich they sell us the puke, and the world drinks it like an overflowing, frothy keg of beer. The world stumbles in a drunken stupor, just the way the cosmic devil likes it.

"Thanks to modern NASA space technology, we can re-do these [old] transit of Venus parallax measurements very simply, so that students can get an idea of how parallax [puke] works. What we will do is to use NASA spacecraft data, instead of equipment on the ground." Ohhh, NASA data, soooo reliable. PUKE. It's a trick. The student is first made to idolize NASA as a wizard not to be assailed, and then whatever NASA says is the universal truth not to be tackled.

On the page below, you can see a method for calculating the distance to Venus using parallax. In the second drawing, you see four positions of Venus as it passes across the sun, identical to the four positions of the moon, U1-U4, as is passes across the umbra. Therefore, if it's good to use this method to figure out Venus data, why do we not see it from NASA in figuring out the solar distance using U1-U4??????????????????? Because the beast wants to lie rather than tell the truth.

In the third drawing, they show angle, V, but don't tell you what the specific V angle is. It's the angle that can reveal to us the distance to Venus by simple, triangle math, but they don't give the angle, nor will they give it by someone's non-parallax measurement. If anyone claims to find it by sheer measurement, NASA will say, "Sorry, that V angle doesn't match what we found V to be, using parallax, sorry, you must be wrong, goodbye."

Instead, they improvise with the formula, V = E / .72, and they show (fourth drawing) what the E angle relates to in theory. This formula means only that V is .72 smaller than E, but they don't show the specific E angle. Who can trust these NASA stooges? They can make E whatever they wish, and we can't prove nor disprove whether its correct. They get the V angle only as a product of the E angle. This looks like an E-trick for changing what the V angle truly is, and I say that true V reveals Venus to be at least five times closer to earth than the stooges claim. I say that V is at least .035 degree.

If E is greater than V, then why does the drawing have the E-angle smaller than the V-angle? The V-angle is drawn over a distance from the sun to Venus, and the E-angle traverses from the sun to earth, making the E-angle (where it opens up at the apex) NECESSARILY SMALLER than V. It MUST ALWAYS be smaller, if the E-angle goes from Sun to earth. Therefore, their formula is backward. Plus, the drawing has the sun one solar radius too far away from earth in comparison to Venus, making the E-angle look larger than it should.

I've just tested their E-trick. I have a cup on my kitchen-window ledge about 15 feet in front of my seat at this computer. When I close my left eye, the right side of the cup's rim aligns with a tree trunk out the window. It's a straight line from my right eye, to the cup's right side, to the middle of the tree trunk. When I close the right eye, the cup shifts to the right so that the middle of the tree trunk now appears about 3/4 the way toward the cup's left side. When I measure that distance (at the cup's rim), it's 2.75 inches. The v-shape (see it in the drawing above) of the E angle, in this situation, goes from between my eyes and spreads 2.75 inches by the time it reaches the cup.

Next, for this same scenario, we want to know what the V angle is as shown in the drawing, and that angle has its point/apex at roughly the middle of the cup (midway between the "two" tree trunks), and spreads out about 2.75 inches because that's the distance between my eyes. In other words, the V-angle spread is working out to be the same as the E-angle spread, but the NASA article claims E to be significantly larger than V. In the drawing, therefore, I postulate that they have put too much spread between the two Venus tracks over the sun. The greater the spread between those tracks, the greater the E-angle. I say they have too much spread between the Venus tracks in order to make E look larger than V so that they can con the public into the belief that Venus is 25 million miles from earth (at it's nearest). The E-trick could be as simple as their finding some dubious excuse to wrongly make E larger than V.

The page offers no proof that E is larger than V. It offers only a drawing where E is made larger than V. And you are supposed to believe that these "infallible" clowns never make mistakes when the reality is, they make mistakes by design, willingly, purposefully.

When I lift a finger in front of my open right eye (left eye closed), the left corner of the computer screen is behind the finger. When I open only the left eye, the finger has shifted rightward to halfway across the computer screen a distance of nine inches. The screen is three feet in front of me. Therefore, the E angle now becomes a spread of nine inches versus the 2.75 inches of the V-angle spread. The moral of this story is: the evolutionist is a liar. That is, we just proved that, the closer to the eye the object used for the test (three feet versus 15 for the cup), the greater the E-angle. Consequently, when the core of far-away Venus is used for the test, the E-angle will be very, very small in comparison to the V angle. If you use your right eye only to view Venus in the sky, and then your left eye only, you won't notice any shift at all due to the planet being so far away. The E angle is therefore very small. We are being lied to.

You can draw this Venus-track-over-the-sun picture to scale in your imagination. On the left side of your page, draw an earth circle a centimeter in diameter. Assume the sun to be as wide as they say it is, 865,370 miles wide, and 93 million miles away. The sun is now 109 centimeters (3.6 feet) round at a distance of 11,683 centimeters (about 383 feet) off the right side of your page. It's about the size of your stove, five, six, or even eight city properties down the street from your house. One wonders how the sun can heat the earth under these circumstances. It begs us to explore whether the sun is much closer to earth than even 10 million miles.

Next, draw Venus on your imaginary drawing. You don't need it to be a circle, just make it a dot to represent its core because we are drawing lines through its core. Venus is about .28 times the way to the sun i.e. a couple of houses over. Next, have two telescopes on your earth circle less than the full earth diameter; the base line of your triangle, the line between the two telescopes, is now less than one centimeter long. Draw a line from each telescope through the Venus dot to the sun. As Venus is about .28 the way from the earth to the sun, the two lines from the telescopes -- each going to a different Venus track -- will be as far apart as 2.8 times the distance of your baseline. Even if you have the distance apart of the two telescopes at one centimeter, the two venus tracks could be a maximum of 2.8 centimeters apart on a sphere 109 centimeters wide. The two venus tracks are very close to each other in relation to the full size of their sun.

