Table of Contents
Another White Rabbit Shakling Things Up
Jay Sekulow Suddenly Looks like Part of White-Rabbit Mystery
There's No Blood at the Charlottesville Crash
I'm not taking email at this time, here's why. I apologize to all having left email, as I can't even mail to inform you.
For those of you following my WHITE-rabbit story, here is an update that took place Saturday (Aug 19) of this week. On Friday, someone called to say that they purchased a WHITE Volkswagen on Tuesday, and that he wanted to drive up to my place i.e. it sounded like he wanted to test it out on a long highway drive. We ended up going for a spin, and as it got long, I started to tell him about my white-rabbit experience (as a child), and Twitter's White Rabbit's claim of having almost 29,000 emails that included some of Hillary Clinton's. After my speaking a few minutes on this, he commented or asked something like, "Do you know what kind of car this is. It's a Rabbit." And it was a white car!
Soon after, as we got out of the car, I noted that the floor MAT has a white-rabbit logo. For those who have read the last few updates where the white-rabbit affair has been dissected and re-hashed in various ways, you'll know that part of the white-rabbit story pertains to a laundroMAT, as well as to an ancient Mathis river now called the Mat. And so I was asking whether God provided the white-rabbit logo on the floor mat, or even if He caused the name of the river to change exactly to "Mat."
Mathis-river peoples (especially the Cavii) are expected in Cuneo's Ceva location, and at Chivasso to the near north. The Clintons descended both from Luisa of Ceva and the Chives' of Chivasso. In fact, as Bill Clinton's biological father was Mr. Blythe while Blythe's share the Clint/Clent garbs, I can now add that the Clent Hills are near KNIGHTon (Welsh-English border), while Ceva is beside MonteNOTTE.
There is a Notte surname listed with the English Cnuts (Derbyshire), themselves in Notting/Knutt/Nutt colors. The Danish Cnuts use flags as likely code for Flags/Flacks/Flecks, first found in the same place as Fulke's/FOLKS/VOLKS, and the white Rabbit is a VOLKSwagen. Amazing. If that's not enough, be amazed that Italian Fulks use a version of the Mattis Coat while Mathis' use the Chives cross! Absolutely astounding. Knights were first found beside the first Flags / Fulke's/Volks (compare with Belgian Flecks). The Squire's/Squirrels -- first found in the same place as Knightons/Nitons! -- use "a red squirrel cracking his NUTs " (!!) as well as the same fleur-de-lys as Fulke's/Volks. Knightons/Nitons were first found in the area of Knighton mentioned above.
This recalls my trace of Knights to the Nith river, location of Kilpatrick castle. As Kilpatricks (DAGGER) were clinched with the DEXARoi, let's repeat that the red Squire squirrel is shared by DECKS/Daggers, and that I was on a DECK, at age 9, built over a rabbit cage (with at least one white rabbit within). It strikes me now that the Nitts/Naughts/McNutts can be using the Ferrat checks (same as the Fulk / Mattis checks) for a trace to Montferrat, the Cuneo lords that ruled over Ceva.
Amazingly, the driver of the white Rabbit has a first name, Joel, and there is a Joel surname listed with the Jewels, which recalls my story, repeated before, of Tony (age 10), who purchased a jewel for a girl (age 10) for whom I 10) had just purchased gifts. We boys were both after this girl (Andrea), and I never did hear what Tony got for her except by the word "jewel." So, when I looked up the Jewels, I was floored to find that they share the white-on-blue flower with Italian Tonys. And Tonys are the ones that come up as "Antoni," while the entire white-rabbit story still under discussion is all about the murder of ANTONIN Scalia by the Clinton crime ring. Mark Anthony was a chief partner of JULius Caesar, and Jewels/Joels are JULE's too. Julius Caesar adopted Augustus, and Augusts use the eagle's leg, as do Brays/Brae's.
Tonys/Antoni's use two stars in Chief in the colors of the same of Clintons. Meanwhile, Bill Clinton had an affair with Gennifer FLOWERS, and moreover the Flowers are said possibly to be a branch of Fletchers/FLEGGErs, an apparent branch of Flags/Flecks. In fact, the Cnuts who love the Flags/Flecks use POT HANGERS while Hangers (suspect with Fulks of Angers/Anjou) were first found in the same place as Potters (beside the Joels/Jewels) that share the Flower cinquefoil, and moreover, while Rinds use "A flower POT containing gillie flowers," Jewels/Joels use gillyflowers, and Gullys/Gollys use the Julian crosslet. The Gillys/Gillie's are a Clan-Chattan member that use a "Touch" motto term and likely link to the cats of Chives' (first found in Tarves). Gillys/Gillie's not only share a split Shield in the colors of the same of Tarves', but both share the fitchee cross, the Tarves' using the six of Clintons and Hillarys.
So, if you care to contemplate on all of this, the fact that Joel purchased a white Rabbit Volkswagen this very week, and called me up to take it for a drive, seems to be to be part of God's evidence to one or more of my readers that He wants that person(s) to go after the Clintons unafraid, like one doing battle for God. I had written about Andrea extensively, and included that she lives on a street called, Shore. The Shore's/Sure's, who are in the "sure" motto term of Kilpatricks, were first found in the same place as English Notte's/Cnuts, but the Shere/Share/SHIRE (branch of NUTT-loving Squire's/Squirrels, we assume) branch of the Sheera variation of Kilpatricks share black fitchee crosses with Clintons, Tarves' and Hillarys.
These sure surname connections based on an event in my life this week serve as evidence that God wants to convince my readers that He has been involved in this, something dear and important to His heart. In the last week or two, I introduced the apparent fact that God wants to use Jay SEKULow, one of Trump's attorneys, to do part of this work. I lived on Jay street when I was on the rabbit cage. When Joel; and I went for the drive, he mentioned that he'd like to go to a certain town, and so I suggested also going to visit someone on Shakle road, a term almost like "Scalia / Sekulow." is that not amazing?
I was on the rabbit cage at Jerry Peterson's place. Here's part of the last update, which ended days BEFORE Joel called:
Jerry's mother was Italian, and her name was Maria. She would make us milkshakes (Cony-related Cunninghams use a SHAKEfork), the thing I remember most about her. Spanish Maria's could be using the Brayman / Masci fleur because Italian Maria's/Marina's (Lander colors) have been traced to Clements...long before realizing that Clements [near Clent Hills] were Clint(on) liners.
It appears that Shake's/Shakerleys and Shakle's/Shackle's (same place as Rodhams) are connectable to Cuneo-liner Cunninghams. Here's from two updates ago: "Here's the Arms of Ayrshire with the Cunningham shakefork, the Arms-of-Carrick / Kennedy chevron, and the Stewart checks.". The Kennedys [Knight-like term) use those black fitchees again, that we saw with Shere's/Shire's, and the latter use the black Carrick dog. Shakle's/Shackle's can be using the Alan / Rundel fesse because FitzAlans of Arundel married the daughter of Luisa of Ceva. The Fulke's/Volks use the double-tipped spear of SHAKEspeare's.
Jays (roses) of De Gai, who might be sharing the bend closely of Rose-related Rodhams, were first found in the area of Knighton and the Clent Hills. There were links between Ceva, Saluzzo, and Savoy, the latter being where Gays were first found. German Volks even use the same Zionist star as Rotens (i.e. like the Rodden variation of Rodhams).
While Nitts/Nutts are also Naughts, as are Scottish Knights/Nights, the latter use a "Nil" motto term while Petersons, who share the lion head of Nitts/Naughts/Nutts, use "Nihil," while Neils are also Nihills. Knights were first found in the same place as Rabbits. The CONnaughts may actually be a Cuneo-liner merger with Naughts because Connaughts use Fulke/Volk colors as well as the FALCon. In fact, the Connaught Crest is a "falcon CLOSE" while Close's/Clovse's share the spur with Knights, and while Kilpatrick castle is at CLOSEburn. You can verify the falcon close here:
I wasn't going to mention that I once picked up Miss Naughton while I drove taxi. I liked her a lot, and was trying to get the courage to ask her out on the drive home, but I didn't (I felt inferior for driving cab). Anyway, I had looked up the Tax's/Dachs/Dacks (Deck/Dagger colors) again, as per the taxi, to be reminded that they use two white swords in saltire. I wasn't going to mention this, even though it appears to be a Dexaroi merger with Naught liners, until seeing the white swords in saltire of Connaughts. The Connaughts happen to show a Naughton variation. Pattersons/Cassane's, who are of the Dexaroi, were first found in Connacht.
Connachts (probably the Catherine-Swynford line), who share axes with Parrys that are code for the Axe river of Somerset (where Roets were first found), were first found in the same place as CONways/Conwys. I had looked up Conwys because it's the name of a location in Wales, where Parrys were first found. I looked up Parrys because Joel drove us to a town called, Parry. So, while the white rabbit is used by Conns and Conys, here we find Conways through Parrys. Is that a little amazing on top of the other "coincidences"? And due to that find, I looked up Connaughts. I'm investigating whether God set up the purchase of the white Rabbit by Joel, knowing that surname coincidences like these are not easy to come by. Matches and evidence of close linkage / kinship are hard to come by in heraldry if we randomly chose different surnames.
The Parrys look like they use a version of the Sodan/Sowdon Coat (version of Italian Casano/Cassandra Coat), which is itself of the Sodhans in the Patterson/Cassane write-up. Pattersons/Cassane's are of DalCASSIANs of Hy Maine, as are Connaughts/Naughtons. Pellicans were first found in Maine (France), and Scottish Pattersons use pelicans. I can glean that Sodans/Sowdons (same place as English Stewarts, from Dol) use the wavy Dol / Ghent fesse in colors reversed, with the Alan / Julian stars upon it. Ghents / Gaunts married Catherine Swynford, born Miss Roet. And Roets (beside Sodans/Sowdons) use a version of the French Alan Coat, which is a version of the Saluzzo / Clinton Coat. That's extremely important because the FitzAlan marriage to Saluzzo was to a daughter of Luisa of Ceva while the Naughts are at topic only as per MontNOTTE at the Ceva (and Savona) area.
Think on how important this is to God if he arranged my father's purchase of a house on a Jay to match the first name of Jay Sekulow, or vice versa, so that I could consider, during the last update, whether God's event white-rabbit event was meant to peg Jay Sekulow as God's man for this His work. The last update was just days before I was destined to visit Shakle street with a white Rabbit. Jay Sekulow was brought up in the last update because he has great news that he's spreading, news about the corruption of the Clintons. It's perfect. Jay and his team at Judicial Watch are about to (we hope) acquire the official "talking points" of certain government / law-enforcement officials about the suspicious, condemning meeting between Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch. But this can explode into a lot more as the Clintons play tricks (which backfire) to worm out of it all.
Jay's son, Jordan, also part of Judicial Watch, is a name that, as the French Jordan surname (Brittany), shares red-on-white roses with Jays. CONways/Conwys may be using part of the Jay bend and the annulet of TARVISium's Vito's/Vido's. Then, to my astonishment, Jardins, likewise first found in Brittany, use three flowers (lilies) in the colors of the three Joel/Jewel flowers! Scottish Jardins/Gardens (Annandale Coat) use a "CAVE" motto term (Ceva liners to Tarves?) and probably the star of Angus' / Annas', the latter first found in NOTTINGham. Annandale is near the Nith river. Jardins/Gardens and Gardens/Jardine's were both first found in Angus, and I would trace them to the namers of Lake Garda, location of a Trompia valley (at Brescia). Dutch Tromps (compare with Tarves Shield) share acorns with Scottish Kellers (Angus!!!), and we visited Shakle street in a town named after the Kellers! Acorns are code for Avaran Hachorani Maccabee. German Kellers/Celners (Cilnius liners?) share the black-on-gold eagle with Dutch Tromps!
As Jordans (Swedish Peterson lion?) were first found in Brittany, they could be Alan kin and thus link close to Pollock-suspect Petersons. Hours after starting this short paragraph, I loaded FitzAlans to find the Jordan / Peterson lion. It's been many months since seeing the FitzAlan Coat last, and I'm not familiar with it. FitzAlans are said to have lived at LINCHmere, explaining Stewart-related LINKletters. Isn't it amazing that the Sekulows are now poised to blow open the Loretta LYNCH scandal???
