It was nice while it lasted. Hall of Names is no longer showing the descriptions of the Coats of Arms presented at House of Names, but I have many of them recorded in my past updates from which to borrow.

The video below, dated November 22, claims that a one-meter-wide meteor landed in or around Niagara on November 19. I had mentioned my ordeal at Niagara Falls, at the hands of very-corrupt and brutal border agents, in the last update, and it just so happens that I recorded the day of the week, Saturday, in which I was writing, and that's the 22nd. The meteor is said to have come down at 3:26 am on Saturday, and so note the songline miracle on Saturday afternoon in the following quote from the last update:

I faintly remember a straight line cutting across from right-to-left of the city scene [in my 1979 Spiderman dream] that I saw after jumping off the building, and I've suggested that it was a bridge because it was necessary to go with the Silver Bird song, but also with my false arrest at the Canada-US BORDER. To make a long story short, I thought the officers [driving me from Niagara Falls to Buffalo] who arrested me at the border were going to throw me off the tall [Rainbow] bridge to the Niagara river below. The two officers in business suits (not uniforms) parked in an unmarked, small car about 20 minutes at the crest of this bridge shortly after RUSH hour, with me cuffed, and in chains at my feet, in the back seat. Why chain someone at the feet when he's locked in the back of a car? I've always said that, in the dream, the city scene looked to be shortly after rush hour, for it was a city busy with traffic, yet dark out, just like the bridge event over the Niagara. The Rush Coat is in the colors and format of Huntings/Huntingdons. The latter's hunting horns are half in the colors of the Breck/Breaker horns.

[Skip three paragraphs here]

HOWEVER, I'm stumped on why I was made to play Spiderman and Superman where the spider is pointing to poison vaccines. It doesn't make sense to me. Will I be poisoned with a vaccine, then recover? "Face down on the ground, victorious" just sang over my speaker this SATURDAY AFTERNOON immediately after struggling to understand the paragraph to this point. I was face down, to the ground, after jumping off the building on all fours! You can't land on all fours without facing down. The song is "In a Moment" by Rebecca St. James.

The article below shows the trajectory of the visible meteor, eastward, saying that it disappeared from human view north of Vineland (west of St. Catherines) while about 20 kilometers in the sky. If we extend the trajectory eastward from Vineland, on this map, pieces of the meteor might have landed about smack-dab at the U.S. Customs Building i.e. where I was being held all afternoon prior to the drive over the Rainbow bridge.
https://news.westernu.ca/2022/11/niagara-meteor/

Is God trying to tell us some terrible thing about the Niagara-Buffalo border crossing as pertains to trib survival? If He did time my writings on my Niagara ordeal for the day of the meteor, why did it arrive about a half-day before I was writing? Well, 12 paragraphs after the Spiderman section started, I had said: "Last night as I write here on Friday,..." The Saturday songline miracle was about 35 paragraphs later, still in the Spiderman section, and so the section was written on Friday and Saturday. The meteor was discovered late Friday night, and people were alerted so that they could view it, and capture its trajectory.

As I've said in the past, which puts a lump into my throat. Just because God saved me from being tossed over a bridge in the dark, into the dark waters -- if in fact He did save me from it -- does not mean that the people who had planned the murder are not Judged guilty of the murder. They are. And God will pay them back for unjust murder, as they deserve. However, this meteor, if He timed my writings for its passage, is not so much for my comfort, but is for you, or for some readers, but not for your comfort. What might it mean? I see the doom-cloud hanging over the dirty, stinking, rotting American cabal. I think the Apophis asteroid is landing in 2029.

For the record: "The meteoroid entered the Earth’s atmosphere just south of Woodstock, proceeding eastwards as a bright fireball until its end at about until its end at [sic] an altitude of 20 kilometers north of the town of Vineland." How perfect are those words? A line starting south of Woodstock through a point north of Vineland goes about smack-dab through the Canada-US Customs office. It's very close. What are the chances? A line through Woodstock and Vineland would be exactly to the Custom's house.

I'm not sure whether the following heraldic set pertains to this meteor, but from the nearness of St. Catherines to Niagara, I've developed an heraldic set that I'll go over with you to see where it leads. It starts with the Catherine's who were in the last update with Kate's/Katterbecks like so (to follow better, load Catherine's now to load and view other surnames on another Internet tab.):

...this Arms of Saraca has a fish all in the three colors of the Kate/Katterbeck Coat. The latter includes a version of the Payen/Pagan Coat probably because the Kate/KATTERbeck Coat shares the gold, blank Chief with CATHERine's, which now identifies this line to the naming of Catherine Roet, daughter of Payne Roet. CATHERs/Catters use fish as well as being in the colors and format of the English Fish.

...The Kate's/KatterBECKs use the Payen/Pagan hexagrams in the colors of the HAGAR(d) hexagrams, and Hagar was ABRAHAM's concubine. English Becks (pelican) share the moline of Saraca-line Sarasins, and German Becks were first found in Westphalia with BRAMton- / Duce-linkable Ducks.

Westphalia is where German Wissels were first found while English Wissels can be linked to Roets.

The Niagara-like Nigers use the rooted tree of Roet-like Roots, and Scottish Roets happen to use a tree too. Roots were first found in Kent with Gaunts, and Catherine Roet married John of Gaunt. Why should the landing site of the meteor point to this? Why were Roets first found in Somerset with BORDERs, while the story above has to do with the border at Niagara?

I'm going to point this set of heraldry to KENT Heckenlively, a major topic at the top of the last update. Not only were Gaunts first found in Kent, but Kents were first found in BERKshire with Cathers/Catters, making it appear that this meteor which flew, as broken-up pieces, over St. Catherines pertains to God's fury against Deborah BIRX and Tony Fauci. Debbie's were first found in Hampshire with Ghents, and Gaunt is also Ghent. Yet keep in mind that while Trump was on stage with those two, doing their will to the max, Catherine's are in trump colors and first found in Mecklenburg with them.

Mr. HeckenLIVELY can be considered a WHISTLE-blower / stool pigeon on the Fauci circle, and the Whistle's/Wissels -- first found in Somerset with Roets, Payne's, and stool-like Stolls/Stowells -- share a string of bendwise lozenges on red with LIVELYs, the latter first found in Picardy with Payne Roet. Payne's moreover share the double lions of Whistle's/Wissels. In the meantime, Blowers have the Hecken Coat in different colors for a pointer to a whistle-blower...which makes Kent Heckenlively look like God's fearless whistle-blower.

Payne Roet was at the Montreuil area, at Pas de Calais, and Calles' use TRUMPets. I was not thrilled last night when loading Woodstocks, because the meteor became a fireball at that city, and while I knew that Plantagenets share the Woodstock Coat, I didn't have any way to make a link between the two in order to show that God arranged the heraldry to point to the meteor. BUT NOW, lookie at the write-up of Planque's/Plants: "The surname Planque was first found in Normandy, the former Duchy of Normandy, where they were formerly seated in the honour of the seigneurie of De Planques in the region of Pas de Calais in the arrondissement of Montreuil sur Mer." Is that not incredible?

The WOODstock write-up: ""Edmund of Woodstock, Earl of Kent (1301-1330),..." Woods share the rooted tree with Nigers, first found in Kent. Doesn't this heraldry appear Arranged to fit the trajectory of the fireball three-to-four days ago? Woodstocks use a BORDER, what could that point to, hum?

Planque's/Plants use "cabbages" while Cabbage's were first found in Northamptonshire, beside GHENTs, tending to explain "PlantaGENET." I've witnessed the description of Planque's/Plants, they use "cabbages." The Cabbage lion is in the colors of the upright and giant lion of English Planks and Stocks! WoodSTOCK!

Woodstocks use an eSCUTcheon. Ghents were first found beside Trump-pointing Calles', and as I'll be going to Sewers/SHUTERs soon due to my stool pigeon, let's add that Calles were obvious kin of Shoots/SHUTE's. See anything suspicious? The meteor became a shooting star. Calles' along with Shoots/Shute's were first found in Wiltshire with Stars! Shottins/Schottons were first found in Northumberland, and Sewer-like Siward of Northumberland is to the Swords whose three swords are in the colors of the three Shoot/Shute swords. Schotten-like Scotts (Kent) use the Catherine wheel of Catherine Roet.

Thus, this meteor is pointing to Trump, and we may add that, though not in the same colors, Meters and Boards share eight martlets around a border, how can that be yet another pure coincidence? Shoots/Shute's are also Schute's, linkable to Obama's SKATEboard below, another apparent pointer to the border house. Board-like Broads use lozenges, and share the savage with Woods.

But there is more to say. The string of lozenges of Nigers are in both colors of the string of lozenges of Livelys, which helps to make the link of the Niger Crest to Roets. Somerset is also where stool-like Stolls/Stowells were first found who have strings of lozenges in the colors of the Whistle/Wissel string of lozenges. The latter's form a cross in the colors of the Bath cross, and Baths were not only first found in Somerset too, and not only have lions in the colors of the Payne / Whistle/Wissel lion, but Bath is near the first-known Calles', and also near Gordano (at Clapton) while Gordans share the Roet boar heads.

The Roet boar heads are gold, as is the boar in the Harp/Harper Crest, and so the Whistle/Wissel Crest is likely a harp. The Harp/Harper Coat is that of English Planks in colors reversed, and the "suaVIS" motto term of Harps/Harpers may indicate that Wissels had been a Vise/Vice branch. Irish Leslie's use "suiVEZ" while Scottish Leslie's (earls of Rothes at the Spey river) can be linked to Speers/Speyers of the Spey river who share the Roet boar heads. Leslie's share the Knee/Nee bend, and I can link Knee's/Nee's to Vise's/Vice's (share the same stag head) while linking Vise's/Vice's to Eustace's, from Eustace II, count of Boulogne i.e. near Montreuil.

Montreuil is beside Etaples/ESTAPLEs, and Stable's/Staplers were first found in Somerset with Roets. Staple's/Staplers (with almost the Coat of Garden-branch Jardins) use acorns while Acorns (Sussex, same as Vise's/Vice's) share the Vise/Vice stag head. The Eustace-branch Stacys share the red saltire with Stable's/Staplers, and Staple's are very connectable to Leslie's and Rothes'.

WES'/Westons could easily have been a West branch while I've been certain that the latter were a branch of Waistells/Wessels, and so the "suiVEZ" motto term of Leslie's is apparently for the Whistle/Wissel bloodline. Spears were kin of Pasi's/Pace's and Paisleys, two branches of English Packs and English Pasleys, the latter first found in Berkshire with Peckers/Pickers/Packers, Kents, and Cathers/Catters. Peckers/Pickers/Packers happen to share the cross-by-lozenges of Stolls/Stowells.

I've shown how Westphalia's Velins and Velens/Valance's were of Valentinian I (born in VINKovci), husband of Justine of Pick-like Picenum, and so let's add that this line is to Justins, first found in Perthshire with the Wings/WINKs, for German Wissels (Westphalia) show nothing but wings. A key whistle-blower or two against justin trudeau's vaccine-killer machinery would be very nice to see. Leslie's have a wing in Crest.

Thus, with the heraldic set shortly above, we are back to St. Catherines even while we are on the Niagara-like Nigers. And the pieces of meteor, I expect, fell down at the border station where they had treated me brutally. This now allows me to enter Obama's skateBOARD in a dream I had in the first week of February, 2017, two weeks after Trump became the president. I have maintained that the scene immediately after Obama was on a skateboard was of a whistle-blower against his administration. It was the final scene in the dream. That dream pointed with hard evidence to Sewers/Suters who have a form of the Board Coat, and Borders are also Boarders.

Follow the dots to Niagara, but also ask whether Trump built the border wall with help from the military demon to keep Texan Christians from escaping to Mexico to facilitate the forced-vaccine crunch. Mexico would welcome wealthy Texans, but Homeland Security may not allow Texans to drive across the border without vaccinations, you see. It's interesting that while Kari Lake, a pro-Trumper, is avid on border security, Niagara-on-the-Lake is a town beside St. Catherines. Lake's were first found in Oxfordshire with Woodstocks. The plot thickens.

In my Sleeping Beauty dream, about one week before the Spiderman dream, and about a week after I became a Christian, there was a British bulldog that I identified as Trump crushed by the deep state he partially serves. I've said many times that I purchased this British bulldog in 1994, 15 years after the Sleeping Beauty dream, in Hamilton, Ontario, and while the meteor flew over southern Hamilton, the man I bought the dog from (owned five dogs at the time, doing booming business) had expanded them out Kitchener way, and thus may have had them deliverable to Woodstock too.

At the time of my bulldog purchase, I had a lawn-decor business in several cities across southern Ontario, including Hamilton. Both names of my first Hamilton installer, Gord, links to Clapton and neighboring Gordano, and Roets happen to share the Gord/Gordano boar head. I'm impressed. His surname is related to Claptons, trust me. I sold the Hamilton portion of the business to Gord's parents. It was a LAWN-decor business mainly for BIRTHday surprises, and English Lawns/Lane's happen to share the three lions in pale of Woodstocks! It's a zinger. Lawn's/lane's call their lions, "lions of England", and Englands have their own triple lions in pale, in the colors of the Whistle/Wissel and Payne lion!

Suddenly, the British bulldog starts to make sense where the British/Braddock surname (Kent with Roots) comes up as Border/Boarder-like BRODocks/Broadoaks! Hamilton-family rulers in RAIN- / AirRAINES-connectable Arran were in cahoots with McBRIDE's. Airaines is in Picardy, home of Payne Roet. Roets were first found in Somerset with Borders/Boarders and BRIDGE's while English Lawns/Lane's share the triple stars of Brights and Bride's. The RainBOW bridge is apparently in this set of heraldry, wow, because Roets (love the BOOKs) share the Bow/BOUGH motto!!!! INCREDIBLE. Just behold that bow-wow heraldic set. Shout this over your woofers. What's Bark Obama doing right now?

The RAINbow bridge, where the goons parked me for 20 minutes, saying they were waiting for a third man to arrive who never showed up. Rains/Raines' share the English Plank and Stock lion, and Plunketts, sharing the Lake bend, were first found in Vilaine with Raines-line Rennes. Lake's were first found in Oxfordshire with WoodSTOCKs.

Keep the Bride's and Brights to topic, because Brights (Cheshire, same as Corons/Corona's) have the colors and near format of Corons/Corona's, and the Bright Crest is the demi-griffin of the Scotts with Catherine wheel. French Bride's, sharing the triple Bright stars, are in Coron/Corona colors and format. Here's from the meteor article featured above: "...a bright fireball..." English Balls, first found in Cheshire with Brights, use a so-called "fireball"!!! Zowie.

Bellows/BALLots (Cheshire) share the Hamilton cinquefoil while Hamiltons of Arran were in cahoots with McBride's (almost have the Hamilton cinquefoil). "A Hamilton became Earl of Arran and feuding ensued between the Hamilton’s and the Stewarts, the latter being reluctant to hand over Arran and the security of Brodick Castle." Hamiltons took the castle, and Brodicks come up as "British," a situation pointed to by my British bulldog. Dogs/Doags share the Hamilton / Ballot cinquefoil too, and the meteor was a fireball, too much.

Hamiltons share the cinquefoil of Bus' and Plank-like Blanks, the latter first found in Northamptonshire with Fauci-connectable Face's/Fessys, and with Planque-beloved Cabbage's ("reBUS"). English Planks were first found in Wiltshire with Planque-connectable Calles' who have trumpets while the split-Shield of Dutch Tromps is shared by Fauci's. Fauchys were first found in PeriGORD while Roets were Gord kin. Roets were pointed to by the Crest of Niagara-like and Lively-connectable Nigers/NIGELs, and I trace Roets to the Boofima cult of the ImPERI peoples, suspect at PERIgord, but suspect also at Imperia, otherwise known as Oneglia of the NAGLE's. The latter share the lozenge of Fauci's, a branch of Face's/Fessys from Fieschi of Genova, where Doria's (share Tromp eagle) were first found who married Arduinici of Oneglia. Tony Fauci is right down in the trajectory of Heckenlively's accusative arrows. The fireball is now pointing to Fauci, and yet we've got to note that Fire's share the giant Schwab/Swab uniCORN.

As I've said, the man from whom I purchased the bulldog told me that he got his first two from the British who had fabricated it (made of fiberglass) for the British pavilion at Expo 1967, which was in Montreal! Payne Roet was grandson to Isabeau of Montreuil! Bingo-bango, it all looks Arranged.

