About midweek this week, the following quote December-30 offering was added to the last update. It would be good to start with this insert as I make headway in matching the true lunar distances to the lunar sizes as we see them with the eye. The latter are called "angular diameters" of the moon, described in degrees. The angular diameter is just a small distance across the sky equal to the diameter of the moon, and the reason they describe this distance in degrees rather than in distance units is that its a fraction of an imaginary, 360-degree circle around the earth. If the moon is .5 degree large, there are 360 x 2 of those moons in the imaginary circle because 360 / .5 = 720. For this discussion, you will often see .558 degree as the largest-possible moon size, and .49 degree as the smallest possible:

So, using my figure instead of theirs for the orbital length, we do: 1,483,351.145 [miles] / 3.14159 (pi), we find an orbital diameter of 472,253.21 miles, which makes the average lunar distance half of that: 236,082 miles, not their average of 238,860. The difference between these two numbers is not small.

[Insert December 30 -- BUT JUST HANG ON A MINUTE. Let's go back to the problem found at the outset of this update, and spot the number in italics as part of the problem:

360 degrees / .558 x 2159.1 / 3.14159 / 2 = 221,739 miles, and:
360 / .49 / x 2159.1 / 3.14159 / 2 = 252,464 miles, and;
360 / .524 x 2159.1 / 3.14159 / 2 = 236,082 miles as the average distance [WRONG].

The conundrum lies where we find the average distance by adding the nearest-and-furthest distances, then dividing by 2, and yet that method gets (221,739 + 252,464) / 2 = 237,101.5 instead of 236,082. How to explain this? The .558, .49, and 2159.1 (lunar diameter) in the math above are NASA's numbers, not mine. There's nothing wrong with the math as long as .524 degree is the middle/average angular size of the moon, and it is the smack-middle between .558 and .49. The only way to change the .524 is to change either the .558 or .49 or both, but we can't change them on a whim. Here's from the last update on how I arrived to those numbers:

Late this week, I verified that NASA's eclipse data has .558 degree as one of its absolute-largest numbers, for I found an eclipse with that angle but no eclipse having a higher number since 1981. I also found two eclipses with .4901 degree but nothing lower since 1981. The average between .49 and .558 is .524 degree...

Again, when we convert .558 to miles, we get 252,464, and when we convert .49 to miles, we get, 221,739, and when we find the middle between them, it's 237,101.5, not 236,082. But when we get the middle between .558 and .49 and use it in the math like so, 360 / .524 x 2159.1 / 3.14159 / 2, we arrive to 236,082, not 237,101.5. Probably, those outer figures need adjusting slightly until the math works all-around.

360 degrees / .558 degree gets us the number of moons in a full circle around the earth, which is able to get us the distance of a lunar orbit if we just do, 360 / .524 x 2159.1 miles. Once we have the length of the orbit using that method, we divide by pi to get the diameter of the orbit, and finally we divide by 2 to get the radius, which is the distance to the moon. That's why I did: 360 / .524 x 2159.1 / 3.14159 / 2 = 236,082 miles. For the purposes here, it doesn't matter that the lunar orbit is not perfectly circular, nor does it matter whether we have the correct lunar diameter. The purpose here is to explain why the unassailable math gets 237,101 versus 236,082.

To find the moon's angular size when its 237,101.5 miles from earth, we do the math backward:

360 / (237,101.5 x 2 x 3.14159 / 2159.1) = 360 / 689.987218 moons = .52175 degree per moon

The average-distance moon is now .52175 rather than the .524 above. The latter is what I assumed to be correct, but now I'm scratching my head. The average distance here is still not close to the one claimed by NASA. End insert, and end quote from last update]

It dawned on me that I don't need to go through math hoops of fire to find the lunar distances that match the angular diameters because the angular diameters themselves cough up the lunar distances. I just showed above how that works, easy as pi. It was my blind spot for the past two updates...because astronomy is not my thing. I'm just a bloke who thinks the astronomers are lying to us on the solar distance, and I aim to prove it. I'm already proving it, and this update, even the next few paragraphs will nail it.

The following calculation (not easy to understand) for finding the solar distance is from a method in the last update. The math in the brackets at the end of the two lines provide the two lunar-distance numbers shown in italics. The rest of the math on lines three and four was explained in the last update. I'll show below why I'm using 1,091.85:

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

1,091.85 / 252,307 = .00432743; (.49 / .490666 x 252,650)
1,079.5 / 236,007 = .0045740; (.49 / .524554 x 252,650)
.0045740 - .00432743 = .000246466 mile catch-up, per mile toward the sun;
then 3,960 / .000246466 = 16.067 million miles to the sun

I devised the math in the brackets above in an attempt to get the correct lunar distances, but not realizing yet that I could use the angular diameters to do so in perfection. Here they are to perfection, not the same numbers as are in italics above, meaning that the solar distance of 16.067 million miles will change slightly:

360 degrees / .490666 x 2159.1 / 3.14159 / 2 = 252,121.4 miles;
360 degrees / .524554 x 2159.1 / 3.14159 / 2 = 235,833.5 miles

Where you come across, 3.14159 / 2, it can be changed to 6.28318 for convenience, but I'll write it as, / 2pi, in some cases.

We're ready to redo the calculation above with additional data on the first four lines. The two distances above are plugged into it the 5th and sixth lines as 252,140 and 235,851 because I've changed the 2159.1 to 2159.26 Into the italicized round brackets will now go this new method of finding lunar distances. See this google offering: "The Moon...with a circumference of 10,917 kilometers around the equator..." That's a circumference of 6,783.5093 miles, and to get the diameter, we divide it by pi to get a lunar diameter of 2,159.26. I'll also change the lunar radius, 1,079.5, to the appropriate 1,079.83 (half of 2,159.26). We're ready and head-steady Freddy:

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

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

Okay, there we go, the sun's distance is down a little from 16.067 million in the calculation above, and still not nearly 93 million. How possibly can NASA and other astronomers save face in light of these numbers being very close to the truth? I can show the same sorts of solar distances, eclipse after eclipse.

The page below shows the eclipse above as a full moon at a distance of 405,900 kilometers (looks rounded off, but other distances are not) = 252,214.5 miles, and a lunar size of 29.44 arc-minutes = .4906666 degree. As you can see, "my" pi-method has 252,140 miles using NASA's .4906666 degree. This page below thus tends to affirm my solar-distance results because these pages affirm that I'm using near-correct lunar distances. In fact, using their 252,214.5 in the calculation above DROPS the solar distance...to 15.993 million. This page below has distances for many, not all, lunar eclipses (always occur on a full moon) from 1901 to 2000, and one can click to other pages having eclipses after 2000, in case you'd like to verify my lunar distances in calculations yet to come in this update. This has become a little exciting.
http://www.astropixels.com/ephemeris/moon/fullapogee1901.html

For anyone not reading the last update, the calculation above involves two lines toward to one edge of the sun. Where those lines meet is the solar distance. The first of two lines is from the moon during the eclipse. That is, it's the umbra line. There are only two umbra lines on a drawing of an eclipse, one line to each side of the sun, but we need only one or the other for the calculation. Aside from an umbra line, we use a line to the sun in accordance with the angular size of the sun during the eclipse. We thus have two lines to the sun's edge; where they meet is the solar distance. There is a way to find how far in distance two lines will meet when going out at different angles and starting at a distance upon the same starting line, and my math method is where you see: .00457844 - .00433033 = .00024727 mile catch-up. That is, one line is closing in on the other by .00024727 mile, per mile toward the sun. The two lines start 3,960 miles (an earth radius) apart, on the same starting line (center-line of the earth), which is why you see: 3,960 / .00024727 = 16.015 million miles to the sun. I cannot see error in this two-line method.

You need to grasp this, so let me explain further. We have a sun size during the eclipse. We don't know how far the sun is by knowing its size. We know the angle of the sun's line to the earth, but this alone didn't allow me to find the solar distance, in combination with the lunar-eclipse (umbra) line, because I didn't (at the time) have the math skills to do so. The astronomers do have the skills, and so they are without excuse for not reporting the true solar distance. I needed a second moon, in a solar-eclipse situation, in order to discover how far away from earth the lines meet at the sun. It was troublesome to find the right solar-eclipse situation for the calculation, and so I gave up (many years ago). But this past December, it dawned on me that I don't need a solar-eclipse at all. Instead, I can make one using the size of the sun at a lunar eclipse. I can just invent a solar-eclipse situation for the purpose of applying it to my drawing, as long as I can justify where exactly I put the put the moon i.e. how far from the earth I put it.

Let me bring the calculation down to here so that you can follow without scrolling so far up and down:

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

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

You can see in the brackets: (360 / .524554 x 2159.26 / 2pi = 235,851). The .524554 is NASA's number for the angular size of the sun during the eclipse, but why is the 2159.26 (= lunar diameter) in there? Because, in a drawing, I'm adding a second moon to the eclipse, at the same size as the eclipse's sun. To put it another way, I'm treating the sun, during the eclipse, as the moon. Just view it as a second moon. Make this second moon exactly the size of the sun during the eclipse. When we do this, it's the same as having a moon between our eyes and the sun that's exactly the size of the sun. This allows me to figure out how much a line will spread between the earth and the moon because, when I have the apparent size of the moon, I also have its distance. I'm making the moon, in the case of this eclipse, .524554 degree in size, and thus I can find that it's 235,851 miles away at that size. That's what the math in this paragraph's brackets do for us. Here's the full line:

1,079.63 / 235,851 = .0045776; (360 / .524554 x 2159.26 / 2pi = 235,851)

To the math experts, all numbers beginning with .004 in all calculations are called, radians. The 1,079.63 miles is the lunar radius because the sun line that I'm using spreads a lunar radius by the time it gets from the core of the earth to the edge (or surface) of the moon. When we divide the lunar radius by 235,851, we get a line at an angle of .0045776-mile spread per one mile toward the moon's surface, and consequently per one mile toward the sun's surface (we're not following the line to the sun's core, but to its outer edge on a drawing). The line starts at the core of the earth, and spreads out .0045776 mile per mile toward the sun. Have you got that? That is a line with an angle for which we need no special calculator because the math above is just as perfect as what you get from a calculator that tells you how far out two lines will meet that go out at different angles. I needed the second moon to do the calculation without such a calculator because I didn't at the time know what sort of calculator to use.

For more details if you want them, go back a couple of updates to the 3rd of this month; start reading from the top until you soon get to "on-paper eclipse."

Let's re-do the eclipse of June 15, 2011, which has angular diameters of .531776 and .524832. It needs lunar-distance is derived like so:

360 degrees / .531776 x 2159.1 / 3.14159 / 2 = 232,630.7 miles;
360 degrees / .524832 x 2159.1 / 3.14159 / 2 = 235,709 miles

I'm using more decimal points than in the last update because I'm now working with lunar distances dictated by NASA data:

June 15, 2011, shadow radius .7256 degree;

moon radius 15'57.2" (= .531776 diameter); sun radius 15'44.7" (= .524832 diameter):

shadow diameter = 1.4512 / .531776 = 2.7289 moons;
shadow diameter 2.7289 x 2,159.1 = 5,892 miles;
lunar-eclipse-line spread = 3,960 - (5,892/2) = 1.014 miles
1,014 / 232,648 = .004358516; (360 / .531776 x 2159.26 / 2pi = 232,648)
1079.63 / 235,726 = .0045800; (360 / .524832 x 2159.26 / 2pi = 235,726)
.0045800 - .004358516 = .000221505 mile catch-up, per mile toward the sun;
then, 3960 / .000221505 = 17.8777 million miles to the sun

How can the two eclipses get solar-distance results almost 2 million miles apart when their respective suns were almost the same size, .52454 degree versus .5248 degree??? Most eclipses in the last two updates worked out to the 17-million range, and so I suspect that NASA has placed at least one error in one or the other of these two eclipses. If the error is at the stated size of the moon, it will not only throw the lunar distance off from the figure I've got in the calculation, but, because this is a total eclipse with the moon going through the shadow's equator, it will also throw off the stated size of the umbra, for I've checked the ratio between the moon and the umbra, and it (they) is essentially correct.