The Shrawardine castle of FitzAlans in Shropshire was purchased by lord Bromley, and BROMeys use the same Shield as says because Mortone-Say is in Shropshire. Mortons were first found in Wiltshire along with Joels. BROOMs/Brome's are said to be from the Anjou Fulks, and Joel just bought a VOLKswagen. As Langs use letters as likely code for Linkletters, and as Monforte is at/beside Cuneo's Langhe, the Links are likely using the Montfort lion, which itself was resolved as the lion of Morton-suspect Mauritano's/Marano's. The latter were first found in the same place as Casano's/Cassandra's and a FANANo location, explaining why Montforts are said to have owned the gonFANON banner. There is a Montfort location in the same Vilaine area of Brittany as Dol, and the Arms of Fanano use the same fesse as Dols, so far as I can recall off-hand.
I kid you not, that the people we visited at Shakle street include a woman with a Dutch maiden name rooted in "Veene." Scottish Veens are listed with Beans/Vans, a branch of Fane's/Vans that I trace to Fanano's naming because Fane's/Vans use GAUNTlet gloves while Gaunt (Belgium) is also called, Ghent, while Dutch Ghents use the same wavy fesse as Dols i.e. linkable to Fanano's fesse. The Fens'/Venns/Fanns (Devon, same place as English Stewarts and Sodans), who share the Patterson / Sodan scallops, use the Arms-of-Fanano fesse in colors reversed. Then, Dutch Veens use three red-on-white annulets on the same colored bend as we see two of the red-on-white annulets of Conways/Convys, the surname I looked up as per the write-up of Parrys...because, after we left Shakle street, we stopped to eat in Parry!
I've just had to look up the Arms of Fanano from just realizing that Parrys use its fesse in colors reversed! As you can see, the Arms has "FIDES" written on a banner held by a lion in both colors as the FitzAlan lion. And "Fide" is a motto term of Conways/Conwys! Amazing. The gonfanon banner was resolved as code for BANNERs (and Ghent-liner Gonns) from the PANARo river, location of Marano (where Marano's above were from). The Morinis', also first found in Modena along with Marano's and Fanano, use two fesses in the colors of the Arms-of-Fanano fesse.
MORE AMAZING is where I traced Fane's/Vans/Fiens and Fiens/FINIS' (same lion as in the Arms of Fanano) to FINIStere, in Brittany's Brest area, and then the Brests use lozenges in colors reversed from those of Parrys, tending to verify that Parrys were direct Fanano elements. Fiens/Finis' were first found in Kent, same as the Deerings that mention Mr. Morinis, and the Morinis' use the double fesses of Parrs in colors reversed!!! It's amazing what a meal in Parry can reveal.
It's interesting that while the bra on the laundry line was over the rabbit cage, I didn't think to check the Brasier surname until the last update. Brasiers show nothing but a fesse in the colors of the Scalia/Scalise ladder, but here I can add that it's a fesse colors reversed from the Wagen fesse, of a surname checked out as per "VolkWAGEN." I can see Wagens as a branch of Van / Fann / Wayne liners, especially as the Sions/Swans, who share the swan with Wagens, once showed the gauntlet glove (now a falconer's glove). In colors reversed, the Fanano fesse is blue, the color of the Brasier fesse. This expected link between Bra and Fanano can explain why Brasiers (Brest / Brescia liners?) are said to be from Bean-like Beaune. English Brasiers (same place as Leavells, Blond colors), in Blond colors and using an "Amor" motto term, are very linkable to the Blond / Leavell / Amore kinships from Laevillus and his wife, QUADRatilla, explaining the Brasier QUATRefoils. Quadratilla has been traced to Quade's/Wade's (Watch colors) suspect as a branch of Watts. Blonds (same place as Fitts/Fitch's), who use "An armed FOOT," use bars in the colors of the one of Braser-like Brackers, and the latter use a black dog, perhaps play on the black wolf heads of Quade's. The Quade wolf heads are used by Irish Mackays, and Beans were, as I have read, a sept of Mackays (another dagger). Beaune is in Burgundy, where Messeys were first found.
Banners can be a branch of Beans listed with Vans/Veens. Brest is around Launay, and Launays (suspect from Alans) use lozenges in the colors of the Percy lozenges. You can read of Percys in the FitzAlan write-up because the offspring of the FitzAlan marriage to Alice of Saluzzo married Percys (branch of Parrys?).
I suggest that Veens and Parrys use the bend shared by PLUNKetts (Herod liners), who were first found in Vilaine, and ancestral to the Anjou Fulks / Plantagenets / PLANQUE's. The Bras'/Brace's, first found in the same place as the Clent Hills, use a form of the Plunkett Coat. The celebrated Geoffrey Plantagenet (ancestor of Norman-English royals) was born a Fulk of Anjou, and he used a "sprig of broom" in his hat (they say, anyway)...as code for Brooms/Brome's (he's in the latter's write-up). This recalls the Bromleys using the Coat of Says who had merged with Mortons to name Mortone-say. Launays were first found in the same place (London) as Plantagenets/Plants (and Bannons), and Planks/Planque's (Plunkett colors), first found in the same place (Wiltshire) as Marano-line Mortons, probably use the Montfort lion on black because Montfort is in the same place as Plunketts were first found. And Bra is smack beside Monforte so that it makes sense to see Bras'/Brace's using a form of the Plunkett Coat. It was resolved that Plunketts were from the Herod line to Plancia Magna, priestess of Artemis, and wife of Tertullus. Fulks are said to descend from a mythical Tertullus, which I see as secret code for the Tertullus-Plancia line.
The Plank/Planque lion is that also of Banner-like Vanners! English Vanners/Fanners (Arms-of-Fanano fesse on red?) can be using the Covert Coat because Coverts were first found in the same place (Sussex) as Arun, the place that named Arundel, where FitzAlans ruled out of. The Vanner leopard faces are in the colors of the Plantagenet lions. The Bone's (compare with Covert-like Coves' said to be from Alan of Brittany) were likewise first found in Sussex, and that makes the Bone lions suspect as the FitzAlan / Fien lion. The Bone lions were always linked (by me) to the same of Beaumonts, and the titles of the Leicestershire Beaumonts are known to have passed to Simon de Montfort.
The London Bannons use a version of the Flag/Flack Coat, a branch of Fulke's/VOLKs, and so, with the link of Plant liners to Panaro-river / Fanano elements, Bannons can be a branch of Banners and/or Beans/Vans / Fane's/Vans. I'm therefore wondering whether Steve Bannon (not Christian material) will be a part of the white-rabbit degradation / destruction of the Clinton crime ring. Bannon once worked for Brae-suspect Breitbart, and Mr. Breitbart was murdered, likely by the Clinton crime ring. Flags/Flecks use the Meschin scallops while Meschins use a version of the Coat of white-rabbit Conns and Conys.
Breit-like Brights are suspect with the Macey Coat, and Maceys share the gauntlet gloves of Fane's/Vans. The latter show "Veynes" while Wayne's (more gauntlet gloves) share the pelican on NEST with the Fens-related Pattersons. Then, the "cases" motto term of Wayne's must be for the Cassius variation of Patterson-related Casano's/Cassandra's (probably the Fens fesse). As king Cassander was ancestor of queen NYSA, while the latter is suspect with the Ness Coat, note that "Vannes" gets the Dutch Ness/NEST Coat.
Brights were suspect at the naming of Brigantium, which was also called, BRIANcon, and then Plantagenets share the three Brian lions. French Brians are said to be from Alans of Brittany. Briancon is near Modane, a term that I trace to Modena i.e. location of Fanano.
Vilaine was traced to the Astikas of VILNius who married Traby, and the Arms of Traby (Poland) use ostrich feathers while Bannons use an ostrich. The ostrich is a symbol of Beaks who in-turn share the Fein Coat. Vilains use a version of a Ghent and Tanner Shield while Cuneo is along the Tanaro river. French Plants/Planque's use cabbage's while Cabbage's were first found in the same place as Brays/Brae's, suspect with Cuneo's Bra at Langhe i.e. near/beside Monforte. Now recall the white-rabbit logo in the floor MAT of Joel's car, for Matts/Matthews use a "fyn" motto term. These Matts use a "duw" motto term too while Dews/Deweys (Devon, same place as Flowers) use the Flower cinquefoil in colors reversed, and Joels use GillyFLOWERS. Fyns/Finns use mascles and more falcons (i.e. implies a Fanano-line link to Fulks again).
The same Matts use a "fydd" motto term that can be for a surname that is a branch of Fittons, important where Tom Fitton is the president of Judicial Watch. The Fitts are also the Fitch's expected in code with fitchee crosses, and the Fothes/Fitte's were first found in the same place as fitchee-using Tarves'. The fydd-like Vito's/Vido's of Tarves-suspect Tarvisium are also Bitinni's, a Fitton possibility. The FIDENza (Biden / Bitinni line?) location beside Parma is very interesting here because Parmers/Palmers use a version of the Flag/Fleck Coat, the latter sharing the Meschin / TRAVIS scallops while Tarvisium is now TREVISO, and, besides, the first Meschin would have owned the Cheshire garbs used in the Fitton Coat. I have already resolved that Fothes/Fitte's and Foots were close to le-Meschin's son, an earl of Cheshire himself. The son, Ranulph de Gernon, has a surname ("CyFOETH" motto term) from MontFITCHET elements.
While Joels/Jule's love the Gillys/Gillie's, the latter share the Clan-Chattan motto (which includes "glove") with Scottish Comeys and Veens/Beans. Judicial Watch already has obtained, recently, hundreds of pages condemning the Clintons and the previous FBI director James Comey. Comeys (near the Chives of Tarves) share the cat-a-mountain with Chives', from Chivasso, near Como. When Joel arrived, I was out of fridge food, and offered him a can of chili i.e. with lots of BEANs. He ate it. It reminds me that I trace chili-like Chills/Childs to Cilnius Maecenas, who married Terentia MURENA. AMAZING is that he ate the chili along with some potato CHIPS, and the Chips were first found in the same place as Watch-suspect Watts while English Watts use billets (rectangles) in the colors of the Chip shields (square shapes). The shields are colors reversed from the square-shaped lozenges in the Plock Coat, and while Plocks are said to be from "Plunket," there is a red lozenge, the color of the Plock lozenges, in the Watt Crest. As Plocks are expected with the first Pollock, builder of Rothes castle at Moray, it's notable that Thomas Randolph, first earl of Moray, used red lozenges (see his Wikipedia article for those) in both colors of the Plock lozenges. Pollocks are from Flavius Petro (great-grandfather of emperor Titus), whose wife or mother, if i recall correctly, was Tertulla, explaining why Plocks are apparently linked in their write-up to Plunkett liners.
The other Watts use another falcon. And while Plocks use the FOOTless martlet in the colors of the same of the Maine Josephs (from Titus Flavius Josephus, right?), Maine is where Billiards/Billets (Moray stars) were first found while the English Watt's use billets. The same martlet is used by Pullens who share the Sabina/Savona scallop, relevant because Flavius Sabinus was Titus' grandfather. The Chips are also Chipmans, suspect with the CHAPmans/Chepmans (same place as Capone's and Julians) so that we are again seeing a Josephus link to Caiaphas-liner suspects. The eye in the Watt Coat has been traced to Eye, a location in Suffolk, where Fitts/Fitch's were first found! Judicial Watch has an eye symbol, right, "to watch"? And the Watts use a Fitton-like motto, "FIDE et FIDucia." The Watch Coat has the colors and format of Rabbits, but on a possible link more than that I can't say.
Okay, sorry for going so long. I've been giving all the evidence I can see off-hand that Joel's trip to see me was Planned by God to add to the predictions of my white-rabbit story. I'm a witness that God has named many things in order to allow me to provide evidence that He's truly doing this work. Even "JUDICIAL Watch" could have been named by Him to make a link to Judicael, duke of Rennes, for Rennes happens to be in Vilaine along with Montfort, and the Joels were the very reason that Montfort-related Mortons / Marano's were introduced here. There is a Mort location (see the Morts/Motts/Mottins, suspect with "Modane") in the Cotes-du-Nord area of Brittany, which is beside Rennes. While Joel drove us, it rained a few times, and the Raines' have a motto term suggesting Judicael of Raines-like Rennes. Modena is near the Reno river.
Last week, a judge sided with Judicial Watch in ordering the Trump administration to seek for Clinton emails amongst the emails of top people in the Obama administration. There is some evidence that Trump is running a double-standard policy, being kind to the Clintons now, and permitting them to be lawbreakers because, after all, I don't think Trump gives a hoot about justice. Fat cats just don't, unless they want to punish those who trouble them. Therefore, the Democrats will grind Trump's face into the ground until Trump acts against their leaders. That's my prediction.