I think that story first appeared in the 4th update in October, 2017: "The same year that I was in Crystal City, I purchased a fiberglass British bulldog about six feet tall, but had forgotten my old dream with the British bulldog. This dog was made for the 1967 Olympic games in Montreal, and was intended for the British team, according to the man who sold it to me. It was scrapped due to a defect in the voice (it was supposed to talk), and so he got it cheap, and started to reproduce them. He lived in Hamilton, and Charlotte's husband is Hamilton by first name." Ahh, wow, it has only just dawned on me that Charlotte's/Charles' share the martlets of meteor-like Meters!!!!

Isabeau of Montreuil married GILLES of Roeulx, which looks related to MontREUIL. Tintons use "ROYAL tents", Tints (Somerset with Roets) share the Payne lion, and Roll-connectable Roys are in the motto of English Lawns/Lane's. My lawn-decor business at your service. It's only now that I realize the German Roll Coat to be a version of the Catherine Coat.

It's now incredible (I MEAN INCREDIBLE) that French Gilles' (Languedoc with Gellone) are in the colors and format of Irish Lawns/Lane's! It's incredible because Gellone's/Gillings (Yorkshire, same as Scottish Gilles') share the fleur-de-lys (Meter-martlet colors) of Irish Lawns/Lane's, red like the fleur of Meters!! Mrs. Kilpatrick was born Charlotte Hicks, and Hicks' have the Lawn/Lane and Gellone fleur in colors reversed. The Meter fesse is colors reversed from the Hicks fesse, and a Mr. Hicks of long ago married Juliana Arthur of Clapton, the same Claptons who married Meter-like Meads!!! Fauchys were first found in PeriGORD with the Faux's/Fage's/Chollens' who in turn share a Kilpatrick Chief! Gords named Gordano, a dog's walk from Clapton.

Now is the time to do this: Meads/Meats are in the colors and format of star-using Stairs while Stars/Stairrs had pointed to the shooting star. My lawn decor business used pink flamingos largely, and Flamingo's/FLAMINGs (Holland, same as same-colored Meters!) can be suspect in the "flaming star" of Perigord-possible Pero's! Lookie there, for Peare's have three leopard FACES in the colors of the three lions of Woodstocks (Oxfordshire, same as Peare's).

Back to Gilles of Roet. Scottish Gilles' share the black boar in Crest with ROLLo's who in turn have the Roet boar heads in colors reversed, and Catherine Roet first married Mr. Swynford while Swynfords (Tinton colors and format) have black boar heads. As there's a black boar head in the Babon Crest, it's now obvious that the double Meter fesses are the two of Babons. Swyn-like Swans/Sine's/Sions were first found in Lanarkshire with Roll-connectable Roys.

Babon was a son of MumMOLIN while Moline's share the goat heads of Blowers while Heckens have the Blower Coat in other colors.

There's four reasons as to why Irish Lawns/Lane's (Royal bend?) may have been Meter kin, including the fact that Meads/Meats, once said to be first found in Somerset with Roets, had married Arthurs of Clapton (it's online easy to find), as did Hicks of Clapton. As I've pointed out many times, Miss Hicks, the original Sleeping Beauty, married HAMILTON Kilpatrick, and he is in a Baytown-Sun photo of the late 1980's with Spuds MacKenzie, a bull dog. I had pointed the MacKenzie's solidly to the Apophis asteroid of 2029. It's fitting.

Ahh, just found Meders/Meaders (show no Coat), first found in Oxfordshire with Woodstocks! That looks Arranged. Or, God arranged the meteor to begin shining light at Woodstock because he knew that Meders/Meaders were related to Woodstocks. Woods (Leicestershire with Swynfords) share the rooted tree of Roots in the rooted tree of the Niger Crest, how can this not be Arranged?

Nigers, showing nothing but a pale bar by lozenges, which, in colors reversed, would be a red pale bar, the color of the Tull/Tullia and German STEEL/STALL/Stahlin pale bar. The Tull/Tullia pale bars has the butterfly, and Flys (Hampshire, same as Ghents) share the fleur-de-lys of Stoll-like STALE's (Ghent colors), who were looked up because Nigers tell that their Nigel branch had possession of BorSTALL. Borstalls/BorSTELE's show nothing but red-on-white roses, the rose of the house of Lancashire founded by John of Gaunt.

English Rolls/Role's (Bank colors) were first found in Yorkshire with Banks who likewise share the Stale fleur-de-lys. The Tute's/Touts were first found in Yorkshire too while Tute's/Tuits (Norfolk with Twitts/Thwaits) were a branch of Twitts/Thwaits who in turn have fretty colors reversed from the Stale fretty. BORstalls can now be gleaned potentially from Bors (Holland with Flake's) because they use pots while Pots ("asTUTis") and Potters were first found in Hampshire with Stale-connectable Flys. German Pots (giant pot) share the Fulk and Flake wings while Fulke's were first found in Norfolk with Flags while Flys were at Flagi.

French Ville's/FONT-de-Ville's, first found in Languedoc with Hugs, use a "flag". Hugs and FOUNTains (Norfolk with Flags) happen to share triple fesses in the colors of the one fesse of French Payne's. Payens/Pagans were first found in Dauphine with Galli's sharing the Hug Chief. Thus, the Hug and Fountain lion looks like the Catherine lion, especially as Kate's/Katterbecks almost have the triple Payen/Pagan hexagrams. The Payen/Pagans hexagram is in giant form with the Vicks', suspect in the "Vix" motto term of Fountains. Hugo's were first found in Basil while English Basils were first found in Yorkshire with the Lacys/Lace's who share their roundels, but also with English Pagans/Pings/Pongs. French Basils, first found in Burgundy with Catherine's, share the triple crowns of Corons/CORONA's.

And speaking of Galli's, the video below, out this week, features Dr. Robert Gallo, who, according to Judy Mikovits, was in cahoots with Tony Fauci in stealing some viral technology from Judy's boss in order to patent it first. I think she was at Fort Detrick lab (a military bio-weapons lab) at the time, which you will hear in the video. As Judy Mikovits co-authored at least one book with Kent Heckenlively while I suggested above that the meteor is pointing to Mr. Heckenlively, note that Dr. Gallo was overseeing a branch of LITTON Industries, itself a contractor of the U.S. military at Detrick. Litts/Littens share the fleur-de-lys of Meters (and Little-branch Liddle's), is that a worthy point?
https://www.bitchute.com/video/WsfsT0NoIrzJ/

Littons, first found in Cheshire with Corons/CORONA's/Coroners, share the crowns of Corons/Corona's/Coroners, what are the chances? Who arranged Littons to point to the coronavirus, otherwise called COVID? Covits/Cove's share the bend of Liddle's, and Covits/Cove's were first found in Suffolk with crown-using CRAUNs/Crane's, the line from the Corona-like Ceraunii Illyrians. The latter lived beside the Maezaei, and Masseys were first found in Cheshire too. The Massey fleur-de-lys is shared with Litts, Liddle's, and English Crone's (crown, of the type sometimes called a CORONal crown). There's probably a crane in the Litton Crest. Crone's are in Rush colors and near format.

Crauns/Crane's look by their annuLETs to be kin of Rush's (Suffolk with Crauns/Crane's) and Bulls/Bule's. Littons are in the colors and format of Packs, the latter first found in Sussex with COVERts/Cofferts while Covits/Cove's are Covers too. Sussex is where COURTs/Coverts (Curtis/COURTis colors) were first found while Curtis'/Courtis' share the crowns of Corons/Corona's/Coroners and Littons. See anything to speak of here?

The Detrick surname is listed with DeTHICKs while Thicks are Thackers too while Thatchers/Thackers share the grasshopper with Fauchys. Is that a worthy point? Thicks/Thackers, with bulRUSHes in Crest, are in Rush format and near colors while Liddens/Lethens are essentially in Rush colors and format. Detricks/Dethicks have water bougets while Waters share the BABENberg Coat while we saw Meters with the double fesses of Babons, the latter first found in Suffolk with Crauns/Crane's and Covits/Covers.

When Dr. Gallo speaks around the 4th minute, you might be able to catch glimpse that Toni Fauci has adopted some of his mannerisms, or vice-versa, especially in ridiculing those who are trying to understand what he's all about as per his dangerous and unusual work in vaccines and viruses. The ridicule is intended to shut the questioner up before he digs in critically deep.

Finchem and Lake not Flinching

This video features Mark FINCHem of Arizona who's trying to beat election fraud so that he can become the secretary of state, much needed. In this video, I learned that some Maricopa voting houses ran out of TONER about 90 minutes after polling stations opened, a clear sign of fraud in this case. The Toners are listed interestingly with Tonys who share the maunch (or sleeve) with Mansfields, interesting because I've been claiming this month that Mamie in the lake with me pointed to Kari Lake. Much earlier, Mamie pointed to the Mamesfelde location of Mansfields.

[Insert during last-minute spell-check -- This is amazing. I had loaded the Mead-related Meadows during the spell-check while on the Meter bloodline, and finding the Meadows as the ancestry of "Earl Manvers," the MANvers were loaded to see them first found in Nottinghamshire with Mamesfelde of the MANfields, and with the Mea's in the Meadow motto. Then, as Manvers are shown as Mavers too, I checked for a Maver surname and found MAVERs/Maversons in Manfield colors and format. I then loaded MABERleys/Mapperleys, first found in Nottinghamshire and almost having the Lake Coat!!!!! Maple's probably named Maplebeck of Nottinghamshire. Maberleys/Mapperleys were first found in Derbyshire, same as Notting-connectable Cnuts/Note's, and beside the first-known Manvers/Mavers of Shropshire.

The only difference between the Maberley and Lake Coats are the type of crosslets used, and Lake's share the fitchee crosslets of Maberley-like Marble's/Marple's (Cheshire, beside Shropshire). Mavers/Maversons (same place as Meschins) share the Coat of Hamons while Hamon de Masci was in Cheshire. Marble's/Marple's (Meschin colors) are said to have owned a Marple Hall, earlier owned by Ranulph le Meschin.

Mamie's tent symbol can now point with Tintons to the "conTENT tient" motto phrase of Bradshaws because Marple Hall was owned by BRADshaws. Bradds/Breads were first found in Cheshire, but were once said to be first found in Midlothian with Mens'/MAME's and THY-beloved Sinclairs. That's new on the Bradshaw side.

On the same day that Mamie and I were in the lake, we were at her garden as an act of God, where she got her THIGH symbol, and so while her garden had plants, we can add more new: the Bradshaw Crest has the Plant/Plantagenet Crest. It just so happens that while Thy's/Thigh's have a giant fox, and while Foix's are listed with Foys, English Foys (Suffolk, same as Sinclair-branch Clare's and Meadows of earl Manver) almost have the Manver/Maver Coat. End insert]

It happened this way: 1) I met Lorraine at her bus stop near the 1st of July; 2) Lorraine and I had a falling apart on the night I met Mamie at some point about the third week of July. I did not leave Lorraine for Mamie; 3) Joe Oullette and his wife invited me to downtown Toronto, about the middle of July, and when we got to the FINCH bus/subway station to get on a subway, Lorraine had just gotten off the subway because she was the first in line to get on the bus as I was stepping off of it. We eyed each other, but we didn't talk as I walked by her; this looks like a pointer to Mark Finchem; 4) I was invited to go camping, and Mamie was there. As she sat on my lap that evening, I remember that she had no sweater. I remember we were not cold in the morning, and we even went for a wade in the lake about noon, meaning that it was perhaps not yet September (evenings in late August in mid-Ontario are often chilly). That event pointed to Kari Lake, the next, rightful governor of Arizona. All of these events with Lorraine and Mamie occurred over the span of about seven or eight weeks.

Decades later, about two years ago or less, I had a dream that I call Joe's-van dream as a pointer to JOVAN Pulitzer's part in the 2020 Maricopa audit. That dream pointed well to Arizona election fraud, tending to reveal why I bumped into Lorraine at the Finch station while Joe Oullette was with me, for he is the Joe in the Joe's-van dream. I'm not going to go over this dream again here, but suffice to say that it's now explaining why there was a pointer to Mark Finchem, who's out to replace Katie Hobbs as secretary of state, and she's out to defeat Kari Lake by fraud for the governor's position. As of Tuesday of this week, the votes have not yet been fully counted because the fraudsters are trying to decide how best or safe to finish off their job. They might even come clean and find the votes they tried to hide because the state's attorney general is being forced to pry into their doings.

As I said, Joe's brother, Mike Oullette, when he first saw Lorraine, said, "what a babe." The Babe's, once said to be first found in Dorset with the Beaks who share their leopard face, almost have the triple fesses of Beaks. And the triple Beak fesses are those of both Finchems and Feins/Finns, in the colors of the one Finch/Vince fesse. It just so happens that Oullette's have triple fesses "gemel" in the same colors, believe it or not. It just so happens that while OULlette's are trackable to Owls, the latter were first found in Suffolk with Babe's. It just so happens that Phoenix-branch Fiens/PHONE's/VANs, pointed to by Joe's van, were first found in Monmouthshire with Howells while Owls are also Howls. Phoenix is in Maricopa county. It just so happens that Monmouths share the fesses gemel of Oullette's. Believe it or not.

Unfortunately, either God did not provide an heraldic means for me to predict whether Lake and Finch will be permitted to win, or I can't see the means yet. Either He didn't provide a way for me to predict the winners by way of real events with Mamie, Lorraine and the Oullette's, or I can't see them yet. Why would God point to these election races if both Lake and Finchem lose? I see no point in pointing to them if they both lose. Things will just go on their corrupt way in Arizona as with so many other states. Why point to Arizona, unless this state becomes the beacon for further, successful election-fraud fights?

When Mamie sat on my lap, she sat on my legs. Trumps almost have the Legg Coat; Laps share the merMAID with German Babe's, and the Monmouth lion is missing a leg likely as code for the Leghs, the latter first found in Cheshire with Monmouth-related MAIDs. I'm impressed. Mamie pointed to Kari Lake when she allowed me to HUG her in the lake, and Hugo's have another mermaid.

As explained earlier in this update, Hugs were Fountain kin, and Hugs are very linkable to Ville's/FONT-de-Ville's, but I didn't know of the following until now:

On the night Mark Finchem won the Republican nomination for Arizona’s secretary of state, he didn’t have a victory party. Instead, he showed up at the party for GOP gubernatorial candidate Kari Lake.

...A CNN poll conducted Sept. 26 through Oct. 2 found 49 percent of likely voters supported Finchem and 45 percent supported Democrat ADRIAN FONTES [wow], within the poll’s margin of sampling error (Washington Post).

French Fontes' were first found in Languedoc with Ville's/Font-de-Ville's, and while the latter have a "flag," Flags (Norfolk with Fountains) share the double fesses of Adrians! WOW. The fesses are even in the colors of the triple Finchem fesses. Keep Adrians in mind until I come back to them.

Font-de-Ville's are also Deville's while Daville's share the fleur-de-lys of Gellone's, suggesting that Fountain liners were at the Gellone monastery in Languedoc. Gellone's were first found in Yorkshire with Pings/Pongs and PINCs/Pinks, and Daville's have: "Walter de Daiville accompanied the Conqueror, and had grants from Roger de MusBRAY, in Yorkshire..." Brays have a "FLAX breaker" suspect with Flags, and the "Pensez" motto term of Daville's looks like code for the Pense variation of PINCons. Spanish Fontes' share the flory cross of Carlysle's, and the latter have a "pen" in Crest while Pens list Pence's.

A few hours or less before Mamie sat on my LEGs (or maybe just one leg) in August, she had gotten a bra symbol, and Brays/Brae's share the black EAGLE LEG with Augusts. Brace's are also Bras', and Eagle's (legs in Crest), first found in Lincolnshire with Bracebridge's, share the English Plank lion, in the colors of the lion of Planque-beloved Cabbage's, and the latter were first found in Northamptonshire with Bray/Brae's. Planque's/Plants were at CALAIS, and Calles', first found in Wiltshire with English Planks, use trumpets while Leggs look like Trump kin. Can anyone fish out the potential reason of God for this set of heraldry?

As I've said, a short time after Lorraine and I split up, Ant-like Annette was over to my place, where I was renting. It was a hot afternoon, and we went for a dip in the pool. We didn't do anything that might make the neighbors upset, we didn't hug or kiss in the water. But the landlady booted me out of the place when a neighbor snitched on me. It was just an out-of-ground pool, what was her problem? I didn't ask permission to use it.

