I've mentioned several times before the omen-like "omnia" motto term of Dons because they have the double fesses of Nissans, in colors reversed, while I was sleeping in the back of my Nissan pick-up during the mugging attempt (unsuccessful). I now find that while Marrazzo is about to replace Fauci, Morassa's/Morazzi's share the double fesses of Dons. I'm therefore prepared to delve deeper into this heraldic set. Morassa's/Morazzi's are listed with the surname I'm familiar with whom I always call the Morinis'.
Actually, I have seen something absolutely amazing that I did not see when embarking on this section. For this, we start with the Deering write-up: "The surname Deering was first found in Kent where the family claim descendancy from 'Norman de MORINIS, whose ancestor, Vitalis FitzOSBERT, lived in the reign of Henry II. Norman de Morinis married the daughter of Deringus,...'" Osberts (Kent with Deerings) have the motto, "Pax in BELLO," staggering because Bellys, first found in Moray, share the eight-pointed star of Ducs/LeDucs!!!!! It's staggering because Bellys share the Moor head of Morano's, first found in Modena with Morazzi's/Morinis'!!!! Can we believe it?
As I've said many times recently, the Duc/LeDuc Coat, if it used five-pointed stars instead, would have an exact copy of the Moray Coat, tending to nail Morays with the Morazzi/Morinis surname.
New: as I've said many times, the omen was a tiny cloud completely covering the sun in an otherwise blue Texas sky. When seeing the "tenebris" motto term of Irish Morins, I tried to remember who else had that motto term, and finally found it with the English Lease's using a cloud partially over the sun!!!! Zikers, it appears that the omen is indeed pointing to Ms. Marrazzo.
The Lucents/Luca's in the Morin motto ("Lucent en tenebris") have more hexagrams, now in Duc/LeDuc star colors, and the in the colors and format of the Bris'/Brests expected in "teneBRIS." Plus, Brise's, sharing the Duck star, were first found in Moray! There could be the Lease sun behind the eight-pointed Lucent/Luca star. The Luce's have fish in the colors of the Roach fish, and the Smoke's/Rauch's, pointed to along with Roach's on the day of the Galveston mugging, almost have the upper half of the Lucent/Luca Coat.
Irish Marins share the hexagrams of German Suters/Sauts while Hicks are said to have included "Hikke de SAUTEby." English Sauts/Salts were first found in Staffordshire with Hicksons, and Hicks-branch Hooks have fleur-de-lys colors reversed from the one of Morazzi's/Morinis'. I've just realized that the latter's Chief has a gold Chief version of the Lease-like Leaks/Leakeys!
Italian Lucca's share the cat with Galveston-like Galways while Teague's/Teegers were first found in Galway. It's amazing that Luce's were first found in Norfolk with the Hake's whose fish are colors reversed from the Luce fish. Plus, on my new Texas property, Luce Construction installed the sewer system while Scottish Sewers (pointer to Obama) are listed with Suters!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Irish Marins share the hexagrams of German Suters/Sauts while Hicks are said to have included "Hikke de SAUTEby."
Plus, the tiger in the Osbert Crest can take us to German Teegers, not only first found in the general area (Holstein) of the first-known / early Nissans, but they (German Teegers) have a giant eight-pointed star half in the colors of the same of Ducs/LeDucs, and in both colors of the Nissan star. Tigers were first found in Suffolk with Omens! We got here from the relationship between Osborns and the Morinis' who in turn list Morasso's/Morazzi's.
On top of those things, the Galveston mugging was so frightening for me that I decided that same day to seek property in southern Texas instead of Mexico as planned. I ended up buying a tract from Mrs. Teague just seven months later (sewer system was the first, or near-first, thing installed). Teague's list "Teeger" too, and while they were first found in Galway, Galways share the bridge with English Duckers/Dockers. The latter are excellent here for having the Sempers/St. PEERs in their motto who share the Coat of Duce's/Duceys, both using lions in the colors of the lion heads of English Ducks, the latter first found in Somerset with Bridge's in the Ducker/Docker Crest.
English Ducks are fantastic here for sharing the stars of Prets (Staffordshire with Duce's/Duceys and Docks) in the Moray motto. The Pret lion is even colors reversed from the Semper / Duce lions. The Docks share the lion of Jeans!!! Morays have a "Tout pret" motto while Touts are in the motto of Hicks' while Miss Hicks was in the Sleeping Beauty dream (pointed to COVID scheme) where I only had on my JEANs.
Suddenly, the jeans-only scene (as I was walking toward Sleeping Beauty) can be a pointer to Jeane Marrazzo. The scene showed me without a shirt while the Hake's, once listing "Hykes', are in Shirt colors and format while Shirts (Cheshire with Dons) share the peacock in Crest with Don- and Omen-connectable Manners/Maness'.
The Brise's we saw off the motto of Lease's (who in turn have my cloud-over-sun omen) were an obvious branch of Bruce's sharing the GALLOWAY / Jean lion. The Bruce-branch Brush's were first found in Suffolk with Tigers. Teague's/Teegers, first found in GALWAY, have a "diem" motto term while Diems/DITTmayers were first found in Schleswig-Holstein with German Teegers. And then Ditts (Staffordshire with Hicksons) have a stripe-less tiger in Hickson colors. It not only verifies that Teegers were a Tiger branch, but it keeps Sleeping Beauty in the heraldic picture.
Hake's have three fish colors reversed from the Galvey/Galvin fish. Not only is "Galvey" a potential branch of Galvestons, but Galvin-like Calvins and Calwins were first found in Devon with Hykes'/Hacks! If that's not enough, Calvins show exactly the Hicks Crest minus the Hicks chaplet. Calvins and Calwins share the motto of Fauci-branch Face's! Fauch's, first found in Savoy with Maness-like Manets and Manner-connectable French Masseys, share the thistle (different color) with Mens-loving Crystals.
The giant Calwin moline is shared by Vallans while Valiants (Yorkshire with Hicks', Crystals and Crystal-beloved Calvarys) use a Sarasin-connectable shark while French Sarasins, first found in Brittany with Ducs/LeDucs, have the Calwin moline in colors reversed. Therefore, it appears that God is informing us that Galvestons were a Calwin / Calvin / Calvary branch. Calvarys use the owls, as do Teeger-like Teggarts, and Owls/Howls were first found in Suffolk with Tigers.