I don't know what more to say on this white Rabbit vehicle that has suddenly appeared at my place. It seems to be an additional motivator for me along the lines of this topic. It's a political topic, yet I think God is concerned with prophetic topics more than Washington politics. The prophet Joel speaks on the end-time destruction prior to God's pouring out His spirit on all flesh.
Steve Bannon has come out this past week to fight against the insidious movement to oust him from Trump's inner circle. Bannon is risking the loss of his White-House job by telling the public that the initial Trump presidency is dead, and now about to be replaced with something else. It sounds like a thing said when he knows he's leaving. Trump needs to weigh whether firing Bannon will do more or less damage (with his voting bloc) than keeping him. Some say Bannon's already fired, unless he quit first. Basically, this is along the lines of what I've been speaking on for months: Trump's abandoning his original promise to his anti-globalist voters. Trump put himself into the back seat of the deep-state limo, and once he agreed to go their way, they let him drive the car. In that picture, he's not the president, just the chauffeur. Nice, going, Trump, you ding-dong.
Trump came in promising something different, something not of the political norm, but at the first obstacles, he was like a fizzing firecracker that you might rather step on than enjoy. Instead of allowing the New Thing to get it's chance at governing, he quickly replaced it with the Old Thing, breaking his promise, sinner. Who's next to be abandoned at the neighing of the deep-state studs? Jay Sekulow? After all, Jay's causing waves, and Trump made a deal with the finks to take away all waves in return for letting them tell him how to run things. Yes, no more leaks is what Trump gets in return for capitulating to the foreign-policy finks. Perhaps the white-rabbit mystery will reveal Trump too. If he doesn't join God's team, then by God he will be ashamed, as when a candle flame goes out without hope of starting up again.
Now look at this. Three Bannon supporters were removed in short order, weeks ago, from under the authority of McMaster. Masters were first found in the same place as Massins/Masons. Then, Trump made general Mattis the chief of his military, and Mattis'/Massi's were mentioned above; they were from Massa-Carrara, from Masa-branch Carians, same as Masters and related Roets. Then, Trump just hired John Kelly, a military man, to run his White-House affairs, and Kellys were responsible for baron Massy of Monaco, from the Baron Massy of Ireland. I predicted as long ago as 2010 that the False Prophet / anti-Christ would be a Massey / Meschin liner, and general Mattis was at one point lightly suspect as the anti-Christ, when Obama made him the chief of Central Command.
Baron Massy of Monaco married a Miss QUINTana, and Quintana's happen to use three dice showing the six for what looks like 666. The Dice/Diss surname which Quintana's may have merged with, are also Deise's, which named Ireland's Deise, beside baron Massy out of Dublin. Deise is in Waterford, and the Trump stag head is in this Arms of Waterford. Compare those Arms with the Chappes surname, for that's suspect from QUINTus Caepio (Roman general). And Masters share the griffins of CAPlins. Now compare the Dice/Deise Coat (version of Arthur Coat) with that of Davers (version of Arthur Coat), from the Daversi peoples, otherwise known as Daorsi at the Neretva river, home of the Ardiaei Illyrians. Davers and Dice's were first found in the same place along with JAYcocks. Qhints use a fitchee cross, and Fitts/Fitch's were first found in the same place as a Diss location (beside Eye),
I trace Caepio's to the Cavii, near Cupionich (line to the Polish Mouse Tower), the latter not far from PELAGONia, where I trace the Arthur PELICAN (assumes an Ardiaei merger with Pelagonia elements. French Josephs (once showed the CHAPlet swan) were first found in the same place as Pellicans while English Josephs are kin of CAPlans and CHAPlains. Cupionich is better known as KOPLik, a line to GOPLo, location of a mythical Mouse Tower that has been identified with the Massey-suspect False Prophet / anti-Christ. Mieszko II Lambert evolved from Mouse-Tower myth, written by GALLus Anonymous, and then the jay-using Poitvins use a version of one Galli Coat (compare with the rooster of Jay-like Gays), which shares the Julian / Alan Chief. German Gallus' use a rooster in the colors of the Koplik rooster, but also in the colors of the rooster of Landens/Landers (sinister bend = Masci / Massena bloodline), which is why Pepin of Landen is suspect with mythical Popiel, Gallus' first Mouse-Tower ruler before the Mieszko line took over. The False Prophet was given a lamb-horn symbol, and English Lamberts use the lamb.
I don't recall realizing until now that king Massena/Massinissa, son of king Gaia/Gala, was an Alan-Hun line. The Alans lived near the Moschi mountains, and were joined by the Amazons of the Moschi mountains, according to Herodotus of Caria. I'm thinking a king-Gala trace the Gelonus location, mentioned by Herodotus, amongst the land of the BUDINi, whom I trace to Stewart- / Alan-related Boyds, though CHAPeau-using BUTTONs/Bidens (same place as English Josephs) can apply, who share a red fesse with Alans. It's known that Alan Huns went through Spain (5th century AD) to north Africa, and that's where Numidia was located, where Gala and Massena ruled. So, the Alan Huns may have gone to Numidia because they knew that Alans were already there.
Alans lived at Tanais (Caucasia), a term like the TONZus river (Thrace), where I trace the Button kin of Capelli's (button-using Tosini's are Tonzus liners). King Massena is suspect from the Meshwesh/Mazyes, who ruled Egypt from Tanais-like Tanis starting at the 21st dynasty. Numidia was beside Tunis(ia). Again, the Tanners use the Vilain Shield, and Vilaine was home to the Alan surname. The Rundels (same place as Massins / Masters) that share the Alan Shield use a "Tenax" motto term.
The Poorly-Done Charlottesville Hoax
The race riot at Charlottesville. Prior to this, I was convinced instantly that two recent terror acts involving cars were faked. The evidence was overwhelming. We now have a third car crash at an event being blamed on white supremacist's. One can fathom that the deep state wanted to link this event to the terror act at London's Westminster bridge. But why?
I hadn't read any article on Charlottesville (Virginia). The video below is the first one I loaded, and it gives a very interesting fact. The person (Brennan M. Gilmore surname) that was on television, to tell the story of what happened as he saw it, was an employee for the State Department, and moreover he was Chief of Staff for the governor of Virginia. Yet he was not introduced as such by the news people interviewing him. Then, according to the speaker in the video below, all mention of this Gilmore fellow was scrubbed from the State Department website. Very suspicious; I'm asking whether he was an Obama pawn.
I tend to think that the comparison of the two faces below are a near match, except that the driver looks a lot older than 20. If the face of the suspect was of 10-15 years ago, I would believe they are the same face, but they say the suspect is only 20. Note that the driver's face looks coppish (law enforcement), unafraid, not crazy, not frantic, not worried about getting away. He frankly looks calm. Judging from the rest of this story, I would have to say that the 20-year old is a government agent, or friend thereof, which can explain why he's not been given bail (i.e. he's not going to jail at all, it's a fake arrest and trial).
As you can see in the 6th minute, the New York Times mentioned that Gilmore worked for the State Department earlier in 2017, but left to work for the Virginia governor (Tom Perrielo, Democrat). What was he doing at the event? Did he leave his SD job to plot this faked event? It's a reasonable question. The video says that the New-York Time statement I've just shared was removed from public view "after 4PM" on the 12th. Why was it removed? Was it a no-no to mention who this character was? Looks like.
In the 7th minute, it says that Gilmore "was involved in Kony 2012." What's that? I don't know, but it sure smack of the Cony surname that I've been talking about for weeks.
The video also mentions that a police helicopter went down (crashed) during the riot. The speaker shares the theory that this helicopter was problematic for the false-flag event in that it could see the car that supposedly crashed into people. In seeing its path, it may have been possible to realize that it was a set-up, not natural. Or, the helicopter's crew may have seen that the front end was already smashed in before the crash. Two men were killed in the helicopter crash (before 5 pm). It begs the question on whether the deep state has military helicopters rigged for a crash at any time, when needed. It can make your blood boil.
In the 7th minute, the video says that Gilmore "served as the Special Assistant for the Lord's Resistance Army..." Then, see here:
In a nutshell, Kony 2012 was a video made by a charity organization called Invisible Children. Basically, the short film featured children abducted by LRA (Lord’s Resistance Army) led by Joseph Kony. It is assumed that he has abducted about 60,000 children. Upon abduction, Kony brainwashes the boys to fight for him. Meanwhile, girls are made into sex slaves and those who do not comply are killed.
... It is said to be questionable why the movie was targeting US leaders instead of African leaders...Soon enough, myths about Kony 2012 were debunked [by who, pizzagaters?] and shed more light to the advocacy of Invisible Children.
...Also, while it is true that Obama has authorized 100 US army advisers being deployed to help track down Kony, he results of which are still unknown.
Maybe Obama had sex with Kony. I'm seeing a child-sex ring that moreover uses the crisis to raise money. The producer of Kony 2012 (Jason Russell) had a fit that may have been from someone drugging him:
And then he took off his clothes and ran out in to the street (slammed his hands repeatedly on to the pavement, battered himself against parked cars, and screamed obscenities until he was eventually led away by police). He can only remember "slivers" of what happened next. The horror on his mother's face when he was handcuffed...He was taken to hospital. "But I thought the staff wanted to kill me. I was convinced. They kept trying to give me drugs and I refused to take them. It got to the point where I was running around in my underwear kicking in doors. I had eight people holding me down. They eventually tied my arms and legs down to this bed and injected me. It was incredibly traumatizing. I was convinced I was going to die."
It's possible that he had discovered too much about some of the abducted kids, that they were being brought to America as sex slaves. There is something strange about this entire story, and I'm wondering whether there will be evidence to link it to my rabbit-cage event. Did God put me on a rabbit cage, leading to the coney rabbits of Conys, so that I would come to emphasize this story?
Back to the car crash. In the 12th minute of the video, the Ohio registration for the car is shown. This registration ticket does seem strange for showing some features of the car that seem beyond the necessities we'd expect merely for proof of ownership. The page below (Reddit) starts off with the claim that the car's registration is phony, and, after that, there's bickering and maybe an attempt to hijack this serious point:
lmao first thing, the motor vehicle registration is fake as can be. I used to be the one registering every single car purchased for my store, features are not listed on registration. I also lived in ohio, and none of that is listed on a registration for a car in ohio.
the bill of sale or factory build sheet yes [has specific features], but not on a registration.
it also claims daytime running lamps not available, which they were. it also states optional ABS, which it came standard with. too much wrong with the "registration"
Why would the State department under Tillerson / Trump remove mention of Gilmore? Does Trump know about this? Was it Tillerson's choice? Did he wink if it was someone else's choice? Is the deep state in trouble here? Will others in the State Department hear of this and blow the whistle? I love whistles.
Alright, time to take a look at the car video. This was made to look very real, "better" than the last one. As the car comes though, we see a person in green top, feet pointed to the sky (easily pasted in, so exciting for the goons to show this), flying over the lighter car smacked in the back end. You need to pause the video a few times to see the detail here. If you watch the people soon after the collision, you can tell that the video is faster than normal speed. Why? It's obvious: they wanted to make the smash look more drastic, with more anger.
The driver's car strikes the car at 5 seconds, but an all-red flag (not to me mistaken for the red-and-white one) comes down directly over their contact point at the bumpers. Intentional? If so, why? We never do see the initial crash point, and so we can't know whether the lighter car was already provided smashed. The "crash" could easily have been two pre-crashed cars, with the "terrorist's" car pushing the other forward gently, but with the video sped up to make it appear like a crash. The flying person is what fools us.
Someone in red shirt (why red?) then gets in the way of the contact location, and of the driver's bumper that's dragged away from the scene as the car backs up. I think his job was to hide it all, but he failed, and they decided to go with this take, anyway. It looks like a person being dragged away at first, but pausing shows it to be some part of the front end. Late in the 9th second, we see no piece of bumper being dragged away on the front of the driver's side; we see a piece of bumper only on the passenger side.
At 12 seconds, the cameraman says, "That Nazi just drove into people." I didn't know it from watching this video, but, a couple of days later, I heard it on another video (I'll present this one later), where it's more clear. How could the cameraman know so soon that the driver is a Nazi? This is a poor fake job done by people who seem to have a poor grasp of reality, and not a wonder. They had better get an honest line of work before insanity sets in.)