When we divide 109 centimeters by 2.8 (i.e. 2.8 / 109), we find that the two Venus tracks (or "transits," as they call them) can only be apart by .026 (1/39ths) of the solar diameter, at maximum. In the experiment(s), they were even closer than that. Okay, but then look at the Venus tracks at the webpage below, drawn almost one-third the solar diameter apart:

Why did they put the Venus tracks so far apart when, according to their picture of the solar system, they should be extremely close to one another? Why are they not being true to the situation they themselves subscribe to? Why are they appearing deceptive? Let's do this over again. On the left side of your page, draw an earth circle a centimeter in diameter. Assume the sun to be 97,000 miles wide, the figure I obtained when the sun is 10.5 million miles away. The sun is now 12 centimeters round at a distance of 1,320 centimeters (43 feet) away off the right side of your page. It's about the size of a grapefruit clear across the width of your house if the earth were at one end. One wonders how the sun can heat the earth under these circumstances. It begs us to explore whether the sun is much closer to earth than even 10 million miles.

Next, draw a Venus dot on your imaginary drawing. Venus is about .28 times the way to the sun. Next, have two telescopes on your earth circle less than the full earth diameter; the base line of your triangle, the line between the two telescopes, is now less than one centimeter long. Draw a line from each telescope through the Venus dot to the sun. As Venus is about .28 the way from the earth to the sun, the two lines from the telescopes -- each going to a different Venus track -- will be as far apart as 2.8 times the distance of your baseline. Even if you have the distance apart of the two telescopes at one centimeter, the two Venus tracks could be a maximum of 2.8 centimeters apart on a sphere 12 centimeters wide. The two venus tracks are NOT very close to each other in relation to the full size of their sun.

When we divide 12 centimeters by 2.8 (i.e. 2.8 / 12), we find that the two Venus tracks can be apart by .23 (1/4ish) of the solar diameter, at maximum. In the experiment(s), they were closer than that. Okay, so what we have now is the realization that the two tracks -- according to a sun at 10.5 million miles away -- were about one-third the solar diameter apart during experiments, and that's roughly what the drawing shows.

Instead of showing the drawings, why do they not show the real-living photos so that we can see for ourselves what percentage of the solar diameter the tracks were separated?

Wikipedia's Transit-of-Venus article: "Horrocks] estimated that distance to be 59.4 million mi (95.6 million km; 0.639 AU) about two thirds of the actual distance of 93 million mi (150 million km), but a more accurate figure than any suggested up to that time. The observations were not published until 1661, well after Horrocks's death. Horrocks based his calculation on the (false) presumption that each planet's size was proportional to its rank from the Sun, not on the parallax effect as used by the 1761 and 1769 and following experiments." It could appear that the up-coming evolutionists were influencing astronomy toward the 100-million-mile mark already, in Horrocks' lifetime. He had zero scientific justification for suggesting nearly 60-million miles. We can further assume that the parallax method was abused for evolutionary purposes. In those days, up-coming atheist-leaning / apostate evolutionists could have disguised themselves as Christians for societal acceptance, etc. "Comparing the North American observations, William Smith published in 1771 a best value of the solar parallax of 8.48 to 8.49 arc-seconds, which corresponds to an Earth-Sun distance of 24,000 times the Earth's radius, about 3% different from the correct [93-million] value." However, the Wikipedia article has no pictures of where the various transit paths (plural) of Venus were, across the sun, that Smith's team used. Why do you think that sort of ignorance reigns at Wikipedia's science articles? Is it because it's not important to show such pictures? Is it because we are required to simply trust these people? Is it because ignorant anti-Christs insist on writing Wikipedia's science articles lest they lose the battle to Creationists. They are losing the battle even though they control education everywhere. Imagine what a slaughter they would suffer if we had half the battlefield. Wikipedia's article doesn't have the courtesy to grant the reader a link to the work showing the various transits by which the world supposedly discovered the true distance to the sun. Do you call that credible/respectable/transparent? We may guess that transit-comparison images have not been made available to the general public by NASA simply because NASA is a snake.

The diameter of Venus is determined by the erroneous size of the sun. They measure the two and compare their apparent diameters. As they think the sun is 365,370 miles wide, they have claimed for Venus a diameter of 7,520 miles because they have found it to be 115 times smaller than the solar diameter. If they're correct on the latter point (I don't see a motive for incorrectly reporting it), then Venus works out to 97,000 / 115 = 843 miles wide if the sun is 10.5 million miles away, and 1,365 miles wide if the sun is 17 million miles away. That's a planet significantly smaller than the moon. Mercury then becomes a large boulder, so to speak.

Charles Darwin and company made a fatal mistake when pivoting the human race toward atheism. They neglected the evolution of their own bodies from single cell to human baby in nine months, or from single cell to fully-developed adult in 17 years. Blind, non-intelligent evolutionary "forces" or events, whatever the dopes may dream them to be, cannot create the programs (plural) needed for such fast evolution, and it happens with millions of species to boot. It is the evolutionists who are the blind ones, who are ruining the world with rebellion against the Creator's Program for Humanity. Darwin and company started science organization for the sheer purpose of pivoting away from belief in the Creator, and thus their science "facts" went design-fully to error. They designed the errors in order to prop up natural explanations for the Creation. They wanted a very large universe for this, and thus opted to make the solar system much larger than was previously imagined.

I don't think they can prove the existence of other galaxies. They look just like exploded stars to me. Therefore, in order to greatly enlarge the see-able universe, they invented a method they claim as reliable for determining stellar and galactic distances. I say they lie. I say they designed such a measuring stick purely in order to explode the true size of the universe to unimaginable proportion. Yes, one may claim that there is infinite space of some sort, but that doesn't mean that God chose to put stars in all of infinite space for the sake of merely the onlooker into the night sky on earth.

Plus, just as NASA puts out fake imagery for purposes of deception, so the astronomy departments can put out faked scenes that show endless galaxies as far as telescopes can see. Don't trust anything new they show the world today, for the wicked have gone utterly wicked. The more they deceive, the more they love it. It's their game without boundaries.

There is hope for anyone who latches onto Jesus because he represents a sanity. He represents the noble truth on all matters, and thus he is stability and health. He's not lavish. There is hope for the one who chooses Him because such a person has not gone way afield into the wickedness that despises what Jesus represents. When the brain is trained by its owner to despise Jesus, it becomes the natural functioning of thinking patterns on all things. All of us have rebelled against the Living Rock, but not all of us did so because we despise Him from the core of our beings with self-manufactured or borrowed hatred. Some people pick up hatred of Jesus from others. They adopt it stupidly, and thus they become stupid. Such people defile their inner workings. They force the brain to desire vengeance against God, or they slap Him in the face with a raising of the flag of atheism.