Evolutionists knowingly stretched the size of the solar system to a vast size in order that it would better serve their fantasial, super-sized universe. Evolutionists are quacks in the proper sense of the term. They merely act like scientists. No, I am not a flat-earther.

Later in this update, I found a way to test/check NASA's data, and this is the perfect place to show how. This check-method finds the umbra diameter in miles like so: 360 / lunar diameter x 2159.1 / (360 / umbra diameter). In the case of the July-2000 eclipse, the umbra diameter (angular) is .6518 degree x 2 = 1.3036 degree. The same eclipse has a moon diameter of .49066, and so the check-method formula is: 360 / .49066 x 2159.1 / (360 / 1.3036) = 5,736.36 miles wide. Of course, the umbra diameter found by this math is its diameter where the moon passes through it. The other way to find the umbra diameter is how I've done it in the solar-distance calculations:

July 16, 2000, shadow radius .6518

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

shadow diameter = 1.3036 / .49066 = 2.65683 moons;
shadow diameter 2.65683 x 2,159.1 = 5,736 miles

It checks out. Both methods get an umbra diameter of 5,736 miles, yet this consistency between two methods doesn't necessarily mean that the stated NASA data is correct. It could be computer-generated data that is "correct" in umbra-moon-earth proportions, but the question is whether the moon size reported is true to the moon at the eclipse. Evolutionsts will cheat where they can get away with it, where they desire to cheat. The check-method above was applied to the June-2011 eclipse above (another equatorial eclipse), which likewise checked-out perfectly, AND YET I CLAIM NASA ERROR because the two eclipses have solar-distance results 2 million miles apart where there should be less than a tenth of a million-mile difference.

The .49 Method Is Perfect After All

Let's do another eclipse with the following lunar distances, and, remember, these, like the ones above, are no longer my distance figures, but those dictated by NASA's angular diameters. There is no figure whatsoever that I'm adding to the calculations:

360 degrees / .5418332 x 2159.1 / 3.14159 / 2 = 228,313 miles;
360 degrees / .52661 x 2159.1 / 3.14159 / 2 = 234,913 miles.

August 17, 1989, shadow radius .7433 degree
moon radius 16'15.3" (= .541833 diameter); sun radius 15'47.9" (= .526611 diameter):

shadow diameter = 1.4866 / .5418332 = 2.74365 moons;
shadow diameter 2.74365 x 2,159.1 = 5,924 miles;
lunar-eclipse-line spread = 3,960 - (5,924/2) = 998 miles
998 / 228,313 = .0043712;
1,079.63 / 234,913 = .0045958;
.0045958 - .0043712 = .0002246 mile catch-up,
then 3,960 / .0002246 = 17.63 million miles

Although the previous method I was using had significantly different lunar distances for some (not all) eclipse calculations, especially for the eclipse above, yet most solar distances worked out to the same ballpark as what we're getting here. The previous method used the formula, .49 / lunar size x 252,650. It wasn't perfect because the 252,650 wasn't likely the correct furthest distance, but we can now try the previous method using the lunar distance, 252,464, obtained above by the easy-pi method: .49 / .5418332 x 252,464 = 228,313! It's exactly the distance obtained in the unassailable, easy-pi calculation: 360 degrees / .5418332 x 2159.1 / 3.14159 / 2 = 228,313 miles!

It tends to emphasize the 252,464 figure because that's what was used in the "magical" calculation. To define .49 / lunar size x 252,464, it means: smallest lunar size / lunar size at eclipse x furthest lunar distance = lunar distance at the eclipse. It works. This personal invention of mine, which has likely been used by others, suggests that the furthest lunar distance is very close to 252,464 miles, otherwise the math would not work. The math will not work unless one has the nearest or furthest lunar distance plugged into it. Here's more that reveals the nearest-possible moon distance (221,739 miles), apparently, when using 252,464 in combination with the smallest and largest moon size:

360 / .5418332 x 2159.1 / 2pi) = .49 / .5418332 x 252,464;
360 / .52175 x 2159.1 / 2pi) = .49 / .52175 x 252,464 (both = 237,101 miles);
360 / .524 x 2159.1 / 2pi) = .49 / .524 x 252,464 (both = 236,083);
360 / .558 x 2159.1 / 2pi) = .49 / .558 x 252,464 (both = 221,739);
etc., using any lunar angle whatsoever between .49 and .558

If the furthest-possible lunar distance has an angular size smaller than .49, the 252,464 above will go up. If the .49 is made, say, .48833, then the other side of the formula (.49 / .5418332 x 252,464) needs to have the 252,464 changed to 253,327.5 in order that the result will be identical to, say, 360 / .5418332 x 2159.1 / 2pi, because 360 / .48833 x 2159.1 / 2pi) = 253,327.5 miles.

The .49 method could just as viably be the .558 method, using the formula, .558 / angular diameter x nearest distance.

The astropixels.com webpage presented above has a section near the bottom, titled, "Farthest Full Moon Apogees", for events between 1901 and 2000. It gives a moon of 406,494 kilometers = 252,583.7 miles (as per November of 1932), as the furthest. I didn't know it until very late this week. It rounds this moon off with a diameter of 29.40 arc-minutes, which is exactly .49. The way to find it exactly is with this formula: unknown angle = (360 / unknown angle) = (252,583.7 x 6.28318 / 2159.26) = .4898 degree.

If one wants to, one can check various distances reported on NASA's eclipse pages with the astropixels numbers to see if there's inconsistency. For example, I've found a problem where NASA reports the moon size of .4901 for the eclipse of November 28, 2012 (14' 42.2' = .4901 degree), where the lunar distance works out to 360 / .49011 x 2,159.26 / 6.28318 = 252,426 miles, while astropixels for the same moon has 406,348 kilometers = 252,493 miles. Differences a little larger than that could correct some the non-jibing solar distances.

The problem is, these astropixel pages list only full moons at apogee and perigee. The eclipse of November 18, 1994 (details below) and of November 6, 1976 (.490166), are near copies of the November-2012 one, all three with moons at about .49011 degree. There's well over a 50-mile difference in distance, for the 1976 eclipse, between NASA's .490166 = 252,397 number and astropixel's 252,453-mile distance. Just saying.
https://www.onlineconversion.com/map_decimaldegrees.htm

In conclusion, we not only have the pi-method to find lunar distances, but we can also use .49 / lunar diameter in degrees x 252,464 (or a small tweaking thereof) because it provides the same distance.

Will Sun Distances Jibe Now?

Let's do another eclipse, oh what fun. I'm just so happy I didn't become a scientist for a living. They don't call them "mad scientists" for nothing, because the math, and the checking the math, drives them all crazy.

November 18, 1994, shadow radius .6412 degree
moon radius 14'42.2" (= .49011 diameter); sun radius 16'10.8" (= .539332 diameter):

shadow diameter = 1.2824 / .49011 = 2.61655 moons;
shadow diameter 2.61655 x 2,159.1 = 5,649.4 miles;
lunar-eclipse-line spread = 3,960 - (5,649.4/2) = 1,135 miles
1,135 / 252,426 = .004496367; (360 / .49011 x 2,159.26 / 3.14159 / 2 = 252,426)
1,079.63 / 229,402 = .00470628; (360 / .5393 x 2,159.26 / 3.14519 / 2 = 229,402)
.004496367 - .00470628 = .00020961;
then 3,960 / .00020961 = 18.892 million

That looks a little high for a solar distance. Let's use the check-up formula to assure no math errors: 360 / .49011 x 2159.1 / (360 / 1.28241) = 5,650, close enough to the 5,649.4 in the calculation. It checks out. So, even now, with the precise lunar distances according to NASA's own moon sizes, we get solar distances not expected, because, in the 18-million range, the difference between the nearest and furthest suns should be little more than .6 million miles. Is NASA merely sloppy with it's data, or did it program its eclipse-finding data wrongly? Changing the 3,960-mile radius of the earth, in the calculations, to 3,963, or to 3,957, doesn't change the solar-distance results hardly at all. Is NASA using a different moon diameter than 2,159.1?

I don't see what more I can do to make the solar distances jibe, except to get the eclipse data of something other than NASA's. If at anytime you can't find an eclipse, here's NASA's eclipse index allowing one to get to any listed eclipse:
https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/LEplot/LEplot2001/LE2015Apr04T.pdf

Note that none of the eclipse pages has a P2 time, because it's what everyone wants in order to easily calculate the speed of the moon at any eclipse. Every page comes with a P1 time, when the moon first contacts the penumbra. A P2 time is exactly one lunar diameter later. So, NASA = CREEP, denying people eclipse mechanics and angles, making them unable to test the claimed size of the umbra apart from somersaults. When NASA leaves out something so basic to a lunar eclipse, and so interesting too, as the lunar velocity, BIG RED FLAG waving in a vacuum.

NASA should be excited for all the high-school kids, "Hey kids, wanna know how fast the moon is going? Just go to NASA'a eclipse website, and see how long it takes the moon to travel a lunar diameter. Estimate the diameter of the umbra all on your own." But, nope, kids denied. Amateur astronomers denied. GET LOST EVERYBODY, you're not allowed to know the speeds of the moon at eclipses.

Here's another one:

May 26, 2021, shadow radius .7719 degree;
moon radius 16'42.9" (= .5571666 diameter); sun radius 15'47.3" (= .5262776 diameter):

shadow diameter = 1.5438 / .557167 = 2.77 moons;
shadow diameter 2.77 x 2,159.26 = 5,982.9 miles;
lunar-eclipse-line spread = 3,960 - (5,982.9/2) = 968.6 miles.
968.6 / 222,046 = .0043622; (360 / .557167 x 2159.26 / 2pi = 222,046);
1,079.63 / 235,079 = .0045926; (360 / .526277 x 2159.26 / 2pi = 235,079);
.0045926 - .0044422 = .0002304 mile catch-up, per mile toward the sun;
then, 3,960 / .0002304 = 17.188 million miles to the sun

Smack in the now-expected ballpark, how will NASA explain this solar distance. How will astronomers save face? Will Internet spiders and social-media scorpions just censor anyone disseminating this information? Send these results to your favorite astronomers, challenging them to find the "problem" with 17 million.

Remember, the only possible thing I'm doing wrong is that I'm using a second moon, at the same size of the sun during an eclipse, to find solar distance. It is not likely that this math and any/all eclipse data, from randomly-chosen eclipses, will get us solar distances, time and time again, in the ballpark of 17 million, if this is a mistake. I don't see how it's a mistake. Let's do another two:

April 15, 2014, shadow radius .6952 degree;
moon radius 15'30.9" (= .51716 diameter); sun radius 15'59.6" (= .53144 diameter):

shadow diameter = 1.3904 / .51716 = 2.6885 moons;
shadow diameter 2.6885 x 2,159.26 = 5,805 miles;
lunar-eclipse-line spread = 3,960 - (5,805/2) = 1,057.4 miles
1,057.4 / 239,220 = .0044202; (360 / .517166 x 2159.26 / 2pi = 239,220);
1,079.63 / 232,795 = .0046377; (360 / .53144 x 2159.26 / 2pi = 232,795);
.0046377 - .0044202 = .0002175;
then, 3,960 / .0002175 = 18.207 million

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

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

Below is what we have so far, listed with the smallest suns first so that the solar distances should get gradually smaller from the top down. To boot, two adjacent solar distances should be within .3 million miles of one another, which is not what we generally see, meaning that something is wrong in the calculations:

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

Umbra of July, 2000, Reveals Evolutionary Mobsters

The problematic one of July-2000 (click link below) happens to be the best I've ever seen for crossing the umbra's equator. In fact, it crosses the equator almost 100-percent perfectly so that the U1 to U3 times should produce the umbral diameter within a couple of miles.
https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/LEplot1/LEplot1951/LE2000Jul16T.GIF

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

July 16, 2000, shadow radius .6518

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

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

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

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

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

I checked a host of shadow sizes, from a host of eclipse pages, to see whether they jibed in accordance to their sun and moon sizes, and they did jibe (almost all of them) close enough that I couldn't spot anything contrary between two eclipses, but that didn't mean that the reported shadow sizes are necessarily correct.