Unrealistically, many people (maybe 30) start to run immediately toward the car backing up, as though they all had the same mind instantly. No one would do this in reality, as the driver might put it into forward, and ram them. I assume that these runners were directed to get out of the scene to make some space for the camera show. They were there to begin with to hide the few (about five that I could see) who fell to the street, acting hit.
They decided to use vulgarity in this production, which is a staple of the anti-Christ deep state. As the camera stooge walks up the street, over-reacting, we fail to see him taking pictures at any one victim. Perhaps this is because, from past experience, the actors do a lousy job acting as though hit, and often give away their act.
After the one-minute mark, the camera announcer turns around to show a person just sitting on the road, which is typical of the previous two car rammings that were likewise staged. This goof's job is to hype-announce what happened that didn't really. He says there's blood all over, but we have seen exactly none, as was the case the two previous stagings. He says people are pinned between cars, but we see none of that, and so this mouthpiece, in his trying to put on faked excitement, goofed with his words.
Below is the video by Jon Le Bon, whom is part of the godless Internet set that we need to tolerate in exploring these events. This is the video with the Nazi claim in clearer voice. After you get past that part, pause it at 2:05, where we see another angle of the incoming car. As you play the video from 2:05, split-second at a time, putting it on pause regularly, note that you never see the car coming whatsoever. To facilitate part of the trick, the camera is held high. I say the attack car's hood was pre-smashed before the collision. We are to imagine the car coming in fast. I am unable to pause the car driving by where I can also see the hood, it figures. They are not allowing us to see the hood. It figures.
Study the crash, for there is no sign that the attack car jolts up as it hits. We all know that a car ramming into another causes a jolt. All we see is the attack car pushing the rammed (or pre-rammed) car slowly.
There is the expected tire screech here, not heard in the other video above, simultaneous with a woman screaming. Possibly, once the fakers caught wind of what the critics were saying, one of the criticisms (which I had too) is that the tires should have screeched but didn't. So they had this other video as a back up, and this time they entered a tire-screeching audio.
If you pause it at 2:12, you may be able to catch a person in white t-shirt, with black hair, coming across the top of the dark vehicle in the foreground. At one point his head is pointed to the sky, and he seems to be riding on a vehicle (that we can't see behind the dark one), the purpose being to fake his being rammed and tossed by the attack car. Pressing the run button and pause quickly, the next event becomes chaos, we can no longer make out what's happening. I see no car nor its color.
Nearing the end of 2:12, the camera faces the street for the first time. There is an opening, and I can see the road as well as the front-bumper area of the dark truck. The attack car's roof can be seek in the top-right corner. It has either passed the cameraman already, or has not. There is no evidence I can find that it had passed the truck. While I can see it's roof in the top-right, the rest of it is shielded by people. But, suddenly, they remove themselves so that view of the entire car shows, meaning that the car may have been there all along, waiting for the signal to start pushing the other car. At that time, the driver in the dark van rolls his vehicle ahead so that the middle car can do the same, and the plotters just added a lot of noise, screaming and tire screech.
In the other camera, as well as in this take (Wiggs), we can see the rammed car's wheels turning to the end of the push. I can't make out for sure whether the attack car's wheels had been turning, for they show up initially almost bang-on when coming to a stop. In a real crash without brake lights going on, the wheels should be turning all the way, and as such, I don't see cause for a screech. I see cause for a screech if the other two vehicles were in park, but I think I can see a driver in the rammed car, meaning, along with the turning rims, that they were feigning a normal-traffic situation. So where did the screech come from? No tire marks are on the road at the crash scene. There are no brake lights on (in the le-Bon video) while the attack vehicle is moving forward. Doesn't a screech require brakes on? Someone might say that the screech is the scream of a woman, for that's happening too, but, for me, it sounds like a screech.
In one of the two videos (by Tara McCarthy), the red flag happens to be in the way of the attack car's tire until the car is no longer moving. Was this flag pasted to hide the rims? In the Wiggs video, I think I can see that the rim is definitely not turning. There's only a fraction of a second to judge by, but the rim look completely still while sliding along. If so, there are only two explanations: 1) the car was pasted in and moved forward by video adjustments; 2) the driver had his brakes locked tight at some point in the ramming. This is the only way to explain the tire screech if both other vehicles had rims turning. But while locking his brakes makes sense where he was trying to do damage while protecting himself, I think the car never did slam into anything, but was moved slowly (by the gas pedal), with rims turning, to act out what we see. Therefore, I think they pasted in a rim that didn't spin to compliment the tire screech, which itself feigns fast speed for the crash (i.e. the screech is a sound track, not at the event at all).
At 2:16, once the car has come to a stop, there is an opening in the sidewalk (fewer people) across the street, where the Wiggs and McCarthy cameraman was standing. This opening is expected to give a clear view of the accident. However, I can't make out the cameraman; perhaps he's taping this le-Bon video too. We see the car come to a stop a second time at 2:21, but again, I can't see a cameraman. At 2:21 (and 2:14), a man in white cap can be seen above the back end of the car, and, in the Wiggs video, he's right in front of the Wiggs camera at 12 seconds. You can see the white cap in the McCarthy video, but look at the difference in view, with the cap way down low from the camera. Later, I'll show why this camera is being held high over the cameraman's head.
Turn the sounds off, and watch the car. I see something streaking past the truck. This streaking thing cannot be the reality, for, suddenly, the car shows up slow and mild, not jolting, no metal flying anywhere, a fake. Below, you can see this scene slowed down about six times, and there's a man on the attack car's rear end (as it plows through), impossibly unless it's a staged act.
The person in green that we saw thrown in the other camera cannot be seen in this one. She gets thrown at the very time that the thump takes place when car meets car, meaning that she is supposed to be hit just before impact.
Once the car comes to a stop, the back-up light goes on (2:28), and something purely unexpected takes place, something that the other cameras were not supposed to show us. The perpetrators are lousy movie producers. You can tell that this lot of clubbers was prepared beforehand to come out. It has no natural look to it at all. They look like they're trying to act like actors. They see the back-up light go on, but instead of getting out of the way (as any normal person would), they attack, and one of them stands right behind the car putting a bat through the rear windshield, a glaring sign that this was staged. This guy throws himself off to the side of the car, no big deal, easy to do, and he's safe, of course, he doesn't get run over, of course. They did this with a slow-moving car, slower than what we're seeing. Note how fast the people move as the car backs up, evidence that the video speed has been turned up.
Another person comes in (3:02) and almost dives at the car, as though she thinks she's made of steel, a laugh, for the car is already backing up when she comes for it, something you would never see in real life. We don't see anyone dead or run over after she throws herself off, and we do see what look like tire marks at an angle that do not fit the description of the attack car's tracks. The other camera didn't show anyone run over by this car-in-reverse scene. So, where is the woman that was supposedly killed???
By the way, John le Bon had said in one of his videos that Ahmet Topal joined youtube five days before the staged crash, and that he did a video of the crash site, meaning that he was there. It seems obvious enough that Mr. Topal is a privy plotter. To his credit, perhaps, John le Bon (has terrible, filthy, low-grade, God-forsaking followers) revealed this. The latter part of the video by le Bon was acquired from Topal. As it's got all the markings of a staged production, Topal, or whatever his real name is, is one of the proud goons. These people don't deserve to live amongst us. They will be Terminated.
The le-Bon video showed a woman with camera shooting before the car arrived. She was likely another insider because she was shooting right at the to-be crash site. I assume that the first eight seconds of the video is from her camera. The nice thing about this video is that it's been slowed down to a little slower than reality. The woman who "attacked" the car with merely her body is shown better in this one. The way that her feet are bouncing off the pavement makes the best argument of authenticity that I've seen. However, as it appears that she's in trouble, she may have botched what she was supposed to do, and as a result found herself under a trying, even dangerous, situation. If there had been no spoiler, she wouldn't have been trying this stunt for lack of anywhere to hang on. She had too much of her weight to the back side of the spoiler so that she could not balance on the car. Her feet therefore came down and, as per friction with the road, nearly caused her body to fall in under the car. Without the spoiler to hang on to, it looks like she would have slid under the car.
We can imagine teams practicing many different forms of staging a car attack, and I do not think that they would ever show (publicly) a participant who's been accidentally hurt badly or killed...because all other participants would see it as a pathetic decision by the bosses. That's why no one is injured in the acts that we are seeing. This video shows the people nearly getting crunched, but, alas, no body gets crunched.
After the first eight seconds, the same video as shown by le-Bon is featured in slow motion. Go ahead and watch; you will not see the attack car pass the black pick-up, either because it isn't, or because they have it passing very fast due to their decision to hide the hood from us (they edited the hood part out, which has the effect of making the car seem faster while passing). At 12 seconds, a man's bare back appears on the road in line with the front of the pick-up. He'll be exposed at 15 seconds, past the pick up, riding on the back end of the attack car, with right hand holding the rim of the rear fender, and other parts of his body at the spoiler for a good grip.
At 15, he's in the act of falling off the car, but, the point is, he could never be in that position in the first place if the car was bolting like lightning to the collision. It's an act. He got onto the car while it was moving slow for the trick, or not moving at all. Bad trick. They're busted again. If youtube were interested in providing us with our investigative needs, it would provide a variable-speed button so that we could slow any video we so desire.
Why do we think the slow-motion picture is in black-and-white with the odd color showing? To hide persons that may not be in other takes of the same show. Note how we can't make most people out on the sidewalk across the street. The quality is so poor that it's a dead give-away of an insider video, or at least an insider-adjusted video.
From the start of 52 to the end of 54, it takes the car three seconds to move one car length, which I'll assume is 15 feet. That's works out to 3.4 mph. The same scene almost from the le Bon video had a speed about three times as fast, and was sped up according to the too-fast speed of the one man backing up who had put a hole in the rear windshield. I would suggest that the 3.4 is closer to real-life speed that the speed in the Le-Bon video. Let's assume a speed of 6 mph when crossing the pick-up truck. The velocity of the car from the start of its reversal to the 52-second point is slower than from 52-55. Is that a good reflection of reality that it would be tearing out of this scene so slowly? No, that's ridiculous. I suggest the pick-up truck is there to block the view of the get-away.
Now that I see one of the thugs putting a hole in the rear windshield with his bat, I can add that this windshield is at the so-called "mirror" mentioned earlier, with the man in red fully out of the way so that, if they shot the natural scene without doctoring, we would see the rear windshield. This has got to be why they pasted the mirror in. For example, if they have the car in reverse because the video is in reverse, then the car wasn't struck with the bat yet. They are showing the car that has yet to arrive to the crash site.
Go to 1:29 to see the woman in green in slower motion. This video allows us to see it well. There is a problem in trying to imagine how the car could send her into a full spin while landing on her stomach with feet further away from the attack car than her head. Go ahead and try to figure out a solution. Try it with her: 1) facing the attack car when it struck her; 2) facing away from the attack car when it struck her. Will either option send her into the air above the roof of the attack car in the position that we see her, feet to the sky? I can't see it. Regardless of whether she's facing the car or away from it, the car will tend to have her revolve the opposite way than the way they show her revolving. If she's landing on a convertible roof, there's a lot of friction with one of those, not lending itself well to the slide we see her doing. I lean toward video doctoring to make her spin and slide. I don't think she was really doing that stunt. She was present only to lie on the hood for the camera.
Next, we can get a good shot of the attack car's rim at 1:36-38. It doesn't appear to be spinning. How can we explain this? This has got to be the reason that they got black rims, to hide the fact that the rims were not spinning. If the driver locked the brakes, the attack car is expected to break away from the rammed car, for the latter's rims are definitely spinning. The only other options: 1) the attack car is pasted into the scene; 2) the rims really are spinning. There are three or four shining things on the rim. No matter where the video is paused as the attack car is still in motion, those shiny things do not change position, as expected with a spinning tire. When the car puts it into reverse, and leaves, I can't make out the motion of the rims. They seem to have dimmed and/or fogged the light from the rims prior to releasing this video.
In the le-Bon comments, a good point: "The airbags on the vehicle had been disconnected." One can see that no air bag deployed in the rammed car. And the air bag in the attack car would have made the driver unable to drive backward. Great point. It tends to limit what these fakers can do in the future if only word gets around that airbags disable the driver from driving! Why didn't I think of that? No airbag deployed in the rammed car means that the collision speed with the dark van was less than 15 mph.