New: Calvarys were first found in Yorkshire with the Pings/Pongs/Pagans who in turn have the bends of Italian Calvis'/Calveri's in colors reversed. The latter were first found in Milan with triple-bend Gallia's and the related Maurels/MAURINO's; the latter not only share the Morazzi/Morinis fesse, but the eight-pointed star of German Teegers, and it's a gold one like the one in the Lucent/Luca Crest.
Calvis'/Calveri's have a man with bald head while Balds were a branch of Bauds (Stirlingshire with Deering-like Daro's) while Maurels/Maurino's have a version of the English Bute/Butt Coat. German Balds were first found in Baden with the Groce's/Greggs who in turn have the Diem/Dittmayer Coat in colors reversed.
Scottish Saracens/Sarasins were first found in Cumberland with Duckers/Dockers. Crystal-like Christs are in the format of, and colors reversed from, Decks/Daggers who in turn share the red squirrel with Square's/Squirrels, the latter first found in Worcestershire with English Jeans, useful because Jeans share the lion of Docker-like Docks and the scallop of Dagger-connectable Sabine's. The Tiens' in the Square/Squirrel motto might be in the "tenebris" motto of Lease's and Morins.
May we ask why Hicks' were first found in Yorkshire with Marrazzo-like Marrs' (possible cat in Crest). Ahh, I've just found new-to-me Marnys/Marners sharing the Coat of Morinis-branch Marano's, and their giant lion is in the colors of the two Marrs lions!! It recalls that Marine-branch Marines'/Maryners were first found in Kent with Morazzi-related Deerings! Marone's are in the colors and format of French Mars/More's.
Scottish Marrs' The latter were first found in Yorkshire's DONcaster while Doncasters show a giant red tower, the color of the Murena/Moreno tower. The latter's is in colors reversed from the similar castle (has towers) of GALVES'/Gallego's, the latter first found in Spain with Murena's/Moreno's. Spanish Murs use FIVE arrows while Arrows/ARRAS' share the red tower too, and can be traced to Cilnius Maecenas of AREZZO, husband of Terentia Murena. Arrows/Arras' were first found in Staffordshire with Hicksons, and with Duce's/Duceys looking linkable (by their Coat) to the Marrs' above. It just so happens that the Hickson eagle legs are in the colors of the Murena/Moreno eagles!!! Incredible. The brother of Terentia Murena conquered the Salassi near Sion while Sions/Swans can be expected in the FIVE swans (Hicksons colors) of Hicks-beloved Chaplets. Dons, sharing the Morinis' fesses, use more arrows.
AHHHH WOWZERS: the OsBORN-connectable Borns/Bourne's have the Doncaster tower exactly, and Borns/Bourne's use a "HAEC OMNIA" motto phrase!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It convinces me further that the omen involves Sleeping Beauty. Haeks are also Hacke's/Hecks while Hex's/Hecks share the Nissan stag head, perfect because the double fesses of Borns/Bourne's are colors reversed from the same of Dons and therefore in the colors of the double Nissan fesses. Dons share "omnia" with Borns/Bourne's!!! STAGGERING. One can already sense that Osborns were a Born line.
Plus, unbelievable: Borns/Bourne's were first found in Lincolnshire with Leaks/Leakeys who in turn share the Hicks fleur-de-lys, and moreover the Leak/Leakey Chief is in the colors of the Born/Bourne Chief. Plus, Borns/Bourne's have a "TRANSeunt" motto term while Trans' are listed with Terent-like Trents! Borns/Bourne's share the winged horse in Crest (in a different color) with Bernice's/Burnes', and the latter share "vincit" with the Galway motto. Trans-like Trains are in Murena/Moreno colors.
DonCASTers could have been a Don-Cast merger because casts are listed with Cass' while Casano's/Cassandra's were first found in Modena with Morazzi's/Morinis'! Beauty. Casano-branch Casino's/Case's share the same fesse as Bernice's/Burnes! Casino's/Case's have the three fesses of Change's/Changers, and the latter were first found in Hampshire (= Southamtonshire) with Chase's/Chace's, Cassane's/Cassandra's, and Marine's/Marins. Chase-branch Chance's were first found in Essex with Marneys/Marners.
Chase's/Chace's and Chance's can have the cross of Face's, first found in Northamptonshire with BRAYs/Brae's who probably named MOWbrays sharing the Marnys/Marner / Marano lion, which I know to be the Montfort lion while Monforte is a location beside BRA (Piedmont with Donna's). Mows/Mole's share the boar of Marone's. Mowbrays may have a cat in Crest. The disgusting DONNA LEASE Brazile, in her Wikipedia article, is said to descend from BRASwells. The latter almost have the two Don fesses.
I had the omen about two hours after crossing the Louisiana-Texas border, and Donna Lease Brazile is from Louisiana. Why might this be pointing at her with the omen, since the Lease's show roughly what the omen looked like? By what coincidence do French, Louisiana-like Louis' (share Brick lozenges) almost have the Coat of Bris' expected in the "tenebris" motto term of Lease's? Brazile headed the DNC for a time, and so perhaps this is a pointer more generally to the Democrat party, a globalist intruder.
The double fesses of Borns/Bourne's are wavy, identical to the two wavy fesses of Hone's, the latter first found in Hampshire with the Poppins/Pophams who in turn share the brown stag head in Crest with Omen-connectable Dons. Poppins/Pophams (Keith kin) have a "Mens" motto term to go with "Omen." The Poppin/Popham Chief even has stag heads in the colors of the ones of Osborn-related Deerings! The latter's Morinis kin are suspect with Morays while Hone-like, LeDuc-connectable One's were first found in Moray.
Poppins/Pophams were at Basingstoke (Hampshire with Basingstoke's) while Basingstoke's have eagles in the colors of the Hickson eagle legs, and in the colors of the eagle of Dutch Tromps. The latter can be linked to Don-like Downs/Douns. Hicks' were first found in Yorkshire with the Anne's/Hanne's sharing the Poppin/Popham stags heads while Hone-like Hanna's, first found in Galway-connectable Galloway, have the Trump stag head in colors reversed.