The Bible brings the mind to a healthy state again for all who have been lost at sea in a world of uncaring rats and evolutionist pigs. It's predictable that their society, the one they lead by force of their strong wills, is a crash site, a pile of rubble, a failed experiment. In spite of the wicked world around us that tends to make us lose our minds, we can make our thinking healthy by counting all the ways that God has set up this present history. Ask: why did God do this, why did God do that? You won't find nearly all the answers in one lifetime. But get to know God from what you can see, learn and experience. He wants us to seek who He is, and if you think you have a legitimate complaint against Him, put if before Him in sincerity and truth, and see what happens.

The weed curse in Eden remains with us to this day, only the weeds have evolved into humans. They are all around us, choking us, taking away our Light, intruding into our space, forcing us beneath them, taking our water, making us gaunt. It makes life difficult, and we might complain to God: why did You do things this way, why did you leave the devil on our field? The answer has already been given: the one who endures to the end will see the end of the devil in our midst, the end of his evil sons, when pain and suffering will be wiped out too. So, we must endure it, and we can. Be brave. When you are weak and having trouble enduring the insanity, say to self: this is just a weak/tired part of a cycle, I'll get strong again before long, hang in there. Bite your tongue and don't blame God for what the weeds in our midst are responsible for. It's temporary. It's a loooong temporary, but it will come to an end.

It's easy to handle the weeds well if all we need to do is rub shoulders with them in stores, but working with them daily is hard, I know. We are now starting to SEE the weeds joining a vast, global conspiracy to do us harm. It was harder to see in the past, but has always been there. They are all listening to our strategies for what we perceive as the end-times, the final generation, and they are thinking up ways to thwart us. Guaranteed, this is what they plot together, like systems-in-place that do naturally the things that harm us without being told to do so straight-forwardly by a ruler. They pick up the signals from their leaders, and know what to do, what to teach, how to react. It's the liberal mindset, the whore who left the Creator to fornicate with demons. If they start to act like demons, it's because they've been trained by them.

We as Christians do the weeds no harm. This is God's will for us, the reason that Jesus said, "love your enemies." If they steal your hammer, give them a nail bag too, don't repay harm for harm. This way, the guilty will become more guilty when they are judged for harming us. That's The Plan. That's our way forward, we have been told this by Jesus, our Captain. Be patient, let the weeds grow amongst us, let them abuse us in ordinary ways, if they choose to abuse us, but giving them a nailbag too is not the same as letting them walk all over us. We have the right to fight them with words when they fight against us with lies. We have a right to respond to their viral evil works with Light upon them. We have a duty to destroy their fungal works with Light upon them. "Let your Light shine" means to do good to weeds instead of evil in return, which puts the outcomes of all our battles into the hands of the Captain. But if you fight your own battles, be prepared to handle the results on your own, if God chooses to abandon you to your own wits for not depending on Him in the first place.

It's a hard call for various situations, I don't have all the answers on the way forward. We can all afford to lose a nailbag, but if they try to take our pensions, charge stiff penalties for not being vaccinated, or make our basic living costs too high for the poorest to handle, then they are walking all over us, putting boots on our necks, and we can forcefully rebel, I think. For example, we can complain to their superiors (this works well often), or take them to a human court even. When we take them to court, our responsibility is to be honest, to not use lies / exaggerations in court, as our enemies do freely. I've quelled bad treatment from government people by reporting it to their superiors, and it has worked well because the bad actors get a surprise call from their superiors, and suddenly the bad actor can relent against us. There is still some wheat growing in government offices, and some weeds can transform to wheat at any time, or something inbetween.

From a distance, weeds look like wheat, and goats like sheep. Devils masquerade an angels, and evolutionists put on a humanitarian mask to recruit foot soldiers, the worst of which (the smoothest deceivers) are turned into captains. This is the Fact of Life, the battle lies here, a battle for our choices in life. Peer pressure makes us go evil, and pain and suffering from the Payback for our evil makes some of us go good. Those who spurn the Payback, the Punishment, are Hell-bent demons in human clothing. The Exodus pharaoh was symbolic for that type of stupid.

How much sense does it make that asteroids orbiting in near-earth orbit were once part of the earth's crust, but that got exploded into space? I wonder where the apophis rock exploded from. I wonder what design God has in where it exploded from versus where He will make it land. Did He have anything to do with naming it after the Hyksos? In 2036, apophis is slated to return one day before Passover. It comes nearest the earth on April 13 in both 2029 and 2036, exactly seven years apart. It is slated to come nearest the earth on April 12, 2068. It sure looks like it's orbiting on a Planned circuit. One day, it can short-circuit and strike the earth. Suddenly, the Revelation asteroid has apparently been located.

Wikipedia: "Until 2006, a small probability however remained that during its 2029 close encounter with Earth, Apophis would pass through a gravitational KEYHOLE of no more than about 800 metres (1/2 mile) in diameter, which would have set up a future impact exactly seven years later on April 13, 2036." The choice of words there brings to mind, the Lord is at the DOOR. What we learn from this statement is that earth's gravity can affect the projected trajectory of the asteroid so that we shouldn't trust man much for dates of its return, nor how close it will sail by the planet. The sudden up-tick, if not an explosion, of brazen wickedness since 2020, after continual short-stepped increases in wickedness over this past generation, can indicate to watchers that THIS IS IT for 2029. But even if not, shouldn't we prepare just in case it is IT?

Here's Polly, with the wheels of her mind still climbing. A few weeks ago, I had cause to see her as a third fulfillment of Sleeping Beauty in a 1979 dream that was very-nearly 50 years before the apophis asteroid is scheduled to appear. The Polly surname is listed with Pools, and the dream opened with me at a pool with a bulldog and a shark. When I dove into this pool to save the bulldog from the shark, I was instantly transported to a blue body (ocean) of WATER, at a shoreline. I was standing in the water. The Water surname, linkable to the Trump stag head in the Arms of County Waterford, share the Epstein Coat, and this video touches upon Jeffrey Epstein, as do some of her other videos. The bulldog in the dream has been resolved as Trump. Early in this video, she stresses Richard BRANSON and his happily brainwashed student, BRITnie Turner:

(Load Britny link now to have access, on another tab, to other Coats of Arms.)