A plotter then gets involved in the comments: "It was real as real gets - I saw him hit a fat woman [must be the one in green] and toss her over the car in front of him. I also saw him pinch a white guy between the two cars [we do not see this at all] and the guy was writhing in pain and trying to get loose in the few seconds he was trapped...[In a later post:I saw the fat woman in green fly over the car. I also saw them giving CPR to a fat woman in green. The woman weighed about #250." No one walks out after the attack car puts it into reverse. These comments are from CUNNYringless Rice.
In the Brennan-Gilmore page below, the car is either arriving to the crash scene, or was pasted as we see it. Which do we think is the correct choice? The rammed car is at the tall post we see across the street, and the black pick-up cannot be seen (may not have been there yet). A pick-up cab is as tall as a human head, and there are not enough heads in this picture to hide it all, yet we see no sign of the truck (Tundra). They have some faint dust behind the vehicle to feign speed. Some evidence of a paste job is where the rear rim has light color, yet the crash vehicle had jet-black rims. The sun is directly overhead according to the shade under the car.
Someone else at le-Bon's page: "Dennis H I noticed his license plate is GVF 1111 and his mothers license plate is GVF 1122 from an interview of her in the garage in front of her vehicle." Even if this is true, both plates were fakes, obtained by the state, from the state, for the purposes of this event. GVF, "government fake." Below is le-Bon's video showing the mother and her plates, and she looks very fake, not just her poor reaction, but even the fact that someone would be showing this picture of her car and plate in what looks like her garage. The government wouldn't release such a picture, I do not think.
The video above (at 1:00) shows a photo of the attack car supposedly beside the black pick-up. As you can see, it's a photo only, not a video, and we can see the black man in white shirt and white pants being hurled behind the attack car. It appears that he's about to fall at the front of the pick-up. Yet, a careful look at the top of the pick-up in the le-Bon and slow-motion videos shows a black man in white shirt and black pants. Both have red shoes on their left feet. This one with white pants has a strange right leg with red at the end of it, but it looks more like they wanted his foot to be gone (i.e. more like bloody tissue) than it looks like his red shoe.
This photo is suggesting that the throng, seen in front of the attack car, have no chance to get away whatsoever. Yet the de-Bon video did not show any of these people mangled or even with a leg run over. There was not a spot of blood visible on the road where they once stood as we see them. This photo was produced to put a picture in ours heads that was never real. This black man should have been as good as dead, judging by what they show of him, yet he wasn't even lying on the road (where he's about to land) in the first seconds of various videos.
Here's another video (Fox news), this time of the car coming in to the crash scene, apparently. Note that the upper-left of the screen, when the car appears, has "Brennan Gilmore/Twitter". We are led to believe that Gilmore (the one who worked for the Secretary of State) is the one showing it from his Twitter account. Was Gilmore in charge of all video given to the police? Someone needs to screen all video in a faked event.
At 45 seconds, he turns that camera up the other end of the street (to his right), and the road is grey there too. People are running toward the crash. The plotters had planned to change camera locations from where he stands now to the intersection in red pavement. At 54 seconds, there's a quick shot directly across the road, and there's just a big white wall. Four seconds later, he's tucked around the corner of a building up at the intersection, no longer able to see down the road where the car has driven. Why this switch? One theory: for safety, because the plotters knew that the car would be coming through (on a thin street) in reverse. He started to go for the intersection while other people were still headed down toward the car, and so we can't argue that he saw the car already coming in reverse, or they would have too. It seems he knew what was about to happen, and a few guys across the street are also running away from the crash as he himself turns around, but most of them, closer to the crash, are not running the other way. It suggests that the car wasn't backing up as fast as it's shown in other videos.
At 53, if paused just right, the two tail lights of the car can be seen. They are dim, without brake lights on, and the bright-white reverse light isn't on yet. The thugs with clubs are not yet behind the car. Unless he was part of the hoax, the cameraman could not have known that the driver was backing up. The natural thing for him to have done, if not a part of the plot, was to get closer for this special event; there's money, besides, in capturing a newsworthy event. But, what does he do? He goes the other way. Busted.
The camera turns and looks again up the right end of the street at 54, when the camera goes berserk (hocus-pocus moment?) during the change in cameraman location up at the intersection. My guess is that a little footage (a second or two) was spliced out because, immediately after the camera chaos, the camera gets nicy-steady exactly in time (end of 58) to show the car backing up across camera view. Not by chance, in other words. The camera follows the car nicy-nicy, such a stroke of luck. It could be an entirely new session of video, or a piece of video spliced into the first.
At the start of 58, the camera is looking into a side-of-the-building window. As we look through this window, a second, front-of-the-building window shows, allowing us to see out into the grey road. If one pauses it when the man in red (why red again?) is visible through the window on the front, it can be noted that, to the immediate right of that window, there is something that we cannot see through. At first, I thought it was the interior of the front wall, but because it looks like the street in a darker shade, I realized that it's the reflection of the red intersection. I will call this section of glass pane, between the front window and the corner of the building, the mirror, even if it's not a two-way mirror. After the man in red is past the corner, his reflection, not his shadow, is seen in the mirror. And if one pauses at just the right time, the shadow of the car on the road can be seen in the mirror.
BUT there seems to be some problems in a camera-doctoring trick. If one is able to pause it where the man's arm and both legs are visible around the corner, but not yet his hips, one can see, at the bottom corner, a dividing line between the mirror and the front window. One can see this line go down below the whitish sill of the front window, until the line meets the Fox logo. The existence of the lower part of this line indicates that there is a paste job involved of the front window and what's beneath it. We are seeing two scenes attached to one another carefully, but not carefully enough.
They touched up the items in the mirror to make the reflection look authentic, but they didn't do a perfect job. I don't know what their motive was for this hassle unless; there may have been need to paste in the man in red running, for I don't see him down the street. They had the man in red run across the pasted window just as the car was crossing it too. Why?
Back up and pause at an earlier part of 58, when the man in red is dead-center in the front window. Note near his head that there is a man walking in the mirror, stepping on one of the double-white lines, meaning that he's walking into the intersection. Yet, when you hit the play button, you will not see a man at that white line on the road, less than a second later. The one in the mirror is apparently supposed to be the man in brown pants and dark top, walking toward the double-white lines, but some ten feet or more away from them. The producers goofed by pasting him in a wrong location within the mirror. So, yes, the mirror is also a paste job.
If one is able to pause at an earlier part of 58, where nearly the entire picture frame shows, we get the sense that they tried to create some reflection (with people on the intersection included) within the four sides of the frame, and we can even see the street's horizontal white line extending over onto the picture. But they failed where we see the dark floor; there is no refection beneath the picture frame, in other words. They just didn't bother to touch up that dark area. Everyone knows that a dark area behind a two-way mirror allows higher reflection, and yet the dark floor shows no reflection. Bad, real bad. The red pavement is pasted in below the front-window sill, but that red portion stops at the baseboard. Bad.
My guess is that there is a front window on this building that is roughly like the one pasted in. Yet, instead of just showing the true scene on the day of, I'm seeing a pasted runner to give the illusion that the car really is driving backward. For as the car passes, this man is running forward. If, as per 58 seconds, they were running the video in reverse, to give the appearance of a car driving backward, the runner would be running backward too (if he was there that day). So, the runner and the car can be of separate videos, with one superimposed on the other.
Note how the car drives perfectly straight in the backward direction, perfectly expected if it is a video run in reverse. As the car goes over two bumps, items from the car's ruined bumper fall off, sliding in the same direction as the car's motion, giving appearance of being an authentic backward drive (maybe it is, but maybe it isn't). But moving parts can be pasted into videos. There needs to be a reason that they opted to go with pieces of bumper barely hanging on. Why bother? The driver's-side half of bumper falls away at the very time that this car starts to cross the intersection, and a red shoe (shoes clearly as such during 3:04), supposedly trapped to the bumper until then, can be seen bouncing across the road. Doesn't that appear faked? How could they fake that right on camera? By pasting in the bumper piece and bouncing shoe. The first we see the shoe (3:01), it's illogically between the bumper and the tire (very near the road). In other words, it's not on the outer side of the bumper. Does that seem real to you, or more like a paste job? Why didn't they have the shoe coming off the outside of the bumper? Probably, because it wasn't showing where the front bumper was showing in other cameras.
The only solution I can think of is that they pasted the busted bumper purely to "prove" that the car is driving backward. With the bumper pieces shown dragging, it gives the appearance of a car driving in reverse.
Why would they need to reverse the video? The street's too thin to turn around on, and so the car had to back up...unless it snuck away at the intersection (beside the crash site) after it had finished its performance. In that case, they could use the car coming in as the car going out by simply reversing the video direction.
Both men in the open across the intersection are definitely moving backward as the car goes by, and only once it has passed do they run forward toward the car. Some monkey business can be involved here, but I'm not going to try to explain a solution on how they may have reversed the direction of the car while people are seen walking forward. It's doable.
Just see this spectacular evidence below, as per a google street view showing both windows, and the front one is much wider than it appears in the video. When I wrote on the pasted window above, it was from other considerations; I had not yet visited Google street view. The front window is almost square, yet it's a rectangle in the video. Busted! In the street view, the front window is not much further from the corner of the building than the distance between the corner and the side window, but in the video, the edge of the front window is almost three times as far! The one on the side does not look like a two-way mirror at all. There are papers taped to the inside of the front window, but none in the video:
If Google refuses to let you see the image above, try the one below, and maneuver yourself into position for seeing both in one shot. If the one below fails, enter "impeccable pig" in the street-view box, and once loaded, rotate the arrow until it shows across the street.
It is now evident that they took about half the front window out, replacing it with the mirror. Why would they knock out half the front window? I would suggest a problem with the car scene as it comes by. I can pause it where the man is at the corner, and the car is in the mirror. It's possible that the driver's face was showing too well out the window, and so they pasted in the mirror to hide it. It appears that they darkened the glass on the car by video doctoring, perfectly expected if the driver wasn't the accused.
At 1:08 in the slow-motion video presented earlier, the attack car is shown passing the red intersection. But look, the hood isn't visible in case we want to know whether it arrived pre-bashed. If one pauses it where the hood does show for a split second, the image is foul, it figures. We can't make out anything. This is the video marked, Brennan Gilmore/Twitter. At 1:15, we see a second camera to the left, which may have been the camera that took the shot of the car across the red intersection i.e. the shot that was reversed. We can assume that the car was crossing the intersection at 1:06-1:08, giving the cameraman 6 seconds to get down here to where we see him first at 1:14. It doesn't appear that the attack car is ramming anything, and they don't show us, anyway, it figures.
There is a motive to this event. It is my opinion and that of many others that the deep state is right-now was seeking to remove Bannon agents from Trump's White House, and these are considered alt-rightists. Here on the streets we have some very bad press for alt-rightists. If Trump now keeps Bannon as one of his key advisors, the Obamacrats will start to complain. This event is timed perfectly for removing Bannon, which may suggest that some of the alt-right may have been deep-state actors.
The license plate of the rammed car is at 2:26 of the video below, and it reads, GODKPME. In other words, it may be a fake plate, without a number so that police departments cannot identify the owner. The bumper is showing, but it's not sticking out toward the sidewalk, as was seen in another video above.
At 12 seconds of the video below, a woman unleashes a profanity right in front of the camera, and she's very angry, playing to the audience, the suckers. But she's far from the crash; she has no idea what happened yet. It could be just a typical accident, nothing to be angry about. But she's angry (and spiritually ugly like the deep-state goons), as would be expected if she knew the driver was a neo-Nazi ramming deliberately into the crowd.
At 19 seconds, the crash is seen up-close from an angle not seen before by me. The attack car is moving very slow. No tire screeching can be heard on any of the vehicles. They didn't include the thump-crash that we were made to think was real from another video. In this video, all we see is the attack car slowly pushing the lighter car. It's hard to say whether they added the fingertips to keep us from seeing something. When was the last time you put your fingertips in front of a camera lens? At 37 seconds, just as the girl is lamenting that "all of these people" were mowed down, we see a chubby person in blue sitting on the road (so typical of actors), and no one, not one person is helping him/her, or speaking to him/her, and one guy is just walking past, almost over him/her, an easy sign of fakery. A second or two later, another man walks past the same person, left all alone. Don't be fooled; it's not reality.