To check whether my 3.9335 hours above is correct, half of it should be exactly (or to within a couple of seconds) the "Semi-Duration" of the eclipse reported on the page as 1 hour, 58 minutes, 19 seconds, and that checks out, for it works out to 1.96675 hours, which, multiplied by 2 = 3.9335. This feature is claiming/showing that the lunar velocity doesn't change from the first half of umbra passage through the second half. For the record, here's the U1, U2, U3 and U4 times: 11:57:17; 13:02:05; 14:49:06; 15:53:55. No mistakes made, triple-checked.

A day or two ago, I went seeking another eclipse with a similar umbra radius to that of the problematic July-2000 eclipse, and found a good comparison with the one of June 25, 1964. The July-2000 eclipse has a sun almost as far as possible, and a moon almost as far as possible, from the earth, and when that combination is in effect, it makes for the longest-possible umbra. All eclipses have umbra diameters starting at the diameter of the earth, but the longer the umbra, the wider it is at any given distance from the earth. As the sun approaches the earth, the shadow width decreases at any given distance from earth; as the moon becomes more distant from the earth whereas the solar distance remains the same in all cases, the umbra width decreases.
https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/LEplot/LEplot1951/LE1964Jun25T.pdf

Having said that, note below that the suns are virtually the same size between the two eclipses, but that the moon is "significantly" larger (closer to the earth) for the June-1964 eclipse...meaning that we expect the latter eclipse to have a wider umbra, yet it's shown with a thinner umbra. My theory was, therefore, that the umbra for the problematic July-2000 event should be smaller than reported. But, now that the clocking has shown the July-2000 shadow to be smaller than the reality, I'll bet that the shadow for the June-1964 is reported, like other eclipses, with too-small shadow diameters so that...it really messes with our heads, let's put it that way. Perhaps NASA is trying to dissuade pro astronomers from using its eclipse data, once the pros see that it's out-of-whack. My bet is that the June-1964 umbra was likewise larger than reported:

July 2000: shadow radius .6518
moon radius 14'43.2" = .490666 diameter; sun radius 15'44.2" = .524554 diameter:

June 1964: shadow radius .6509;
moon radius 14'44.5 = .491388 diameter; sun radius 15'44.1" = .524500 diameter

My hunch is that NASA secretaries type the moon and sun sizes into a computer program that then automatically gives the size of the umbra without any other data needed to acquire it. The sun size predicts the shape (length) of the umbra cone, and the moon size predicts how far down the cone it's passing through the umbra. BUT, OBVIOUSLY, the LYING SCUM at the top know that they have programmed a sun to be at least five times closer to earth than 93 million. A wipe of the nose is too good for NASA. They have kept this secret for decades and decades by the control of who leads astronomical organizations. They pick only seasoned, like-minded ones for these jobs.

Here's the details on this event:

June 25, 1964, shadow radius .6509
moon radius 14'43.2" (= .491388 diameter); sun radius 15'44.2" (= .524554 diameter):

shadow diameter = 1.3018 / .491388 = 2.6492 moons;
shadow diameter 2.6492 x 2,159.26 = 5,720.4 miles;
lunar-eclipse-line spread = 3,960 - (5,720.4/2) = 1,099.8 miles
1,099.8 / 251,770 = .00436827 (360 / .491388 x 2,159.26 / 2pi = 251,770)
1,079.63 / 235,875 = .0045771; (360 / .524500 x 2,159.26 / 2pi = 235,875)
.0045771 - .00436827 = .00020883 mile catch-up, per mile toward the sun;
then 3,960 / .00020883 = 18.962 million miles to the sun

There we go, that even though the suns between the two eclipses are essentially the same at .524554 versus .52450 degree, the one above works out at about 3 million miles further, grave problem already i.e. aside from the shadow-size errors that may additionally be in the data.

Just think of it: with a small difference in the catch-up rates, .00024727 mile versus .00020883 mile, there's nearly 3 million miles of difference in solar distance, yet, all eclipses, with vastly different solar and lunar sizes in a great variety of combinations, are consistently coming out in the 17 to 18 million range, showing that NASA's data has consistency, not at all meaning that it's based on correction / reality. The math may be correct, but if a number is wrong, it results in trash. But NASA loves this trash, for although it knows eclipse numbers to be wrong, it doesn't throw them into the trash can. It eats trash, then feeds it to you, and you eat it too because astronomy has brainwashed you into believing that it's filled with honest experts. But it's worse than someone not throwing bad numbers into the trash: they invent and maintain the bad numbers. CRIMINAL MINDS. GANGS OF MOBSTERS.

A couple of updates ago, I did this (the math had to be corrected, sorry for getting the mph wrong in the first place):

Below is a lunar eclipse of June 15, 2011, in which the moon passes through the shadow's equator. U1, U2, U3, and U4 are all given, which therefore gives a lunar velocity. The claim on the page is that one lunar diameter of travel, between U1 and U2, took 28 seconds shy of one hour (59.0088 minutes), meaning that the moon is said to be traveling a tad faster than 2,160 miles per hour, or 2,159.1 / 59.0088 x 60 = 2,195.367 mph to be precise. The time between U1 and U3 is given as 2 hours, 39 minutes and 45 seconds, or 2.6625 hours. This route, 2.6625 x 2,195.367 = 5,845 miles, is NOT almost an entire shadow width.
https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/LEplot/LEplot2001/LE2011Jun15T.pdf

The page gives the shadow radius as .7256", and for the moon radius (SD) of 00 15 57.2, I convert it to .2659 degree at the online conversion page above, which makes this shadow .7256 / .2659 = 2.729 times larger than the moon, wherefore the shadow diameter works out to 2.729 x 2,160 = 5,895 miles. In case you didn't catch it, there's about a 50-mile difference between the U1-U3 distance and this umbra diameter. How can that be reliable science?

This eclipse is almost as good, for a moon passing across the umbral equator, as the July-2000 above. Although it's true that the lunar path does not cross a full shadow diameter, I don't think it comes up as many as 40-50 miles short. I didn't do the U1 to U4 test for this eclipse, and so I'll do it now. The time span is from 18:22:57 to 22:02:14, I've double-checked, no copy mistakes here. That's 3 hours, 39 minutes, 17 seconds = 3.650 hours at 2,195.367 mph = 8,013.1 miles between U1 and U4. This span, when the moon goes centrally down the shadow, is exactly one lunar diameter larger than the umbra diameter so that the umbra works out to about 8,013.1 - 2,159.26 = 5,853.8 miles, still about 40 miles short of the umbra diameter as claimed by data on the eclipse page.

The only way to be sure of shadow sizes is to measure the lunar velocity in combination with knowing how long it takes the moon to travel one moon diameter. The math formula is then as easy as miles / time (watch you don't get that backward).

Only 10.5 Million Miles

Let me repeat it because this is crucial to showing a sun 10 million miles away. In the July-2000 eclipse, the stated time for the travel of one lunar diameter, between U1 and U2 is 1 hour, 4 minutes, 48 seconds = 1.06688 hours. The velocity of this moon is found with the miles of travel, 2,159.26 miles, divided by the time of 1.066888, = 2,023.89 miles per hour. To find the time in hours, first convert 48 seconds to minutes with 48 / 60 / 60, or 48 / 3600 = .013333. Add that to 4 minutes = 4.013333, and finally divide the latter by 60 to convert it to .066888 hour, and add it to 1 hour for a total U1-U2 time of 1.066888 hour.

Or, you can add 60 minutes to the 4.013333 minute above to get a velocity of 2,159.26 / 64.01333 = 33.7314 miles per minute, then multiply by 60 to convert to miles per hour: 33.7314 x 60 = 2,023.89, identical to the 2,023.89 above. The solar distance worked out to 10.482 million miles using 2,023.89 in conjunction with the additional math from the U1 to U4 time span, 3 hours, 56 minutes, 38 seconds = 3.9335 hours. Go ahead and check my math to see that 3,9335 is correct. As the moon was at 2,023.89 miles per hour during this eclipse, this time span provides a shadow diameter of 3.9335 x 2,023.89 - 2,159.26 = 5,801.7 miles. No mistake, triple-checked. So, all you do now is put 5,801.7 into the calculations. Let me explain again how the calculations work, but first see the one below for this eclipse:

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

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

The lunar-line spread is the angle of the earth-umbra line, equivalent to the lunar-eclipse line to the sun's edge. The sun is shining on the earth, but light from the edge of the sun cannot get behind the earth, and so the umbra has a straight line formed that is the edge of the umbra. To find the angle of this line, one needs to know how far from the earth's core the moon cuts through it, For the sake of perfecdtion, the umbra starts at the center of the earth, perfectly in line with its core. The moon at this eclipse is said to have a size of .49066 degree, and the calculation above tells the distance starting from the start of the unbvra at the earth's surface, to where the umbra is 5,801.7 miles wide, if one measures toward the earth's core.

A right angle triangle that we are forming with this picture has a base line starting at the edge of the earth and going toward the earth core. It doesn't go all the way to the core, but only to a vertical line drawn from the point where the moon enters the umbra. This vertical line meets the base line and forms a right angle there because the base line is horizontal. The remaining third line of the triangle to the umbra line toward the sun. A right-angle-triangle calculator can tell us the angle of this line without all the math that I've been showing. From my calculation above at the July-16 eclipse, put the 1059 into box, a, of this calculator, and then put the 252140 into box, b, and hit "Calculate." The calculator will tell you that line c, where it goes off of line b, has an angle of .241 degree, and it shows that .241 is equal to a radian of .0042006, the same radian number that you see in my calculation. Line b is the vertical line of the triangle (though it's not shown vertical at the calculator).

Aren't you happy? You need just a pocket calculator to figure the true distance to the sun, folks, if you could trust NASA's numbers.

We can't have a line at any particular angle unless it's compared with another line which we call the zero-degree line. Any line at an angle is in comparison to zero degrees, nobody needs to tell you this if you went to high-school. For eclipses, I make the zero-degree line the one from the core of the sun to the core of the earth and through the center of the umbra. This is like playing with drawings in grade-five class, folks, and yet the astronomers still can't cough up the solar reality, not because they don't know how to get the solar distance using eclipse lines, but because they LIE bald-faced. Quacks in scientific garb is what astronomers amount to. I don't care what the solar distance is. I care about our being lied to by anti-Christs.

If the umbra diameter is 5,801.7 miles wide where the moon kisses it on its approach, and as that moon is 252,140 miles from the core of the earth, what do you think the angle of the umbra line is? How will you find it? There's only one way if you don't know the distance to the sun: you need to know how far from the zero-degree line the moon kisses the umbra, and that's found starting with: umbra diameter / 2, which is why my calculation above has 5,801.7/2.