I was still living at this place when Joe and Diane Oullette invited me downtown to create the Finch-subway event. Annette was Diane's sister. We were all Christians who got together plenty. The Annette-in-pool event was very near to when I moved out, and, as I've said, I moved into Joe's brother's place, Paul. I was at Paul's only a week or two when Barry invited me camping, which was the Mamie-on-my-lap weekend. The Oullette's pointed to Mark Finchem, right? And Finchem is in cahoots with Kari Lake while Mamie in the lake pointed to Kari Lake. It just so happens that the Lake bend is also the Antrim/Antingham bend, and the Annette-like Ant river is said to have named Antingham...in Norfolk, where Bus' were first found. The subway station was also the bus station. The Annette-in-pool event was on Rumble avenue, and Rumble's not only share the Bus cinquefoil, but share a gold leopard face in a canton square (different colors) with babe's. It was Mike Oullette that called Lorraine a Babe. I showed how Babe's link to Finchems.

If God created the Annette-in-pool event, while a pool? Beaks were first found beside Roets while KATE's/KatterBECKs look like a marital merger between Cutter and Beak liners, both first found in Dorset with Poole/Pole's of Poole (Dorset). French Pole's share the Catherine lion. Cutters have a blank Chief for potential linkage to Blanks (share Bus Coat). Finchems were first found in Burgundy with Catherine's, and Kari Lake is running against KATIE Hobbs, whom Finchem is hoping to replace, is that cool or what? Blanks were first found in Northamptonshire with Brays/Brae's and Planque-beloved Cabbage's. Beck-like Beach's/Bechs were first found in Hertfordshire with Finch's, and Mamie and I had to be on the beach before we got into the lake.

The Rumble leopard face is shared by Parsons (Norfolk with the Ant river) and Peare's, the latter first found in Oxfordshire with Lake's. The Rumble chevron is colors reversed from the Peare chevron. I told many times that I was on a quasi-date with Miss Peare, the last time I saw her, a month or two before I met Lorraine. While in Peare's apartment, she showed me a picture or herself running on a beach in her BATHing suit. Mamie was in her bathing suit on a beach with me in the pointer to Ms. Lake.

This same Miss Peare appeared in the sleeping bag dream to suggest that the Arizona / Phoenix audits were staged shams. I was embracing her by her hips in the final scene of the dream while she was on my stage. I was trying to embrace Mamie in her sleeping bag, but was allowed only to drape an arm on her HIP. Hips' look like Phoenix kin. Why did Peare come to my stage from her stage next to mine? Why didn't I go to her stage? Could my stage represent the stage of God to combat the staging of Arizona fraud?

In her PICTURE, Miss Peare was running on the beach, and Runnings/Ronnys almost have the Fontes Coat. Picture's/Picthalls (share Annette chevron) share the crosses spears of LINs/Line's who in turn have the Annette star and crescent in colors reversed. These crossed SPEARs are in the colors of the crossed swords of Kinros', and Annette's of Kinros have a "SPERaTUM et compleTUM" motto while Peare's hips-pulling event on a deck had been coordinated by God to be of her BELLY-press event that pointed with Waistells to German Goods/GUTs and tummy-like Tume's/Tombs (Worcestershire with Deck-connectable Squirrels/Square's).

English Goods look related to the Picture/Picthall Coat, and it's also interesting that LIN Wood of Georgia can play here, an avid election-fraud fighter, because Waistells share the blue DOVE of George's (Dorset with their Beak kin). Georgi's share the checks of Beak-connectable Adrians. Can this paragraph be a pointer to Adrian Fontes?

I showed how Waistell-like Vestalis of the Cottians on the RIParia river was linkable to Wests (have the DOVE dancetty-fesse in colors reversed). Wests share the dancetty-fesse of Toms/Thomes' (Cornwall with Stone's) while Tume's/Tombs, with "R.I.P" on their tombSTONEs, are also Tomes', suggesting Thomas of Saluzzo, in Piedmont with the Riparia river. The Stone cinquefoil is almost the one of Welsh Thomas' who in turn use the Saluzzo Shield. Toms/Thomes', sharing the ravens of the other Welsh Thomas', are in Finch colors and format.

Bath (same place as Roets) is beside Dorset's Beaks, and the Bath Coat is the Jennifer/Genever Coat in colors reversed, a potential pointer to Jennifer Wright now rightfully seeking to finalize the election in the favor of Kari Lake and MARK Finchem. Baths were first found in Somerset with CARY's/Karys. If the latter had not roses, it would be the Antrim/Antingham Coat in colors reversed.

Bath is beside PORTIShead, and Portis'/Porch's (Norfolk with Bus'), with a Peare-connectable "Pro" motto term, have the giant Bus cinquefoil too. Portis/Porch's share the eight bars of English Crispins (Oxfordshire with Lake's) while French Crispins were first found in Lorraine. Portishead is smack beside Clapton and Gordano, and Gords/Gordans were first found in Berwickshire with Scottish Wrights. Here's a beauty: French Marks, first found in Languedoc with Fontes', share the checkered fesse of Scottish Wrights. These Fontes' show nothing but a white bend, as do Antrims/Antinghams (the only difference in Coats is the color of the Shield). Antrim county was the first county to kick-off the election-fraud fight back in 2020.

ADRIAN Fontes, Finchem's opponent in seeking Katie's job, has a first name that may have been related to the Antrim like Andrea / Anderson surname. The Flynns, first found in County Antrim (Ireland) have a wolf in the colors of the wolf of Danish Andersons. Scottish Andersons, sharing a red saltire with French Andrea's, share the Annette stars, and while Annette (don't know her surname) was in the pool with me at the corner of Rumble and Libby (Richmond Hill, Ontario), Libbys (Yorkshire with English Bruce's) share the Bruce lion while French Andrea's share the saltire of the Scottish Bruce's, making the Anderson saltire look like the Annandale saltire, important because RUMs were at Annandale with Bruce's, and that tends to spell RUMble and Libby.

Scottish Breeze's/Brice's have the Bruce / Brush saltire in colors reversed, and while Brays are also Bree's, there is an English Brees/Breeze surname with a giant wolf in the colors of the Flynn and Anderson wolf. It just so happens that Brees'/Breeze's were first found in Norfolk with Antrims of the Ant river, tending to explain why Flynns were first found in Antrim! I didn't have in mind to find this, but just stumbled upon it thanks to knowing that Breeze's look connectable to Brays/Brae's to which Mamie's bra symbol pointed.

Flynns share the Chief of Rainhams, the latter first found at Forfarshire, at Angus beside Annette's of Kinros-shire. Although Annette in the pool was pointing to Mark Finchem with Annette's sister at the Finch bas station, yet there seems to be a pointer now to things-Mamie, even in the Annette motto. The two stars in the Annette Chief are the two stars of Angus' in colors reversed, making sense where Annette's were first found near Angus. Mamie pointed to Gardens/Jardens, first found in Angus with Jardins (share Anderson / Annandale saltire), a few hours after she and I were in the lake. By that time, we had been at her front garden at her home.

The "comPLETum" motto term of Annette's can be for both the Compo's/CAMPeau's sharing the Sinclair cross, and the Pletts/Plate's sharing that Cary/KARY Crest. Mamie and I were in a lake at a CAMP site, a pointer to KARI Lake. English Plate's have most of the Townsand Coat, and TOWNsands were first found at Norfolk's Rainham, how neat and tidy is that? English Plate's add the Anton/Anthony leopard faces while Towns/Tune's (Suffolk with Sinclair-branch Clare's) share a Tone variation with Tonys. Clare's were at TUNbridge.

Mamie got her thigh symbol at her garden at that time, and the Thy variation of Thigh's is in the Sinclair motto. Sinclairs, living at ROSlin, a possible branch of KinROS, were at Midlothian with the first-known Mens'/MAME's who share a "God" motto term with Sinclairs and BRACEbridge's. This looks like a pointer to Kari Lake when Mamie and I emBRACED, or HUGged, in the lake, and so let's repeat that Hugs were kin of Fountains (Norfolk with Brees'/Breeze's) and Fontes'.

The "Stand" motto term of Scottish Andersons tends to reveal that the split-Shield of Danish Andersons is that of Yarborough's (suspect from Yaroslav of Kiev) because the latter married the Stain variation of Stands, which is exactly the bloodline that Lorraine's grass stain pointed to, for Lorraine's descended from Maria of Kiev, Yaroslav's sister. Stands/Stains share the double fesses of Adrians, and the Stands/Stains are now, since recently, said to have been first found in Middlesex, same as Adrians! The next time I saw Lorraine after seeing her grass stain was at the Finch bus station, and Mark Finchem is running against Adrian Fontes! Is this to say that Adrian Fontes is stained? Or perhaps that he's part of Ukraine corruption?

The Anderson wolf was used in the blue-on-white colors in the Arms of Placentia, and the ANANES Gauls at Placentia named Annandale. Rums have a "PLACit" motto term to prove it, and the Bruce-line Breeze's, from neighboring Brescia but settled in Annandale, have the scales of justice of Justine's, who were from Justine of PICENum while Placentia is also PIACENza.

If this section is now pointing to general Flynn, who is avidly opposed to election fraud, why might that be? Some say he's a fake pro-Trumper. The video below tells that the Arizona elections cannot by law be certified. The speaker says that he has alerted every level of Arizona officials concerning this thing, and of course Kari Lake has been notified i.e. her lawyers. If Ms. Lake's lawyers do not use this method of cancelling this election, if needed as a last resort, then I might be suspicious that there's no real will to do what the people deserve. In that case, why not? The cheats twist the law as far as they can on their own behalf, and so why can't the Lake team push the letter of this law to the max against the cheats? No excuse if not done:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/aW2ZkVdl3cmF/

Michael Yeadon

Michael Yeadon is now saying he's been praying for others, and it feels good. He might even start to talk about the mark of the beast soon:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/gzhlpozX5Kmr/

I've just discovered that the Yeadon surname is linkable to Kepke's, and this is very interesting because Michael Yeaden was once a Pfizer executive. Is God moving Mr. Yeadon to spread a message? He's my kind of guy because he speaks with passion with zero pay. He never takes money to speak on a news channel that does take money. God can bless a man like that.

I kid you not, Yeadons were first found in Leeds with Kippax, and Kepke-like Keppochs are also Kippax's. Yeadons/Yetons share the Goat/Gotham Coat, and Riffle's have a giant goat, as do Kepke's, and both of them add a gold border. It just so happens that Yeton-like Gettens/Gethins are in Riffle colors and format, gold border included. Plus, I had reason the point Miss Hicks at the GET'N Go to Gettens/Gethins, in case that applies. Hicks were first found in Yorkshire with Yeadons/Yetons, and while Miss Hicks was the original Sleeping Beauty, AINSLEY Earhardt is the second fulfillment, and Ainsleys were first found in Basford with goat-using Bunnys. Goats/Gothams were first found in Nottinghamshire with Bunnys. Hicks' share the Ainsley fleur-de-lys, and Bunns/Bone's can be in the "bon" motto term of Hicks'. Bunn-branch Bone's/Bohuns were first found in Sussex with Keeps.

The Yeadon/Yeton Coat is also that of Grape's/Grabbens, like the Graffen variation of Graffs. Kippax was called, Chepesch, in 1086, and "is situated near the river Aire". The Aire's/Ayers, linkable to the Airhart variation of Earhardts, were first found in Ayrshire with the Varangian-like Varns who have the Yeadon/Yeton, Grape/Grappen and Goat Coat, plus some scallops. Keeps are from Varangians of Kiev.

"Chepesch" can now be discovered with the naming of the Chep variation of Jeepma's because the latter share the hexagram, in Kepke colors, with the Vlads/Vladimirs/Flattens (Kepke colors and format, minus the border), suspect from king Vladimir, father of Yaroslav and Maria of Kiev. It's even possible that the Yaroslav line to Yarborough's/YEARbys were something like "Yeardon/Yarton" before being shortened to "Yeadon." There is a Yarton Coat. Hicks' use the "chaplet" while Chaplets (in Keep-related Lorraine) have swans in the colors of the giant swan once shown for French Josephs while English Joseph's have a "WLAD" motto term. Swans/Sions/Sine's, in the "sine motto term of Yarborough's/Yearbys, probably named Sion near AYER. Ayrshire was named after Ayr. Chepesch is near the Aire river. Ayer-like Years were first found in Stirlingshire with Chappes'/CHEAPs (Year-like "ears of wheat"). Making sense, making "Ayer" appear to be a Yaroslav line through to Yarborough's/Yearbys

YarBOROUGH's may be using chaplets, I can't recall what they are called, but Borough's/Burghs, first found in Hampshire with Josephs, use "wreaths". Wreaths were first found in Inverness-shire with the Gows/McGoo's suspect with the "Get'n GO" along with Gettens/Gethins, the possibly Yeadon/Yeton branch, though on this I'm not at all sure. Inverness-shire is where Grants/Grands (Chip/Chipper/Chipman colors and format) were first found while Grams/Grahams are said to have named Grantham (otherwise called, Graham). It just so happens that Grants/Grands use a "Stand" motto term while Stains married Yarborough's.

Geats/Geeds were first found in Hamburg with shoe-using Trips/Treffs, and Gattons share the Shoe star. This could be adding to the heraldic-based evidence that Ukraine was/is involved in vaccines with graphene-oxide.

Yarborough's/Yearbys were kin of both Gram surnames, the German Branch first found in Swabia with the Rolls (share Yarborough/Yearby and Swan/Sion/Sine chevron) who are in turn likely a branch of Scottish Roys, first found in Lanarkshire with Swans/Sions/Sine's. Scottish Grams/Grahams were kin of Ayrshire's Varns. Grams/Grahams are in the colors and format of Ghents, first found in Hampshire with Cheppes'/Chepe's/Kippers. Aside from the lion of English Neals, which is the Swan/Sion/Sine lion too, Neals are in Yarborough/Yearby colors and format.

It may not be a coincidence that Scottish Grams/Grahams share the Varn and Michael scallops. Michael Yeadon. It may mean that Yeadons, rather than being a Gead / Getten branch, were named from Year liners.

Vlads/Vladimirs/Flattens are also Lattens, and it just so happens that there's Scottish Latton/Latto and Latter/Latto surnames, both first found in Ayrshire with Varns, and the latter share a bend-with-scallops (different colors) with Lattons/Latto's. Moreover, Latters/Latto's have the crescents of Leiths and Seatons/Sittens in colors reversed, and Sion is also Sitten.

Moreover, the Leith / Seaton crescents are shared by Bellamys, first found in Shropshire with Lattins/Latons and Hunters. The latter two essentially share Coats, which looks like a pointer to Hunter Biden's Ukrainian corruption, for his father is Joseph, and Josephs have a "WLAD" motto term. Lattins/Latons have the following that suggest Town liners: ""William de LA TOUNE occurs in Shropshire", and that's where Latons/Leightons/Leytons were first found while Hicks are said to have had a branch at Low Leighton. Latons/Leightons share the quadrants of Says (Shropshire) while Sarah's/SAYers (Essex, same as Low Leighton) are in Varn colors and format. Flatten-like Flatts/Fletts can be connected via Floats and Fleets to Flags/Flecks, the first found in Norfolk with TOWNsends and Floats (share Town chevron).

Seatons (Say colors) named a Say location, and says have the quadrants of Eure's/Keevers in colors reversed who can be in the "heure" motto term of Hicks', begging whether something good about the Sleeping Beauty dream concerns Yeadon's work. Eure's/Keevers have an "OBLIviscar" motto term to compare with the "NE oublie" motto of Grams/Grahams and Varns (share Yeadon Coat). Sleeping Beauty had a knee symbol suggesting the inclusion of Knee's/NEE's.

The Lattens may not have formed from "Flatten," but rather Vladimir-of-Kiev liners may have married proto-Lattens to later form the Lattens. I suggest that Flattens, Flatts, Fleets and Fleetwoods were all directly from "Vlad," suggesting that Flaad, father of the first Alan of Dol (they lived in Shropshire too), was from Vladimir of Kiev.

Hugh of Varangi-like Avranches had a Flaad-like name that Wikipedia removed from his article. Townsends were at RAINham, and Rains/Raines' (Essex) were from Rennes, near Dol. Rainhams share the Chief of Flynns who in turn have a wolf in the colors of the wolf head that Wikipedia once showed for Hugh D'Avranches. I've just realized that "Flynn" may have been named from Alan-related Velins and Velens, both first found in WestPHALIA (looks named by Whalens/Phalens) with Vlads/Vladimirs/Flattens. In fact, while Velins use ducks, Valentin-like Valence's have the fesses of German Ducks (Westphalia) in colors reversed. I have shown how Flynns trace to PIACENza, and Valentinian I married Justine of PICENum. Justine's, first found in Perthshire with Hagars sharing the Vlad/Vladimir/Flatten hexagram, share the Kepke border.