At 47 seconds, the car-in-reverse scene is played. This time, notice that the cameraman doesn't get onto the street to capture the car as it proceeds up the street, until it's gone, a dead-giveaway for fakery (i.e. of being part of the hoax). In fact, as he has the car in his sights, he actually moves away from the street, just as we hear (at 50 seconds) the car's tires squeal a little as it slows down, and I suppose we are to think that the car's turning sharply into a driveway. But, clearly, we are not supposed to see what the car did. Only once it's gone, the cameraman takes a view up that street.
At 1:25, small blood spatter on the front of the rammed car. I told you so; they will increase blood shots as time goes on. It was someone's job to drop a few drops on the car. Easy as pie because the entire area is controlled. At 1:35, the camera's are ready to take close-ups of some victims. It's the usual, nothing of the horror to be expected in a real car ramming; instead, just people lying or sitting in fairly-decent shape, and most of what we hear is probably sound effects. The commotion in the sound-effects deceives us. I suggest turning the sound off, sparing yourself the rotten choice of words as a bonus.
In the next video (Mitchell Wiggs), the plotters thought to show the woman in green top being hurled onto the rammed car. There is a red flag covering the scene (at 7 seconds), conveniently, just as the impact supposedly takes place. After the flag removes itself from camera view, we see someone's feet skyward at 8 seconds. Almost immediately, she is sliding along the roof of the car. She (or is it a he?) looks chubby, not looking capable of being a stuntman. I'd say that she's pasted in, therefore, the cheapest, safest way to do the trick.
The funny thing about this is that the camera is roughly at the same spot as the other one that captured the all-red flag on ther street. We do see the same red flag here, but it's slightly to the left of were it is in the other camera. Therefore, there was a second cameraman to the immediate right of the one before. What are the chances of two cameras in operation smack-dab at the crash scene under normal, natural circumstances (where no one knew a crash would take place)? There was a third camera 15-20 feet up the road to the right that took another video we saw above, starting with the cars moving slowly. I can't spot any of the other two cameramen (with camera to their faces) in any one of the videos. Funny that. When this cameraman is facing up the street where the attack car will come from, so is the other cameraman in the video below, yet we don't see the one below even though he should be between the first one and the coming car.
Haha, at 12 seconds, a Negro girl is riding the hood of the attack car. That's funny. She casually gets off.
Get familiar with the scene of hats and clothing or flags in the Wiggs video above, at 4 seconds, when the dark Odyssey can be seen to the left. This vehicle is at the very start of the video below (you need to pause lots to get familiar). Judging by the black-and-white sign (with fist) common to both, the Wiggs cameraman is standing further away from the street. The Do Not Enter sign is common to both when the video below is at 2 seconds, but the black-and-white sign (with fist) is at the front of the white car while in the Wiggs video, that same sign (carried by woman in pink) is beside the dark van. In both videos, there is a person in white shirt and black hat to the right-rear of woman carrying the sign, but the man in brown hat and black backpack (5 seconds) to her immediate front-right in the Wiggs video is not seen in the other video even though there's a clear view of her front-right. It looks like two different takes of the production.
[Insert -- Since writing here, I've come across the le-Bon video, and it is not identical (starts at 46 seconds) either to the Wiggs or McCarthy scene. There is never a match, though close, between le-Bon and McCarthy. Possibly, the le-Bon take is the Wiggs take but from another camera, but this gets ridiculous with as many as three cameras at the same spot, because all three scenes have their differences. None are alike. One option is two cameras only, but then there needs to be two takes from the same camera. In my opinion, this is court-of-law evidence against the criminals. End insert]
Since the people are walking toward the in-coming attack car, we can only conclude that the video above, at 2 seconds, is a few seconds ahead in real time as compared to the Wigg video at it's 4- or 5-second point (assumes that both scenes were identical, not two different takes). In the Wiggs video, the woman in green is on the windshield at 9 seconds, i.e. about four seconds later. In the other video, she's on the windshield at 4 seconds, about two seconds later. When she's on the windshield in both videos, the walking-along Wiggs cameraman has arrived roughly at the back windshield of the rammed car, and the other walking-along cameraman is roughly at the front windshield of the same car i.e. not as far ahead but darn close.
Why were they shooting cameras while walking if they didn't know a crash was coming? Were they interested in recording the hats or backpacks? There was likely only one camerman but with two different takes. In fact, while the cameras are supposed to be beside one another, we can't hear the woman's "holy shit" in one of them. The two videos are of two different events, in other words, probably mere minutes apart, meaning that the cars came pre-bashed. Bashing them on-site could risk ruining the radiator for the get-away.
The other video (not the Wiggs) starts off with the camera well above eye level. You can know this when the heads of people in the distance are higher than heads closer to the camera. This camera does not come to eye level until 6 seconds. It is clear that this person was holding the camera a couple of feet above the eyes BEFORE the crash took place. Why? Not until immediately after the woman in green is on the hood does the camera come down to eye level. Pausing it at 6 seconds, one can see the heads over the roof of the car, all heads roughly level regardless of how far away they are, a sign that the camera is at eye level. But looking at the same people at 4 and 5 seconds, the heads of people further away are higher up. The other video is from Tara McCarthy, who's shown giving with her hand what some say is a 666 symbol.
The Wiggs video starts at eye level while walking on the sidewalk, but then goes up high as the woman in green is shown doing a "cartwheel." How possibly could a run-of-the-mill person, in a natural situation, think so fast as to raise the camera the second he/she hears the attack car smack the other car? Ducking would be more like the natural thing to do, not raising a camera over the head. It's not the natural thing to do...unless the cameraman knows that a show is being put on above the roof of a car. Yes, at 8 seconds, as the cartwheel is in progress, the heads of people across the road are significantly higher (on a horizontal line in the image) than heads nearer to the camera.
I was able to pause both videos at various spots where the two legs are skyward. It took about 20 tries, but finally I had the legs in the same position, bent at the knees almost 90 degrees with the body coming down to the hood. In the McCarthy video, the right foot and knee are higher than the left, and it's vice-versa in the Wiggs video. It figures.
When the legs are over the windshield, the left leg is much higher in the Wiggs show, with only the right leg along the glass. The audio at, and a couple of seconds after, impact is not the same between videos.
They even prepared a sky view of the accident for us, pretty nifty of these criminals, wouldn't you say? The only thing to be seen is the dark vehicle pushed forward through an intersection. If we assumed that there was a driver in the rammed vehicle, and in the dark van, this video tends to argue that they were both parked, for the intersection immediately ahead of the van is filled with people before the crash. If the vehicles were parked, we expect their tires to screech when pushed forward some 20 feet or more. But I heard no screeches in the videos above. And while this crowd didn't take out a permit to assemble, how do we explain that they were filling an intersection, without police even on the scene? That makes zero sense.
The van goes straight forward, expected if it's rolling slowly with the transmission in drive. I predict that we'll never get a shot of the van or rammed car from the back because we would then see the brake lights on.
As you watch this, you are led to believe that the dark vehicle is running over people. No it's not. At 8 seconds, the larger view is shown, at the end of the push-van event, one guy the driver's side is on the hood, hanging on to the front of the hood's edge, and he walks away unharmed (of course). Another guy is rolling along on the pavement almost under the bumper, and goes unharmed too. Both of these acts are easy-as-pie to do when the van was moving very slowly. If you think that the people running away are going fast, that's because they turned up the video speed to make it appear more dangerous (to the guys in front of the van).
I've enlarged the video to full screen, watching the guy on the pavement closely. It appears that he's being pushed along at first on something rigged at the front of the vehicle either for him to hang on to, or to ride on, giving the illusion that he's being pushed forward by the van. His body stays in the same position as he's moving with the van, but we don't expect the body to be even visible if it were actually being pushed ahead by the underside. In that case, he'd be mainly under the van. You can't get pushed forward by the bumper, but we can see him ahead of the bumper. He then gets off of whatever he's depending on to ride along, and starts rolling forward, then gets up. The thick crowd on the intersection was to hide this theater, and to prevent non-insiders from getting close to the rigged act. The production likely included the running away of all paid protesters that were not privy to the hoax. The footage ends as soon as the vehicle stops motion, so that we can't see what was done after that, it figures.
Hmm, just learned from the comments section that the dead victim is being named, Heather HEYER. The Hare / Heyer / Ayer bloodline was an important topic of the last update. We might like to know where Heyer was. Rigging a faked death requires a lot of work. As in other cases, money is being raised, and money talks to convince some to fake their deaths, and others to pose as the parents relatives / employers. No one seems to be telling where she was killed, and I say Trump's people ought to look into this fakery, expose it.
The comments include: "The alt-right protesters had permits, the counter demonstrators did not." For a faked event, it was probably necessary not to get a permit, for it would risk getting more non-plotters to the throng. Sneaky went the operation. This event hopes to give Democrats steam, but it's a non-starter. Try as they might to bulk all Trump voters into a Nazi box, it won't work. The cancellation of Steven Bannon could come at any moment as the deep state privately urges Trump to scrap him with vehemence, at this opportunity-knocks moment.
Here are people getting out of the van in the intersection, with a feigned injury to its side. The air bag in the rammed car has not deployed, this view proves it. The beginning of this video is one we've already seen with McCarthy, aside from the beginning, as people get out of the van. The perpetrators are mainly decided not to show victim's faces in this event, and the one beside the rammed car is yet another such example. We expect the woman in green there, but I see no green. The video then shows the same shot as the Wiggs video, and this time, after showing that there's no one on the hood of the rammed car (2:50), I've spotted a woman in green, standing up, looking fine, near the rammed car, at 2:58. She looks hefty enough to have been the one sliding off the windshield, and her green top is the same shade as the one ending up on the hood. I'm still asking myself how they did that part. It was a well-done trick. One would think that the cameramen in this area would be primarily interested in the woman in green, but they avoid her probably because it was a fake job. Doesn't any cameraman want to get a good shot of her face? There were at least two cameraman there, and many others with cell phones.
I think the first minutes of the following Alex-Jones video (not with Jones as speaker), entitled, "Who Killed Heather Heyer," is revealing as per Obama's shadow government creating trouble hoping to gain from it. The video has value in exposing the Democrats as the real agitators, but it doesn't have specifics at all on Heyer. You might stop watching after eight or nine minutes, as that's enough.
The video below, from someone who's investigated Heyer, shows that she is being given a "Non-Cemetery Burial," a phrase that tends to hide how she was put away. The media provided a black-and-white photo of her, in her youth (better to conceal her identity for her new future), but this video has found other photos, and her body looks rather large whereas the media photo has her looking thin (is it even the same person?) If it's the same Heather Heyer, we find that she worked for the Denver elections people, which reminds that Platte River Networks Hillary's server) is in Denver. Intelius has Heather D Heyer at 32 years of age and working for lawyers, and the video producer tries to make the case (not sure if it succeeds) that she's also Heather Joan Hyer, age 32, of Minnesota. At 6:20, the dead victim's words tell that she's a stay-at-home mother (not to be trusted) with roughly teenage kids. We find that she supported Bernie Sanders, if the report of Mr. Wilson can be trusted.
Here's Trump on the issue saying that, before he speaks a "statement," he wants to know the facts, unlike the media. However, where does he get his facts? Obviously, from others. Whom does he listen to? At this point, probably not Bannon, but I could be wrong. Note how he says he knows the head of Walmart, the company suspect with the deep state in some as-yet unknown mystery looking much like a covert military operation inside the country. It's not possible for me to know at this point on whether Trump knows the car crash was faked, but he's speaking publicly as though he believes the official story. It could spell his death if he came out to say that the attack was faked, and he'd need to be willing to accept all-out war with the deep state.
There are white people in the United States with a legitimate concern against non-whites precisely because the leftists are turning them against whites in order to win non-white votes (this is so disgusting). You don't need to love Hitler to be concerned about this. The It would lead to the take-over of America by a conglomeration of what are now minorities. I completely sympathize with whites who want America, and Canada, to remain dominantly white, and my use of "dominant" does not mean "domination" or "white power." I mean that a nation which has traditionally been white wants naturally to remain white, having nothing to do with desire to dominate the various minorities. I realize that there will be those who demean American minorities just because they are not white, but Christ is not like that, and neither should Americans be.