Okay, so I checked the BRITny/Britain surname, which is why I'm writing this at all. It shares the BRIGHT and Bride stars, and even gives cause for taking things to the British surname, important because it was a British bulldog that walked past my LEG in the dream, before JUMPing into the pool. Jumps have the Trump stag head, and Leggs almost do, though the Leggs almost have the MacKenzie stag head too, and this picture had pointed to Spuds MacKenzie, a bulldog mascot for Bud Light beer that connected very hard to the sleeping beauty dream. The Mountain-loving MacKenzie's (have a burning "mountain" in Crest) are the pointer to the "like-a-mountain," burning asteroid of Revelation's 2nd Trumpet, and it just so happens that Britnys/Britains are in the colors and format of English Mountains while the French Mountains (probably the Messey saltire) have BULLs in the colors of the bull heads of Bulls/Bule's. Thus, with Polly acting as Sleeping Beauty, it seems that God may be emphasizing Richard BRANson and Britnie Turner with this dream.

I've said many times that Bright- and Bride-branch Bridge's (Somerset, same as Bulls/Bule's) use the crab while the apophis asteroid is returning in the constellation of cancer the crab. French Bride's were first found in Savoy with BRIGantium, and it just so happens that while this place was also BRIANcon, the BRANs/Brains have three leopard faces in pale in the colors of one half the three lions in pale of Irish Brians. BRANsons, you see, can apply here, is that not amazing or what?

Plus, the other half of the three Brian lions are the three in pale of Lawns/Lane's, and while Val Trompia is at lake Gards, there's a "Garde" motto term in the Lawn/Lane write-up while Irish Gards share the brown wolf in the Britny/Britain Crest. English Gards were first found in Kent with Massins/Masons, and with British's/Braddocks/Brodicks who in turn use lion heads in the colors of the MASSIN/Mason lion, amazing because Polly calls her channel, "AMAZINg Polly." The Roys (Lane-like LANarkshire) in the Lawn/Lane/LAINE write-up share the Pool lion. Epstein's partner in crime is GhisLAINE Maxwell, and Maxwells are from king Maccus, the line of Maceys/Mace's. This is perfect. I can clearly see why we were led to the Laine surname here from the Brian / Britny elements.

The Roy lion is shared by Royal-connectable German Rolls, first found in SWABia. Swabs are also Schwabs. The Bransons, believe it or not, share the full Massin/Mason motto, and to make further connection of Massin liners to Briancon elements, the Brights and Bride's share the Maceys/Mace stars. The German Roll Coat is a colors-reversed copy of the one of English Richards, first found in Yorkshire with Bransons. RICHARD Branson. French Richards were first found in Brittany with French Brians, and the Crest of French Richards is almost the Branson Crest. English Richards share the chevron of Armours, and the latter surname shares the Branson motto. Armours even share the stars of French Richards. It all appears Arranged by God to point to Richard Branson.

One might get the distinct impression that God is using Polly to reveal various dens of iniquity relevant to our end-time persecution. Her topics and mine often overlap. We see much eye-to-eye.

Maceys/Mace's use the GAUNTlet glove, and the Arms of Gaunt has a "virgin" to go with the Virgin Islands, location of Epstein's island. Gaunts were first found in Kent with Virgins, and the Virgin Coat and Crest look connectable to the Ure's/Orreys suspect in the MacKenzie motto. I resolved that I was transported from the shark in the pool to the shoreline of Epstein's island. As you can see in Polly's video, Richard Branson has his own island in the Virgin Islands, and she claims that Britnie Turner was granted her very own island there too...because she's a happy and willful stooge for the globalist cause(s). Trump (has always been a world-class fool, still unrepentant) was at least acquainted with Epstein, but I suspect a closer relationship.

The Branson Crest is the Holder Crest, and Holders were first found in Gloucestershire with Brans/Brains. The latter's motto is suspect with the Engain variation of Gains because the latter share a gold dancetty-fesse with Holders. The Holds/Holts were first found in Lancashire's old Salford district with Ratcliffs, and while the latter share the bull head of Tipps'/Tippins (Lancashire), the Tipps/Tippin Chief is in the colors and format of the Ghent Chief. Gaunt today is called, Ghent, and Gaunts have fessewise bars in the colors of the Hold/Holt fesses. Amazingly, the Hold/Holt Coat is nearly that of Stouts/Stows, whom I trace to Stuttgart of the NECKAR river!!! One of Mr. Branson's two islands in the Virgin Islands is the Necker!!! This heraldy appears arranged by God to point to him. We might even point things here to Eric Holder as a suspect with the Epstein circle of spies.

We got to Engains from Branson-like Brans/Brains, and here we can add that Engains were first found in Huntingdonshire with Others/Otters, whom I see as a branch of Aude's/Oddeys, and thus as Oddie's/HODDys / Oddeys/Hodleys. Sleeping Beauty was first seen at the FENDER of her car, walking to the HOOD of the car. Fenders (share otter with Balfours) were first found in Huntingdonshire too, and use a sword in the colors of the Aude/Oddey swords. The latter's three, white swords are to a point, same as the Pollets/Paulets in the Pool motto! Bingo time.

I've suggested that the "loyaulte" motto term of Pollets/Paulets is a pointer to Epstein's plane, dubbed the Lolita Express, because Lolita's are listed with Loyola's. The "Loyalite" motto term of Mackesys/MARGesons very-much looks like code for Lolita's/Loyola's because the latter share the black wolf with Irish Mackeys while Mackeys are listed with MARGys (Ayrshire, same as Murdochs and Garda-traceable Carricks) who in turn share the Murdoch Coat while Rupert Murdoch, owner of Fox news, has become suspect with the Epstein circle along with Alan Dershowitz, Epstein's former lawyer. British's/BradDOCKs use a fox. Murdochs and Margys/Mackeys must be using the raven in the Arms of Isle of Man, for I trace king Maccus of Man to the "manu" motto term of Scottish Mackays/Maceys (share wreath with British's/Braddocks). The raven-using Mee's/My's (in the Ainsley motto) can be in the "me" motto term of Mackesys/Margesons.