The calculation uses 3,960 - 5,801.7/2 because the angle is needed of an umbra line, starting at 5801.7/2 miles from the zero degree line (either side of zero, doesn't matter which). The math, 3,960 - 5,801.7/2 = 1,059.15, tells us where the moon first touches the umbra, 1,059 miles from the zero-degree line. The umbra line then goes from that kiss point, to the side edge of the earth, which is then 3,960 miles from the zero degree line. So, this line has opened up, or "risen," 3,960 - 5,801.7/2 = 1,059.15 miles after traversing the lunar distance of 252,140 miles. That's why you see 1,059.15 in the calculation. Instead of using degrees to express the angle of this line, we use 1,059.15 miles of spread per 252,140 miles toward the sun, and that's why my calculation has 1,059.15 / 252,140 = .00420064 mile of spread per mile toward the sun. The angle of 1,059.15 units per 252,140 units is identical to the angle of .00420064 unit per 1 unit. Scientists view one mile of spread per one mile forward (= a 45-degree line) as 1 radian.

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

I tried downloading a free draw package, Gimp, but I couldn't even figure out how to move or enlarge a simple circle on the page. They say it's not malware, but this was weird. I deleted the program from my computer. I don't have a credit card to buy a draw package, and so I'll do my best not to lose you by asking you to draw a simple drawing. The situation is such that there is a line going to the edge of the sun from the core of the earth. Draw that on your paper, with the earth circle directly below the sun circle, and put this line (to the sun) on the left side of the vertical zero-degree line. The latter is from earth core to sun core (you don't need to draw it, just remember it's there). The line to the sun's edge starts upon the zero-degree line at the core of the earth. Okay, you are done with the first line.

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

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

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

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

The correctness of this solar distance depends on the correctness of the umbra line, and therefore on the umbra size as given by an astronomical source. This new method removes the second moon that I insert, and uses the sun line alone...so that nobody can argue that the new method is not viable. That fact that my calculations with a second moon got 10.482 million while this new method gets nearly the same argues for the justification of the second-moon method. This new method will be my topic in the 2nd update of July, 2022...but finish reading here before going there. End update]

The Perfect Lunar Eclipse of July 26, 1953

I have found an eclipse in which the moon goes directly through the perfect center of an umbra, better than the 2000 eclipse:
https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/LEplot/LEplot1951/LE1953Jul26T.pdf

Wow, I can't wait to dig in. For the record: U1 to U4 clock times: 10:32:49; 11:30:19; 13:11:02; 14:08:31. Triple checked, no mistakes.

We first find the time between U1 and U2, a perfect lunar diameter of travel. The time span is between 10:32:49 and 11:30:19 o'clock, = 57 minutes 30 seconds = 57.5 minutes. It means the moon has travelled 2,159.26 miles in 57.2 minutes. To find moon velocity: 2,159.26 / 57.5 = 37.552348 miles per minute, then the latter x 60 = 2,253.14 miles per hour. To find the umbra diameter, we now need to know the time span between U1 and U3 (for U1 to U3 represents moon travel over exactly a full umbra diameter), which is from 10:32:49 to 13:11:02 o'clock = 2 hours, 38 minutes, 13 seconds = 2.6334 hours. So, 2.6334 x 2,253.14 mph = 5,933.42 miles. I've never been so thrilled with math before. The calculation for solar distance therefore is:

July 26, 1953, shadow radius = .7496 degree (ignore for this calculation);

moon radius 16'20.6" (= .544776 dia.); sun radius 15'45.0" (= .5250 dia.):

shadow diameter = 5,933.4;
lunar-eclipse-line spread = 3,960 - (5,933.4/2) = 993.3 miles.
993.3 / 227,096 = .00437392; (360 / .544776 x 2159.26 / 2pi = 227,096);
1,079.63 / 235,650 = .0045815; (360 / .5250 x 2159.26 / 2pi = 235,650);
.0045815 - .00437392 = .00020758 mile catch-up, per mile toward the sun;
then, 3,960 / .00020758 = 19.076 million miles to the sun

Here's how the shadow diameter works out to nine miles less than the U1 to U3 distance if we use NASA's .7496 umbra radius; the solar distance now goes down by more than 1.5 million:

July 26, 1953, shadow radius = .7496 degree (don't ignore);

moon radius 16'20.6" (= .544776 dia.); sun radius 15'45.0" (= .5250 dia.):

shadow diameter = 1.4992 degree / .544776 = 2.752 moons;
shadow diameter 2.752 x 2,159.26 = 5,942.3 miles;
lunar-eclipse-line spread = 3,960 - (5,942.3/2) = 989 miles.
989 / 227,096 = .00435498; (360 / .544776 x 2159.26 / 2pi = 227,096);
1,079.63 / 235,650 = .0045815; (360 / .5250 x 2159.26 / 2pi = 235,650);
.0045815 - .00435498 = .0002265 mile catch-up, per mile toward the sun;
then, 3,960 / .0002265 = 17.483 million miles to the sun

The way the eclipse is pictured on the page, it cuts through the dead-center of the shadow even though it doesn't follow the umbra equator line. When the moon is shown midway across the umbra, it's core matches the dead-center of the umbra, and so I fail to see how possibly the U1 to U3 path can be a whopping nine miles shorter than the umbra diameter. I assume the diagrams are computer generated.

If correct that the umbra is the 5,942 miles in the calculation directly above, then we can calculate the lunar velocity by using the U1 to U3 time period of 2.6334 hours. That is: 5,942 / 2.6334 = 2,256.4 mph, which does NOT match the lunar velocity during the U1 to U2 time of 2,253.14. Thus, they arranged two velocity figures (one 3.26 mph larger than the other) because...who cares? I feel sure that the moon cannot change speeds by 3.26 mph over 1.5 hours of time. I think study of other U1 to U4 time spans will bear that out.

For "Eclipse Durations," it reads,"Umbral 3h35m42s." That's the U1 to U4 time span, which alone will cough up the true shadow diameter (providing the times given are correct). We first convert to decimal hours: 3.58353 hours, then multiply by the moon's velocity. But which velocity do we use? If we use the 2,256.4 mph during U2 to U3, then: 3.58353 x 2,256.4 = 8,085 miles, from which we remove one lunar diameter to find an umbral diameter of 5,926.6, about 15 miles shy of the NASA claim in the calculation directly above. If we use the earlier velocity, the diameter comes out even smaller at 5,914.9 miles, which gets a sun at 59.37 million miles. A man with a stop watch doesn't get things this wrong, but a computer program with a bad program can.

This eclipse was two days before perigee, in the time period that the moon ceases to accelerate because it's now cutting across the earth rather than going further or farther from it. The record-keeping in the page below gives the lunar distance for this eclipse as 365,589 kilometers = 227,166 miles, where you see "full moon" for July 26, 1953. It gives the lunar diameter as 32.69 arc-minutes = .54483 degree, and NASA gives it as .544776 degree by which I worked the distance out to 227,096 miles.
http://www.astropixels.com/ephemeris/moon/fullperigee1901.html

My wonderment now is, why is the angle of .54483 said to correspond with a moon 227,166 miles away when my pi-method gets 227,073? If I do the pi-method using 2,160 miles for the lunar diameter, I get 227,152 miles, just about their 227,166. Besides, we probably don't have all the decimals on 32.69.

I think this could be the dead-end in pursuing this math monster further. I've made too many math mistakes needing correction, sorry if you've been reading these past two weeks. I warned you to check my math. This calculator work 20 days straight is real brain-strain to the point where it breeds mistakes.

The LAP-DOG who provided this NASA Fact Sheet gives only one decimal point for the lunar diameter, and as it gives 1,738.1 kilometer, it looks like it was converted from 1,080 miles exactly. THANKS A LOT SCROOGE, there's nothing like having a fact sheet with rounded off numbers, and non-rounded-off numbers obtained from rounded-off numbers, to make NASA look like slop. Fact sheets are supposed to be perfected.
https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/moonfact.html

The page gives 1.022 kilometers per second as the mean orbital speed of the moon, and that conforms to the .635 miles per second that I found wrong in the last update, wrong because it doesn't square with the number of lunar diameters per average-size orbit. That velocity figure gives an average orbit as 1,498,976 miles long. Using 2,159.26 miles for the lunar diameter at its equator, that distance has 1,498,976 / 2,159.26 = 694.21 moons per average orbit. But the 360 degrees of a circle demand only 690 moons because the average moon is .52175 degree wide (360 / .52175 = 690). When we divide 360 degrees by 694.2, we get .51858, which may explain why several websites wrongly give .518 as the moon's average angular size. Why doesn't NASA correct this problem? Because, slops tend to give way to rot instead.

What kind of a BIG ZERO is the person who provided the fact sheet above without the three lunar sizes, and even without the least, average and greatest distance figures? How can that be an mere oversight? It looks deliberate. Da boss said, "don' put dat dere." NASA is goofing all over the place on lunar distances, and even trying to hide it now.

During half a lunar orbit, with perigee at the "tip," the moon is fastest. It speeds toward perigee, and then slows as soon as it's past perigee. So, for that half orbit, it's average speed is at perigee. On the other half of the orbit, with perigee to its back, it slows down progressively until it reaches apogee, then speeds up again after crossing the apogee tip. It's average speed for that half-orbit is at apogee. The average speed for the full orbit is midway between apogee and perigee, but it's not expected that, midway between the two tips of the ellipse, the moon's distance from earth is equal to the apogee distance plus the perigee distance, then divided by 2.

If we imagine the orbital tips to our left and right on a page upon which there is a drawing, the moon, after leaving the apogee tip, first passes a vertical line cutting the earth. The moon has crossed half the earth's diameter at that vertical line. Only later, after the moon has passed by the entire earth's diameter, will it be midway between apogee and perigee. In other words, if one wanted to, he could chose the average lunar distance at the distance the moon's happens to be midway between apogee and perigee. The alternative, which is my choice, is to define the average lunar distance as the apogee distance plus the perigee distance, then divided by two. If NASA is choosing the first option, then it needs to say so, otherwise it's goofing up peoples studies. And maybe that's the intension.

Beets For Bladder Problems

In the second update of November, I started to tell about my bladder problem, and it ended up in a heraldic work involving mythical Orion, the urine god, from Boeotia. That's because I drank some ORANge juice, and repeatedly got a full bladder drain, making the Orange/Orringe surname, which uses a giant hunting HORN, look like it's from the real entity in Boeotia that named ORION the hunter. The Horn surname, in the heraldic hunting horn, are also ORNE's, you see. (Load Orange link now to have access, on another tab, to other Coats of Arms.)

Well, on Monday morning, January 3, as I write this, I was thinking about how the beets I began to eat two days ago has cleared up my swollen thyroid, and how the bladder is draining well on account of it. About a week ago, the thyroid was swollen during the day, a thing that didn't happen in the past. Normally, it gets swollen only after I'm in bed for sleep, and it comes and goes, been doing this for years. I began to suspect that the thyroid controls the urge to drain, and that because the thyroid was problematic, it causes the urge to drain too soon, way before the bladder is full.

A couple of weeks ago or more, I happened to purchase four jars of beets on sale, not at all thinking to buy them for the thyroid. Then, when the thyroid started to act up during the day, I remembered that thyroids get swollen when a person lacks iodine, and I remembered that beets are high in iodine. So, I popped open the first jar, and after eating a small bit (in with cabbage and black-olive salad with mayo, yum), the thyroid problem got better, and after the next day or two with more beets, now almost half into the jar, the thyroid seems almost non-problematic, just a hint of a problem remaining. So, the point is, as I was waking this morning, I asked myself if God is in this heraldically to point to the Beet surname, and, of course, right away, I put it together with "BOEOTia"!!! Amazing.

I then looked at IOdine because mythical Io was the white-cow goddess of Argos, the female counterpart of Zeus the white TAURUS (code for Tyrians from TYRUS = Tyre), and mythical Cadmus (king of Tyre) followed this bull, as the myth goes, to Boeotia!!! NO GUFF. The Cadmus Tyrians settled Boeotia, that is, and the honey goddess of Boeotia married INAchus, the mythical founder of Argos. INO was a daughter of Cadmus, and so myth was playing on the fact that there was a Boeotian-Tyrian connection to Argos.