The Galway location of Teague's is related to the Galloways who in turn share the Jean lion. Just look at that, a Galveston-like surname sharing the Jean lion, prompting me/us to take seriously a pointer to LeDuc and Marrazzo together. But why? Why might this Jean / Galloway lion be in the colors of the stag heads of Galloway's Hanna's? Is this a pointer to Trump together with Marrazzo? Not only are the Hanna stag heads those of Trumps in colors reversed, but Trumps were first found in Mecklenburg with the Hahns in Trump colors and format.
The omen took place as I was pointing a camera to it while DRIVing, and so the Camera's/Camerons may apply here who have the triple fesses of Trump-connectable Drummonds in colors reversed. The Cheile's in the Camera/Cameron motto can be of the trumpet-using Calles'. That works, especially as Cheile-branch Keele's/Kills share the Drive quadrants. Cheile's and Chelles' are the ones with a leg while Leggs almost have the Trump Coat. I was on the ROAD at the time while Rhodes' essentially share the Camville Crest. Roets love the Bows/Bough's who in turn share five bunched arrows in Crest with Camera's/Camerons. A Cameron location near Roslin can work here because the omen involved the sun while Suns are listed with Roslin's Sinclairs.
There was a BIKER on a ROAD in the sleeping-bag dream who pointed to Moderna and AIDS, and here we can add that Biks/Bikers have stag heads in the colors of the Deering stag heads. This dream thus points to Marrazzo too.
The Omens (Suffolk with Sinclair-branch Clare's) can be linked to the Figgs, first found in Cambridgeshire with the CAM river. My omen pointed to the Coat of English Lease's while Scottish Lease's (Clare kin), first found in Dumfries with Leggs, are also Lise's while English Lise's/Liss', first found in Hampshire with Drive's, share the Cam Coat! Believe it or not.
Hanna's were first found more-specifically in Wigton while Wiggons share the Coat, almost, of Annas', and then stag heads are used by Anne's/Hanne's. Even Hands/Hans' (Cheshire with Dons) have a brown stag to go with the brown stag head of Dons. And Hahn-branch Hanns' are in the colors and format of the Tromp eagle. These Hanns' even share the rooster of German Gallus'/Galluska's, perhaps a branch of the Gallego's (GALICia) who come up as "Galves." Rooster-using French Galli's/GALLIX's can apply to Galves'/Gallego's, and Italian Gallus' are Gallego's too.
As Wiggons share the Crest of Scottish Johnsons who are in turn using a version of the Kilpatrick Coat while Miss Hicks is Mrs. Kilpatrick, and especially because she had a leg symbol while Trump-connectable Leggs were first found in Dumfries with Kilpatricks and Scottish Johnsons, I feel compelled to point this discussion to Johnson & Johnson vaccines. There is a strong pointer here of Sleeping Beauty to Johnson & Johnson, a company also called, Janssen, and German Janssens (Holstein with Teague's/Teegers) even share the Coat of Nessans/Ness' while Nissans have: "This ancient family is also connected to several place names in the Holstein region". Can we believe it? I first saw Sleeping Beauty at church, and I went to that church because Mrs. Teague, who sold me her property, attended that church...on the Leakey road out of Camp Wood.
English Janssens look like they use a brown DEER (no antlers), and may even have a version of the Osborn Coat since Osborns were Deering kin. Osborns are the ones with the tiger while German Teegers were first found in Holstein with German Janssens!!! ZOWIE, that just cascaded right in front of me by total surprise, but let's add that a "deer" is used by English Mallets, first found in Suffolk with Tigers. The quadrants of English Janssens are in colors reversed with Motleys, a branch of tiger-using Medleys.
Motleys are suspect with the Motels who were pointed to on the day of the Galveston mugging, when I bought the coffee with the newspaper in VICTORIA, Texas. The Crest of Victoria-loving Coffee's/Coffers shares the naked rider on a dolphin (different color) with the Arms of Taranto (Terentia-like), and Motels were first found in Taranto. Medleys were first found in Somerset with Tarrs/TARAS' (and English Coffers) while the rider on the dolphin in the Arms of Taranto is mythical Taras. Somerset is even where Trans'/TRENTs were first found.
Behold. Repeat: "Trans-like Trains are in Murena/Moreno colors." Trains share a giant and red lion with Galves'/Gallego's whose castle in turn is colors reversed from the Murena/Moreno tower. The Trains are said to have been related with Baliols, a branch of Bailys (share Moray stars) who share the brown boar head with Innis'/One's, the latter not only first found in Moray with Bellys, but suspect in the Wuhan-like "ohne" motto term of Handels who in turn share the Moray Coat, virtually the Duc/LeDuc Coat. And Bellys not only share the Duc/LeDuc star, but the roses of Motel-branch Mota's!!! They are also the stars of Jumps sharing the Trump stag head, as well as of the Paisleys (same place as Orrs/Ore's). Paisleys are from the Pasi's/Pascels whose spears look related to the spear tip of Werps, the latter suspect as a pointer to Trumps "Warp Speed" vaccine roll-out. The Speeds (Suffolk) share the Chief-Shield colors of Johnson-connectable Wiggons.
FEATHERs (Northumberland with Trains, Baliols and Baileys) list Fathers while Trump dubbed himself "father of the vaccines." Feathers/Fathers have a motto very linkable to branches of Ducker-related Valence's. Werps share five, black FEATHERs with German Walls while English Walls are said to have named Wales in TICKhill. It works because Ticks were once said to be first found in Kent with Masters who in turn have a version of the English Wall Coat. Ticks and Masters are now both said to be first found in Yorkshire with Tickhill, and Trump-connectable Anne's/Hanne's just happen to have been first found in Tickhill.
Kent is not only where Valence's were first found, but the Morinis-related Deerings while Morazzi's/Morinis share the fleur-de-lys of English Walls. The latter were first found in Gloucestershire with Grave's/Greafs who in turn share the eagle of Lutons, the latter first found in Bedfordshire with Deers.