There is a Margaret surname, first found in Languedoc with Paula's while Pollets/Paulets have a Margaret in their write-up, mother of Henry VII, and countess of Richmond. It just so happens that Richmond had been granted to Alan the Red in the write-up of French Brians (Brittany, same as Alans of SALOP). RICHmonds (Yorkshire, same as Bransons and Labore's) look like they were kin of Labore's in the Margy/Mackey motto. The Dee's, with what looks like the Branson lion in Crest, use a motto, "HIC labor," while Hicks (Yorkshire, same as Labore's, Touts and a Dee river) share the Labore fesse (colors reversed from the Alan/Allin fesse), and are suspect from Allins from their "All in" motto phrase (motto's translation from "Tout en"). Miss Hicks was the original Sleeping Beauty. The Dee river of Yorkshire is part of Craven while Cravens were Rick kin, and linkable to Biden-related Rich's/Richess' (the latter were related my marriage to Maria of the Varangians). Alan the Red of Richmond was a son of Aude-like Eudes, suspect from "Eudokia," daughter of Inger the Varangian.

The Margaret surname was first found in Languedoc with Cotta's/Cottons while the latter share the fretty Shield of BRIGdens/Brogdens (Yorkshire, same as Bransons) who in turn have the red rose on stem of Margarets. English Cottons were first found in Huntingdonshire, and I say that God pointed a cotton swab to Klaus Schwab through Steve Mellanson's ear. Mellanson-branch Mellans share an empty, gold Chief with Brigdens/Brogdens. Briggs share the McBRIDE cinquefoil.

English Brians, in Branson colors, have a Coat looking related to the Aude/Oddey and Pollet/Paulet Coat. English Brians are traced in their write-up to SLAPtons "Poole Priory" (Devon), and Pools/Pollys were first found in Dorset with a Poole location, though there is another Poole in Devon. There's a Seaton location in Devon, and while Seatons (Other/Otter crescents in colors reversed) are suspect from the Setantii BRIGantians, from the namers of Brigantium = Briancon, we may assume. This tends to explain why Seatons were first found in East Lothian with the Fortune's who in turn have the Branson Coat in half its colors. The HUNTING horn of English Brians is shared by Close's (Yorkshire) who in turn have the Bright / Bride / Britny/Britain stars.

The only thing I can see with the Turners, as per Britnie Turner, is that they were kin of Muellers while Meullers (not "Mueller") use "a pair of SNIPs" while Snipe's/Snape's are in Clinton colors and format, both first found in Oxfordshire with English Turners and Loyals. Bill Clinton has been on the Lolita Express many times, and Trump was on it too according to testimony at Ghislaine Maxwell's court case.

Snipe's/Snape's use the portcullis GATE, partly owned by Yates' (Gloucestershire, same as Holders and Brans/Brains), and SALLY Yates was Obama's attorney general along with (after) Eric Holder. Bill Gates has recently been revealed as a friend / business associate of Jeffrey Epstein. Sallys/Sales' are suspect from Saluzzo elements, and both Clintons and Snipe's share the Saluzzo Chief-Shield combination. Saluzzo is near TURIN, like "Turner." Clintons happen to use pierced stars in the colors of the same of Britnys/Britains. Obama (grandson of Stanley Armour Dunham) was the great-grandson of the Armour surname, and it shares the Branson motto in full. Dunhams are said to be from Meschins, a branch of Bright-related Maceys/Mace's.

Bill Clinton was found undeniably to defend child abductions in Haiti, a situation pointed to by the original Sleeping Beauty. Polly suggests a crime ring from the Haiti theater to the Virgin Islands. The pointer to Haiti was when I was mugged in Galveston, hours after having a omen while approaching the home of Miss Hicks in Baytown. That's where she appeared as a trophy girl in a barbecue contest that had Spuds MacKenzie appear as part of the celebrations. I explained that the pointer to Haiti was as per one Mr. Maness of Bay City (Maness' share the double fesses of English Bays), a place I passed about an hour before God set me up in Victoria in order to point to the News'/Nuces', which later had me on the NUSE's/Newes'. I said many times that the latter almost have the Coat of German Neckers, and, in the 11th minute, Polly shows a news clip saying, "...on Richard Branson's home of Necker island..." Amazing. I explained thereby why this Nuse picture pointed to the NOOSE around the NECK of Jeffrey Epstein, but I've not known of this Necker island until now. I've said many times that the omen was a small cloud over the sun, which is a symbol of one Jeffrey surname.

I've told many times, the Galveston mugger had both his hands around my neck. I trace the raven vikings to the Neckar river, probably explaining why the ravens "hanging" on an arrow, of Margys/Mackeys and Murdochs, are hanging from their necks. This section is being written the day after some heraldry below that has me learning of Trump's origins from the Rhine-NECKAR area for the first time.

Mr. Maness flew a helicopter for Haiti-earthquake relief, and when some Christian "missionaries" were caught (by the Haitian government) abducting children from Haiti during the quake rescue, Bill Clinton got them off the jail hook.

Britnie was raised a Christian, but joined the false-prophet charismatics, possibly: "Turner was homeschooled by her mother until the 9th grade, after which she attended Augusta Christian for one year, then North Augusta High School, where she graduated in 2006. After graduating high school she attended MorningStar University, a ministry school in South Carolina started by Rick Joyner...Turner started flipping homes in early January 2011." In my opinion, flipping homes is sinful, greedy. It depends upon sky-high home prices, a thing God abhors in this generation, guaranteed.

Note the German Joyners share the Other/Otter crescent while English Joyners (Yorkshire again), looking like kin of RICKets and Mackays, may be sharing the Aude/Oddey / Fender/Vendor sword closely. Her company is, Aerial: "Established in 2020, Aerial BVI is a private island resort in the BRITISH Virgin Islands." I wonder, will apophis fall in the Virgin Islands?

The second Sleeping Beauty was fulfilled by Ainsley Earhardt, born in South Carolina with Britnie Turner. "Born in Spartanburg, South Carolina, Earhardt as a young child moved with her family to the Foxcroft area of CHARLOTTE, North Carolina." And: "Turner's interest in the real estate field started while she was a student at MorningStar, when she attended a session with a real estate investor as the main speaker. She later bought her first house in Charlotte, North Carolina, at the height of the real estate market in 2007". That's the year that Miss Earhardt started working for Fox news. British's, apparently pointed to by the British bulldog in the pool, use a fox. Miss Hicks was born, CHARLOTTE Hicks, and sleeping Beauty was a model / actress type woman. The model, Hope Charlotte Hicks, Trump's former Communications director, was into real-estate too. Did Trump have anything to do with Britnie's real-estate career?