Zeus was made the grandson of URANus, the first urine god; he got a urine symbol for rain = pee because the old-Aryan version of "urine" probably played a part in naming him. And he probably developed into "Orion," a people from Eran, now Iran, though Alania was also called, Iron, and the Orion surname is listed with Irons, the namers of Arran beside Boeotia-like Bute. So, I now have some heraldry to pursue, because it seems that God wants me to do it starting with the Beet surname.

Dutch Beets/Beats are the most interesting because they share the Pendragon fleur-de-lys while I showed (not many weeks ago) that Pendragons were kin of OTTER-using Balfours, partially explaining why mythical Pendragon was given a UTHER first name. Beets/Beats are said to be from UTRecht, suggesting that the Utter / Otter bloodline named it. Utters/Otterburns (share Balfour chevron) use the otter too, you see, and Others/Otters (first found in HUNTINGdonshire) share the gold HUNTING HORN with Utters/Otterburns, what are the chances?!?! It looks like God set me up to eat beets to deal with my urine problem as part of these heraldic pointers to Boeotians! It's a no brainer that he wants to point to the House of BOETHus to which the Sadducees belonged, the murderers of Jesus.

The Others/Otters are said to have been founders of the House of Windsor, and Windsor castle is in Berkshire, where English Shaws/Sheaves' were first found while Irish Shaws almost have the Pendragon motto. Windsors share the crosslets of Gore's/Core's because mythical Pendragon mated with the wife of mythical GORlois. Gore's/Core's were first found in Kent with Pendragon-branch Dragons/DRAINers. I have a bladder-draining problem! Dragons/Drainers have the helmets of Mynetts/Minute's (Kent again) in colors reversed, and the latter share open helmets with the Pendragon Crest. We are on the Orion bloodline here, and while Gorlois was made (by the myth writer) a ruler of Cornwall, where Pendragons were first found, BUDE is in Cornwall while Bude's are in Bute/Butt and Beth/Beaton/MacBee colors. The latter (the MacBeth bloodline) use another otter.

Soon, the Windsorite, prince Charles, will likely be the king of England, and he's a globalist fiend as we might expect, and probably a Fabian too who would like to see monarchies rule again. Fabian socialists were risen to power by the secret societies around Cecil RHODES, and so note "thyROID." The Rounds can be gleaned as having the Pendragon / Balfour chevron because king Arthur, Pendragon's mythical son (didn't exist) with Gorlois' wife, was given a round-table symbol, which the Cecil-Rhodes societies used as their own symbol. Windsor castle is near Buckingham Castle, and Orange's/Orringe's were first found in Buckinghamshire.

Amazingly, Mynetts/Minute's are said to use "oPEN helmets," suggesting that Openheimers were PENdragon kin. The amazing part is where Thigh's/THY's share the red fox of HEIMERs in both colors!!! Plus, while Mamie (my old girlfriend) was given a thigh symbol, she represented the Mens/Mame surname (shares "God" motto term with Sinclairs), first found in Midlothian with the Sinclairs who use a "thy" motto term, and it just so happens that Scottish Beets/Betts were first found in Edinburghshire, smack at Midlothian! Zikers. Sinclairs lived in Roslin, just 6 miles from Edinburgh, and I had beets for my THYroid!!! You can find the description of Coats of Arms here to verify that the symbol is a fox or otter, or whatever:
https://www.hallofnames.org.uk/#

I've always wondered whose cross the Orions/Irons use, and it happens to be the one of Scottish Beets! Can you believe it? That's why God has paired beets with my thyroid and bladder problems, I must assume.

Mamie got her thigh symbol at her garden, and Gardens happen to share the black-on-white boar head with Bedins/BedDOE's/BedDOWs/Bedlows while Doe's/Dows share the Balfour / Beaufort / Round chevron. Beets are red, and Reds are listed with Reeds, a branch of Roets (share book with Scottish Reeds) who were also Beauforts, a branch of Balfours/Balforts. Beauforts were first found in Norfolk with Orions/Irons, and the latter are said to have named AIRAINes, near ABBEville, explaining not only why McABBE's/McCabe's were first found in ARRAN, but why MacBeths are also MacBee's.

I almost missed it: Beauforts have patee crosses in the colors of the "formy" patees of Dine's/Diens. IoDINE!!! That beets all. Plus, the Gardens share the giant boar head of Jarre's/Jarrets, (Dol) and the beets come in glass jars.

The OrRINGE variation of Orange's suggest both Ring surnames, for English Rings/Ringsteads (Norfolk, same as Balfours) are in Pendragon colors and format, while Irish Rings/Rinns/Crans have a version of the Other/Otter Coat. Crannys (Islay, same as Beths/BEATons!) are listed with Grounds while English Grounds (Bath kin) can be gleaned as Rhodes kin! The Ground/Cranny crane (code for Ceraunii) is in the colors and format of the Horn/Orne heron. This appears to expose a Ceraunii-line merger with Orion liners. The latter entity could easily have become "Corion"-like from "Cronus," cannibalistic son of Uranus. God is preparing an asteroid for this Hyksos bloodline. Yes, the Hyksos left Egypt and parked in Tyre. The Ceraunii-line Crauns/Crane's, who share the "hind" with Scottish Shaws, look like Hicks kin, and Hinds have a white-lozenge version of the Beth/Beaton Coat.

The Ceraunii mountains are near Bullis, and while the Seleucid king, Alexander Balas, is suspect (by me) for good reason in being named by Bullis elements, the Balas/Bayliss surname (almost share Bute/Butt estoiles) share the Beet Cross. Balas'/Bayliss' were first found in GlaMORGANshire with Welsh Louis' sharing the Coat of English Jarrets, the latter first found in Shropshire with Hunts/hunters and the Alans of Dol from Aulon/AVLONa at the Ceraunii mountains. That place named mythical AVALON (the island of Bute in the real world), home of the witch, mythical Morgan le Fay, daughter of Gorlois. Glamorgan was anciently, Morgannwg. French Louis' have the Hind lozenges in colors reversed, and "GorLOIS" was part-code for Louis-like Lois' (Artois, near Airaines). Alexanders (share Morte / Death crescent) were first found in KinTYRE, beside Arran, and King Arthur, half-brother of Morgan le Fay, was killed on Avalon because it was myth code for Deaths and Morte's/Motts (from near Dol).

Hinds, first found in Essex, where Gore's/CORE's were once said to be first found, share the lozenges of CORsons/Carsons, and the SCIMitar of the latter traces to proto-Sadducees in Boeotia. Corsons/Carsons share the Beth/Beaton fesse.

Alexander Balas may have been the son of king Antiochus IV, the ancient symbol of the end-time anti-Christ found in Daniel's chapters, 8 and 11. Balas had formed a pact with Jonathan Maccabee, and MacAbbe's of Arran are also MacAbee's, but because the latter share the salmon of Hams (Sussex, same as Hammers and Dine's/Diens), in Hammer colors, it seems that Abbeville liners took on a Maccabee-like name due to descending from Jonathan Maccabee, for the historians like to say (wrongly) that "Maccabee" means "hammer" in Hebrew.

I had the beets in cabbage salad, and the Planque's/Plants who use cabbages are from PLANCia Magna (a Maccabee liner in her ancestry), the line to Plunketts, first found in the region of Dol and Raines-line Rennes. Mott(e) is nearby along the Meu river.

I almost never buy black olives, and haven't even bought green olives for as long as two years, but I did buy two cans of black olives a few weeks ago, and cracked open the second can about a week ago. I put some of these olives into the cabbage-and-beet salad days ago, and here I find that Cabbage's were first found in Northamptonshire with Olive's (probably an Owl branch), and with the Brays/Brae's who in turn use a "flax breaker" while Breakers/Brechs have the Orange/Orringe hunting horn in colors reversed! Breakers/Brechs (Shropshire, same as Hunts/Hunters) share the ANTELope with Balas'/Bayliss', and ANTALya is smack beside Perga, the latter being home of Plancia Magna. Likewise first found in Northamptonshire were the Ladys/Laudymans who share the annulets of English Walkers (Yorkshire, same as black-boar Bush's) who in turn have a "magna" motto term.

Shropshire is where CURTIS-related Plows/Plough's were first found who share the Dole and Bush fleur-de-lys, and this now smacks of CURTUS Maccabee. Curtis' share the "ploughshare" with German Bullis!!! The Bullis ploughshare, in Balas/Bayliss colors, is in the design of the so-called "BLADE" of Teems, and zikers that looks like "bladder"!!! Curtis' (Beth/Beaton colors and format) call it a "plowshare" (over the shoulder of a farmer). The three crowns of Curtis' are those also of Ceraunii-like Corons / Corona's.

After writing the paragraph above, I went down to do the short insert below on "MAYO(nnaise)," at the topic of mythical MAIA of Antalya, because the beet salad came with cabbage-beet salad was in mayonnaise. Only after doing that insert did I load Mayo's (unfamiliar with them) to find the Curtis / Corona crowns on a Shield in Breaker/Brech colors and format! The Mayo crowns (in Craun/Crane colors) are used by Ground-like Grands in the "Grandescunt" motto term of Curtis-like Courts/Coverts! Zinger. Crauns/Crane's use the crown for obvious reason.

Ceraunii are highly suspect with Carians of Caria, beside Antalya, and the latter was in PISidia, the namers of piss-like Pisa, after which mythical Poseidon of Tyre was named, the son of CRONus, the son of Uranus, we get it. These were Aryan = Caucasian speakers, and they named Poseidon after "piss" too, apparently. The Reines' have the Pisa Coat in colors reversed, believe it or not, as well as a "comet."

Plancia Magna was descended from two ALEXANDER Maccabees. Pisa of Greece was the land of Amazons, and she was the high priestess for the Amazonian goddess, ArTEMIS, named after THEMIScyra (possibly a Themis-Caria combo). Therefore, the Tiens'/Thames' thus look like they named the blade-using Teems, or vice-versa. My bladder problems are thus pointing to this Herod-Maccabee family in Perga. It's very connectable to Mynett-line Amyntes of Galatia, son of the high priest of Cybele, the latter likely named after the Cabelees people group, a tribe of Pisidians. Ain't that sumthin? My pee's important for pointing to God's arch-enemies.

Spanish Maia's happen to share the Coat of Daisys, and the latter have a "BEE feeding on a daisy" that could be of the MacBee variation of Beths/BEETons. From here we can go to MacAbee's/McCabe's who are in colors reversed from Maia's and Daisys. I see Daisy variations as branches of DESmonds ("aboo"), and the latter share the saltire of Jardins (share Bullis and Angus stars) who in turn were first found in Angus with Daisys and Gardens/Jardens. The Desmond wrote-up: "Saint and Bishop Gerald (d. 731), of Magh Eo, now MAYO..." Making mayonnaise sense.

Aha, while Maia's are also MAJA's, Jardins share the ANNAN Coat and the ANNAS star while Maja-like MAJors have a version of the Annas Coat. Jesus was murdered by the high priest, ANANus/ANANias/ANNAS (all three variations used by various writers). Compare the Magar/Meager/Magray Coat to that of Jardins and Angus' (share Annas star too). Majors use the GRAYhound, and Magars/MaGRAYs were first found in Oxfordshire with Tiens'/Thames', near Windsor castle. Grays love the anchors on the Major Coat.

Desmonds list Geralds as variations, and have this additionally: "OTHO Geraldino, one of the chief commanders of Williams the Conqueror...Two generations later, Maurice was the first to use the name Fitzgerald...His father Gerald, according to later genealogists, was grandson of Walter FitzOTHER, who figures in 'Domesday' as a tenant at Windsor and elsewhere..." That gets us back to Otter liners.