There also the consideration that Yeadons, who come up as Yeadons, were of the Eatons because the latter nearly have the Hicks-like Hykes'/Hack Coat. The other Hykes/Hake's (Keppoch colors and near-format) were first found in Norfolk with Date's/Dade's who in turn share the triple Eadon/EDIN garbs. It's therefore not certain at all that Yeadons were from a Year-like variation. Yeadons were first found in Midlothian, where we find EDINburgh.

The Gram/Graham write-up tells that Grahams became the earl of Montrose, explaining why they share the Coat, Crest and motto of MontROSE's/Montross', likely from the Varangian Rus. Montrose's were first found in Forfarshire with Rainhams, and the latter's "supeRATa" motto term suggests the Ratterys with a "super" motto term, and the Rats/Raids, first found in Nairnshire with Rose's. Ratterys were first found in Perthshire with Hagars sharing the RAD, Jeepma/Chep, and Vlad/Vladimir/Flatten hexaGRAM, which we can read as HEXagram too, and from there we could go to Kent HECKenlively whose message is much like that of Yeadon's.

Yes, for while Yeadons share the Goat/Gotham Coat, Heckens have goat heads in the colors of the Riffle goat that is itself linkable to Kepke's/Kopke's whose giant and upright goat is in the colors of the giant and upright Haek unicorn. The latter's border is shared by Justins (Perthshire) a possible pointed to justin trudeau. Rose's have the True's, with a TRUDE variation, in their motto. Plus, Goths/Gothels have the Vlad/Vladimir / Rad hexagram too. Rains/Raines' share the lion of Gettens/Gethins while the latter are in Riffle colors and format, border included.

Montrose-like Melrose's (roses) are in Keppock/Kippax colors and format, and so let's remind that Yeadons were first found in Leeds with Kippax. Rose's ("ConSTANT") were first found in the same place as Ged-branch Geddes', and Geds have a "DuRAT" motto term while Dure's (Perthshire with Cluns) share the Chief-Shield combo of Rainhams. The latter use ROUNDELs, and Alans of Arundel lived in Clun of Shropshire, and married Alice of Saluzzo, explaining why Cluns and Dure's share that Saluzzo Coat.

Plus, here's the Rainham write-up: "It is claimed that they were from Wrangholm, an old village near MELROSE Abbey and that the village was the ancient birth place of St. Cuthbert." CuthBERTs use the dart while Moline's, with three goat heads, were at Dartington, in Devon with the first-known Darts and BERTs. There's a Rattery location in Devon, home of the Hoods, and then the Mels, in Rose colors, first found beside Devon, may have named the Melrose's. Mels and Hoods share the "fret," though in different colors. Townsands of Rainham are in RAM colors and format, who may have named BERTrams.

RUSSells (Ross / Bertram lion in colors reversed), who almost have the Gram/Graham Chief, descended from Bertrams. Russells share the white goat with Riffle's and Heckens while Hykes'/Hake's were first found in Norfolk with Bert-branch Burts. The "sara" motto term of Russells reminds that Sarahs/Sayers are in the colors and format of Graham-related Varns.

Need Some Home-Made Money?

Do you have a youtube channel? Can you arrange for one? Here is a way that you might make some youtube money, with proof that physicists have pegged gas atoms wrongly as inter-attracting. Is it a big deal to prove the entire world of physics wrong for the past century and more? YES.

It will cost you almost nothing to prove this, though you should have a software package that creates drawings for your show. Purchase about five ring-shaped magnets that can be slipped over an upright rod. Attach the rod to a flat base of any material, and stand the base and rod on a small weight scale, for example one that weighs postal letters having a maximum potential of one or two kilograms. These weight scales weigh accurately in the 10's of grams, and your five magnets shouldn't weight more, or much more, than one or two kilograms.

The ring magnets need to be strong enough in repulsion to create an air gap between one another when they are slipped over the rod on the weight scale. The first magnet falls to the base, and the second magnet hovers over the first, and so-on for the third, fourth, and hopefully fifth too. You want to show that all hovering magnets transfer their weight to the scale even though they are hovering in the air.

Online question and answer: "'What if we put two magnets repelling each other on a scale, does the weight remain the same as the weight of both?' Yes. If both magnets remain on the scale, the scale will register the weight of both magnets." It goes on to say, though not in clear words, that if the two magnets are pressed toward one another, the weight on the scale goes up. That's because the scale registers the force by which the magnet is suspended in the air. If the only force is the weight of the hovering magnet, the scale registers only the weight of the hovering magnet (plus the magnet lying on the scale). If you put a grape on the magnet, the scale registers the weight of the grape too. If you press the magnet with a finger, the scale registers also the force of your finger.

You are going to tell your viewers this conclusion: the magnets are in "contact" through their repulsion fields. One magnet's field is sitting on another's, and consequently the weight of the magnet gets to the scale. You can look at it like this: the magnet lying on the scale is doing work to keep the second magnet hovering, and that work presses in the opposite direction from the hovering magnet, which is against the weight scale. The work being done is equal to the gravity force on (= the weight of) the hovering magnet, and so this is the force that is added to the weight scale. No weight is added to the scale if you lower a magnet toward the one lying on the scale if the magnets attract.

Next, you tell your viewers what physicists know, that one column of air with the dimensions of one square inch, weight 14.2 pounds when this column is as tall from the ground to the top of the atmosphere miles above the ground. You can show this in a diagram with your draw package. You then ask, how possibly could air atoms transfer their weight to the ground if they are flying around and not repelling each other? You can see where I'm going with this. It's proving that air atoms, and all other gas atoms, repel each other.

Next, you will make a diagram of a cannon ball flying through the air, and you will tell your viewers that no experiment is needed to prove that the cannon ball in flight cannot transfer its weight to the ground if air atoms do not repel one another. You can make this IMPORTANT argument in others ways: objects suspended in the air cannot transfer weight in any direction if there is nothing all around the objects. People can easily grasp this.

You then tell them that physicists have wrongly claimed air atoms to be flying ever about in random directions at 100s of miles per hour so that they are microscopic cannon balls. You should make a drawing of this "kinetic theory" of gas atoms, or just borrow one from online. You are feeding them the correct information that atoms in flight (and colliding off of one another) are incapable of transferring their weight to the ground if there is nothing between them by which to transfer their weights. Physicists have known this all along, but have not spoken up about it, and I know why they haven't.

The fact of the matter can be gleaned: a cannon ball or bubble hovering in the air, neither rising nor falling, does transfer its weight to the ground, but not straight down. The weight of a bubble, as the bubble sits on air atoms, transfers through gas atoms in all directions because air atoms inter-repel in all directions equally. You should number you youtube videos so viewers can view them in the order that your present them; this one should be #1.

YOUTUBE SHOW #2

Next, you make the argument that a cannonball fired into a vacuum a few feet off the ground will have the same velocity as a ball fired in a vacuum 30 miles in the air. You are making the point that, with no air to slow the ball, its distance from the gravity source is irrelevant for determining the rate at which the ball slows down. You then tell your viewers that, if indeed air atoms were racing around, they are expected to race around at the same speed near the ground as near the top of the atmosphere.

You then inform your viewers what they already know, that the density of air atoms thins out progressively with height off the ground. Ask them to explain this decreasing density in view of the kinetic theory of air atoms? They won't be able to do it. There's no reason that non-repelling air atoms should get less dense with height due to gravity having progressively less pull on them with increasing height. The atoms get lighter with height, but why should they be less dense just because they are lighter? Heavy or less heavy, all air atoms are attracted downward.

In fact, the reverse is expected with the kinetic bang-bang theory. Physicists tell us that the faster the atoms of a gas travel, the more the gas spreads out, and they use this principle to explain why the atmospheric ceiling is higher in summer than in winter. If the atmosphere spreads out in warm weather, then the atoms are by definition less dense, but as the atmosphere is factually colder with height, the bang-bangers should expect the atoms to become more dense with height off the ground. Yes, for as atoms bang into each other with more velocity, they are predicted to spread out further apart, and they define higher temperatures as atoms colliding with faster speeds than at colder temperatures. Big problem here for those who hold to the bang-bang theory.

It should be fun to create moving drawings for a youtube video to explain what I've just said, but you can then show how there's nothing contradictory if all gas atoms inter-repel. You are now ready to teach the world the true nature of a gas. For this, you need to four or five air atoms (they can be circles to simplify) shown in a vertical line. You can say that the lowest atom is at the ground. You then tell the audience that gravity will pull the second atom toward the first only as far as the repulsion forces of the two amounts to the pull of gravity one the second one. The second atom is prohibited from nearing the first atom any closer than when their mutual repulsion forces equals the pull of gravity on the second atom. Can you see why that should be so?

If the second air atom is a foot above the first atom, then the repulsion forces between the two is very weak, and gravity easily causes the second atom to fall toward the first. The repulsion forces between them become eight times as strong with each cutting of their distance in half. Long story short, the second atom will continue to fall toward the first until the repulsion force exactly equals the gravity force.

In reverse, if something such as the wind forces the second atom very close to the first, such that the repulsion forces are greater than the pull of gravity on the second atom, then naturally the second atom will be forced upward until the repulsion forces between them are again exactly at the force of gravity. It's a no-brainer, you don't need to do an experiment to mark this down as an equilibrium law.

However, the atmospheric reality has more than atom 2 alone. The weight of all the air atoms, ground to ceiling, coming down upon atom 2, will move it toward atom 1. You can now show your audience, in a moving diagram, this downward push by moving atom 2 toward atom 1. The repulsion between the two atoms is now greater than the G-force upon them both.

There is yet a third factor, temperature, causing atoms to be further apart than the equilibrium law, together with the weight-of-air factor, would force them. Don't misunderstand, for the equilibrium law is in effect where there is heat or no heat, but when there is heat in the air, it causes atoms to move away from one another in typical air expansion. The net effect of air expansion over a solid thing like the ground is that air atoms move upward. You now need to show the viewer that atom 2 will move higher from atom 1 with increasing heat. All three factors work together, and all three must be recognized in order to understand or explain why the air is as it is.

Once the three factors have made their contribution to atomic distances, there is yet a fourth effect because the heat factor has two different effects on the distances between atoms. This fourth factor, the last one, is the major one, I believe, the boss, causing atoms to be so distant from one another that the midway point between any two of them has a much weaker inter-repulsion force than the pull of gravity upon the two.

You can't tell your audience yet what the fourth factor is until you give them something to make them believe that it exists, and that will take some more videos. It would add suspense to your video to name this mystery effect whatever you wish to name it, and tell them that you are going to reveal it due time. I would call this mystery factor the mother of all scientific discoveries, or the mother of almost all physical energy. You might like to call it Momma for short.

You want to show that Momma causes atom 2 to rise far above atom 1, and that, therefore, the inter-repulsion force midway between atoms 1 and 2 is far less than the pull of gravity upon them. I aim to prove this to you.

Just so you know what Momma is, she is heat particles, originating mainly from the sun, repelled by gravity and consequently rising away from gravity, thus giving lift to atoms as they, the heat particles, strike the undersides of atoms. This should be a delicious topic for physicists, but they are so-far awash into the kinetic view of atoms that they are, in the main, hopelessly lost and unable to accept that heat is a material all its own. It's your job to convert them with these videos.

You don't need to give me the credit for these ideas, just don't take the credit yourself or I would puke. My concern is to freely give these truths to the world because I feel guilty sitting on them, to put it one way, and I'm too busy with other things to make videos.

NEW-FOUND FACT: atoms do not race around, but tend to the stationary, and will become stationary if zero energy affects them. At absolute-zero temperature, the midway point between two atoms experiences a repulsion force equal to the pull of gravity upon them, and with each degree of temperature increase, the atoms spread out further than this equilibrium point. As gas atoms are not many diameters apart at atmospheric temperatures, they are expected to come very close together at absolute zero, and in fact they all make contact and bond before reaching absolute zero.

You are now ready to treat the third atom, the one above the second atom. You tell your viewers a fact: there are fewer air atoms above atom 3 than there are above atom 2, and consequently the distance from atom 2, at which atom 3 is forced to hover, will be a little more than the distance between atom 1 and atom 2. In short, the less atomic weight there is above any point in the air, the less any atom will be squeezed down to the atom directly beneath it. This is why air gets less dense with elevation above the ground, but nobody knows this because nobody is taught that atomic weight is transferred through atomic "contact" via their repulsion fields.

You have a load of dynamite here by which to break through the walls of nut-cracker physics, use it wisely. A nut-cracker is anyone who thinks atoms can be in constant motion, never losing velocity, even while admitting that atoms crash into one another many times per second. Achem, but the laws of physics dictate that colliding objects will have a net decrease in velocity, and will tend to the stationary condition.

Youtube Show #3

At any altitude above the ground, all air atoms seek identical distances from one another in all directions, for this is the obvious law of their inter-repulsion. They are seeking to spread out as far as possible, into outer space, but gravity packs them down so that they "hug" the planet as much as gravity causes them to hug the planet.

I've been able to find a method to show that gas atoms are twice as close to one another with every cutting of a gas volume by eight times. That is, when gas atoms are eight times as dense, they are twice as close to one another. You need to make a squeeze drawing to show this amazing thing to your audience.

The method involves all three dimensions, there is not a fourth: 1) east to west; north to south; up and down. When we squeeze the width of a cubic foot of gas in half from east to west, and if we freeze them so that they cannot move around as we squeeze, the atoms come twice as close only in the east-to-west direction. When we have cut their distances in half three times in all three possible directions, they are twice as close in all directions. And cutting of a gas volume three times in half is a cutting to one-eighth the original volume, for which reason the density of atoms will be eight times as much. Voila, eight times the density = half the distance between atoms.

It is an experimental fact that cutting the gas by eight times the volume increases the gas pressure by eight times. It means that, when atoms are twice as close in all directions, they repel each other with eight times more force. This outcome is in accordance with the inverse-square law of electromagnetism, which says that a steel nail will be attracted to a magnet with four times the force with each cutting of in half of the distance between nail and magnet. However, if instead of a nail we use a second magnet, then the attraction force (or repulsion force) will be 4 x 2 = 8 times. Voila: as all air atoms are electromagnetic, they end up repelling with eight times the force when twice as close.

Now that you are armed with that knowledge, you can teach your audience that the force of gravity barely changes with elevation while the air density at sea level is eight times as much as compared to 48,000 feet in the sky (https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/standard-atmosphere-d_604.html). Therefore, there has got to be more going on in the air than the struggle between gravity's pull on atoms versus atomic inter-repulsion, for if this was the only thing happening, gravity force at 48,000 feet should likewise be eight times less than at sea level. There's a question as to whether the chart entries are for the sun side, or dark side, of the planet. Judging by the cold temperatures, I'd say the dark side, or somewhere in-between.

Gravity force is roughly the same throughout the atmosphere because the source of gravity is deep in the core, and ten miles of distance from ground to 10 or 20 miles up doesn't weaken it much.

I distinguish between the gravity force upon one atom and the gravity force on all atoms combined. The latter causes air pressure. The chart reports that air pressure is about 10 times less between sea level and 53,000 feet up. It means that 9/10 of the total weight of air is below 53,000 feet. With all that weight in air removed, the density of the air at 53,000 feet is about 7.4 times less than at sea level. Therefore, the reduction in air weight with height is not proportional to the reduction in air density with height. The density is not decreasing at as fast a rate as the weight decrease. Why not?

The temperature at sea level is given as 59F degrees, and -69 at 53,000 feet, for a total decline of 128F degrees. That's a lot of heat loss, and it's heat that causes air expansion i.e. decrease in air density. Therefore, the density on the chart is not decreasing as fast as the air weight because the cooling temperatures with height contribute to greater air density. Removal of air weight decreases density, and removal of heat increases density. Even with the full weight of air at the ground, air atoms refuse to bond into liquid because the force of heat keeps them apart. Why should this be, in the factual universe where air atoms repel one another?

What is it about heat that causes compressed liquid air to disintegrate fast (not evaporate slowly) the moment the compression piston is lifted? Why do air atoms fly apart under their inter-repulsion even though they were forced to bond as a liquid, and why does liquid air not disintegrate below -221F? Every substance has a so-called "critical temperature" point above which it will not remain a liquid after being compressed into one. It's clear that sufficient HEAT causes atoms to repel with greater force than the three forces combined (gravity, liquid pressure and air pressure) that cause atomic bonding in normal, uncompressed liquids.