Masters, with Greaf-like griffins, share a white-Crest item in a mural crown with English Walls. The latter were first found in Gloucestershire with Holders (Wall and Master colors and format) having griffins in the colors of the Master griffin heads. The Master Coat is much like the one of English Walls whose white Crest item is the white wolf head of Scarfs (Yorkshire with Masters), perfect because the scarf lady, Deborah Birx, was secretly a military agent when she danced on stage nightly with Fauci to the dastardly tunes of Trump's Werp-Speed music.
English Walls share the fleur-de-lys of Morazzi's/Morinis' while Wall-connectable Holders use a dancette in the colors of Italian Dance's having a Donna variation suspect in the "dona" motto term of Dons who in turn share the double fesses of Morazzi's/Morinis'. Dannys/Dance's share the gold griffin with Holders. If Americans ever need to escape to Mexico as globalists devise their destruction, Trump's wall will be in the way for many.
DONald Trump was the bulldog in the Sleeping Beauty dream. His head was swallowed by the shark in the KIDNEY-shaped pool, perhaps God's way of evoking the anti-Christ having one head that seemed to have a fatal wound, yet was healed so that everyone worshiped him. Jeane Marrazzo worked with Remdesivir, a military-invented drug said to destroy kidneys. Trump gave in to the military's directorship over the lockdowns and vaccine roll-out. The Kidneys/Gedneys were first found in Lincolnshire with Borns/Bourne's. share the Chief-Shield colors of shark-using Valiants. Hackets have fish in the colors of the GED fish.
Lookie: Hackets were first found in Kilkenny while Brown-related Kennys, first found in Galway, not only share the Morazzi/Morinis fleur-de-lys, but have the split Shield of Dutch Tromps and Fauci's. The "luceat" motto term of Kennys can be for the Luce's sharing pike fish with Geds and Geddes'. It then gets amazing because the Kenny fleur-de-lys is shared by French Maurels/Morels (Brittany with Shark-line Sarasins and Ducs/LeDucs) who in turn share the Tromp acorns!!! How can we deny a pointer to Trump the "father of the vaccines" here?
I didn't realize until re-loading the other Irish Kennys (Galway) that they share the motto of Galways! This looks like a pointer to Galveston. Put up yer dukes, LeDuc, God's pickin a fight witchya.
Six-pointed stars are HEXagrams, and it just so happens that the Hex's/Hecks, first found at least near the first-known Dutch Nessans/Ness' (not "Nissan"), share the brown-on-white stag head of hexagram-using Nissans. It ought to be called a "buck's" head because Hicks' use one, and here we can add that German Bucks (Brandenburg with German Fulks), sharing the Galves/Gallego lion, probably have black eagle wings in Crest, the color of the Hickson eagle legs. The latter's are in both colors of the eagle wings of German Fulks, and of the eagle of Italian Fulks (FLOREnce), while English Fulke's were first found in Norfolk with English Bucks. FLORE's share the Hicks and Hook fleur-de-lys.
Brandenburg is also where Bruens were first found who were close to Dons, according to the Don write-up. The Bruen bear heads make them look like kin of Aids/Ade's because the latter were first found in bear-depicted Berwickshire. Swiss Berns/Bernes' have a Coat similar to the Bruen Coat, only Berns/Bernes' use their bend in gold and therefore in both colors of the Nissan bend.
Not only are Dons highly suspect with the Nissan fesses, but both use brown stag heads, the one of Don's being in the design used for the Hicks buck head. One should keep in mind that, if Trump is the next president, he could do some slimy COVID dancing with Marrazzo. The Don-like Downs/Douns are highly suspect with the Trump stag head (not sure what it's called officially), and the Don fesses are in the colors of the Trump stag head while Donald Trump is said to descend from Drumpfs. Dons, thanks to Nissans, can be linked to Drummonds (Trump colors). Does my omen point also to Trump? We can't trust what he's going to do, for he does whatever is convenient for the moment, and he's easily swayed by threats from others. He doesn't want to be ruined, and so he bends to the threats.
French Lance's, possibly in the lances of DERE's/Res', were first found in Maine with the French Josephs once showing a giant form of the Chaplet swan. Hicks' use a chaplet. Spanish Dero's/Ros' have a giant eagle in the colors of the Hickson eagle legs, and while the Dero/Ros eagle is shared by German Belows, English Belows (Yorkshire with Hicks') share a "Tout" motto term with Hicks'. The Hicks chaplet is around the neck of their Buck head, and the Deerings might just be using the Hicks buck head. Hake's, once listing "Hykes," were first found in Norfolk with English Bucks.
Now that we have a Deering pointer to Jeane Marrazzo, the motto of Daro's can apply, "BE watchful," which is the message of Jesus for those who need to watch for the run-up to the 666 (or hex-hex-hex) system. BEE's, first found in Oxfordshire with Omen-connectable Purys, suspect in turn in the Manner/Maness motto, share the quadrants of German Manners. Bee's moreover incorporate the Coat of Salassi-like Sales' (Cheshire with Dons).
The day of the mugging, an hour or two after a pointer to a Mr. Maness of the Bay-City area, I bought a newspaper that pointed hard to the News'/NUCES', because I would soon buy Texas property directly on the NUECES river, 10 minutes from Mrs. Hicks whom I did not know at the time, and she was on direct-Nueces riverfront too. News'/Nuces', sharing the "chaplet" with Hicks', were first found in Cambridgeshire with the Bridge-beloved Crabs/CRAILs. Crail is a location in Fife, where Scottish Nessans/Ness' were first found.
Balcons, first found at Crail in Fife, share the bend-with-roses of Chatans, the latter first found in Poitou with the Sabina's/Savards, apparently relevant to the pointers because English Sabine's share the scallop of English JEANs. Galway-beloved Bridge's were first found in Somerset with the Saffins who once came up when entering "Sabina." Chatans were a branch of cat-using Clan Chattan, and Galways have a cat in Crest as well as a two-word motto that's the one of cat-line Keiths in reverse.