Here's a video with movement from the left that looks prepared by militant types ready for civil war. I clicked to this video because it features Tom Morello, and the Morello bloodline was suspect with the murder of judge Scalia. So, I'm wondering whether Tom Morello (part Negro) is part of the inner circle of Clinton-related criminals. Note the angry, militant black speaker at the 8th minute admitting that his group (who asked him to speak?) want a united left toward socialism USA, in opposition to capitalism. In other words, all sorts of controversies / disagreements will be used as divisive swords to start the battles, and the neo-Nazi issue is only one of them. In reality, it's not capitalism that they want destroyed; they want raw power. Isn't Obama a Negro too? Is he behind this "democracy"?
Morello (part Italian) is inciting the people, and the leaders are trying to turn white Democrats (often traitors to Christ) against white Republicans, if they can, but this is part of why Trump won the election, because Obama, stupid and undemocratic man that he is, revealed to all that he would throw money and other favors at Mexicans in return for their votes. Trump capitalized on this outrageous thing. I didn't watch past the middle of the 11th minute.
Here's How Nervy the Deep-State Has Become
The strangest thing. The video below (dated August 14), entitled, "Charlottesville Car Attack: Full Livestream," starts off with a single young man saying that he's walking past a mass of "nationalist socialists," as he calls the right wingers. At 48 seconds, when he's walking along some street, with a cameraman following him (strange in itself), the same car as driven by the attacker comes into view driving gently along the road. The paint is identical, and even the look of the tires. The camera, which we expect to follow the man, veers instead, right to ther car's back end, unmistakable, when it's at a standstill at a red light. I can't read the license plate; it has the look of an undercover police vehicle, and the driver in the attack car looked officer-like.
After writing ther above, I got to the comment section. The first comment: "Oi at 0:50 is that the Challenger that hit the protesters? It looks just like it." Someone else: "wow the car its just there at the beginning of this video , for sure a car from a cop". It's possible that there are a few of these cars around town for undercover officers. (I didn't know while writing here whether this video was before or after the crash, and assumed it was after). As the man walks past the car, a siren starts to go off, but then doesn't; it happens a second time. Is it sound effects added to the video by the perpetrators of the hoax? What could they be up to? Or is this clip a joke from the police to mock the naive public? The man acts like he didn't notice the car, but then why did his cameraman focus on the car's back end?
This is one of the best things for giving away the hoax. Compare that car with the one at the crash in the two-second clip (the first two seconds) of the video below.
If either video is no longer available, I assure you that the cars are identical from all that I could see. Back to the video with young man, and it's comments: "Funny how this vid cuts at 1:17 right before the challenger at 0:50 should go by....." Yes, I noticed that too. After the light goes green, the first car at the lights goes by, to be followed by the car under discussion, but the video changes scene just as it's about to go by, and we don't see it's front end from the side.
Someone else says: "Did anyone else realize that a sireen noise come from the suspect car in the beginning??" What are the chances that, twice, the siren started going off just as this cameraman walks by? Possibly, this video comes from the alt-right to "prove" that the attack car was a police car. The problem with that theory is the difficulty for the alt-rightists (not part of the hoax) in getting an identical car to drive by their camera.
If this clip is not a trick by either the right or the perpetrators of the hoax, a third theory is that God made the driver start his siren to show the viewer that the attack car was from the police. (Soon, I discover that this entire video was from the perpetrators, meaning that the siren was not a part of their script). Judging by the shadows under the cars, it's not more than three hours before or after high noon.
In the 8th minute, the camera happens to walk into people screaming and running away from something, which I'll assume is a fake job. The video owners wish for us to believe that this was by chance. I therefore take the position that this video is from the perpetrators. A lady stops to tell the young man that "a car just drove straight in," and this must be the crash. But if these are the perpetrators, why would they have the crash car sounding the siren, as this condemns the police, a thing the perpetrators would not do. Just as in the other planned videos, this lady uses language unheard of in the open streets a generation ago. It tells us what lost / despicable souls are part of false-flag events, which makes sense, for good people don't trick the world like this. At 8:28, just after this woman does her part of the script, the white building I spoke on earlier, at the intersection where the car did the drive in reverse, has been arrived to.
At 8:31, he takes a direct shot of the window I spoke of, with the framed picture. Coincidence? I think not. The word, "UNION," is on the glass. The cameraman that was shooting into that window could be the one in jeans and dark shirt, on the left side with his left hand up to his face (he could have a phone to his ear, or a camera to his eye). As you can see, all is relatively calm at the intersection. The car has disappeared for at least 30 seconds, for the other cameraman was standing in the intersection after about 30 seconds, but is not in the intersection here. So why is the crowd told to run away by a frantic voice, after the car has long gone? For media shock value? Looks like. And the loud-mouth woman happens to walk straight up to this other camera as it comes on the scene smack-dab at the minute of the drive-in-reverse. Let's not be naive. The big media are playing this event in a large way because this "news" is being transferred to the media by the deep-state's media-feeding offices (the greatest source of fake news). Trump can't be so naive as to think that the media produce the fake news aside from what they receive from the invisible (unelected, unauthorized) powers in the military and Intelligence.
I don't recall the other camera having that loud voice telling people to run away. Instead, I saw people running toward the car, unafraid. In this video, the voice says, "go the other way, run," and one can make out that he's yelling from where the other cameraman was, yet I didn't hear these words from his camera. The stupids in charge do a lousy job faking reality mainly due to producing and releasing for media value only; once we know this, it's easier to peg a faked video clip from a genuine one. The other reason is that most of the public doesn't have the time / patience / desire / inclination to check the videos for evidence of fakery.
The young man turns the corner, and heads for the crash scene. He seems to arrive too soon, suggesting that the camera was sped up. As soon as he arrives, more indecent words, from criminal types. We are to think that everyone in America uses foul language, and they are doing all they can to cause us to do so. They would like us all to be demonic.
There's no blood shown on the street, and the car supposedly just plowed through here. Our young man tells us that one of two victims is bleeding, but of course he's saying this, since he's part of the con job. The cameraman is careful not to show the victims, and those huddled around them seem to want the same. The plotters know that they can't use fake blood without greater risk, because half of America expects it now with events such as this. Anyone in the crowd can take a sample of whatever liquid they use for blood (just wipe some on your shirt), and, taking it to a lab, can expose the fakery. If ever they do use fake blood, I expect it to be dried before non-plotters arrive. With no blood or injuries there, it explains why some people look like they're wondering what all the noise and fuss is for. All faked terror acts have such people.
After this event, more people will realize that the government is lying to them. This time, the onus is on Trump to come clean, but he doesn't appear prepared to do that at this time. He says he's still gathering facts.
Sixteen minutes in, I still haven't seen blood on the street, or a piece of clothing, let alone a pool of it. I'm not watching the rest.
I'm not advocating anything said in this video. But I do want to show a photo of the crash scene I haven't yet seen. The crash car has apparently done its damage, as no pedestrian is moving away from it. It seems strange that two people to its right are standing beside it, looking at it, not what we expect from the sort of crash being painted in our minds. To the left of the car, there is no one on the road, either on their feet or off, to match the person we see down on the street in the video below, just as the attack car comes to rest at one second:
Big goofy problem there for the proud deception team. The woman in red circle (first video above) is either in the process of falling to the road, or in the act of getting up. I'd say she looks more like she's falling. Note how blurry this picture is, as though taken in the first decade of the camera's invention. It's deliberately blurry, isn't it? That's because more Americans are watching these events with a critical eye. Staged events are the best thing to come along for exposing the deep-state morons. They are exposing themselves.
I have got to believe that the two second clip was provided for only one reason: to "prove" that the Nazi attacker was in the car of the young-man video. Whoever he is, he's part of the secret brotherhood of false-flag events, expected to be part of future events. Let me repeat: If this clip is not a trick by either the right or the perpetrators of the hoax, a third theory is that God made the driver start his siren to show the viewer that the attack car was from the police. (Soon, I discover that this entire video was from the perpetrators, meaning that the siren was not a part of their script). The possibility is that the driver, a police officer, was told where to go in preparation for the crash scene, but was not told that this young man was a part of the media-feeding production team. He therefore sounded his siren unaware that he was being filmed for public release. I don't know whether the young man's cameraman was wearing a body cam on his breast, or just holding the camera to his front rather than at his eye, in which case the driver of the car was less likely to see the camera.
In short, God may have intervened to play that sweet siren for us, to reveal that the cops in many cities are one with the morons. The only explanation is that the highest level of the American military is behind it, otherwise the police would not, could not, be willing stooges. The big and important question is whether the Trump inner circle is a willing stooge too. In that case, I see Trump-Obama collusion in false-flag events. In fact, when I showed a clip with Trump speaking above, he mentioned "president Obama," and the tone of those two words were such that he had respect for the former president. Just because Trump takes sides with his rightist voters doesn't necessarily mean he's not a deception stooge in some cahoots with the leftist deep state. The gathering by neo-Nazis and anti-Nazi's amounts to creating greater division between the people, exactly the thing that allows the deep state to protect itself from a mass revolt (it can turn half the nation against the half that rebels by using the opposing political party).
Below is the crash site from Google street view. Note how tucked-away / quiet this part of town is, good for staging a production. Note the parking spaces along the sidewalk, for the rammed car was in the middle of the street? Why was it parked there? It couldn't have been parked in the genuine sense of the word. And the driver couldn't have been driving through the intersection, or the people would not have gotten that thick in front of him. If he wanted to cross the intersection, people would have seen his rolling wheels and gotten out of the way. The only way to get that massive crowd in the intersection is for the driver of the van to have been a part of the hoax. Again, go back and look at the sky view; the van is rolling straight out from it's parked position, no sliding to the side due to the grinding of the tires on account of the vehicle being in park (gear), or to a driver holding the brakes down. If those guys at his hood were truly in danger, the driver would have pressed the brakes hard to the floor, yet we see his van roll out nicy-straight, just like a nicy con-job on the entire nation.
Who put those people in the intersection? They didn't have a permit to assemble anywhere, and yet they filled the intersection like flies to manure. Check this video out telling of companies that provide crowds for protests and other "needs," and moreover there was such a group (Crowds on Demand) asking for actors in the area a few days before the crash. It's the new democracy, to fake political movements. I do not think that hired people are privy to a faked crash, however, as any one of them might become a traitor. For faked terror acts, the assistants need to be fully controlled with good money, and dire threats. They need to be tested and proven demons, explaining the rotten language.
It's a week after the crash as I write here. There were a hundred cameras on-site, and yet the few youtube videos that I can find of the event are not enough to express a natural situation. The "protesters" were directed not to film and release anything, isn't that right? Yes, and that's why there was almost no one seen taking pictures with their phones.
This event was intended to alter internal politics in some way. The supremacists have a Christian backdrop at times, and the left will link that to all Christians, lumping them all together with supremacists. I urge Christians not to cosy up to supremacists in concerted efforts to fight the left. Back at the Boston marathon, I suggested that red shirts, any king of shirt, represented team leaders.
I've been loading youtube videos for nearly a week daily, but when I visit youtube's home page this morning (Saturday), there are 71 suggestions to watch, but not one of them is about the crash, just as though youtube is programmed to hush the videos (as much as possible) due to the number of damning ones. Yep, youtube is connected to the deep-state stream. Search "Charlottesville fake" to force youtube top bring up some videos, but don't expect the most-damning to even show.
The top suggestion (this morning, anyway, and for my computer) as per using the phrase above is the video below, which I don't especially like. At 1:51, it shows the first victim scene I've seen so far where it's obvious that the plotters want a face released. They are now using water (or a clear substance) for blood (I saw this in the last car crash(es), as you can see. What are the chances that so much blood is coming from her leg, yet we see no injury to her leg? It's perfectly expected of a fake scene. The reddish parts to the clear-liquid are probably doctored. I cannot make out where this woman is seated, but she can be the one beside the man in striped shirt in the le-Bon video. There was no need to remove her sock. She's black, as is the next one shown at 1:57. There are no visible injuries to the latter, whom is the one that came off the hood of the attack car (Wiggs video) very fast and vigorous i.e. unhurt anywhere.
We heard from one liar concerning a person trapped between cars and writhing, but at 2:13, we see the rammed car in contact with the van, without a person caught there.
In the third injury scene where a face is shown, another black woman, with multiple other blacks in the image. Clearly, they are seeking to turn blacks against supremacists. That looks like an agenda to keep blacks within the Democrat fold, but also to foment strife toward more to come in the way of faked events.