Your audience will find it amazing that heat causes atoms to increase in inter-repulsion. The trick is to discover the reason, and it's your job to interest them in learning the reason.

Youtube Video #4

In the 1950s, NASA discovered electrons flying along in the solar wind. It's a no brainer that these electrons enter the earth's atmosphere to become heat particles, but the evolutionists did not want the world to know this. They had committed to pushing the kinetic theory of heat, defined as: there is no such thing as heat material. They wanted heat to be the SPEED of atoms. The greater the speed of atoms, the higher the temperature, but this cannot be correct because the ring magnets told us that atoms don't have velocities.

Atoms tend to the stationary position because all atoms surrounding one atom push toward it from all sides, forcing it to the center of them all, and to cease its motion there if anything had set it into motion in the first place. Every gas atom takes a stationary position at the spot where it's repelled equally from all sides. How do I know this? Because, if it were repelled more from one direction than another, an atom would move away from the stronger repulsion until it decreased with distance to equal the repulsion force from all other directions. A no-brainer.

To keep people from realizing that solar electrons are heat particles invading the earth's atmosphere, the rulers of evolutionary dogma decided to teach the people that the earth's magnetic field(s) deflects the solar wind around and away from the earth. Achem, if that were true, then electrons inside of a light bulb would be repelled to one side of the bulb, but the fact is, electrons released from the filament go upward.

Show your audience. Create a vacuum in a glass container, and stick a light bulb within it. Dip the container in molten wax, let it harden, and turn the light bulb on, showing that the wax melts only directly above the bulb. That's because electrons are heat particles that move up, away from gravity, because electrons are repelled by gravity. This is another mother of all nuclear revelations. It's a ka-pow.

The same would happen if the container were filled with air, but your critics would then say that the wax melted at the top due to hot air rising. If you get the air out, they won't be able to make that argument unless they want to be stretchies. Compare the duration of time needed to melt the wax in an evacuated container versus non-evacuated.

It's the atmosphere that deflects solar electrons around the planet because the air restricts the flow of electrons to a degree. Anything finding resistance to forward motion in a material builds in density within that material, and the greater density acts as a partial wall to more flow. But some electrons do get into the air on the sun side of the planet, and they build up there as heat particles. The greater their density, the higher the temperature of whatever they have invaded. Like gas atoms, electrons inter-repel, but unlike gas atoms, electrons fit into atomic spaces and therefore invade both liquid and solid materials, expanding them. Can you figure out why this form of heat expands all the materials it enters? Because the particles inter-repel, pushing atoms further apart. Heat particles build pressure in materials.

You need to tell your audience that scientists once believed that heat was a material, which they called, caloric. But this was before the discovery of the electron. By the time of its discovery, scientists were already committing to the bang-bang theory of atoms, and even after the discovery of the electron, they didn't want to sacrifice the bang-bang. The bang-bangers used a cheap trick to argue in favor of their theory: if heat is a material, all heated objects should gain weight, but they don't. Achem, but what if heat particles are weightless?

We are now putting some more dynamite under the nerve center of the wishy-washy experts in physics, experts in their own physics, but not experts in true physics. The definition of a weightless substance is: gravity does not attract it. If gravity repels a substance, it has no weight. That idea came to the mind of the experts, but they shunned it like one shuns the dread enemy. They censored the idea.

Youtube Video #5

It's time to blow them up to smithereens, though you may decide to take a more-friendly tack by not offending them, and just letting the facts slip out for discussion. Encase a piece of metal rod in concrete, and let the rod be vertical. Let the rod stick out the bottom of the concrete a couple of inches, and out the top a few inches. Put some wax on the top of the rod, or anything that shows it's building in heat. Put a torch to the bottom of the rod, wait for the wax to melt, and time how long it takes. Then tell your audience that the concrete forbids hot and upward air currents from contacting the rod. Ask them: how did the heat rise up the pipe?

Next, let the whole thing cool. This time, heat the top of the rod, and time how long it takes to melt the wax at the bottom of the rod. It may never melt, because heat rises far more than it spreads in all other directions. It spreads least in the downward direction because heat rises more than in any other direction. It does go sideways, and even downward, to a degree, because heat particles inter-repel in all directions. BUT, the point is, it rises more than in any other direction because that's the direction that gravity propels it.

This is the wake-up call for any "scientist" happily brainwashed thanks either to their own inability to think for themselves, or their bent to be agreeable toward the physics establishment. Its bang-bang theory cannot explain the rod experiment's results because the best they can predict by their theory is that heat spreads equally in all directions. Sorry, but bang-bangers are wrong. Time to fesse-up: heat is a weightless material repelled by gravity, the proof is in the rod. The sun repels it by its own gravity, and once out into space, the electrons repel one another further and further, to Pluto and beyond.

Do the experiment with the rod horizontal, and you will find that the rod heats up faster than when you heat the top end waiting for the bottom end to heat. This is predictable because heat particles repelled upward are not kept from moving laterally as much as they are kept from moving downward. This video should make you famous.

Youtube Video #6

Time the speed by which heat travels through a vacuumed container versus the speed that it travels through the same container filled with air. Bang-bangers decreed that heat cannot penetrate vacuums, but this is an obvious falsehood. It may take a little longer for heat to pass through a vacuum because the heat particles need first to fill the vacuum, whereas heat passing through air has less space to be filled by heat particles, because air atoms take up some of the space. If a swimming pool is half filled with rocks, it's going to take less time to fill the pool with water to overflowing.

Stick a long thermometer into the space of a container, and show how little the temperature drops when removing the air. There will be a lot of heat remaining in the vacuum. How can that be if heat is the bang-bang of atoms? The thermometer should be near-absolute zero by the time the air is evacuated.

If part of your thermometer is in contact with the wall of the container, your audience might think that heat traveled from the container into the thermometer's material used to register temperature. You can negate this argument by hanging the thermometer by a very thin thread from the top of the container, and by putting the thread into an ice-cube tray in the freezer so that there is an ice cube affixed to the thread between the container wall and the thermometer. You can even spray some liquid nitrogen on the container wall outside from where the thread is taped to it. It can be made into a cool video, short, sweet, and like dynamite to the physics nerve center.

You may need to silicone a lid on the see-through container for each experiment. The container would be a six-sided, siliconed, plexiglass box, and the lid is one of the six sides. For the lid, you may be able to get a good seal with peel-away caulk sold at all hardware stores, making it easy to remove the lid for re-caulking in the next experiment.

Youtube Video #7

Do two set-ups to show how long it takes for the ice dangled on a thread to melt in a vacuum versus dangled in regular air pressure. For those who maintain that the vacuum has very cold temperature due to 99-percent of the air removed, ask them to explain how the ice melts so fast when the only way for heat to enter the space is along the thread, or so they are taught to believe. Show them that the ice begins to melt on the outer surfaces, not along the thread. If the heat enters along the thread, the ice should melt along the thread, and consequently the cube should slide down the thread and fall to the bottom of the container. I don't think that's going to happen because the string area will be the last to thaw since its in down the center of the cube, proving that heat attacks the ice from the space, which proves that heat exists in the space.

In each of the two set-ups, you might allow the ice to drip into a bowl, having a thermometer in the bowl to measure the temperature of the water for comparison between the vacuum set-up versus the non-vacuum set-up, which should show that the two temperatures are basically identical because the vacuum has roughly as much heat as the container of air.

There is a hose between the container wall and the vacuum pump. My thinking is that heat particles are so repulsive that they flow backward, against the outward flow of air in the pump's hose, and thus they keep the container filled with heat particles even while the pump is removing the air. My thinking is that heat particles are so small that they get past the mechanism that sweeps air out of the pump.

Youtube Video 8

I believe that heat particles become stored on all atoms with increasing temperature, and fall off of atoms with decreasing temperature. Temperature increase is to be defined as heat particles pressing in all around an atom. The particles are inter-repelling against the atoms from every side, and thus some of them become captured by protonic attraction. Every atom has a compliment of captured electrons at absolute-zero temperature, as many as the proton is able to capture before the atomic perimeter becomes net-neutral in charge (equally positive and negative), at which point no more electrons can be captured...until heat is added to to the atomic environment.

As heat particles are added to their environment, they press in and become part of the atom's electron compliment, which I call the electron atmosphere. Every atom has one, and only one.

Electrons do not orbit protons zillions of times per second; only a happily-brainwashed, a reluctant go-along, or an utterly-foolish person takes this seriously, to believe that electrons exit and re-enter orbits around atoms as if perfectly natural. It is far from natural, and very difficult, to achieve an orbit, especially at those fantastic speeds and with electrons coming toward atoms from random directions and velocities. The last thing that will take place is an orbit, shake the dust off your brains, nut-crackers.

The only other alternative from orbit capture is atmospheric capture, the way the earth has the air captured. In the same way that air atoms hover above the ground due to their inter-repulsion, ditto for electrons captured by a protonic core. The fact that electrons are hovering over the proton allows electron atmospheres of other atoms to merge into them, because there is space between the electrons. The captured electrons of one atom fit into the spaces of the captured electrons of another atom, and as they merge, the proton of one atom attracts the electrons of the other, and vice-versa, creating a bond...as long as the repulsion forces of the two atoms are not stronger than this bond force. Bonded atoms are akin to burrs stuck together.

When atoms are above their critical temperatures, the bond force is overcome instantly. It teaches us that atoms repel with more force as temperature increases around them, which is part of the explanation for the expansion of heated materials. However, there is an initial process taking place to begin to unbonding process, for inter-repulsion alone cannot, I think, force bonded atoms apart.

When atoms are bonded as explained above by mutual protonic attraction upon captured electrons, they are not expected to unbond just because the density of electron atmospheres increases due to temperature increase around them. When the density of the atmospheres increases, the inter-repulsion between the two atoms increases because electron atmosphere repels electron atmosphere, but so does the proton attraction increase of one atom toward the other's atmosphere. The bonding took place because the attraction overcomes (is stronger than) the repulsion between the two atmospheres. However, one can realize a process at work as the density of heat particles increases around bonded atoms, squeezing the atoms apart.

The higher the heat density, the greater the squeeze between atoms until, at critical temperature, the atmosphere of one atom is far enough away from the proton that the inter-repulsion of the two atmospheres becomes greater than the attraction between the two atoms...because a greater distance from the proton creates decreased attraction force.

You can show this unbonding in a video with the best moving draw package you can afford, because it's the closest thing to the atomic reality to date, and the truth should be told. You should first show the bonding process because it explains why atomic bonding always releases heat. You first show two atoms close to one another, and then tell the audience that various factors force atoms to make contact in spite of their inter-repulsion.

One such factor is gravity when it comes to water formation on the top side of a leaf. As the temperature of the air decreases by night, the water molecules in the air become more dense i.e. closer together, and they probably lose some of their inter-repulsion due to cooling, until gravity becomes the boss and forces the atoms to make contact. After contact, they begin to merge. You need to show the merger taking place, and then freeze the picture once merger is accomplished. You now highlight the merged section of each electron atmosphere. The merged section is now one, not two atmospheres. The atoms are sharing the merged section.

The reason you want to freeze the picture after merger is that something takes place during merger that you will not show at first. The only point you want to first make is highlighting the merged section. If you make the atoms round, the merged section will have the shape roughly of pecan, or an oval pointed at both ends. You then tell your viewers that the oval has twice the density of electrons as compared to the unmerged portions of the two electron atmospheres. It's a no-brainer because two identical atmospheres merging will double the number of captured electrons in the merged area.

You then tell them that it is impossible for the double-density area to remain at double density, because double density means the electrons are closer to one another, and consequently they will repel with more force than the electrons do in the unmerged section. You need back up, show the two atoms unmerged again, and this time, during the merger process, you want to show the electrons in the merged section repelling each other away from the merged section until the merged section has the same density as the unmerged section. So long as there is more density in the merged area, the electrons will continue to spill out of the merged section until the density in both is equal.

You need to show that the electrons of the merged section flow into the unmerged section. You then ask what the viewer thinks will happen next. You give a hint: the atmospheres of the two atoms were to full capacity before the merger started. If they were not to full capacity, a proton would have loaded more electrons from the heat all around, but the fact is, a proton loads to full capacity and then no more. Therefore, when the electrons of the merged region are forced to flow into the non-merged region, the latter cannot hold them.

The density of the unmerged region now increases too, and consequently the unmerged region repels the electrons away. The only place to repel them away is outside of the atom, past the atomic circumference. You need to show this bleeding of electrons out of the atomic sphere, and you need to tell the viewer that this is heat bleeding from the atom. A captured electron cannot be heat because it cannot enter a substance, but once the captured electrons exit the atom, they are free to enter another substance. Heat is defined as electrons entering a substance.

Every atomic merger always releases the same amount of heat no matter how many times they are merged and unmerged. It means that atomic mergers always merge to the same depth of merger, for if they go deeper, they release more electrons, more heat, but if they don't go as deep, they release less heat. As the same atomic mergers into either liquid form, or by chemical reactions forming molecules, always release the same amount of heat in the experiments, no matter how many times the process occurs, it stands true that atoms always merge to the same depth. Something controls the depth of merger.

You now need to show two bonded atoms coming apart. You don't need to show the heat-squeeze that causes the atoms to unmerge. When the merged, oval-shaped region begins to grow smaller as the atoms gradually separate, a half-density region is left behind in the trail. That is, the merged areas eventually acquired a density equal to the density of the unmerged regions, but if the two atoms separate, the merged region of both atoms will end up having half as much density because the one atom takes half of the electrons with it that were in the merged region.

Consequently, electrons from the unmerged regions rush in to fill the lower-density area of the unmerged region, but we can also guess correctly that free electrons (heat particles) from the space outside of the atoms likewise floe into the lower-density region.

What you can do as is to show two atoms fully unmerged, but with electrons filling the area once merged at only half density. The viewer will realize that both protons must re-load to full capacity, filling the lower-density region with re-captured electrons that were lost as heat during merger...explaining why the experiments always show that whatever heat quantity is lost in atomic bonding is re-absorbed from the air during atomic separations.

Now back up to showing the atoms merged again, and then slowly show the unmerging process. This time, show the electrons from the unmerged region flowing into the region once merged while the atoms unmerge slowly. Simultaneously, show free electrons from outside of the atoms flowing into the unmerged region because, when electrons from the unmerged region flow into the region once merged, the unmerged region gets less dense and thus goes below full-load capacity, meaning that the proton is able to attract more electrons, and it gets them from the air outside the atomic sphere.

This video can take you some time and some hard work if you've got to train your mind to understanding these processes to the point of being sure they occur as I've just described. They are all logical processes, with electrons flowing from higher-density regions into lower-density regions, exactly as gas atoms do. There is nothing unscientific about it. Heat always moves from a higher-density = hotter region toward a lower-density = colder region, never the other way around. Cold never moves toward hot. Low-pressure air never moves toward high-pressure air. High-pressure electrons always move toward low-pressure electrons. This is why we can know what happens during atomic mergers and unmergers. Physicists are out to lunch with orbiting electrons, therefore unable to show what really happens during mergers.

Youtube Video #9

In this video, you will start with a fact, no need to prove it to the audience: a solid-lead cannonball will hit the ground at the same time that a hollow plastic ball will when both are dropped simultaneously from the same height in a vacuum. The purpose of showing this moving diagram is to explain what mystery lies behind this unexpected thing. It's unexpected because we are apt to thinking that heavier objects should fall faster because gravity has a larger grip upon them.

Yes, gravity pulls a lead ball with much more force than a plastic ball of the same size, which is why a landing lead ball creates a crater in the soil while the plastic ball does not. But if gravity pulls the lead with more force, why doesn't it pull faster too?

You now show another moving diagram, this time with a lead ball versus 10 atoms of the lead ball beside it, and beside the 100 lead atoms you will also have a single lead atom. The 10 lead atoms are separated (not bonded as a solid) but can be shown as a bunch. You then say you are about to drop all three at the same time, and ask the audience which of the three is expected to fall fastest. You then show them falling, with all three hitting the ground at the same time.

This show comes with the revelation that gravity attracts each atom separately, and it doesn't matter how many atoms are bonded into a solid lead ball, all atoms are pulled equally with the same gravity force, and thus a lead balls falls as fast as ten atoms separated in a bunch, and as fast as one atom alone. You can say that gravity has a string attached to each atom, and each string is pulled with the same force. The cannon ball drops with more force because there are more falling atoms. A bubble coming at you ate 60 miles per hour will not do damage, but a metal ball at the same size coming at you at 60 mph is going to hurt bad.