Late on the day of the mugging, I arrived to CRYSTAL City (looking at property to buy), where I stayed the night in a cockroach-infested motel that pointed very hard to Rockefellers and Rothschilds via the Roach's. The latter show only three fish, as do the Galveys/Galvins in different positioning. I think that's verification that God set up the cockroaches, and it's telling me that it's correct to point to the GALVESton National Lab, especially as the cross type of Galways' (Keith kin) is in both colors of the same cross type in the Crystal Coat. The "Mens" motto term of Crystals reminds that Mens' (beside Keiths) were a Manner branch.
I'm going to add here that the Purys, suspect in the motto of Manners/Maness', were first found in Oxfordshire with Pury-like Peare's. The following is amazing but not new: Purys almost have the OMEN Coat exactly, and Manners/Maness', who were pointed to on the day of the mugging, not only share double-blue bends with Nissans, but have a "Pour y PARvenir" motto that tends to expose their kinship with Parrs because they have the double Nissan fesses in both colors. It's the Dons with an Omen-like "omnia" motto term who have the Nissan / Parr fesses in colors reversed.
This connection to Peare's can explain why God did not provide the Nissans with the Duc/LeDuc star if He really wanted to make a super pointer of the mugging to James LeDuc. I can argue that he instead provided the Nissans with the hexagram of Pero's/Perino's due to the BELLY-press event with Miss Peare (I've mentioned a million times), an old friend of mine in my teens.
Pero's/PERINO's are awesome because Perrins were first found in Northumberland with Manners/Maness', but there is more because PEARtree's/Patria's, sharing the Jean scallop and Trump stag head, were first found in KinCARDINEshire while Cardine's, first found in Cheshire with Nissel-like Nickle's and Dons, share the Nickle pheon!!! Nissans are also Nissels, and Nessans are also Nessels! There's yet another reason to point the omen to Jeane Marrazzo's future COVID / vaccine programs.
Peartree's/Patria's have a Coat looking related to the one of Romneys, first found in Kent with Deerings, and then Spanish Romans share the Morazzi/Morinis fleur-de-lys.
It's important that the two Nissan fesses are in the colors of the five fesses of German Ducks/Duckers. However, the six-pointed stars that Nissans place on their two fesses are only half in the colors of the eight-pointed stars of Ducs/LEDUC's. Again, if God wanted to make a super pointer of my mugging to James LeDuc, why didn't He give the Nissans the LeDuc star along with what could be the Duck/Ducker fesses? One possible answer to that question is that he wants me to include a certain surname into the mugging event sharing the Nissan stars exactly. And that's where the Pero's/Perino's come in, first found in Piedmont with the Italian Dance's/DONNA's who can thus be expected in the "dona" motto term of Dons! See? Dons are the ones with the two Nissan fesses in colors reversed.
The Dance's/Donna's show nothing but four pale bars in the colors of the double Manner/Maness fesses, which I wouldn't have mentioned had Massey-branch Masci's not been first found in Piedmont with Dance's/Donna's. German Manners share the Massey quadrants, and so there can indeed be a Donna link to Manners/Maness, which works well with the latter's links round-about to Dons, a thing implied by links above.
Gold'n Ore Darlene's
The omen-pointable, Leak-like Lease's have a "CLARior" motto term. The Clarens/Larins share the double chevrons of Scottish Lease's/Lise's (Dumfries with Leak-connectable Leggs), and English Clare's have three of these chevrons. We are therefore justified in going from the "clariOR" motto term to Clare's, the point being that Clare's were first found in Suffolk with ORR-connectable English Golds, and with Omens/ORmunderleys. The omen in my Nissan vehicle involved Miss Hicks, and Orrs/Ore's can be linked to Hicks kin.
Nessans/Ness' are also Nessels while Nissans not only come up as "Nissel," but along with three variations shown that end in "gold," Nissans show "Nisselgold" too. And the English Gold surname is awesome here because it not only shares the JEANE lion for a possible pointer to Jeane Marrazzo, but the Orrs/Ore's happen to share an "omnia" motto term with Dons while heraldic GOLD drops are called, "or." Again, Dons use "omnia" too while the Nissans have the two Don fesses in colors reversed.
The mugger woke me up in the back of the Nissan in order to steal everything I had, truck included, and Orrs/Ore's can be shown to be kin of Wake's; the latter were first found in Lincolnshire with leg-using, Lease-like Leaks. Wake's even share double-red fesses with Nessans/Ness'. It's getting compelling to claim that my cloud-over-sun omen is to be pointing to the cloud-over-sun of English Lease's. Suns are even listed with Clare-branch Sinclairs, kin of Mens'. English Lease's were first found in Northumberland with the Trains sharing the Legh Coat, and with Mens-branch Manners/Maness'.
Orrs/Ore's (RENFREWshire) use the triple Guiscard piles in colors reversed while Guiscards were first found in Stirlingshire with Deering-like Daro's who in turn share the ship of RENFREWs. Orrs/Ore's happen to share the fitchee of DARlene's while their Darlington branch was first found in Durham with early Trains. Both Darlene's and Darlingtons use gold drops, oye, and the "female FIGure" in the Darlene Crest is said to wear a robe while Robe's/Robbs were first found in Stirlingshire too.
Darlingtons love the Spire's/Speers in their motto, first found in Renfrewshire with Orrs/Ore's.
It's never dawned on me before that "figure" can be part-code for Omen-connectable Figgs and Foggs. That is amazing. If correct, "fiGURE" can be part code for the Gure's listed with the Eure's/Evers suspect in the motto of Hicks! Gure's/Eure's/Evers were first found in Dumbartonshire with Leak-branch Lakeys/Leckys who in turn share the brown wolf head in Crest with Teague's/Teegers. The Orr/Ore motto is connectable to the "bon heure" motto phrase of Hicks', absolutely important because the Orr/Ore motto, "BoNIS OMNia Bona," points to the omen in the NISSan.