Balfours/Balforts (otter), first found in Fife with Angus', share "Forward" in their motto with Seatons/Sittens (East Lothian) who in turn use a dragon, showing kinship with the Dragon/Drainer and Pendragon bloodline. It's a green dragon, also in the Crest of Windsor-like Fenders (Huntingdonshire, same as Windsor-related Others/Otters) who in turn share the otter with Others/Otters. The Beet-like Baits/Beeths (Fife), kin of Rollo's, even share the boar head of Gardens/Jardens (Angus, beside Fife), and put it at the TIP of a sword in the very way that Fenders put their otter at the tip of a sword, and then the same design is with Skins/Skene's/Scans, first found nearby in Aberdeenshire with Scottish Reeds, and with the Turins (boar heads) who are in Other/Otter colors and format. Skins/Skene's/Scans are Boeotia-important in the long quote below.

The tips of those swords may have originally been code for the Tipps'/Tippins suspect in the Pendragon / Shaw mottoes.

I kid you not, I thought I was finished, but as I turned my chair to get up from the computer table, I asked what else was in that salad, and then remembered putting a splash of BALSamic vinegar in there too. Was that God's idea as a pointer to Alexander BALAS? The Balas/Bayliss cross is that also of Betts!

I've had three long drains this morning, and two overnight, I'm so amazed that the beets have seemingly cured this bladder problem. We'll see. I've been lately taking 1,000 mg of vitamin C, 350 mg of Aspirin, a vitamin D3 tab, and some B12, daily.

[Insert -- On Tuesday morning, the day after writing above, I realized that I ate my last orange last night! I can't believe the following slipped my mind. I was off of SUGAR for a couple of years, and for that reason stopped buying oranges. When I was able to have sugar again, I started getting orange juice, but, for the first time in years, I bought a bag of oranges two weeks ago! I've been slicing them into quarters to eat them, and did so with the last one, which I add because I know without looking that Quarters/CHURTers/CHRUITers (Ladd/Ladon colors) use an "esculapius," which is the rod of Asclepius, son of Coronis! Seagars/SUGARs use the similar CADUCeus of Hermes, he being code for Armenians along with Harmonia, wife of mythical CadMUS, he being named partly after Mus of Armenia, and partly after the CADUSii Armenians. The Orange's thus look like they were from Orion of Boeotia, for Cadmus settled Boeotia!

The Hermes caduceus went to mythical TIRESias, suspect (my me) as a Hyksos-Tyrian entity, and while Tiresias was the father of Daphne (a Daphne location was east of Tyre), she had another father, the 100-headed Ladon dragon, symbol of the Ladon river.

Coronis was the daughter of PHLEGyas, suspect as a tribe, in Anatolia, from "Peleg," son of Eber, Biblical founder of Hebrews...suspect as the root of Hyksos. I trace Hyksos to MUS of Armenia, which can explain the "laudiMUS" motto term of Quarters/Churters, though it looks like part-code for Ladys/Laudymans too. The Hermes cult named the Hermus river of Laud-like Lydia. Pelops, mythical king of Lydia, and a cannibal cult like Cronus, married the daughter of Oenomaus in Pisa, in the land of piss-line Tyrians (human-sacrificer monsters in human clothing). "OenoMAUS," highly suspect from Mus, was named after mythical Oeneus of Antalya-related Aetolia, and the Ceraunii are marked on a map beside the Oeneus river, now the Una of Croatia. I trace the crow symbol to Croatians, and Coronis was the mythical crow.

The Oenotrians were a real people that Oeneus depicted, and they obviously named the Oeneus river. They were also called the ENOTRi, who are in the NUTRIor motto term of Simpsons, and it just so happens that one Simson Coat is almost the Quarter/Churter Coat. Churters look like they are from Curtus Maccabee. As I said a few times, I dated Miss Sim(p)son after she split with her non-Christian husband, Mr. Deeter. They had lived on a WINE Cup ranch, and "Oeneus" means "wine man." Deeters use grapes. Ahh, almost missed it: Simsons were first found in Buckinghamshire with Orange's/Orringe's!

Back now to the Carians, suspect with the Cars/Kerrs, for my 1979 dream had a CLASSIC CAR (1950's model) resolved also as an auto as God's pointer to Auto's/Otto's and Ottone's/Otto's. Others/Otters are said to have been from lords of Lombardy, though it's not told who they were. OTTONE Visconti ruled the Lombardy capital, and Ottone's thus look like they named Others/Otters. Lombardy is near Turin, tending to explain why Others/Otters are in Turin colors and format. Ottone's are very connectable to both French CHAPPES', and Scottish Chappes', and CAIAPHAS, a high priest of Israel who killed Jesus, had married the daughter of Annas/Ananus. Quarters/Churters have the Harps/Harpers in their Crest who in turn have a "suaVIS FORTis" motto phrase, and add a crown around a neck as code for Ceraunii liners.

Scottish Chappes' were first found in Stirlingshire with Guiscards/WISharts, suspect as a VISconti branch, and it just so happens that the three Guiscard piles are those of Orange-like Orrs/Ore's using a CORNucopia, a Coronis-line symbol. Orrs/Ore's were first found in RENfrew, named after Raines- / Reines-connectable Rennes elements! That's the Orion line to Airaines. The line of Coronis / Cronus named the Cornovii founders of Cornwall, where Pendragons were first found along with mythical Gorlois.

The CLASSIC car got suspect with the Glassick variation of Glass' (first found in Bute) because I was placed at the glass WINDshield (pointer to WINDsors?) of the car, looking into it as Miss Hicks hovered inside of it. In fact, the first I saw of her in this dream, she was walking past the FENDER to the hood area! Fenders are the Windsor-like surname using the otter!!! The woman in the dream was a "lady," as I called her from decades ago, and now I know why, for "Lady Fortune" is in the Coat of Glass-like Klassens/Class'. Fortuna's/Fortune's can be linked solidly to MontFORTs (share Grey lion), BeauFORTs, and the Greys (have the Glass/Glassick border in colors reversed) who love Anchors/Annackers who are in turn in the colors and format of Lady's/Laudymans, the latter first found in Northamptonshire with Brays/Brae's, suspect from Bra, beside Monforte, itself beside Montferrat at Turin's south side. The Lords/LAUDs and Lets/LATE's are in the motto of GLASgows, and Orrs/Ore's were probably heavily in Glasgow (Renfrewshire).

I don't recall doing the windSHIELD before with Windsors (suspect from Veneti = Wends) together with Shields/Shields ("FORTi"!), and I may never have done the windshield with Windsors before either (or maybe once or twice due to the fender scene). I know without checking that one Shield/Shiel surname shares the motto of English Shaws/Sheaves', the latter first found in Berkshire with Windsor castle!!! Wow, while Miss Hicks is Charlotte, Charlotte's are listed with French Charles', and so she may be a pointer to prince Charles, from the Windsor bloodline. She was on Jeffrey Epstein's island in this dream, and prince Charles' brother, Andrew, has been all over the news as one of Epstein's buddies.

It's now intriguing that Irish Charles' share the giant Maio tree, and add the three Mayo/Maja / Grand crowns. I'm not familiar with this picture at all, but I'll add that Mayo's/Maja's are in Wind/Windell colors / Winkler/Windle colors.

Oh wow, Irish Shields, in the colors and format of Irish Carrs (!), even share the Glassick/Glass star to verify that I was at the windshield of the classic car as a pointer to the Glass bloodline! It's even the Car/Kerr star!!! Intelligent Design behind this dream is thus more evident now. The Car/Kerr motto term, "serio," is for the Serio river in Lombardy!!! Amazing!!! Irish Carrs share the Balas/Bayliss estoile. Ahh, the "sed" motto term of Cars/Kerrs is shared by Sedans/Siddens (named SEDbergh) who are in turn said to have named Seddon...in Lancashire, where Cars/Kerrs were first found. Sedans/Siddens were a branch of Seatons/Sittens and SIDE's / Sutys, and it just so happens that I was at the passenger-door windshield looking in at the lady, now deciphered as the SIDE windshield!!! I get it. Ahh, Side's were first found in Fife with Balfours/BalFORTs who in turn share "Forward" with Seatons/Sittens! God's pointing to the Fabian Brits again, anti-Christ Zionists, of Cecil Rhodes and prime minister Arthur Balfour. The lady in the car was hovering over the SEATs.

She was hovering LEVEL as a pointer to Leavells/Levels/ of CARY Castle. The Hover/Hoffer Crest is the Crest of Scottish Doors too, and I was looking into the car through the side-door windshield. These Doors were first found in Fife with Side's, how about that. This batch of heraldry is mainly newish. From the driver's perspective, it's the RIGHT-side door, and English Rights/Wrights (Sussex, same as Shiel-like Shelleys) not only share the Door leopard faces in both colors, and the Hover/Hoffer Crest too, but Scottish Rights/Wrights were first found in Berwickshire with English Shields/Shiels! I'm sure that's a new gleaning too.

Shelleys have one of the two fesses of WINDovers/WendOVERs, and Overs/Offers look like a Hover/Hoffer branch! That's new too. WinDOWs may have been named by Dove's in the Shield/Shiel Coat, for Dows/Doe's may have been a Dove branch. Windovers/Wendovers (share Simson lion) were first found in Buckinghamshire with Simsons, smack near Windsor castle. Windows were Fien/Finis kin, explaining the "fie en" motto phrase of Windsors. I've never before highlighted the woman of this dream, usually called "Sleeping Beauty," as a pointer to Windsors, but that now seems like a concrete gleaning, and so the royal Windsors are expected to be behind the spy programs of Jeffrey Epstein. The Quarters/Churters share the Windover/Wendover lion too, and were first found in Ayrshire with the Carricks sharing the Windover/Wendover fesse.

It should also be added that while Lady Fortune holds a banner, the Banners (Boii liners likely, possible Boeotians) were the namers of the Panaro river at Marano...in Modena (home of the Boii), where Morinis' and Morano's were first found too. Morano's are from Morano on the Sybaris river of southern Italy, home of the Enotri / Oenotrians mentioned above. It's known that Sybaris was settled by Greeks from Boura, near the Ladon river, tending to explain why Bourleys/Burleys and Ladds/Ladons were both first found in the same place. Wikipedia says that peoples of Sybaris named nearby Laus, and then Laus(a) was the alternative name of Ragusa (Croatia), home of the Saraca's/Saraka's who apparently named Saracena on the Sybaris river. The Saraca's are to the Shark surname (crane, code for Ceraunii), and the 1979 dream with the lady at the car opened with a shark.

Not many days after this dream, as I've said, I had a morning vision with Farrah Fawcett, a pointer to Tony Fauci (this had stunning proof, including the horseshoe's of Farrah's, but not to be repeated here). Faucets/Fawcetts, sharing the Simson / Quarter/Churter lion, were first found in east Lothian with Simms' and Fortune's. It appears that CHARLotte Hicks was Lady Fortune in this dream, and moreover Farrah Fawcett played in CHARLIE's Angels with CHERYL LADD. Charlie's (Lancashire, same as cars/Kerrs, Bolts and Boltons) are listed with Chorleys (share Bolten chevron) using bottles, and Bottle's (almost share Bolt Crest) show crowns alone, likely for the Ceraunii. Miss Hicks is a Hyksos liner, right? Bolts share the black griffin with Scotts from lake Scodra, beside the Clausula river of Klassen- and Glass liners. Klassens are the ones with Lady Fortune. Saraca's were previously at Kotor, near the Clausula.