Okay, you are now ready to shock your audience with a mind-blowing realization: all atoms, regardless of whether they are lead atoms, steel atoms, plastic atoms, oxygen atoms, WEIGHT THE SAME. It's a happy shocker, I'll never forget the day that this dawned on me. And it dawned precisely due to going over in my mind the things I've just told you. For, if a plastic ball falls at the same speed as a metal ball, and as fast as a wood ball, or as fast as an ice ball, etc., then all atoms are pulled by gravity with the same force. And the specific force of gravity is the very definition of weight. By gully!

You can grasp this. If gravity pulls one atom with more force than another, it's going to come toward gravity faster, there can be no doubt about it. Just ponder that for as long as you need to, and you will have discovered with me that all atoms weigh the same. CRAZY. If anyone knows how many atoms there are in any object, the weight of any atom whatsoever could be calculated with: number of atoms divided by weight of object.

By the time of this discovery, I had already realized that gravity is a negative force from the hot core of the planet. The heat there is made of electrons; electrons are negatively charged, and this is why gravity repels electrons in the air or up a metal rod. Pure truth, I kid you not.

This view of gravity allowed me to realize why all atoms weigh the same. You can show how this works as part of this video. You tell the audience that gravity is a negative "wind" the blows electrons away from itself. You can tell the audience that a wind of air at x force will blow leaves off of a branch that are held to the branch with less than x force, but will not blow leaves off when held with more than x force.

You can then say that gravity's specific negative force at sea level is g (you can use any letter), and that all captured atoms around a protonic core will be blown away by gravity if the proton holds them with less than g force. If the proton holds them with g force or better, they get to remain as part of the atom. This wind has already taken place. All atoms now in existence have already been shaved by the gravity wind. However, if an object is moved toward gravity at less than sea level, gravity force becomes stronger than g, and consequently the atoms of that object lose some outer electrons.

Gravity is the barber, shaving off some exterior electrons that the proton would otherwise capture. It tends to make me believe that atoms at absolute zero temperature are all net-positive, and then has me wondering further whether heat particles added around atoms cause them to attain a net-negative charge eventually, at some points above absolute zero. But that's another video.

The point here is that if gravity blows off all captured electrons with less than g force, then the specific positive charge at the perimeters of ALL atoms must be equal to g. Is that right? Yes, it's g positive force versus g negative force, at the PERIMETER of ALL atoms. Therefore, if ALL atoms have a radiation of G positive force emitting toward gravity, then ALL atoms will weigh g force. ALL ATOMS WILL WEIGH THE SAME, a mind-blower for the trained and happily-deceived physicist. He's going to tell you that you're out of your mind, but it's your job to press the truth until crowds start to side with you instead of with him. Do battle. You have the lead cannon ball as your weapon, and he has sudsy bubbles for brains. He's the physics amateur like an ape on thin ice, and you are going to win this hands down at the speed of gravity.

Youtube Video #10

In this video, you should start with showing how the negative force of gravity blows electrons from an atom at absolute-zero temperature. The diagram needs to have just one atom. Once the electrons are blown away, you tell the audience that this process has given the atom more positive force radiating outward than negative. Then you are going to show the atom with swarms of free electrons as heat, all invading the atom and pressing inward upon it from all sides. Free electrons are never in contact with each other; higher temperatures has them closer together, but never in contact.

You then show the temperature, on a corner of the screen, rising gradually, and as this happens you show the density of heat particles increasing, and consequently electrons will be gradually forced upon the atom in greater numbers and with greater inward force. The original captured electrons, the ones present at absolute zero, get pressed into a smaller sphere, and the atoms thus loads with more electrons which begins to cancel out the atom's net-positive charge. Eventually, as I see it, the atom's charge may become net-neutral, with equal positive versus negative charge radiating outward from the atom. Then, with added heat still, the atom is expected to become increasingly net-negative.

Question: at what point does the neutral condition take place? Could it define the melting points of all substances? Atoms will repel when all are net-positive, and when all are net-negative, and so is there some clue that tells us when they don't repel at all?

Melting point is also the freezing point. Freezing should be defined as the point when the "grease" of heat between liquid atoms has diminished to the point that atoms can no longer roll over one another. So long as they can roll over each other while merged and bonded, it defines a liquid. But when the atoms become locked, with decreasing temperatures, and can no longer roll, they define a solid. Atoms are frozen in position. There could be two things going on to define the freezing point together: 1) low level of heat grease in the atomic spaces combined with: 2) deeper atomic mergers due to lower temperatures. One could argue that, if atoms repel each other at any temperature, they might not lock in for a freeze, but if atoms achieve that net-neutral charge, it can facilitate the freeze.

In reverse, we can add increasing temperature to a solid substance, and the first sign of melting can be defined as the point at which heat causes the atoms to repel in a net-negative condition. A definition of melting is when gravity has more pull force on the atom than the bond force of atoms. So long as atoms are bonded with a force of g or higher, gravity cannot pull the atoms from the solid. The solid maintains. But when we see ice melting so that water starts to flow downward toward gravity, the atomic bond has then been weakened to a point below the g force. Gravity then becomes boss. Gravity causes the atoms to roll over one another while not breaking the atomic bond.

Evaporation is nothing more than heat particles rising through the liquid and physically lifting surface atoms into the air...as the heat particles exit at the surface.

When liquids go from warm to colder and reach the freezing temperature, they release heat for some time while maintaining the freezing temperature. How can a substance release heat yet not get colder? It can only mean that, in order to set up the freeze, liquid atoms merge deeper with one another, for this is the fundamental explanation for heat formation from atoms. Why do atoms merge more deeply at the freezing point than at any other temperature? Whatever the reason, it's what causes the freeze-lock of liquid atoms. Could it be that the freeze-delay just before the freeze occurs BECAUSE the atoms have achieved a neutral charge toward one another, and are suddenly sinking deeper into one another precisely due to exerting no inter-repulsion?

In reverse, as temperature goes from cold up to the melting point, the same amount of heat that was lost during the freezing process (while the liquid remained at the freezing temperature) is the amount of heat needed to get the atoms to come apart a little to unlock, at which time the solid maintains its melting temperature, even though heat is being added to the solid, because the atoms are capturing = absorbing the heat. So long as atoms capture the heat particles, they do not become heat "grease" between atoms.

Heat is in fact a lubricant (ask any stubborn, rusty bolt) because inter-repelling heat particles are a movable substance between atoms. Electrons alone can never freeze with one another. They always "roll over" each other at a distance. They roll upon each others' repulsion fields, the best lubricant possible because there is zero friction. There is zero friction when there is zero attraction force. There is friction when atoms roll over each other like burrs because protons pull neighboring atoms, tending to make them slow down. Thank God for electron grease, or we wouldn't have water.

The question is: is the freezing point defined as the point when the grease no longer allows rolling, or is there something else in play that locks atoms in spite of some grease still in the atomic spaces? It's a hard call because the grease material facilitates the weakening of the atomic bond, for that weakening is from added heat, and the grease is made of heat. There is the heat squeeze between atoms taking place to weaken the bond of solid atoms, and as this increases, so does the grease in the atomic spaces. What we can be sure of: melting is when atoms reach an atomic bond equal to g force. As far as I know (not an expert here), virtually every substance that begins to melt, or very soon after it begins, can be brought to the lowest-possible point by gravity attraction.

Can we then ask: if there were no gravity, would solids melt at all? Yes, of course. Yet I'm trying to figure out why it is that when any elemental substance melts, its atoms are already bonded at less than g force. Or, at least, I can't think of any melted substance that doesn't flow toward gravity. A liquid is by nature one that forms an upper surface thanks to the pull of gravity. I don't know of a substance that, when in the shape of a pillar for example, remains a pillar while melted. It forms a pool at the lowest possible point. However, in the absence of gravity, a pillar-shaped, melted solid should remain pillar shaped even when soft enough to put your finger into it.

What forbids a melting, elemental substance from keeping its shape, from being pulled by gravity. Why can't a solid go soft while retaining its shape far above the melting temperature? Why are melted substances already given to gravity as soon as they melt?

I'm reading: "The four fundamental states of matter are solid, liquid, gas and plasma..." There's nothing put between a solid and liquid, though I recall reading that a few substances go paste-like between the solid and liquid phases. A paste-like "melt" could be defined as a melted solid with atomic bonds higher than g force, but for the vast part, most melting of the elements takes place at less than g force.

I'm not talking about molecular substances here, or mixed substances. Things like dough have an atomic bond stronger than gravity even when not frozen, but neither does dough turn to liquid after one takes it out of the freezer. Molecular substances can become pastes that are made partly of solids and partly of liquids, but I don't think one can mix a liquid element with a solid element to make a paste.

Youtube Video #11

What keeps water from reaching nearly 1,000 degrees or better when heating it with a 1000-degree or better heat source?

If heat is a material, we can explain the boiling points of all liquids as the point at which the upward flow of heat particles alleviate the downward force of water pressure and air pressure (both caused by gravity). On the way toward the boiling point, heat finds restriction to upward flow, but, as the heat particles become more dense between water molecules, they push one another faster upward due to their greater repulsion forces. Thus, with increasing temperature, the more the heat particles overcome the restriction to upward flow, creating smoother passageways. In the end, especially by the fast and plentiful transfer of heat material in the ever-growing bubbles typical of boiling points, the ejection of heat particles at the surface will equal the heat particles entering the water at the heat source.

If not for the bubbles, boiling point would need to wait for a higher temperature. The bubbles more-quickly allow as much total heat to exit the water as enters. Heat particles are not exiting the water surface only from the bubbles, but from between all surface molecules.

In short, water temperature cannot increase if as much heat material is exiting the water surface as is entering the water at the heat source. The boiling point should be defined as the point when, no matter how suddenly or powerfully the heat source is ramped up, heat flows through the water with zero restriction against gravitational forces. As long as there is any restriction, heat increase, and therefore temperature rise, are expected to continue.

As water temperature increases, the water level goes up, not only because heat particles spread water molecules further apart in all directions, but because they give lift to water molecules. This lift is what alleviates water and air pressures (in a pot of water, most of the pressure is from air weighing down on the water).

Kineticists are incapable of explaining why colder water sinks in warmer water, or why colder air sinks in colder air. In their mind, a colder air atom is a slower air atom. Why should gravity attract a slower air atoms stronger than a faster air atom? If we stuck a cold cubit foot of air into warm air, why should the cold air sink as a unit? It's not wrapped in anything. It's not in a box or in a balloon. If the only difference is slower atoms versus faster atoms, there's no reason that cold air should sink.

Kineticists wrongly tell us that colder air sinks BECAUSE it's more dense or heavier per unit volume, but unfortunately for them, air is made of individual atoms, not treasure chests in water. Why should air atoms be pulled stronger by gravity just because they are more dense? That is, why should gravity pull an atom more strongly just because it's closer to another atom? That's the definition of more-dense air: closer atoms. It doesn't matter how big or small a cold mass of air, it's not a single unit. It's individual atoms. Gravity doesn't attract cold air as a single unit. It doesn't attract colder water as a unit. Gravity can only attract individual gas and liquid atoms. Gravity can attract only solids as a unit.

TRUE, denser air and denser water does sink, but not BECAUSE it's denser. Colder air has less rising heat particles under air atoms, and therefore atoms in a colder space have less upward lift to counter gravity. Ditto for cold water versus warmer water. This lift causes evaporation at a water surface. The science establishment loses, again.

Youtube Video #12

A bird can't fly in a vacuum because a vacuum has electrons alone. They offer zero friction in an enclosed box, and a wee-bit (almost nil) of friction in the open atmosphere due to their upward trajectory from gravity force. If one runs horizontally through particles propelled upward by force, there will be some resistance to running through them. As there is much more resistance in running through air held down by gravity, we learn that the upward gravity force upon electrons is much weaker than the downward gravity force upon atoms. It's not the size of the microscopic particles that matters, but their weight. Electrons have upward weight.

Air atoms are held down to a surface, electrons are repelled upward toward no surface. It takes energy to move air atoms aside that are held down to a surface, especially with the weight of the entire atmosphere squeezing the atoms against the surface. If air atoms were repelled by gravity, I don't think a bird could fly in them.

In the same way, electrons streaming from the sun offer some, but minimal restriction to the passage of earth through space. Einstein and others sought for proof of the existence of a mysterious aether, but they "proved" there could not be such a thing because it is expected to cause friction for the earth's orbital path. The existence of the aether was proposed by those who argued that it was the light-wave medium, but this was decades before the discovery of the solar-wind electrons. But even after it's discovery, the buffoons in the science establishment refused to announce that this flow of electrons rates as the aether. With electrons filling the space between the sun and earth, and between stars and earth, it rates as a sea of particles by which light waves may travel.

The friction that was imagined through the aether was based on the assumption of the establishment that all matter has mass, and the establishment was inclined to viewing all mass as having weight. In their books, gravity is not an electromagnetic force, but a special/unique kind of attractive force having no repulsive reciprocal. Gravity, they claimed, attracted all matter, even electrons. They claimed that all atoms had "gravitons" by which gravity could attract atomic nuclei, and yet they claimed that even the electron was attracted by gravity, though I know of no experiment to prove this claim.

My point is that electrons, having no weight, and being repelled into the nothingness of space devoid of a surface, is not expected to offer much resistance to the motion of planets around the sun. The aether can therefore be a reality, and it is a reality, meaning that light is a wave through the electron aether, meaning that Einstein's superfast photon, which replaced the light wave, is a fantasy. The establishment pushes fantasies galore, you would be amazed to know how wrong they have gone in atomic mechanics due to starting on false jumping pads.

When the Einsteinian era was conceiving an aether in the minds of thinkers, they did not view it as originating at any certain location(s). They viewed it as sitting in space motionless. So far as I read on the topic (which wasn't much), they did not consider that stars could be spewing forth particles that fill all of space. While the planets spend half their orbits going INTO the solar winds, they spend the other half going WITH the wind so that any velocity planets lose into the wind is regained when going with the wind. The aether is a non-issue when it comes to whether or not planetary motion can detect its existence.

You can have fun with this video because it makes you look smarter than Einstein, and it allows you to begin poking fun at the photon and, more importantly, as the lunatic idea of a wave-particle duality. With the electron ether rating as a light-wave medium, there is no longer need for a wave-particle form of light ray.

You can now tell your viewers that electrons filling the atmosphere does not block sunlight because the electrons are the carriers of light. Genius, you will look like a genius in an age that has long forsaken the light-wave medium. Save this planet today from science goons stuck in the darkness of their errors. Feed them the light-wave medium.

We now have some sanity in the speed of light: no light particle travels at 186,000 miles per second, as this is insanity. Anyone who believes this is a fool, starting with Einstein. How can the light coming from the filament of a light bulb travel at such a fantastic speed when there is nothing in the steel of the filament to propel it to such a speed? Now you know why the insane in the science establishments keep to the orbiting electron, for it is this little bitty that supposedly makes the photon travel so fast, but you are not allowed to ask what keeps the electron orbiting so fast, or how it can keep from escaping its orbit due to circling so fast. The science establishment is a nut-cracker, the sooner you acknowledge it, the better.

I'm not disputing that light travels at 186,000 mps. I'm in no position to prove or disprove it, but what I can claim, for sanity's sake, is that the speed of a wave does not need a particle moving at the same speed. A sound wave through the medium of metal travels at hundreds of miles per hour even while the speed of the metal atoms is zero. Therefore, a light wave can move at 186,000 mps through the solar wind that itself has a "slow" velocity. And when light waves move through our atmosphere, the aether electrons there are barely moving five miles per hour toward outer space. In an enclosed box, the light-wave medium has particles barely moving at all. The electrons go upward only as fast as they can escape the wall of the box.

In summary, aether electrons are both the definition of heat and the light-wave medium.

Yotube Video #12

Somebody's going to argue that, if electrons are both the light-wave medium and the definition of heat, then there should be no light at absolute-zero temperature. Yet I've seen photos of helium at very near what they claim to be absolute zero, or -273C. There is no way to see helium at absolute zero if there is no light-wave medium present. Obviously, if we can see it, it's because light is shining upon it. And so this makes me argue that the establishment is either wrong in pegging -273 at the absolute-heatless condition, or that the instrument(s) by which they measure that temperature is faulty. I don't know much on this topic, and I'm afraid to try finding it on the now-useless google search engine. But this quest could make a fine video for science buffs.