Lakeys/Leckys are said to be first found also on Stirlingshire, where Darlene-beloved Robe's/Robbs were first found, making it appear that "figure" is indeed part-code for Gure's, especially as Figg-branch Foggs were first found in Kent with Gore's who in turn have the Darlington crosslets in colors reversed. Yet I'm having a little trouble seeing Gore's and Gowers/Gore's as a branch of the namers of Eure province, which I see from the Ebroicum/EBURovices of Evreux, the likely namers of York as "Eboracum." However, Gowers/Gore's, sharing the white wolf with the Gore's, were first found in Yorkshire with the Alan-related Hicks who in turn are in Gore colors and format.
Guiscards are also WIScards, suspect from VISconti's (Milan with Maurino's), and the "obliVIScar" motto term of Gure's/Eure's can apply. It recalls that I locked myself into the Nissan with a pair of VICE-grip PLYERs (I've mentioned this a half-million times), for Vice's are listed with Vise's, first found in Sussex with Bone's!!! The mugger came on the night I locked myself in with the vice-grips. Plyer-like Players use red-on-gold drops. Can that work? Yes, because Players use a "clariOR" motto term, which is also the Lease motto term!!!!!!! Incredible. Players were even first found in Middlesex with the English Robins sharing the chevron of Darlene-beloved Robe's/Robbs, making the Player drops look very linkable to the Darlene drops.
AVIS/Avisons share the triple sheaves of Dairs/Ders, and while Scottish Kennedys have an "Avise" motto term, Irish Kennedys were first found in Tipperary with Robin-loving Sullivans. This gets interesting where Sullys (Devon with Darlene's) share the Epstein Coat, in case the Jeffreys in this heraldic set point to Jeffrey Epstein.
Though not sleeping, Sullys can have the "sleeping lion" of Rounds because the latter were first found in Essex with Waters and Muschats, both sharing the Sully Coat. Sullivans trace to the Saluvii Ligures suspect as a branch of the namers of Alan-related Saluzzo's, the line to Round-like Arundels and Rundels/Roundels. Saluzzo is beside Busca while Sullivans share the black boar with English Bush's/Buschs. German Bush's/Buschs were first found at the Rhine with Dairs/Ders. Sullivans share the lion of Shropshire's Tine's/Thens and Dutch Bush's/Boschs.
English Bruns, first found in Middlesex with Players, even share the Coat of the Cruce's in the Darlington motto. Players share the lance with Dere's while Deerings were first found in Kent with Masons/Massins whose motto in turn is in the Darlington motto. The Gore's, likewise first found in Kent, share the Lance fesse. Deering-related Morazzi/Morinis' are suspect with Morays who in turn share the MERmaid in the Mason/Massin Crest. The Time's/Timms, first found in Kent too, not only share the Morazzi/Morinis fleur, but are in a Moray motto, "Deum Time." "Dum" is in the Mason/Massin and Darlington mottoes.
The Hicks motto phrase, "bon heure," is translated, "good time," very clever because English Goods were first found in Kent with Gore's in Hicks colors and format. It's clever because the non-translated version has the Eure's who just came up as "Gure." It figures.
More. As per "FIGure," Scottish Jeffreys have the Figg, Fogg and Pury fesse-with-stars in colors reversed, and Purys almost have the Omen Coat, unbelievable because these Jeffreys not only have a cloud fully covering the sun like my omen, but they happen to share a "post" motto term with Scottish Robins!!! It's unbelievable not because Jeffreys can thus be linked to the Omen surname, but because they have MY omen, or God's omen, in their Coat. These Jeffreys were once said to be first found in Peebles-shire, where Scottish Robins were first found.
As I said, I invented a fence post, and called it the "Pillar-Post." I took the invention to an international fencing show in New Orleans (LOUISiana), home of Donna Lease Brazile. Pillars share the Coat of Welsh Jeffreys, colors reversed from the Coat of Welsh LOUIS'. What in tarnation is this all about? If God arranged the Jeffreys to have the omen, why Jeffreys? Welsh Louis' look like they have the Patria's/Peartree's (Kincardineshire, beside Scottish Jeffreys) in their motto, who not only have a sun, but share the Trump stag head and the Jean scallop.
I ALMOST MISSED IT: the Orleans surname (not "Orlean") shares red roundels with OMNia Orrs!!!! That is unbelievable. I have no idea how to explain it, but God apparently allowed me to invent a post product, that went nowhere, in order to facilitate this heraldic set on the omen. Or, as an alternative, he arranged the heraldry so that Pillars, Posts, Louisiana and New Orleans would fit into this heraldic set. The News'/Nuces', part of the Galveston-mugging, were first found in Cambridgeshire with Figgs. I'll show how Posts can apply as I can get to it below.
Repeat while on the Camera's/Camerons due to the camera I was using to record the omen (I didn't save it because it was many years before I got into heraldry): "The Omens (Suffolk with Sinclair-branch Clare's) can be linked to the Figgs, first found in Cambridgeshire with the CAM river. My omen pointed to the Coat of English Lease's while Scottish Lease's (Clare kin), first found in Dumfries with Leggs, are also Lise's while English Lise's/Liss', first found in Hampshire with Drive's, share the Cam Coat! Believe it or not. Camville's were first found beside Hampshire." Camville's share the Post lion. Camville's, first found beside Hampshire, have the Crest of English Rhodes' in a different tint, and German Rhodes' share the roundels of Orrs/Ore's and Wake's (Lincolnshire with Lease-like, leg-using Leaks).
Plus, the Shirts almost have the Coat of German Rhodes' while I had no shirt on, just JEANS, when approaching SLEEPing Beauty i.e. to the wake scene. I woke her by inadvertently touching her knee, and I've told of her knee symbol at the Leakey road on the night I set up her camera to tape our church's 911 memorial, on September 11, 2002. Her knee symbol then was at the Get'n GO gas bar (Camp Wood), which had pointed to Gows/McGoo's but also to Gowers/Gore's, and it's now suspect with "GO," the short-form for "graphene-oxide."