At 2:52, it's the shot that captures the face of the driver. The camera shot is coming from the sidewalk, with the car almost upon the red intersection, and the hole in the rear windshield can be seen. The piece of bumper on the driver's side has not yet broken off, but will in the next second as it drives across the intersection. No red shoe shows on the bumper. Ask: where could that shoe possibly be? The shoe bouncing was needed to prove a drive in reverse, right? For all we know, since it's a still picture, this is the car driving forward as it arrived (requires a pasted hole in the rear windshield). The shoe is shown in an image at 2:54 (i.e. they wanted to show the shoe). There is a black man, wearing what looks like the same shoe, on the black pick-up truck, but it doesn't appear possible that his foot was caught by the car's bumper. (I stopped watching in the 3rd minute.)
If I'm wrong about the faked-reverse drive (if he really did drive out in reverse), the cameraman for this shot under discussion should prove to be the man in blue shirt seen after the car drives past the intersection. I think he's the guy holding the camera on the sidewalk as the car is going to the crash. Yet, he may have been placed there to "prove" that the car drove in reverse.
The video below was produced by one of the many belonging to the Internet's ignoramus clubs, who like to use foul language as a rule to identify themselves with the ignoramus clubs. If you can excuse him, see 2:20, with a shot I've not seen before of the crash site from up high. This image shoes the black man leaning on the pick-up, who was twirling above the truck in the le-Bon video. He's the same man sitting on the truck (has one red shoe off), but ask: how could a man going through that hurl possible be well enough to get himself up on the high hood of that truck?
Where he's leaning against the truck, he has one shoe off, and it's lying in the middle of the road. We are now to believe that the car's bumper dragged this shoe along to the intersection. It appears that the shoe was used to prove authenticity of the black man's twirl job, though perhaps they decided to release this image in an effort to explain how the shoe bounced out at the intersection (something that received criticism). So, while they at first planned to make us think that he was twirled onto the hood of the truck, other circumstances required his being pasted in to "prove" certain things as per the criticisms that were coming out of the poor hoax job. In any case, look ma, no blood beside the red shoes. No blood anywhere on the road. No blood anywhere on this superman who can deflect cars with bare hands.
I literally hate godless, satanic video producers like the one for this video. The black man is shown twirling at 3:45. They have him in another still image falling behind the attack car. We see him falling at 3:46 but with no sign of the attack car where we see the road (they want us to think the car was fast as lightning). We must conclude that this man created the bash in the front windshield, yet he walks away in time not to be driven over in the reverse get-away. Yes, ask: why is the street clear for the get-away? Because, it's not a real event. The only victim in the get-away was the red shoe.
See if you can spot this black man (needs to be in white shirt) in this image (hit back button to get back to my page):
I don't see him, and look at how many other people there are who can be flung into the air after bouncing off the windshield? Why do the brake lights appear to be on? Where's the woman in green top? There's supposed to be a tall clown, with yellow-orange hair, at the second window from the stop sign, and he's not seen either.
The video below shows the attack car stopped for a routine check before the crash, an obvious part of the hoax. In the first image, the brake lights are on, but in the second one at 12 seconds, no lights are on (including the one in the read windshield), which shows that all four red reflectors are identical in color when the lights are off. Yet, in the still image above, the outer reflectors are brighter than the inner reflectors, indicating that brake lights were on as the car approached the crash.
The video below purports to be a cell-phone video, but it's right in front of where the Wiggs / McCarthy cameras were. Here at 2 seconds two more cameras can be seen, one on a pole and held high, and yet another camera on a pole at 9 seconds. This camera itself goes up as it passes the one at 9, but comes back down again, suggesting that it can be on a pole too. The white sign with fist is supposedly behind. The sound of the crash begins in the middle of 23 seconds. Starting at 22, this camera is getting a good view of the road area where the attack car supposedly flies through, but not a thing can be seen in the way of people getting themselves out of the way, or being pushed over, down, or flung high. Nothing. The camera has been focused on the road since 21, with a broader view at 22, and even more broad (clear across the street) at 23. There is no way to miss the people getting hit that we expect at 23, yet we don't even see the black man with red shoes go flying, not even a head going down. Besides, the camera conveniently veers off the road as the sounds begin.
I probably should get a system that allows youtube videos to be slowed down to the speed of my choice, but for now, all I'm using is the pause button. At 26, this camera has a view of what was behind it on the sidewalk, as the cameraman spins around. This cell-phone camera is a couple of car lengths from the Wiggs and McCarthy cameras (neither can be seen in this one as it's pointed their way), but we don't hear the loud voice of the McCarthy-video cameraman whatsoever. I cannot make out whether the rims of the attack car are spinning. This looks like the same take as in the le-Bon video.
If you study this camera closely, you might get the same impression as myself, that its about a car length too far ahead when we first see the attack car as compared to where we expect it after seeing the camera beside the man in white shirt, carrying the white, horizontally-held sign. That is, as the crash sounds begin, the camera is beside the man with white sign, yet when it spins around to show the attack car in the process of collision, that man is suddenly a car length away. It doesn't smell correct to me. It seems that a couple of seconds were left out (perhaps because she had a shot of the street that we are not permitted to see). The black flag in this approach image cannot be seen by the camera under discussion, and the image can be timed at the camera's 21-22-second range. Bad, very bad.
If you care to look at the 49-second point of the le-Bon video, there is a woman holding up high a cell-phone camera behind the man with white sign, and we cannot make out anyone else beside him with a camera. So, where is the cell-phone camera that ended up a car length ahead of him? The woman's camera is between the white sign and the "Do Not Enter" sign. It appears that this woman, starting from behind him, walked well past him, but that they removed that bit of walk. Maybe not, but that's what it looks like. At 52, she's headed straight for the electric-wire pole, which is where the cell-phone camera under discussion was when the crash sounds began. It looks like we have a match. The fingers belong to this woman (with a black dress having white and perhaps purple markings). In both videos, she is barely passed the pole when the smash take begins.
Repeat: "In fact, while the [Wiggs and McCarthy] cameras are supposed to be beside one another, we can't hear the woman's "holy shit" in one of them." Yet, here, with a camera two car lengths away from the other two, we can hear those words clearly. In this alone, Donald Trump, the self-proclaimed righteous warrior of justice, has reason to make arrests of the leaders of this faked crash. It's bona fide and excellent court-of-law evidence of guilt. The "holy shit" in the Wiggs video comes as the woman in green slides across the rammed car, but in the cell-phone camera, it comes "much" later, after the cars stop moving.
The cell-phone camera veers away from the thug-attack on the car. We may assume that, for the one in control of this take, they had decided not to show it. The fingers over the lens that show up at this time may be pasted to hide things at the top-right corner, where two other cameras were as well as the front of the pick-up truck. The fingers hide the woman attacking the car's back end, and almost getting crunched against the pick-up. We can expect that part to be blocked out in respect of the actor who almost got herself hospitalized.
We can check in this video whether the black man with red shoes really did lean against the truck. I just don't think they could have had that same man both on the road and leaning against the truck, as well as sitting on its hood and getting off seconds later. It's one or the other, but not both unless they did two different takes, or pasted him in one. I suspect that he was never on the road with his shoe off. In the latter part of the le-Bon video, he is sitting on the truck as the attack car backed away across it. But at the 1:29-30 point of the le-Bon video, no black man can be seen in the air, or about to land on the hood of the truck. At 1:36, his white shirt, as he sits on the truck, can be seen.
At 34 seconds, the two fingers are as far down as we expect the red shoe and his legs as he leans on the truck. Besides, they have a man (in blue) in the way of that spot, but when he's out of the way for a split second, there's no black man to be seen...at 35, when there's a clear view of the truck's front wheel). Nor is there anyone sitting on the truck any longer, same as at 39. He's shown elsewhere sitting on the truck when this cell-phone video is at 33 seconds. That means he slid off the truck within ten seconds of the beginning of the crash. To put it another way, he was sent flying through the air, as we are to believe, yet was well enough to slide (actually jump) off the truck, and stand there, about ten seconds later.
A man with black head/hat (back to the camera) shows up on the sidewalk, at the very front of the pick-up, at 44 seconds (hard to pause it there, but I've got it.) I can see his red shoe, and, at 45, I can see his black, shoeless, right foot. He's got dark pants, however, and does not appear muscular (no one else but him can be seen there with a white shirt). But at the 3:32 point in the le-Bon video, not only is he muscular, but he's got white pants on to match his white shirt, a red shoe on his left foot, and a black, shoeless right foot. It's a match, but it isn't. Perhaps they had two men able to play the same part. At 2:02 (cell-phone video), the Negro in dark pants and black hat appears with both red shoes on across the road from the pick-up. The one in white pants is never seen again. This can suggest that the cell-phone video is not the le-Bon take after all.
Repeat: The video above (at 1:00) shows a photo of the attack car supposedly beside the black pick-up. As you can see, it's a photo only, not a video, and we can see the black man in white shirt and white pants being hurled behind the attack car. It appears that he's about to fall at the front of the pick-up. Yet, a careful look at the top of the pick-up in the le-Bon and slow-motion videos shows a black man in white shirt and black pants." We now need to conclude that the one in white pants falls to the street at the front of the pick-up, but then climbs to the hood of the truck (they are definitely the same man) for about ten seconds only, and then jumps off, never to be seen again. It makes no sense at all, suggesting that the still image is a paste job. Meanwhile, the one in black pants is hurled to an unknown landing spot, and is later found standing exactly where the one in white pants jumps off the truck about ten seconds earlier. It looks like they did takes at two separate times with two different men.
Just as Trump can appear to be in trouble over this controversy, Julian Assange comes out to say he's talking with congressman, Dana Rohrabacher. Assange is promising to prove to Trump that the DNC hacking by Russia did not take place. Hopefully, as this gets close to Trump, Wikileaks will need to reveal who the leaker was as part of proving it wasn't Russia. The problem is, if Wikipedia be correct, Rohrabacher "sided with Russia in the Russia–Georgia war," something that Trump won't get within a million miles of anytime soon.
Now ISIS in Spain
There's another car-terror attack in the world (Spain this time) at Drudge today (Thursday). It seems that car attacks are the thing of the future. We are to think that the world is filled with people who want to ram people. The first and second photos I saw looked like a typical faked-act images. They just have a certain look where the faces don't show what I expect from the fright involved. Car rammings require terrible bodies / bruising, and I haven't seen one, not one, so far.
Here's another sick, needless Drudge headline, by the way, that Drudge must have had a good laugh with: "Man 'Killed By Boat Propeller' While Spreading Father's Ashes...". There's just nothing better to report than sick jokes by Matt Drudge. He has a constant stream of headlines worse than this.
When there are no pictures to a terror act, it's more credible. The faked ones always seem to come with a cameraman/men right there in the thick of the site. Why waste a good fake job: get crafty pictures, learn to fake people thrown by cars, etc. Imagine being coached on how to be a team player of a faked act until, after a while, you are made bored / dull to tears. When it's time to act, you look bored, no sign of fright on your face. That's how the faces look who are chosen to crouch down at the victims. And the victims themselves have been so lousy at acting full of fright that, now, the producers maybe aren't showing the victims' faces for that reason. It's easy to act for a minute or two, but these guys are told to sit on the road until it's their time to pose for the camera. It could be a half hour or more. You can't act all that time; the best you can do is sit there and wait, and it shows by the time a camera catches the scene for a second or two. Eventually, people will all think that the attitudes in faked events are normal.
A dozen dead is a complicated fake to maneuver. A dozen dead is more of what we could expect in a genuine car attack. But here is a page with a dozen images in roughly an hour or two after the event, and there is no picture whatsoever of what we expect to see. A pool of blood would be convincing. In the worst photo of the 12, all I see are great legs. You would think that the media on the spot would try to capture the spirit of the horrible event with a little something-better than a guy laying down on the road taking a nap.
The Independent is reporting 80 injured. One expects a photo showing the trail of injuries. There is an attempt, but the video is much in black-and-white, though with yellow showing well, which is a form of video deception because the rest is virtually in black-and-white. It makes it harder to make out the details. They can say that they don't want to give proper color in order to make the pictures less alarming, but in this way they can also use fake blood. I don't think the first video clip is from any major media, but from the producers of the hoax. Let's see what the major media provide for us? Note how crisp and clear and colorful the street image is, in the second clip, where there is nothing to hide.
I didn't cover this event very much. Maybe later. Time for a few giggles. Here's the first episode of Beverly Hillbillies:
For Some Prophetic Proof for Jesus as the Predicted Son of God
Table of Contents