Here's how scientists think, but including error into their conclusions: "...yes, light could travel in absolute zero. Light doesn't need a medium to travel through like sound does." There you have an example of how one error causes another.

Here's another erroneous statement: "At absolute zero temperature(-273 c or 0 K) kinetic energy of body becomes zero. So light would come to rest position means stopped, because that temperature and light both are being made up of particles so called photons." It's trash, all trash. They first make the mistake of defining heat as the motion of atoms, though I don't know whether they see the ceasing of electron orbits at absolute zero. I do know they have photons shooting off of orbiting electrons, which is the trashiest of the trashiest science.

The following statement may corroborate my claim that there is no light at absolute zero: "Lene Hau is a world-renowned physicist at Harvard University, and she has figured out a way to stop light in its path. One of the tricks to slowing light to a halt is creating a cloud of nearly motionless atoms at near absolute zero..." Even though the establishment doesn't know what light or heat is, it seems to me that, couched in that statement, is the claim that there is no light at absolute zero. If there is some light left at -273 degrees, then I would argue that it's not absolute zero. True absolute zero is defined as a space having no free electrons between atoms. In that case, there is no light-wave medium.

A light wave is caused when an electron emitting from an atom pushes an electron in the aether. The first one then pushes a second one, and so on. A sound wave comes to a stop sooner than a light wave because atoms pose restriction to wave flow whereas electrons in the aether have almost no restriction to wave flow. Atoms pose restriction because they weigh on one another, or are bonded in solids and liquids, but electrons rising into the sky do not weigh on each other, and are never bonded with one another.

Youtube Video #13

Electricity is the flow of captured electrons, and there is restriction to electrical flow because the captured electrons "weigh" down on each other by protonic attraction. The protonic attraction itself poses some restriction to their motion. The deeper captured electrons are not expected to roll along in motion as fast as the outer ones, and so the outer ones, probably the main electrical flow, are inhibited in their atom-to-atom transfer by the slower/deeper ones as they make physical or at-a-distance contact during motion.

Telecommunication speeds through wires are at the near-speed of light because it doesn't involve atom-to-atom transfer of captured electrons. Instead, the pulses for phone / Internet data create literal light waves though the captured electrons. What we learn here is that light waves can go in both directions in wires without destroying or seriously cancelling each other out.

It is pure folly to think that communication data travels as zillions of super-fast photon particles in opposing direction through a wire, for when they crash into one another, affecting others at the crash sites, the data would show as corrupted / spoiled / destroyed. To say that photons are so small that they never crash into one another is to be stupid.

The only way for data to travel through a wire is via a wave, and since it isn't by a sound wave, it's by a light wave, proving that the light-wave medium is the electron because light doesn't travel across protons. The light from the sun arrives across electrons emitted from solar atoms. How logical, how sensible, how correct, but as you can be sure that I'm not smarter than all the physicists in the establishment, the question is: what ails them that they can't put that little logic together like tic-tac-toe?

The data sent over wires, or through the electrons of the air via wireless communications, starts as an electrical impulse, meaning that the flow of electricity in a wire can cause a domino effect -- which defines the light wave -- through a wire or through the air.

The waves remain "straight" in the wire because they are forced to travel along the light-wave medium, i.e. whatever the wire is made of. Yet this light will curve with the wire, even curve at 90 degrees or more, unlike visible light...though I think we learn here that visible light can curve too, but that it doesn't curve in the air because, I reckon, it's trained to go straight ahead due to many waves all around every one wave keeping it on track. Electrons are very close together compared to air atoms.

Someone writes: "This is how the cable companies do their internet - you send and receive over one wire - it can be done many ways...The wire is just like the air, which has radio flying in all directions constantly, though it is ‘one dimensional air’. The point is, it can have multiple frequencies at the same time, going in any direction. The wire only has 2 directions, the air has ‘a lot’ of them." I don't think wireless data curves in the air, but rather a wi-fi transmitter transmits in straight lines in all directions. A transmitter jolts the electrons in the aether. The captured electrons are excited by an electric-flow impulse, and so the captured electrons jolt outward (away from the proton) upon their atoms to send out waves (I suggest one wave per one jolt). The electrical flow is thus converted to a wave.

Youtube Video #14

I once tried to guess whether light would travel faster or slower depending on the density of aether electrons. The purpose was to get a sense of whether the speed in outer space is faster than in air. I leaned toward slower in outer space. However, there is a consideration capable of greater importance on the specific speed of light: the distance between the light source and the end of the light ray. For example, a single light wave from a light bulb to a couch 10 feet away has a ten-foot row of aether electrons. When the source of the light, an electron jolting from the filament, sets that row into motion, every electron in the line moves only a slight distance closer to the one in front of it, then bounces back due to the repulsion forces active between the two. The reason for this back-bounce is that there is a solid object, a couch, at the end of the row. There is restriction in forward motion of the last aether electron in the row.

Let's no go to a wave that begins from one jolting electron in an atom on the sun. This atom has a clear view of outer space, and so the light wave begins flowing through the aether electrons into outer space. Let's then say that this wave doesn't hit any solid object until half way to another star. The point is, there is essentially zero bounce-back expected due to any restriction of forward motion of the last electron in the row. That last electron is so far from the earth that we could expect no bounce-back taking place as the light wave passes the earth. Every electron in the row, at least as far as the earth, simply moves forward without any bounce-back, you see.

My point is this: aether electrons in space have nothing to tie them down. No gravity attracts them, and they weight zero. If a piano or mountain hovering in space weighed zero, then your hand slapping it a 10 miles per hour would send it moving at ten miles per hour. There is nothing keeping it's motion from taking place to the maximum force by which it is contacted.

My point is this: light should be INSTANT if there is zero restriction of forward aether-electron flow, but if there is some restriction, for example from a couch just ten feet from the bulb, then the speed of light is slower than instant, or about 186,000 miles per second. To understand this, you need a slow-motion look at a bounce-back.

An electron bounce-back suggests that an electron has restriction in forward motion from the get-go. As soon as it starts to move forward, there is a little restriction, and this gets increased in force level the closer it arrives to the electrons toward its front. They are pushing back because they too are restricted in moving toward the couch. I'm not going to say that they are locked into position, but there is some restriction to forward motion. It's reasonable to make this claim.

But if a light wave begins at a star, then most of the electrons between the star and an eye on earth upon which it enter are moving forward with very little restriction so that the speed of light from the stars should be near-instant. I think Creationists would love to play with that possibility. It wipes out the evolutionists' claim that distant stars prove an ancient universe. The aether makes it possible for starlight to arrive to earth very quickly. There is insufficient evidence to prove that the light-shift method of determining vast stellar distances is correct, and there is much to prove that evolutionists are liars more than anything else.

As the earth is relatively close to the sun as compared to light from a star, I'd suggest that the speed of light from the sun to earth is somewhere between instant and 186,000 miles per second.

However, there are so many stars shooting light in so many directions that waves are just tripping all over each other. A single electron in space is being peppered by multiple lights waves simultaneously as well as every split-second. The aether is really something because these waves, whether they go in opposing directions through the same aether electron, or in cross-currents, are not all canceled. They manage to get through to our eyes from stars all competing on the same cosmic turf.

Stellar winds collide. At some point, our solar wind is colliding with the stellar winds of other suns. The electrons at those collision points would have been forced into spatial pockets of least resistance, having the least electron density to begin with, and yet we can expect accumulation in some pockets until the pockets cease to be the spaces of least resistance. I imagine streams of electrons snaking about at midway regions between stars, always flowing to the places of least resistance with ever-changing regions of least resistance.

Youtube Video #15

Anyone who is not a liar who understand physics understands that particles traveling at 186,000 mps will go right through a flesh body. To hide this fact, the evolutionists made the photon with almost zero mass. Still, they say that light can penetrate a significant layer of skin, but we never see evidence of skin erosion due to sunlight. The texture of skin of people who spend half the year in arctic darkness looks the same as people living in equatorial zones. No evidence of photon pitting in the skin. There's no evidence of photon erosion of glass, yet they claim that photons penetrate through the entire glass.

If photons were to enter our eyes at 186,000 mps, they would eat away at the light receptors. It's a no-brainer, yet nobody dares contest against these damned liars. They can blend light rays, as many as they wish, or point them straight-on at one another, then shake those rays or move them around in circles, but there's no evidence whatsoever of photons crashing into one another.

They can't argue that photons are too small to collide with one another when flashlights are pointed at each other because the light comes from all atom in the filaments of both flashlights. You can put 20 filaments on one side, and 20 more on the opposite side, forcing the light rays very close together. Surely there's got to be a lot of crashing going on if one moves 40 filaments from two light sources as they point toward one another. Surely we should see some sparks or photon smoke or ricochets or a pile of refuse, or hear some crashing sounds...or something. But all we see is a blend of lighting, silent, peaceful. Are we to believe that photons don't destroy one another when colliding head on at such speeds? Surely we should not allow the tricksters to get away with their cheap lies. Surely it's time to call them out as frauds and quacks.

Youtube Video #16

In this video, you will find the distance to the sun as under 20 million miles using nothing but eclipse data from NASA. I'm not going to show you pictures here (I don't have an appropriate draw package), and so if you want to do this, you will need to spend some good time on it, and do some hard work to grasp how this is done.

You start by drawing (not to scale) a lunar eclipse (two lines only) on a page, and put the moon where its considerably smaller than the earth's umbra. There is nothing on the page but the sun, earth, moon, and two lines from the edge of the sun past the edge of the earth to create the earth's umbra.

Then, draw a straight line through the centers of the moon, earth and sun, calling this line the main zero-degree line.

Below, you are going to have a second zero-degree line, parallel with the one above, that starts at one the edge of the earth, either the far-right or far-left side of your earth circle, take your pick. You will have a third zero-degree line, later, going off of a second moon that is itself centered on the main zero-degree line.

First, you need to find the angle of the umbra line that you just drew. The umbra line will go from the edge of the sun to the main zero-degree line, and so the angle that you are finding is the angle off of the zero-degree line. To find this angle, you need to know the diameter of the umbra where the moon passes through it. The NASA eclipse for whatever eclipse you wish to use has the data that allows you to figure the umbra's diameter in miles. Once you have the umbra's diameter in miles and the distance to the moon at that eclipse, you can also have the angle of the umbra line using an online calculator for right-angle triangles.

Here's how to find the lunar distance. If for example NASA's page gives .52 degree for the diameter of the moon, as the eye or telescope sees it from the earth, the meaning is that it's .52 degree the way around an imaginary 360-degree circle around the earth. The math to begin finding the lunar distance is: 360 / .52 = 692. That is, if the moon appears to be .52 degree, there would be 692 moons in an imaginary circle around the earth.

The next math step is: 692 x lunar diameter = distance around the imaginary circle. If we use the approximate 2,160 miles for the lunar diameter, the math is: 720 x 2,160 = 1,495,000 miles. That is, the circumference of the imaginary circle is 1.495 million miles. If you remember your math from high school, they taught that the diameter of a circle is found as the circumference divided by pi, and in the case of the problem at hand, half that diameter happens to be the distance to the moon. We just do: 1,495,000 / 3.14 / 2 = 238,000 miles.

The entire formula you will need is:

360 / apparent lunar diameter x 2160 / pi / 2 = lunar distance at the moment of the eclipse.

The math above is full-proof. It's the way astronomers figure out the lunar distance.

When you have your lunar distance for any one eclipse, you need to create a right-angle triangle on your drawing. You can't use a right-hand triangle calculator unless you have a right-hand triangle drawn on your page. I'm going to tell you where to draw it. The tip of the triangle starts at one edge of the umbra, the right or left, take your pick, and of course we start the line where the moon crosses through the umbra. NASA's figure for the size of the umbra is of course where the moon crosses though it, meaning that the given size of the umbra is at the lunar distance during the eclipse. We already found the lunar distance at the eclipse, and so it's your job to use the lunar distance to find how wide the umbra is in miles. We can't find the distance to the sun without the size of the umbra in miles.

Let's assume you use the left side of the umbra. The first line of the triangle goes from there to the earth circle, and penetrates half way through the earth circle, which is where this first line ends. This line is the height of your triangle. The second line of the triangle, the base, goes 90 degrees toward the left edge of the earth, and it stops at the left edge. The third line of the triangle is already on your page as the umbra line.

You want to know the angle of the umbra line as it takes off from the edge of the umbra. The first-mentioned line of this triangle is parallel with the main zero-degree line, and thus you will view this first line of the triangle as a second zero-degree line. The angle of the umbra line will be the same whether it starts from the main zero-degree line, or from this second zero-degree line. If you understand me, we are finding the angle of an umbra line from the edge of the earth to the edge of the sun.

It's your job to find the length of the short base line of the triangle. As you already have the 3,959 miles for the earth's radius, you can find the length of the base line if only you could have the umbra diameter in miles. NASA's eclipse pages don't give it in miles. It gives it only as the apparent umbra radius, which is the radius as the eye / telescope sees it from the earth. If you feel more comfortable by doing so, you can double the NASA figure for the umbra radius so that you have the umbra diameter.

When we found the lunar distance in the formula above, we also found the circumference of an imaginary circle around the earth. The math now becomes: 360 degrees / umbra radius in degrees. If, for example, NASA gives .65 as the umbra radius, then 360 / .65 gives us 553.85 umbra radii as the distance equal the distance of the imaginary circle.

We already found the distance of the imaginary circle above. For example, if that circle has a circumference of 1,495,000 miles, we now divide it by 553.85 to find that the umbra has a radius of about 2,700 miles. Voila, we have found what NASA doesn't want us to know, the umbra radius in miles. The reason it doesn't want us to know this is because we can find a distance to the sun that is far less than the 93-million they claim for it. You have one dynamite video in progress here.

The formula for finding the umbra radius in miles is:

circumference of imaginary lunar circle / (360 / umbra radius in degrees)

It's that simple, any high-schooler can do this, and it's exactly what NASA doesn't want high-schoolers to know. However, there is another way to find the umbra radius in miles by which you may be more comfortable, or certain of: divide the given umbra diameter in degrees by the given moon's diameter in degrees to find how many moons wide the umbra is, then multiply the answer by 2,160 miles.

We now have the numbers to find the angle of the umbra line to the sun...because we have the number needed to find the length of the triangle's base. The first line of the triangle, the height of the triangle, goes through the earth at a certain mystery distance from the earth's core, and a certain mystery distance (opposite direction) to the edge of the earth, and these two distances combined equal the earth radius. It's your job (don't flinch) to find that distance with the numbers we already have. Can you handle this?

I'm over-doing this explanation, sorry, in case I'm losing you. The quicker minds might find this explanation nauseous, sorry. The height-line of the triangle is parallel with the main zero-degree line that goes through the core of the earth, and so if the radius of the umbra is found as, for example, 2,700 miles, we subtract that number from the earth's radius (3,960) to find a distance of the triangle's base: 1,260 miles.

Now you are ready for the major leagues. You can go to the calculator below, and enter the base-line distance, 1260 miles, into box, a. You then enter the lunar distance into box, b, and hit the calculate button. You are finished. You've just done what astronomers would do with these numbers, except that nobody's telling them to do it. It's being hidden from them, and they know they are not to reveal this method of finding solar distance, Everything is as diabolically controlled with the evolution-based sciences as it is with freedom-lovers versus Fauci-ism.
https://www.calculator.net/right-triangle-calculator.html

The distance to the moon here is identical to the distance to the umbra where the moon crosses through it. If we enter the lunar distance above, 238,000 miles for box, b, the angle we are looking for, shown on the alpha line, is .303 degree. That same line will give the angle in radians, .005294, which is one of the two numbers needed to find solar distance, as you will see. (The numbers I'm using here are not for any particular eclipse.)

Okay, we are one giant step for mankind here, to show that evolutionists are liars. Are you sure you want to be at the frontline of this war? I'm sure I want to be. If anyone can get this information out widely in a video(s), be my guest and reap the financial rewards. I will be satisfied with a feat accomplished.

We now need to find the angle of a second line to the edge of the sun. I once believed that I needed a solar eclipse, where the sun is the same distance from the earth as it is during a lunar eclipse, in order to find the solar distance. Are you with me? We need two different lines to the edge of the sun, when the sun is at the same distance from earth, because those two lines meet at the sun, and thus we can find how far the sun is by finding how from the earth the two lines meet. SIMPLE.