Somehow, the Darlington leopard faces will link to Fauci's. Face's were first found in Northamptonshire with Camville's. My patent agent for the Pillar-Post was Ms. Parsons, and Parsons share the Peare and Caen leopard faces while Caens ("PERimus") were first found in Dorset with Pillar-connectable Palins who both share the Jeffrey lion. Darlene's were first found in Devon with fence-like Fens'/Venns while the Pillar-Post was invented as a no-dig wooden fence post. The Powells ("fynw"), sharing the Palin, Pillar, Jeffrey and Louis lion, have a green griffin in Crest to match the green griffin head of Fens'/Venns.
We might add that cloud-on-sun Lease's were first found in Northumberland with Phoenix's/FENwicks, kin of Hips', the latter first found in Norfolk with face-loving Parsons, and moreover Hips' use a "sphinx" while Spinks were first found in Northamptonshire with Face's. Dutch Posts share the Chief-Shield colors of sphinx-using Brocuffs (Brock branch). This hard pointer to Donna Lease Brazile baffles me.
Repeat: "Peartree's/Patria's have a Coat looking related to the one of Romneys, first found in Kent with Deerings, and then Spanish Romans share the Morazzi/Morinis fleur-de-lys." Scottish Romans were first found in Peebles-shire with Jeffrey-related Robins. I've mentioned many times that Darlene Ray/Wray was an ice-cream girl pointing to Fauci, and Marrazzo is now about to replace Fauci in his lead position at NIAID.
Italian Romans share the white wolf with Gore's (Kent with ROMNeys) and Gowers/Gore's. The latter were kin of Monans who in turn almost the top half of the Coat of "robin"-using Sullivans. The blue and cuffed sleeve in the Romney Crest is shared by Tippers (Cornwall with Gorlois) while Sullivans were first found in Tipperary. "Robore" is a Tipper motto term. Tippers look like kin of Rimmons/Crimmons, first found on Skye and LEWIS with McLeods/CLOUDs.
OHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH INCREDIBLE. English Rays have another "omnia" motto term!!!! Plus, the courant stag of Rays is shared by the Kennys who in turn share the Morinis and Roman fleur-de-lys!!! The other Kennys have a vertically-split Shield in the colors of the horizontally-split Shield of Italian Romans. The latter's split Shield is colors reversed from the same of Diems in the "diem" motto term of Teague's/Teegers, first found in Galway with both Kenny surnames.
With Rays having the "omnia" term, I conclude that this omen story is linking to Darlene Ray because the omen is, along with her ICE-cream, a pointer to the Fauci-Marrazzo role in stagnating this world on behalf of globalist gangsters. Ice's/Ecco's pointed to ECOhealth, the org that Fauci used to fund Wuhan's lab. Ice's/Ecco's (probably an Hick branch) were first found in Mecklenburg with Trumps and Hahns, and beside the Diems and Teegers. Trump chose Stephen Hahn, a vaccine gangster, to lead the Food and Drug Administration, which had much sway over COVID / vaccine schematics.
French Rays share the "escarbuncle" with Angers who in turn share the Fauci lozenge. French Raymonds (Languedoc with French Alans) look related to Alans and Jore's/Gore's. English Raymonds (Essex with Angers) have a Chief in the colors and format of the Wray and Orr/Ore Chiefs while Wrays were first found in Lancashire with the Orrels sharing the red roundels in the Orr/Ore Chief.
Angers is a French region near Orleans, and the Orleans' share red roundels too. Alan-related Rundels/Roundels were first found in Kent with Gore's, DEERings, and Sleeps while Rounds ("viDERi"), with a "sleeping lion", were first found in Essex with Angers, and where Gore's were once said to be first found.
The Round annulets are colors reversed from the ones of Figgs, Foggs and Frogs, the latter first found in Shropshire with Swallow-branch Sallows and a Sleap location, and where the Tine's/Thens (TEN bars) were first found suspect in the "TENax" motto term of Rundels/Roundels. And then there is the "TENebris" motto term of Lease's. Derys, suspect in the Round motto, probably have swallows, the Arundel symbol. Dere's/Res' (Alan-connectable lances) share the Chief of French Alans and Gore's/Jore's. We are easily here on the Morazzi-connectable Deerings (Kent with Sleeps). Derys even have stag heads colors reversed from the ones (different design) of Deerings.
Scottish Jeffreys are now said to be first found in Aberdeenshire with Reeds sharing the "book" in the hand of the "female figure" of Darlene's i.e. the one wearing the "robe." Then, English Reeds were first found in Northumberland with the Lease's having the sun partly covered by a cloud. Reeds are from Rieti, home of Vespasia Polla, the line to Pools sharing the Post Coat, both sharing the giant Rita lion. Pools were first found in Dorset (beside Posts) with Palins in turn sharing the giant lion of English Jeffreys, and Palins have the three stars of Scottish Jeffreys in colors reversed. The Palin stars are the three of Figgs, Foggs, and Purys.
Dutch Posts share the Chief-Shield colors of Dairs/Ders and Brocks while Deering-related Morazzi's have the Brock fleur in colors reversed. Broc is a location in Anjou of Angers.
I see English Gore's and French Gore's/Jure's with versions of both Alan Coats, which can explain why French Robins were first found in Brittany. Mythical GorLOIS was named after Gore's and Lois' together, and Lois' have a giant ostrich to go with the ostrich head in the Crest of Propers/Robins/Roberts (Cheshire with omnia Dons).
Gangs/Geggs were first found in Norfolk with Drops/Trope's and BUCKs, and while French BUCKets share the Gang/Gegg cinquefoils, English Buckets share triple-red piles with Guiscards. Therefore, Deerings can be using the BUCK head. Stirlings have BUCKle's, and Buckle's were first found in Suffolk with Osborn-beloved Tigers and Omens while Buckle-branch Buckleys were first found in Cheshire with Dons sharing "OMNia" with Orrs/Ore's!
Zinger-ringer, it appears I haven't wasted my time all these years brushing up on my heraldic knowledge. It looks like a message from God to prepare to fend off the vaccine goons. But who's going to believe this message based on a claim that God is doing this heraldic work through nobody-knows-me? We shall need to see what comes of this.