Trump was involved in BEAUTY pageants, and Sleeping Beauty applies here, we may now decipher, because Britnie became Miss North Carolina. Rick Joyner is part of the charismatic false prophets, and the Prophets/ProFETTs (near the first-known Fothes'/Fette's) happen to use a giant LEG while the British bulldog i.e. Trump came walking past my LEG before jumping into the pool. Trump's look like Legg kin. Did Trump get some of his girls from elite corruption in the Virgin Islands? "After high school, Earhardt attended Florida State University..." It's interesting that Florida was Epstein's and Trump's stomping grounds, but this is a long ways from making any connection of Earhardt to either of those sinners. It's merely interesting.

As per Carolina, Caroline's share the Coat of Keens, suspect from Khyan, a HYKSos king ruling immediately before king Apophis. There's more I could do with these things, but my time is up for this week. What further mysteries, or revelations-to-be, lie in these things? At the time Miss Earhardt was hired at Fox, she was working for KENS TV. The Kens' share the Otter/Other crescent, and otter-using Balfours look related to the "for" motto terms of Ainsleys.

From the day I had the dream, I thought God was showing me my future wife, and so I now see that it's a pointer to Bride / Britny / British liners.

My Garden

I have 20 tomato plants that, if each should provide 20 tomatoes, will grow 400 tomatoes at a store cost of $400. I'm "saving the planet" by growing them myself, how can the globalists complain? They will find a way. This many tomatoes is more than I buy over five years, and the amount of land needed for 20 tomato plants is: not much. About 10 square feet per plant.

I haven't counted, but there are about 25 butternut squash plants out there. I way over-did planting seeds for this crop, I may need let some go to waste, for I didn't know until now that: "...each vine will yield from 10 to 20 squash if properly maintained." Zikers, if I get even eight per plant, that's 200 squash, each selling at roughly four to five dollars, maybe more soon. The increase in food prices may be a Godsend to urge many of us to grow our own. That's called a backfire into the faces of our iron-fisted enemies who wish for us to be dependent upon them for our needs. If you have not yet understood that they don't want us to provide our own foods, you will see the blatant evidence soon. They probably arranged city and town properties to be as small as possible, partly to rob people of a backyard garden.

These are sick people, sick for money, sick for lavish lifestyles while they walk on your back. Some of them will be shot to death at a surprising moment, after they go too far. trudeau did away with hand guns (made them illegal recently) because he's worried someone's going to shoot him with one. Not a wonder. If I remember correctly, his brother was buried by an avalanche while skiing, at a surprising moment. He died. I don't know whether God killed him, but one thing is for sure: He didn't save him, in his youth, in his moment of need. The wicked will all suffer their surprising moment. The Sickle is coming. We will soon hear him thrashing from a distance.

God asks us to pray for our enemies. Okay. "May God enlighten our enemies, and may they accept the Light, and become our friends with everlasting life." Nobody could ask more for them. The problem is, the elite won't accept the Light for love of lavish lives, and the poor weeds have dreams of living lavish lives. After decades of self-training in despising God, even the poor weeds continue to reject Him for the hatred they produced as fruit in their own hearts. The tree has become too rotten to produce good fruit. That's scary. How rotten did you allow your tree to get before realizing you need a change of soil? Be transplanted in Jesus Soil today.

If you still see the value in having goodwill toward your fellow man, there is hope. If you despise the despisers of a good God, there is hope that your roots will take in His soil. Water them, babe, don't go dry. Let the Spirit of God be your New Water, your fertilizer for faster growth. You have time-lost to make up for. You owe God the price of your past rebellion. You dropped rotten fruit onto His field, and you need to at least clean it up. Try, enemy of God, see what happens, whether or not your life becomes Light. Replace the rusted-iron sky you kept with big-bursting clouds today. The evolutionist turns the cosmos into a lead balloon, no hope for flight of the soul when the body dies. But we have faith that God can raise the soul to the New Cosmos at a surprising moment. What sort of surprising moment would you like to experience at your body's full demise? Do you like getting stung?

Here's why you shouldn't gasp for help due to producing little fruit in new converts. If every Christian citizen were to convert just one person per year, a nation would have a Christian population of 80-percent in just three years, if it had a Christian population of only 10-percent in the first year. Obviously, that's an unreal situation because God has revealed that MOST people will reject Jesus. Therefore, on average, each Christian will convert much less than one person annually. I decided that it was a waste of time and effort to, for example, go knocking on doors to make converts. I wasn't the type, anyway, probably because God did not empower me for that type of work. I realized that people get saved in God's time, and He can use any one of us for the job even though we don't know it until after it happens.

We no longer need to go to other nations to make converts because the apostolic pioneers already filled the nations with their own Christians. Why would God send you halfway around the world, at a cost, to a nation that already has Christians in or beside it? Hello? Why would God commission you to take the money of other Christians to pay for your food and shelter in another country that is already inhabited by home-grown Christian missionaries who can tell people about Jesus as good as you can?

I'm thrilled about beets. I didn't know that beet leaves are good for salads. The great thing is, beets grow in the heat of the summer, but spinach, kale and lettuce do not. Beets grow fast too.

I've just eaten my first-ever beet leaf, and it's good, no bitter taste at all. This is fantastic. We can dehydrate such leaves lickety-split all summer long. Pick the largest, outer leaves first, a little at a time. If you leave the root too long, it won't be good to eat, and so you decide whether you want more leaves versus the root.

Some of my spinach look like they are ready to bolt, but not many, yet. Last update, I told that the spinach leaves developed yellow spots. As it turned out, I replanted about eight of them with such spots into the ground, i.e. with native soil, and the spots no longer occurs. Therefore, the problem was in my over-mulched soil, developed purely from rotted vegetation that was not all pure soil yet. However, this over-mulched soil is great for growth; most everything (not including the slow-growing cauliflower) is growing well in it, including the spinach. The great thing is, today, July 8, I moved the spinach to directly under a tree to keep it from bolting as long as possible. It will get sun now only to noon, and then not again until about 5 pm. It misses the heat of the day's sun, and the reason I'm happy is that growing things in containers gives the option of moving plants around. So, when the spinach and kale are done for the year, I'll move the broccoli, cabbage and cauliflower into the shade when they are nearly ready to bolt. The broccoli is already partially under that tree. Containers make a lot of sense for this advantage alone.