The only problem WAS, I could not find an appropriate solar eclipse page with NASA's records that could do an accurate job of finding solar distance in combination with data from a lunar eclipse. More than a decade passed before it dawned on me that one doesn't need a solar eclipse at all. This is beautiful, folks, it really is.

All we need is the size of the sun at a lunar eclipse. And NASA gives the size of the sun for every lunar eclipse it offers. It's like handing us the true solar distance on a silver platter, I just didn't see it at first. I'll now ask you to draw a second moon on your drawing, but before doing so, draw one line from the core of the earth to the left edge of the sun, and a second line from the core of the earth to the right edge of the sun. Beautiful, look at those two lovely lines, perfect.

The second moon goes between the earth and sun, and you want to do two things here: 1) center this moon on the main zero degree line, and, 2) make the diameter of the moon so that if fits exactly between the two lines to the sun. You have just placed a moon between the earth and the sun having an apparent size (astronomers call this the "angular size") exactly the apparent size of the sun. From an on-looker or a telescope positioned at the core of the earth, the moon looks exactly the size of the sun. And so you need to ask, John, why are you putting a moon in front of the sun that is exactly the size of the sun? You need to understand this.

It's simple. We now have a second line to the sun grazing a moon of known size. It's the size of the sun, and when we have a moon of known apparent size, we can find it's distance from the core of the earth, and thus we can also find the angle of this second line to the sun! It's BEAUTIFUL, no sleeping at the wheel allowed here. It's all we basically need to finish the solar-distance calculation, aside from a little more math. Not much, but a little more.

Okay, so part of the remaining math needs another right-angle triangle, and if you haven't guessed where it goes, let me show you. The first line of this triangle goes from the core of the earth, along the main zero-degree line, to the core of the moon. This is the height of the triangle. For the base, there is a second line from the core of the moon to the left edge of the moon, and the third line is already drawn as the moon-grazing line. The base distance is known, of course, which is the lunar radius of about 1080 miles. Put that into box, a, of the calculator, and then find the lunar distance as shown above. Put the lunar distance in box, b, and press the calculate button. The angle of the moon-grazing line is now found showing on the alpha line.

You do not yet realize what you have in your hands when you have the angle of both lines to the sun. You may not be able to figure out how to use the two angles to discover the solar distance, unless you are determined to study the picture that you have before you. You cannot create a triangle using the two lines to the sun to find the solar distance because such a triangle would first require the distance from sun to earth, and we don't yet have that distance.

The only way to find the solar distance now is to find by what distance the moon-grazing line moves laterally on the page toward the lunar-umbra line, per mile vertically toward the sun. When I say "toward the sun," I don't mean along the moon-grazing line, nor along the umbra line, but rather along the main zero-degree line. Once we have the lateral distance per mile toward the sun, the math is as easy as 3,060 / lateral distance = solar distance. Can you believe this? The diabolicals at NASA, and throughout the astronomical establishment, have been hiding this from us for over a century.

The two lines both start at the earth, and as one starts at the edge of the earth while the other starts to the core of the earth, they begin their journeys 3,960 miles apart. They end their journeys at the same spot 0 miles apart. The moon-grazing line is always at a larger angle than the umbra line, and so we treat the situation as the moon-grazing line catching up to the umbra line. The moon-grazing lines needs to move 3,960 miles laterally before it catches up to, or meets, the umbra line.

For example, if the moon-grazing line moves left 24 feet for every mile toward the sun, while the umbra line moves 23 feet left for every mile toward the sun, the moon-grazing line would catch up to the umbra line by 1 foot for every mile toward the sun. The math would then be: 3960 miles / 1 foot = solar distance. Are you not impressed that there is a way to calculate solar distance this easily today? Why is this method not being celebrated in all school textbooks? Because, the astronomers who control astronomy are hiding their 93-million-mile lie from us.

To find exactly how far a moon-grazing line moves toward an umbra line, for any lunar eclipse whatsoever, you need two more triangles, no more, I promise. Just two more triangles, both of them having a height of one mile. You therefore enter, 1, in box, b, of the right-angle-triangle calculator, for both triangles. We also need two more zero-degree lines, just two more, I promise.

The first of the two zero-degree lines is from the core of the earth along the main zero-degree line. It goes one mile into the sky, then turns 90 degrees toward the left of the page and ends at the moon-grazing line. This little jog leftward is the base of the triangle, but you do not know that distance, and it's critical. You can find it by entering the angle of the moon-grazing line in the alpha box along with 1 in the box, b, and make sure to clear all other boxes even of decimal points. Hit the calculate button, and write down the distance that it gives you. It will always be smaller that .005 miles, and will always be in the ballpark of .0045 miles.

For the second zero-degree line, we lake a mile-long line starting where the moon kisses the umbra. The line goes one mile toward the sun, then takes a leftward jog at 90 degrees to form the base of the triangle by meeting the umbra line that's already on your page. These lines are so small you cannot draw them, you just imagine them. You clear the calculator, put 1 in box, b, and then put the angle of the umbra line, which you found earlier, into the alpha box. Hit Calculate to find the distance (on the alpha line) that the umbra line moves leftward. If I recall correctly, this distance is always in the ballpark of .0044 miles. The distances we are dealing with are in the ballpark of 25 feet.

Last math: take the distance in miles of the base of the umbra triangle, and subtract it from the distance of the base of the moon-grazing triangle, and the divide 3,960 miles by the difference. That is, do:

3960 / (triangle base - triangle base) = solar distance

That's the same as saying, 3960 divided by the miles of catch-up between the moon-grazing line to the umbra line.

You can find my latest work on this at the webpage below, which will offer NASA's eclipse pages:
file:///C:/Users/Me/Documents/atribPartial/update22Jul2.htm

Here's is an example of my math method at the page above:

Eclipse of 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

http://www.tribwatch.com/up/update22Jul2.htm

The math in the round brackets above shows only how a number was found that appears earlier on the line. The main nuggets are the radian figures, .0044417 and .0046521, which together find the big treasure, .0002104. The radian figures can be obtained by the triangle calculator, if you wish to check my/your math. The result of nearly 19-million miles for the solar distance could be too large if true that the earth's atmosphere bends light around the planet, in which case the umbra becomes smaller than it would otherwise be, which, when corrected, makes the solar distance work out to less than the 18.82 million. To prove it to yourself, just redo all the math above with a slightly-larger umbra diameter than 5,697 miles.

My update above also has this:

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

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

It took a lot of work for me to accomplish that task, but did NOT see where I was going wrong in the math or methods. If I had seen something wrong, I wouldn't have uploaded the material. The update shows the math for every one of those results.

At NASA's lunar eclipse pages, the diameters of the moon and sun are shown at the lines reading "S.D.", which stands for "semi-diameter." It could appear that NASA is trying to hide the diameters with a little SD fuzziness rather than just saying "radius" or "diameter." One needs to find an online converter to convert the given semi-diameters to degrees.

News

If anyone has tinnitus, this video (not asking for money) might help. It didn't tone down my tinnitus after I tried it a few times. Still, I've only tried this for one session, so I'm going to repeat it daily, see if it works. My tinnitus became twice as loud a couple of months ago, otherwise it was easily tolerable prior to that. Now I'm getting worried because if it were to get even louder, I think I'd go nuts.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3MDO8KB3zjk

Late this week, the Brazilian military took a step toward over-turning the election for the anti-globalist nationalists. This looks like a happy ending.

Look at how the fascist American government turned all the good guys into mice with the help of Trump who told his supporters to "go home" on January 6, very unlike the Brazilian situation:
https://rumble.com/v1uvzzc-fbi-director-chris-wray-gets-trapped-and-proves-jan-6th-was-a-set-up.html

If you've got money in Tether, here's a show suggesting that it could be a larger laundering scam than FTX, and that it may be linked to the U.S. military / CIA:
https://www.revolver.news/2022/11/darren-beattie-blows-the-lid-sbfs-ftx-bigger-than-soros-extremely-dark-money-laundering-operation-within-clinton-underworld-democrat-machine/

For more on Tether, see:

The [Tether] story you’re about to hear concerns the third-largest crypto-currency on the planet, which you’ve probably never heard of. It is a story of how a former Disney child-actor — a Jeffrey Epstein associate who was embroiled in an under-age sex scandal — bizarrely emerged as one of the world’s strangest crypto-currency moguls.

...Earlier this year, Protos shed light on that mystery by reporting that just two companies, Alameda Research and Cumberland Global, were responsible for seeping roughly two-thirds of all Tether into the crypto ecosystem.

Did that last sentence set off any alarm bells? It should have. Alameda Research is the quantitative trading firm founded by Sam Bankman-Fried. Bankman-Fried and his partner in crime, Alameda CEO Caroline Ellison, allegedly propped up their trading firm by plundering FTX customer accounts.

...Pretty wild, huh? The al-Qaeda affiliated Sunni rebel groups of Syria also just so happen to love Tether.

https://www.revolver.news/2022/11/sam-bankman-fried-ftx-on-steroids-is-cryptocurrency-tether-joe-biden-crypto-bcci/

The fear is that Tether has no cash to repay anyone who wants to cash-in their tethers, same problem as has FTX. Bankman-Fried's FTX is based in Hong Kong, and: "Tether Limited is owned by the Hong Kong-based company iFinex Inc., which also owns the Bitfinex cryptocurrency exchange." When the gangsters rule globalist entities, massive money-robbing schemes will be employed, and protected by the globalist military who get a big piece of the robbery pie. This pie looks like it's going to evolve into the Armageddon cake thrown into the face of the American military. "Tether demand skyrocketed in Ukraine right after the Russian military operation began in February of this year. Ukrainian charities made appeals for Tether-based donations."

Prophecy depicts Armageddon as the grapes of God's wrath, and grapes are used by Tether-like Teeters/Deeters, first found in Pomerania with same-colored Trumps. The latter were first found in Mecklenburg too, with same-colored Dols, and the Alans of Dol lived in Shropshire, where Wrath's/Rothes' were once said to be first found. Dols share the Ditter/Dittel fesse.

Wow, a REAL-REAL-REAL and new cancer cure from a berry, this is no guff:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/lnJYwdT5RqHV/

This cure looks dirt cheap, and we are about to see whether the medical establishment in the West will pooh-pooh on this, to be expected if the West wants people to die of cancer. The West may sweep this study under the carpet. In my opinion, this drug should be offered to ANYBODY in the world who wishes to risk it, RIGHT TODAY, no waiting until someone else declares that is it safe. The best way to do a study is to let people risk it who freely wish to risk it, and as it involves only a berry, what's the big risk?

This short video is hard to substantiate. The claim is that there is foreign matter in tuna, and the Tuna surname happens to be listed with Tunnels while spider-like Spitzers use a "tunnel" in their hills. I didn't trust sausage, so I started to put tuna on my pizza, twice weekly. Now what? The title of this video may not be appropriate:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/fHFESK0YMQIE/

The global population of cows is about one billion. If each cow emits even as much as 10 cubic feet of digestive gases daily, or 3,650 cubic feet annually, that's roughly 100 cubic meters annually for a total of 100 billion cubic meters that annually go into 4 billion cubic kilometers of air. Does that look like just cause for emergency measures by the thick-skulled blockheads who want to run our world? How much of cow flatulence is something other than CO2? "A typical fart is composed of about 59 percent nitrogen [not toxic], 21 percent hydrogen, 9 percent carbon dioxide, 7 percent methane... The globalists are laughing at people who think their flatulence emergency is an emergency. And to laugh even harder at people, they throw in cow burps too to make things look really scary.

There are many more animals on earth besides cows, but the planet is able to handle stomach gases, have no fear. Fat cats are demons playing deceptive games with us to funnel more of our money unto themselves. There is no greenhouse effect from CO2 because the percentage of CO2 in the air is woefully small. If the totality could be doubled by fossil fuels, and it can't, it wouldn't be enough to change anything, not enough to create a greenhouse "canopy." It's a deception, and so the massive stink is from them. It's time to euthanize the useless eaters, the globalists...let the cows live. Cows don't tax us to death, but globalists take, take and take, and are too blockheaded to realize why we despise them.

Global warming was devised partly to plot the reduction of bodies in the world, both animal and human, which is why both are blamed for global warming. Fat-cat globalists think they own the planet, and they view common people as the filth of their planet. It makes them happy to see massive deaths from vaccinations. This is their holy cow. There's are many people from all walks who know or suspect that population control is on-going, and they hush up because they agree with it, to some degree, hoping that they won't be targeted, hoping that the world will be better after many are wiped out. But how can the world become better when the survivors had mainly been pro-murder? How can there be a decent society with such types?

There has probably been a decades-long, sub-conscious shift in the hearts of pro-abortionists because they have so come to hate the phrase, "pro-life," that they have actually become open-to-death beyond the abortion controversy. The same who advanced abortion as a population-control measure are the ones who want to see population control -- murder -- beyond the fetus. My thinking is that these types of people are now, in the main, the ones dying and becoming irreparably sick from vaccination complications because they have become deaf to the pro-life side, deaf to the warnings, and too foolish to conceive, let alone apply themselves to, the Order of God. When you've known that you've seen the "Light" of God, that's the Order of God. True Order, not a calling to a fake order that is chaos throughout. As we can see, the more the globalists of the new world order get a grip on things, the more chaos in the world...the prophesied lawlessness.

Here's a documentary, "Died Suddenly," out this week that will depress all of us, but is a must-see if you are continuing vaccinations to keep your job. We've got to tolerate the moronic goon who used some sensationalism and too much background music for this "movie":
https://www.bitchute.com/video/IScFaSngM5OW/

Just to fill you in on a fake-news tactic that involves paste jobs (imagine how many news stories are fueled by fake photos / videos):
https://www.bitchute.com/video/vYgN1ID60iAp/

And speaking of fakes, justin trudeau, who's a snake in the grass pretending to be for the people, has acquired censorship powers, and he has claimed that he will clamp down on Internet comments that attack others. Achem, but isn't that an attack on those who attack others? Yes, and a much bigger attack. It just so happens that anyone who attacks trudeau as a murderer is in the right to do so, and cannot be silenced but to protect the guilty. Yes, I attack trudeau because he is a murderer, let him take me to court if he wants me to shut-up about it, but he should not have the power to remove my comments about him from Internet sight. It is clear as day that vaccines are killing many, but to this day he continues to push vaccines needlessly, trying to masquerade as a caring, good-guy saving people from a "COVID" virus that is now nothing but the common flu. The only thing I've got to prove in a court is that, for every person dying of a virus, more than two are killed by his vaccines, and far more than two are permanently injured by them whereas a virus comes and goes, leaving no injuries, in a period of mere days. TRUDEAU KILLER DEMON, shout it from the housetops. It's me who cares for you. Don't receive trudeau's vaccines.

It is the right thing to do to attack with words those who promote deep wickedness. It is the right thing to do to censor the wicked. God will shut the wicked mouth, using their own words against them. How I wish that Day were already here. But first, the wicked must condemn themselves with their own words, with their own actions.

I've just read of a doctor being confined to an insane asylum for rejecting the pro-vaccine storyline. This is what liberals wish to do to us. If you are ever threatened by a court or employer, the video below could help you; store all such videos so that you can appeal to them:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/qVo4QitoT9ma/

Here's partly why trudeau loves Chinese communism:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/sJXPRqcaWoWG/

As you can see, the ugly frog, Klaus Schwab, is out doing public relations for his communist program. What a loser this man is, what a total goon. His voice and mannerisms make him look like a nerve. Only trudeau could fall in love with a nerve, which is why trudeau is himself a walking nerve. If even students of Ottawa don't want masks this winter, then even the most-liberal people, the youth, have heard that the vaccine push is a farce:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/XhM5BR2M2KRm/

Here's the trudeau truth, the HATEFUL trudeau, the canadian pig, the communist pig, the phony piece of trash whose ruining his own country, killing his own people, knowing full well that people have been dying for unheard-of "unknown causes" every since the vaccine roll-out:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/slg5q5dxqnAv/

In a court of law with a proper judge, a leader of a country who knows that people are dying of mysterious causes apart from prior illnesses, starting at the same time as the vaccine roll-out, is guilty if he doesn't cease vaccinations. It is incumbent upon him to cease vaccinations if he does not know whether or not the vaccines are the causes of the unknown deaths and illnesses. It is not necessary to prove FIRST that the vaccines are the cause; it is enough to make him guilty if the vaccines COULD be the cause, especially when he knows from the medical reports that the vaccines are not vital for keeping the general population healthy.

Here's another way that Democrats have cheated in a count:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/fS8BKEmEFbh2/