I've just noticed that the Charley/Chorley Coat has been changed, now showing the Grey Coat. End insert]

Here's on this topic from the 2nd update of last month (November), if you'd be interested:

Orion Raimes with Orange

Amazingly, I am in the process of testing ORANGE juice for by bladder problem, and I've been meaning to report this in my updates in case someone picks it up and shares it. Like most men after middle age, I have the problem of draining only half a bladder. They say it's due to a swollen prostate gland that blocks the urinary track to a degree. But about six weeks ago, full drains were happening over a period of two weeks, making me wonder whether it was something I was eating. Then, one day, within an hour of drinking orange juice, I had a full drain. I then drank two containers of frozen juice over four days, and my bladder was doing full drains for days and days. However, at the time of the realization that orange juice could be the solution, I was daily on 325 mg of Aspirin, 2,000 UI's of vitamin D3, and 1,000 mg of vitamin C tabs. I canceled all three and did the test with orange juice alone to get decent results, but I want to see, starting any day now, whether it's the juice and aspirin, or the juice and D3, that makes by pipes work like brand new. I took the vitamin C tabs alone a couple of weeks ago, but they did nothing...suggesting that the body may not take in vitamin C much from tabs. Or, maybe it's something else in the orange juice that's relaxing whatever's blocking the pipe.

I have not purchased orange juice or oranges in several years until recently. Time after time over the past couple of weeks, I would have a full to near-full drain starting an hour after drinking a cup of orange juice (it can't be prostate cancer to work that fast), and for hours afterward, sometimes into the next day if I have a second cup. The success is a little spotty, and so I'm going to try juice and D3 now. I'll fill you in because there's a lot of people who have this problem. It was great to sleep all night and not need to get up twice to visit the toilet (there were odd nights with four visits).

I'm still testing this, but the reason I'm telling it now, prematurely, is due, not only to the "orange" vs. "Orion" comparison, but because I saw an Orange location on the map above, between Lake Charles and Beaumont!!! Is that not amazing? I pee'd at the ramp about two hours after driving through / past Orange. Did God arrange for this orange-juice test?

I kid you not, that while whatever named mythical Orion (I say the proto-Iranians = Aryans) had later named the Orne river of the Bayeux, and while Orne's are listed with the Horns -- expected in hunting horns because Orion was a mythical hunter -- the rulers of Orange, and even the Orange surname, use the hunting horn. As Orange is near Beaumont, note that Beaumonts share the Nassau lion, for Nassau merged with Orange. Orange is on the Rhone river not far up from the mouth of the Durance on the Rhone. Compare "Rhone" with "Orion." Nassau's cover their Shield with billets while Tacks/Thackarys use the motto term, "NoBILITas." Billets (Devon again) share the Tankerville cinquefoils, and French Billets are listed with Billiards while Obama on his ramp is in my Obama dream.

Did God arrange the word, juice, to point to Jews of the Sadducees?

[Insert -- The morning after writing on the orange juice, I was at the toilet getting a full drain, and remembered that the Drain surname has an orange-like lion! The Drain surname was not on my mind yesterday at all. I was going to use another word at first, "dump," but that wasn't the right word, and so I came up with "drain." Orange is not an official heraldic color, and it's very rare!!! Plus, it's the perfect word because Drainers are listed with Dragons while myth had the Ares dragon killed in Boeotia by mythical Cadmus, a descendant of urine-line Uranus. Cadmus was descended from Poseidon, son of Corona-like Cronus, son in turn of Uranus. Poseidon was named for the Pisidians, the namers of piss-like Pisa!!! Reines' have the Pisa Coat in colors reversed!

I told of the time that a mouse got caught in a mouse trap in my basement, where it dragged the trap until it got stuck between the rock floor and a 2 x 6 floor JOIST. As God showed that Obama can be depicted by a mouse, I thought this mouse had to do with Obama, for he was on the board of a joist-like Joice Foundation (social activists). Compare "juice" to "Joice." CadMUS was named partly from MUS of Lake Van. Joice's/Choice's share the giant, double-headed eagle of Spike's, and vaccines have spike proteins.

The point of re-telling this mouse story is: I have RAIN water from the roof coming through the block wall into a natural pool in the rock floor, over which I built the floor. The mouse trap got trapped at the top rim of this pool, and DROWNed during a rainfall (Uranus' pee), as the pool level rose, which is how I discovered that Drowns are listed with Drains. It's got Orion all over it now because Drowns have the orange lion, but it may have hints of Apophis/Apepi too. For what it's worth, the demi-orange lion in the Drain Crest is in the Crest of Scottish Blacks while English Blacks share the Drain Chief. It's the Washington Chief too, but amazingly, it's the Schim/Schien Chief too! The latter share the Mole boar head while "mole hills" are used by Schim-connectable Shake's expected from SCHIMatari, home of mythical Orion! The "comite" motto term of Schims/Schiens can even connect to the "comet" of piss-pointing Reigns'!

Schim-branch Skene's have swords with "BLADE's pointing up," which is not there for nothing. Urine is stored in a BLADDer. Nobody in heraldry likely had that idea in mind when using "blade," but God could have just for this paragraph. Yes, for I've just loaded Scottish Franks because I know without looking that they have the Blade saltire, and lookie there what popped up in the Frank Crest: an orange lion! You can't believe it because the chances are so slim. I didn't consciously know of any other surnames using an orange lion (besides Blacks and Drains, when starting this paragraph, and I did not start this paragraph because I knew Franks to have an orange lion; it was not found until after writing on the bladder. God wants to prove to you that He's in this heraldic work. Both German Franks were first found in Bohemia, a country named by the Boii, and so it appears that Boii were from Orion elements of BOIOTia.

Ahh, wunderbar. The orange lion of Franks has a "tail forked," recalling the SHAKEfork of Cunninghams. The latter's motto: "Over fork over." Shake's can be shown to be from Shechemite namers of Schimatari! It can explain the hunting horns of Scottish Hunters (share Tatton greyHOUND), first found in Ayrshire with Cunninghams. The International Order of Saint HUBERTus is a hunting group, and Huberts (Cheshire, same as Tattons, beside English Hunters) were at Curzon while Scottish Hunters have a "Cursum" motto term.

It appears that God gave me a not-so-great bladder for this pointer. I often view the Revelation asteroid as God's urine on his fat-cat enemies, the cunning sharks. The Father of Jesus is the true sky God. Let's call Apophis a kidney stone. Yes, for kidney stones are caused by urine, and come through the urine PIPE. Apophis. "If you have a [kidney-stone] blockage, you may only urinate a little bit each time you go." Do I have a kidney stone(s)? No, I've never had the symptoms, whew.

The rain water not only drains through a PIPE from the roof, but out another pipe that drains the rock pool naturally at times by the siphon principle. Pipe's share the Pepin/Pepy Coat. When the siphon action isn't working, I have a sump pump sitting in the pool (usually not more than a foot deep), and so I check the pool level at times to assure the siphon action is working (it usually is). That's what I was doing when finding the drowned mouse. I plugged in the PUMP, and when walking toward the door to leave the basement, I saw the mouse drowned. When telling this story, I checked the Pump surname to find it listed with Popps/Pope's/Pape's, a good pointer to Apophis in this case, let me tell you why.

Ada of Warenne married Mr. HUNTINGdon, and Warrens share the Pump/Popp/Pape checks. The Aid/Ade Coat is a version of the David Coat because Ada's husband had king David as his father, and the fesse-with-mouse of Misls/Meisels/MAYsl's is in the colors and format of the fesse-with-lion of Davids (Cheshire, same as Massey liners). MAIA was the first star-daughter of Atlas. Maisys share the dragon (likely code for Dragons/DRAINers) with the Deweys suspect in the motto of David-branch Davis' (share David Coat), and Deweys (look like Potter kin), sharing the Dragon/Drainer fesse, share the Maisy cinquefoils. Who named Maisy Mouse (cartoon character) and why?

[Insert -- there was MAYO(nnaise) in my beet-cabbage-olive salad!]

AHHH, amazing: I've just looked up Mickeys for obvious reason, and they share the double-headed Joice eagle in both colors!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! God must be calling Obama a Mickey Mouse! It definitely appears as though God set the mouse up to drown under the joist as a pointer to the Joice Foundation. The Mickeys share the "salmon" of McCabe's of Orion-line Arran! Mickeys use a "ship of WAR, sails furled," possible code for Warenne liners. Mickie's have "ears of barley" in the first quadrant, and BARLeys (Herefordshire, same as Barrels) share the gold boar in Crest with war-like Weirs/Vere's and Eure's/Ivers. The colors of shape of the ears of barley look connectable to the Keppochs in the Mickie write-up.

Mickie-like Micks have a couple of wings in Crest looking linkable to the two blue wings of Cancer-like Chance's/Chauncers, and Crabs happen to share the Mick fleur-de-lys. Micks look like Michaels of Surrey, for the father of Ada of Warenne was in Surrey.

By the way, Mickie's were first found in Silesia with Handle's and Handells, recalling my dream with the barrel-shaped piece missing from my Jeep's door handle (the dream said, barrel-shaped). That dream started with my RIDING a SHOPPing cart that pointed, with Shop variations and Ridings, to the Scherff-Bush family. Micks, sharing the Bush fleur-de-lys, mention a Mikusch SCHOPPe. Schopps/Scobels share the three fleur-de-lys of the Courage's (Essex, same as Chance's/Chauncers and Mountains) in the motto of dagger-using Comyns, and the Mickie Crest has a dagger too. Schope's/Scope's share the Mountain / BRIGHTon fesse, and while the Schope/Scope Coat is the Over Coat in colors reversed, MickleOVER is a location of the first-known Shore's/Sure's (in the motto of dagger-using Kilpatricks) expected in the Shoreland variation of Shops. While Bosco's are in the Rose write-up, rose leaves are used by Sobbe's/Sobers. This is the best I have ever done interpreting the first two scenes of the door-handle dream, but that's another story. The SCRope variation of Scope's/Schope's can from the line of Schore's / Shows/Schorrs because Shops are listed with Shorelands.

I found Pophams as Poppins initially because I was thinking of jumping off the porch ROOF of PEPIN TAFF, at age four or five, like Mary Poppins holding her umbrella i.e. a RAIN instrument. This same porch is where I pee'd accidentally on the head of the neighbor's kid, Pino, when he came walking around the corner of the porch under me as I stood on the porch railing draining the bladder. That event is how I discovered the urine symbol of Orion. As I said, I can not remember being at Pino's house aside from one occasion when at his garage, when a man showed me his HUNTING rifle. Orion is the mythical hunter, but so was mythical Atalanta, named after ATTALia in Pisidia, the namer of mythical ATLas, first son of Poseidon (as written by Plato). Atlas was given seven stars as his daughters, and Orion had his own star symbol. Uranus was the sky god, we can understand the reasons for these star symbols, and why Uranus-like Orion was one of the constellations.

I trace Hyksos to the Armenian god, Hayk. Wikipedia: "The Armenians identified their legendary patriarch and founder Hayk with Orion." "CADmus" is part-code for Cadusii Armenians, and part-code for Armenians at Mus. The Ardahan area of Armenia named the Ardiaei Illyrians, who had a boy-king, Pinnes, the character to whom Pino pointed.

Pisa was home to Taff-like Daphne, from a Daphne location in Phoenicia, the latter being ruled by Poseidon and Cadmus. Daphne was given the Ladon dragon as her father to show that Phoenicians from Daphne were on Pisa's Ladon river, near Arcadia, the birthplace of mythical Hermes, the Armenian character from Phoenicia's mount Hermon, location of Daphne. Hermes owned the caduceus as code for Cadusii Armenians, and the caduceus was a two-snake version of the rod of Asclepios, son of Cronus-like Coronis. The Phoenicians at mount Hermon named the Hermus river of Lydia, where Pelops was king who married a queen of Pisa, no coincidence. She was the daughter of OENoMAUS, named partly after king OENeus of Calydon, and partly after Mus elements, apparently.