I'm using an electric fence, and as far as I can tell with a watt meter, it uses almost no electricity. The electric unit allows a short burst of electric potential every second, but "potential" is not running electricity. No electricity runs in the fence unless something wet is touching it. Therefore, if one has solar panels, an electric fence in a tribulation situation is very doable. If nothing's touching the fence, the only electricity needed is to have the unit itself go through the every-second process, which may require nothing more than a spinning wheel that turns the electric potential on and off continually.

In the last update, I told that I cut some rotting, fallen tree trunks in half longitudinally. I put the cut pieces, four to ten feet long (depending on their weight), flat-side down under the electric fence. The idea is to keep as much grass as possible from touching the fence because electricity then goes through the grass. The idea is to minimize how often I need to mow the grass along the fence line. Today I had a brainstorm: slice some bark after pealing it from rotting trunks. Slice the bark about four of five inches wide, and slip it under the rotting half-logs under the fence. Slip the bark a half-inch under the half-logs, and let the bark extend away from the half-logs four or five inches so that grass can't get very near the fence until it's about 18 inches tall. That way, I need to mow less than once per month, maybe even two months at times. Is it worth the work? In my area, a piece if decent bark will last more than five years.

Plus, I have tall white-pine trees that produce oodles of pine needles. Just rake them up, and put them a few inches thick over the bark I just told you about. Put them as far out from the fence as 18 inches, if you wish. I've been using pine needles for years to keep grass and weeds from growing in certain parts of the yard. Roughly a four-inch depth of pine needles keeps 99.8-percent of all growth out, and it will last three years at least. Every once in a while, a piece of grass will find it's way through the pine needles, but if there's bark pieces mixed with pine needles, you are going to be happily grass-free. Just sprinkle a few more pine needles over what you already have, every couple of years, and when the pine needles become soil after several years, it will commit the weed seeds to a deeper depth, where it's colder soil, and thus they won't sprout.

Pine needles have saved me a lot of work keeping weeds at bay. However, weeds are excellent for making your own soil. Seriously, they rot super-fast into soil. You need to consider asking the neighbors if you can cut down their tall weeds to make soil. Kill the weed seeds by solar-heating the soil two inches thick (thicker in the south) under a transparent sheet. If you are caught in a tribulation situation needing to make good soil fast, urinate into the pile of weed seeds. Urine is a great source of nitrogen, produces heat to rot the weeds faster, and then, whatever's left in the weed-soil at planting time is good for the plants. See urine fertilizing at youtube. Don't be a punk. If your life depends upon it, use urine. Just stop using it a few rains before you plan to use it as soil, because you don't want to handle soil with fresh urine in it. That's a little too-much yuck.

Urine mixed with ten parts water is a good fertilizer for plants. Just don't put it on leaves and roots you eat, and test a little at a time lest you overdo it with some plants. If you can't get store-bought fertilizer, and you can't buy food from a store, you'll be glad I told you this. A typical person pees about two liters daily, which makes a five-gallon bucket daily; zikers that's a lot of fertilizer. I've heard that one shouldn't water plants with urine-water more than 50-percent of all watering, but that could be too much for some plants. Oh goodie, the pee will go further. It smells because it has power. Aren't you glad I told you this? Don't worry, plants don't take up urine and pump it into the tomatoes and squash, don't worry. Nitrogen adds heat to soil, and plants love warm soil, but if some plants bolt due to too much soil heat, don't give it urine-water when the plant comes near to bolting. Urine-water makes a lot of sense in cooler weather, especially at the start of the growing season. Urine is clean. Urine rules.

This past year, and last year too, I destroyed all the tent caterpillars on my property because they can't be good for gardens. Something for you to think about when you get there.

Turning chickens into chicken meat is a dirty job, and I don't like it. But if grasshoppers and crickets become a problem in the garden, chickens I will get to eat these bugs. I have thousands of both, even with three frog ponds near the garden. I think that, for the lack of many caterpillars and moths this year and last, frogs and garter snakes have had to eat more grasshoppers and crickets. I think the frogs have done wonders to clear this place of pests. I have few beetles of any kind even though there are plenty of grubs growing in rotting bark. Each frog needs to eat a few bugs daily, and every two bugs is a potential momma that won't lay anymore eggs. Add it up. Frogs in the garden are good. Frog noises when you want sleep are not always good. I don't mind the high-pitched bleepers, but the croakers I would rather not have. They go on for about six weeks only.


Here's a video from someone who, in my opinion, fails to show that Trump will be the anti-Christ, though the video is good for showing Trump's many bad sides. Gotta admit, his "little horn" evidence is very interesting, but most of his arguments are weak / strained because a rotten, satan-like character is not the only requirement for fulfilling the role. The main thing missing from a Trump = anti-Christ equation is Trump's outspoken hatred for Israel and Christians. Trump seems very much to be the epitome of a self-worshiper, and therefore this video is gross for showing Trump photos about 300 times too many than needed:

In the 15th minute of the video above, the speaker claims that "Trump's ancestral family is from KALLStadt" (near Frankfurt), interesting where the Calls surnames shows nothing but three trumpets. The German Calls'/Kalls' share the griffin of Box's, first found in Wiltshire with trumpet-using Calls'. The horizontally-split Shield of German Calls'/Kalls (compares with the same of Groce's/Greggs) is not only shared by the Arms of Kallstatdt, but is in the colors of the vertically-split Shield of Dutch Tromps. Scottish Calls'/MacCole's share the stars of Calls-like Glass' and Kyle's. The latter were first found in Ayrshire with Groce-branch Carricks who in turn use a "Garde" motto term while Val Trompia is at lake Garda. Scottish Calls'/MacCole's share the pheon, in colors reversed, of Glaze's.

Wikipedia's Kallstadt article: " part of the Rhine-NECKAR Metropolitan Region...It has gained international media attention as the ancestral home of the related Heinz and Trump families..." I trace the Stout-vikings to StutGART at the Neckar river, and then while the Rothes' of Bavaria share the raven with the Stout vikings, these Rothes' probably named Rothesay, partly because the latter was conquered by the raven vikings out of raven-using Shetland. Rothesay became Bute, and Glass' were first found in Buteshire. This raven is in the Arms of the Isle of Man, and "manu" is a motto term of English Calls'...and of the Mackays from Maccus of Man.