I therefore feel that Armeno-Phoenicians of Daphne named the TAPHians of Attalia-like AETOLia, which area had Calydon, where Atalanta above was queen. This looks like the reason that God set me up urinating on Pino from the porch of Pepin Taff. New: Taffs love the Mea's/Mee's/Meigh's, making the latter look like Maia-line Atlanteans. It's hinting that Apophis Hyksos became Greeks in Aetolia / Calydon. Hermes' son, Pan, represented Phoenicians at Panias, right beside Daphne, as they moved to name the Peneus river of Pisa. "In Greek mythology, Orion was a gigantic, supernaturally strong hunter, born to Euryale, a Gorgon, and Poseidon..." "EURYale" looks like play of EURopa, Cadmus' sister. The Zeus Taurus (code for Tyrians) took Europa to Crete, which explains why the Taurus constellation is beside Orion, for Zeus was made brother to Poseidon.

Imagine how stupid the stupids were whose task it was to find designs in the stars that fit the bloodline / ethnical narratives they worshiped. There is no such thing as the Orion constellation, and it certainly does not look like a hunter, anyway. It's all rubbish. God does not respect this trash. This was satan's domain, to turn God's stars into pagan property. It continues rebelliously to this day with the naming of planets, moons and asteroids. It appears that the Apophis asteroid is aimed at Poseidon's sea domain. The Sea surname shares the wavy fesses of DRUMMonds, and I've traced the latter surname to "THERModon," a river of the Amazons that flows to the land of the KHALDi, which I claim named Calydon. Amazons were given a hunter symbol too, as was the king and queen of Calydon. Amazons on the Thermodon moved to Mus-line Mysia, beside Lydia. Mysians named Moesia, home to Pisa-like Picensii, and Pepin Taff married Miss Masci from Picenze. My father caught a Picensii-like pigeon on the porch roof of Pepin Taff, and handed it to my Masci mother through the window to the kitchen, where she cooked it. Orions/Irons/Hirams were first found in AIRAINES of PICardy. End insert]

Josephus claimed to descend from Curtsy-like Curtus Maccabee, and Avaran Maccabee looks like the line to Haverans sharing the Orne/Horn heron. Miss Hicks did a curtsy toward me, and my mother's Masci line is from Meschins of Bayeux, I therefore assume. Ferte-MACE on/off the upper Orne looks like a Maccabee line, especially as the experts wrongly say that "Maccabee" was named after a hammer while Massey liners seized upon the false idea to form the Maceys/Mace's using a mace = hammer...and naming Ferte-Mace, we can assume. "MaccaBEAUS" looks like it's named after Boii elements.

Oh wow, I didn't read the Cursy write-up until now to find that the surname was first found at Kersey TYE (in Babergh)! She did the curtsy on the only day I wore my TIE to church.

I've just realized that the Hicks motto may have a Car/Curr/Kerr branch. The "heure" motto term, that is, for the Eure's are also Cure's, and they even have an "oblivisCAR" motto term (I've just never realized this before). I just about flipped when scrolling back through the Coats to find who else I had seen sharing the gold boar head in the Eure/Cure Crest, for it turned out to be CURsys/Kerseys! So, yes, God apparently put Miss Hicks in the dream with a car because the Hicks motto has the Curr-branch Cure's/URE's (Leighton quadrants in colors reversed), and "uro" is a MacKenzie motto term to boot, how fantastic...

It goes on, but I'll end it there for this update. To finish reading, see "how fantastic" in the 2nd update of November.

News

I've got some good news for you. Do you know the feeling when you're talking to God, and you wonder why He didn't make us more intelligent so that He might be able to enjoy a conversation with us a little more than you might like a conversation with an ant. We are so utterly stupid as compared to God, why would he be interested in us? Ahh, and then it dawned on me: babies are more "stupid" than even ants, yet we love and tolerate babies because we know what they will eventually become...teenagers who know more than we do already. But we are less than babies here in earth, I do believe, and this is my good news. Were's still in the womb. In fact, we're still at the little-spermy stage, wiggling about trying to get where we want to go, competing against all the other spermies. We're commanded not to elbow any of them to get ahead faster, and the good news is: when the Kingdom of Bright Heaven appears, that's when we are coming out of the womb squinting at the lights. That's when we finally start to get to grow up faster and become like God. Until then, we are in the dark because we are in the womb.

We have a lot to look forward to, but the wicked won't get out of the womb. They are going to rot together in the belly of "mother nature," the witch they love, and she's going to be thrown into a lake of fire in the end too.

Have you ever bumped into Christian who's always praising God. Praise God for this, and for that, and for this'n that too why not. In the Gospel of John, Jesus says that He doesn't accept praise from men. What? Do you mean that I praise God in vain? I think what He means is that our praise from the human heart is nothing but a stroking Him with caresses to get something for ourselves. Jesus seems to be saying that we can't hoodwink him with flattery. He's waiting for us to grow up, and He's willing to wait. But I'm not going to stop praising God when it wells up from my itty-bitty heart. It feels good to praise Jesus with sincerity, when it happens sincerely.

I've always felt that one sincere word toward God is better than a million flatteries. When one prays many words, it can be construed by God as a flattery-binge, and when it gets habitual, God runs away as soon as He begins to hear it. If we want to impress the Creator, the Worker, do something to fulfill someone's need that takes a little sacrifice on our parts. We will feel like praising God more sincerely after we have blessed His heart with a good work, or with a good struggle at getting our thoughts Heavenly-correct. For when God is happy with us, and especially if we bring it to the level where He's proud of us (can that ever happen?), then God's Spirit pools within us to create the perfect conditions for sincere appreciation. The secret is to do some little thing that God can appreciate, because, everywhere He looks, he sees dog-eat-dog, or self looking after self. The secret is to have a plan, to do something that God will like, and then go do it. Try it. Make a plan. While our enemies hate us, we are building treasure in the birth canal. And where our heart will be one day, in the Light, there our treasure will join us. Chew on that for a minute or two. What kind of treasure did Jesus mean?

I would say that a big part of this treasure is Reception. The day comes when we know we're going to die. There's a long, black tunnel between us and God, the birth canal, and then, when we get to the end, where the Light shines, how good will it be to get a welcome, or a little bigger one, or a big one, or a stupendous one? Which would I prefer? I'd be happy with any welcome at all, but a nice-warm one would be grand. Don't you think? It's going to be Celebration Time. The Kingdom of Heaven has got to be as great to us as the light of this world is to a baby having spent nine months in the dark.

If we think that this world is fantastic, imagine what God has for the welcome ones. This world was thrown together in a day for sinners, and anyone loving this world of rock and dirt, of plastic and steal, of great evil mixed with a bit of good, more than God's presence doesn't know Dad at all. Death is our Mother, and Dad is The Welcome. Anyone who wants to remain in the womb is AN IDIOT. Plan on breaking out, stupid. We were conceived to escape this mess. Get your double-edged knife in hand, and use is to cut the cord. Freedom is there, not George Washington in a masonic apron, but Bro-Jesus with his feet on a footstool. All of our vanquished enemies are that footstool. They will never command our lives again, never mislead us again, never take advantage of us forever more.

Now do you see the Good News? Now do you see why Jesus was willing to die for us, that we might escape the sting of death? He did it for others, a Great Sacrifice, not just his death on the cross, but his two-year ministry, and then, after that, an eternity of serving us a rolling-out, brand-spanking New Thing. I don't know what it's going to be like, and so I can only call it the New Thing. Jesus said that it's okay for us to SEIZE the New Thing. Hurry up and grab it. Let's make up our minds to go to the Maternity Ward upon our death beds.

One of my favorite non-Christians, who has a picture of Jimmy Hendrix on his wall, who repulsed me even when I was young, is the voice on the video below. He holds just about every position I hold on this topic; he even sounds like my very own soul at times, aside from his giving Trump a partial-pass on his vaccine stance. I like this guy, and often wonder why he hasn't yet become a Christian. Nick Moseder on the "new world order" (of hopeless chaos) coming straight at us with what could be the vaccine-pass mark of the beast by 2025:
https://odysee.com/@NickMoseder:0/Operation-Warped-Speed-EXPOSED-NWOs-Global-Digital-ID-System:b

Nick's not an expert on these topics, but he's conveying the bottom-line gist in a way that the ordinary person can find agreement with. He also introduces information I've not seen elsewhere. The good news is, this global order is going to be slow in coming, because it's so wide, like the wide road to destruction, and run by stupids too stupid to see what a failure it's going to be...so make sure you use your time wisely (next three years starting yesterday) to disconnect all your needs from worldly suppliers, because, by all appearances now, this is going to become the new world chaos for those who despise globalism. Get it all done this year if you have money to spare. It will be Hell for those who side with globalism, and hardship for those who resist. Take your pick. Jesus warns us not to comply with this anti-Christ deception. Hold your ground with Jesus, your number-one task from Him. Trump's a fraudulent traitor, Nick.

They might be timing the mark of the beast for a few years before the Apophis comet arrives in April of 2029. They may know that it's going to hit the earth, and they may therefore know that this is the Revelation asteroid (2nd Trumpet). NASA is saying that it'll miss the earth by a little less than 20,000 miles. It's the first asteroid visible to the naked eye. If this rock is slated to miss, God merely needs to spit on it to re-direct it to the earth. Demon worshipers may know that their time is up, and so they will try to change the Set Time, somehow. Good luck wicked stubborn mules. Here's an American, David Martin, on canadian topics who sounds like he has inside information claiming that the "vaccines" are intended to spoil / destroy humanity, and isn't that exactly what we could expect when God allows satan his very-temporary throne?
https://www.bitchute.com/video/HhGD0KyGGlmT/

If the solar system is of a size as prescribed by a 17-million-mile sun, or smaller, then Apophis is not as large as astronomers think/claim, nor is it traveling as fast, meaning that it is FAR LESS powerful upon impact with a planet. Something to think about. If it hits the ocean, as the 2nd Trumpet suggests, then expect very-large waves striking coastlines, where most ships are parked. Ships out to sea could survive by riding the bulge, but when a bulge reaches the shallow waters at a coast, it floods the land, washing things on the shoreline onto the land destructively. It will give globalists something to do besides trying to turn the masses against us. That's on top of whatever the 1st Trumpet is, and just as they get repaired a little from the 2nd, the 3rd Trumpet blows.

Here's a former Pfizer man with a message, telling that vaccines create the COVID variants. He sounds very defeatist into his message, but I think there are more people now resisting vaccines than there were six months ago, due to the clambering for booster shots week-after-week by politicians and anti-Christ tin-soldiers trying too hard to convince the people. This looks like a nose dive for the scam, especially if they try too hard this winter. The most the self-proclaimed "rulers" can do is force their will harder than before, but how's that going to be an advantage when all it does is sow mistrust toward them?
https://www.bitchute.com/video/ZlnEn1IZ4wpR

There are not to be rulers in a democracy. They are hired servants to perform government duty. Nobody elected them to become rulers, to have power of forcing their will, as old kings had at the pain of the sword. But that's what we are now seeing, self-proclaimed rulers in a globalist brotherhood. It's foisting itself, and they are wasting no time after Christmas to advance fear of losing the ability to operate unless vaxxed. This is causing mistrust in them. They may get a few more vaccine victims into the front door, but I say they'll loose more out the back door as perpetual boosters become the predicted norm. They go out the back door so as not to be seen, because they feel ashamed of getting the first one or two shots, seeing better now that it was indeed a trick all along. At first, many were unsure, but the booster monster has opened their eyes.

It's January 2, and so this video could be a product of the deep state (lower levels) to see if it can incite groups toward making themselves appear ready for civil war. This has the look of a faked story, brainwashing:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/hMunVctyqTLh/

I apologize for sending readers to the Gateway Pundit. Stew Peters revealed that Jim Hoft, founder of Pundit, had married a young man. PUKE. "Hoft, who is currently 59, is married to a 29-year-old Filipino man" [since years ago].

Hurry to store foods (dried is best) long term, for even if you won't need any in the next two or three years, you'll have peace of mind. Plus, you'll learn to store foods.