I like this guy's take on the nature of a virus, and he sounds true to me:

All ladies, see this to-the-point message:

The farmer uprising in Holland is more than that, a popular rebellion from the majority of the people. Contention like this reveals the true nature of the European harlot, nothing short of brutal fascism that has long been disguised...because it has been, all along, stealing the money of the tax-payers, stealing and stealing, year after year, until it could set itself up as a global powerhouse able to quash popular rebellions without conscience, without responsibility for the peoples' welfare. It pretended to be for the peoples welfare with one hand in the treasury. Holland is similar to what happened in canada, a popular outcry with complete justification met with a dictatorial fool at the helm of the country, over-reacting like a fool, talking like a fool, being rejected by his peers as a fool deserves to be rejected. This fool is prepared to be a fool all over again, only harsher, like one without common sense. Here's the story in Holland:

Global tyranny is only as powerful as politicians enable globalists. A politician is concerned more for his own government standing (at the top) than the progress / fortunes of the global government. If what the globalists ask of politicians is/becomes too harmful to his own political standing, the globalist will be ignored, if possible. The globalists then need to seek to win the politicians over all over again, and this takes time, and messes with their plans. This underscores the importance of keeping people-fire under the butts of globalist-assisting traitors such as trudeau. He called an early election because he saw that time-passing would make him too unpopular to get re-elected due to the COVID-cat getting out of the bag. We would like to know how canadian liberals conduct their election fraud. Probably, by fraudulent ballots, what else?

Globalists and their political puppets need to keep an angelic face as they conduct their thievery of the world. Progress is slower when they need to act that way. They have not given up; they have only begun to seize the rest of the Western world they don't yet control. Desperation and greed-fever is causing them to go faster than is advisable.

Call them out as fakes, for maximum political cost. The thing they fear most is to be successfully portrayed as fakes, for that is like kryptonite to their political fortunes. FAKE FAKE FAKE, LIAR LIAR LIAR. This is why the liberal tyrants are calling their enemies liars, to detract from they being the true fakes, because it's all-too natural for the people to call them out as fakes if indeed that's what they are. The fakes expect to be called out as fakes when things get out of their control. They know things will get out of control when they go too fast or chew more than they can swallow, for this is why it has taken them so long to get as far as they are now trying to get too fast. They have traditionally been too afraid to go too fast, but now have their one foot to the floor simultaneous with the other foot on the brake pedal. Idiots drive like that. How could things be any worse for them than to have a propped-up Biden corpse as the ruler of the strongest nation in their globalist bag? They didn't expect this. It wasn't part of their desired plan. They thought they won a great victory in defeating Trumpism only to get this Biden backfire in concert with a foot to the floor simultaneous with a foot to the brake pedal. The irony. To top it off, Klaus Schwab only has this fool trudeau for canada, who made a complete idiot out of himself already, and that was only Act 1. Bring on Act 2, we just can't wait to see it.

There's yet another fool in Holland, as we speak, seeking to bring a food crisis to the nation. It's the food crisis the globalists are plotting for all Western nations, we must assume. But if a small contingent of the Canadian people rebelled successfully merely to resist forced vaccinations, won't people everywhere rebel 10 times more forcibly if the tyrants mess with their food supply? Duh, da global gangsters taught dey had it in de bag, if only dey could deplete the food supply...but if they do, there will be MAJOR political repercussions, and politicians are not going to do this favor to Schwabites very long and deep, is my prediction. The manufactured food crisis will backfire, I predict, though perhaps only after some inconveniences and higher prices. Their trick is to make the food crisis appear as though not engineered by themselves, same as how Biden is trying to convince the people that the fuel prices are not engineered. Our worst enemies are our fellow citizens, the useful idiots who are blind to these tricks. They are the power in the hands of the politicians in the hands of the globalists. If urine is power, then urinate on the Schwabites at every opportunity. Make some glaring heat for them, burn their roots, burn their reputations. Kryptonite.

The globalists are hoping that engineered deterioration of living standards, normality, and sanity will cause the people to become violent, for this allows the globalists to fast-track their world "order" with martial law. It's a no-brainer. This is why we are seeing "insanity" from liberals, because they are trying to make the people rebel violently. The bad guys even have their own violent street bands to pour fuel on the violence. Thus far, anti-globalists are refrained from using violence, but I say they need to push harder in "disobedience." I say that they need to advertise their mortal opposition to globalism, to make globalism the talk of the world, for globalist stooges are framing it as a good, orderly and democratic thing. The Canadian convoy sinned when it fell short of advertising the murders-by-vaccines that trudeau and other globalists are guilty of. These goons wish for us to believe that they are kings, and we have no rights, nor brains enough, to go against their agendas. If we don't agree with their agendas, they portray us as sub-standard and even criminal. That's called tyranny, especially when there is no crisis. Here's David Knight on the farmer uprising, etc.:

I call for capital punishment on Trump for co-trafficking in killer vaccinations, and for co-ordinating with, and/or supporting, vaccine manufacturers and vaccine distributors. The punch line in the video below (nothing to do with Trump) comes in the 5th minute:

This is a big headline this week: "Wisconsin Supreme Court Rules Public Zuckerberg Absentee Drop Boxes ILLEGAL!" This allows the court's arguments (in favor of its decision) to become the knowledge of other state supreme courts on that same issue: "In a big blow to Democratic chances in the midterm election in Wisconsin, the Wisconsin Supreme Court has ruled outside, unwatched drop boxes are illegal [no kidding, duh] and only boxes inside voting offices can be used in the upcoming election. The recent film, 2000 Mules showed how Democrats used a very well-organized plan to stuff the ballot boxes and scam voters out of a free and fair election."

The bad news is, three of seven judges voted in favor of liberal-controlled drop boxes, testifying to their demented politicization, in total disregard for fairness. What kind of a judge is that? CROOKED.

Bad news for manufactures of mRNA vaccines:

This study from Sweden means that anyone forced/coerced to take a vaccine can take a national leader to court who continues to coerce people into vaccinations. Just send that national leader the data on the Swedish study, and he will have no excuse later, when in court, saying he didn't know about it. The study reveals more than enough to warrant and DEMAND an immediate halt on mRNA vaccinations. What's needed now is a cheap-enough test to show whether vaccinated people have experienced alteration of their DNA. The ramifications of DNA tampering should be alarming, but sociopaths (= no human heart) like trudeau don't care about that.


Here's all four Gospels wrapped into one story.

For Some Prophetic Proof for Jesus as the Predicted Son of God.
Also, you might like this related video:

Pre-Tribulation Preparation for a Post-Tribulation Rapture

Web Analytics