Stirlings, sharing the Moor head with Morinis-branch Morano's (same place as Morazzi's/Morinis'), share the "Gang" motto term of Scottish Drummonds (named Drymen in Stirling) while German Drummonds were first found in Hampshire with Nissans/NissenGOLDs. The three fesses of German Drummonds are in the colors of the two fesses of Morazzi's/Morinis' (!), making Daro's look like a branch of Morinis-related Deerings. The Tigers in the Crest of Deering-related Osborns were first found in Suffolk with "deer"-using Mallets. French Mallets/Malo's share buckles (different colors) with Stirlings. The scallops of English Mallets are almost those of French Mars/More's, the latter first found in Normandy with French Morins/Maurins and French Buckets (Mallet-scallop colors). The potential link of Morinis' to Morays can explain why Ducs/LeDucs have a reflection of the Irish Morin Coat.
Mallet-like Malta's share the lion of Marano's (same place as Morinis') who in turn share the lion of Montforts, though the latter's lion has two tails, and it's the two-tailed lion in the Arms of Bohemia. The matriarch of Drummonds is from Podebrady of Bohemia, and German Franks, first found in Bohemia, share the column with Malta's. Melita is an island near the Ragusa location of Saraca's while French Sarasins share the moline of Vallans/Valletti's while Valletti is a city on Malta. This recalls the Duck-connectable VALANce's/Vallants, first found in Kent with Deerings and Osborns. The Bradys in "Podebrady" were first found in Galveston-connectable Galway with Teague's/Teegers while Osborns love Tigers.
As German Golds are in the colors and format of German Decks/Daggers while English Daggers were first found in Cumberland with Duckers/Dockers, I'm seeing a pointer to both James LeDuc and Jeane Marrazzo. German Golds were first found in Austria with the Christs who are in turn with a version of the German Gold Coat. Christs are in the "bello Christi" motto phase of Bouillons, first found in Auvergne with Fauchy- / Faux/Fage-branch Fagots/Fageys. The latter share the Chief-Shield colors of Faux's/Fage's, Morazzi's/Morinis' and Morello's. Jeane Marrazzo is a disgusting pig.
The Omans suspect in the Orr/Ore motto are also ORmandys and even OSmunderleys, probably kin of an OSbert line because Osberts were first found in Kent with the Munds expected in "OsMUNDerley." This is probably the most-spectacular heraldic set of this discussion because Osberts were kin of the Marrazzo line, tending to prove that my omen was a pointer to this disgusting woman. God seems to be warning the Church: we are about to get mugged by the COVID goons in league with the medical establishment.
If Osmunderleys were an Os/Oz line married to Mund liners, Osborns/OsBURNs may have been an Os-Burn merger, especially as Osborns share the giant cross of Burn-like Bruns. Osborns were first found in Kent with Sleeps, and with Figg-branch Foggs both essentially sharing the Pury Coat that is itself a near-copy of the Omen/Osmund/Osmunderley Coat (Wedge/Wagg colors and format). This paragraph is shaping up like a warning as we continue, as in: beware the vaccine goons under Marrazzo.
Daro's use a "Be WATCHful" motto while Minds/Munds (Shropshire with Figgs and a Sleap location) use bees while "wedge"-using Watch's/Witch's/Wage's (Cornwall with Wace's/Wassa's) and their Wedge/Wagg branch have a good reflection of the Pury Coat. Wassa-branch Washingtons (Durham with Darlene-branch DARlingtons) share the double fesses of Nessans/Ness', first found in Holland with Os'/Oz's. I was told to wake sleeping Beauty, and while Wake's can be gleaned as Orr/Ore kin, Sleeps have the double-Washington fesses in colors reversed. Beware Washington DC, a satanic bastion. Washingtons share the Chief of Duce-loving Schims/Schiens, and branch of SKINs/SCANs. The 666 skin-scanning machines are coming.
I think God wants to use heraldic pointers to wake His Church as it falls asleep. Miss Hicks was the daughter of a Pentecostal preacher, and she was extremely charismatic to the point of those I warn in my post-trib book. I think God is saying: charismatics, wake up, there is no pre-trib rapture, no big revival coming, no defeating the anti-Christ until Jesus returns. You do not have God's powers as you think you do to overcome the anti-Christ on those powers. Prepare to store your needs to the end of his 42-month rule, sit tight, wait for the plagues of Revelation to save you from his schemes made against you.
We can now see why the Gold-Orr duo must be part of this discussion. Munds, sharing the peacock with Manners/Maness', use red DROPs while Drops/Trope's share the lion of Marrazzo-like Marrs'. Peacocks were first found in Essex with Sarah's/Sayers while I figure there's a Saracen head in the Mund Crest. Bruns were first found in Middlesex with the Fears in the Peacock motto, and Saracens were first found in Cumberland with Browns/Bruns. Peacocks use "fear NOT" while Nots/Cnuts were first found in Derbyshire with Munderley-like Mandys/Mondays.
Omens look like a branch of Mens' who in turn had a branch in GLENlyon (Perthshire with Lyons), tending to explain why Glenns and Glennys share the Omen and Pury martlets. The Glenny write-up can explain the "dona DEI" motto phrase of Dons: "...Gleney, or Glennie, in BRAEMar, Aberdeenshire. Glennie is a surname...originally born by generations of tenant farmers in the districts of both Dee and Don." English Dee's were first found in Cheshire with Dons, and Scottish Dee's were first found in Aberdeenshire with the Skins/Scans who share the sword with Glennys. The omen concerned Sleeping Beauty, and "Hic" is a Dee motto term.
Most footless martlets come without legs too, but Glennys put red legs on their black martlets while Leggs almost have the Trump Coat. Dons and Dee's were first found in Cheshire with Leghs. Although I have reason to doubt it, if trump becomes the false prophet, he's the skin-scanning 666 man.
Glennys were first in Yorkshire's Braemer while English Braems/Brame's were first found in Yorkshire with Banks having the Braem/Brame cross in colors reversed. German Braems have the Kingston lion holding the Bank fleur-de-lys, and Kingstons were first found in Yorkshire too. The Suters/Sauts have this fleur-de-lys in colors reversed while the Hicks', said to be from Mr. Sauteby, were likewise first found in Yorkshire.
[Insert -- Miss Hicks played Sleeping Beauty, who, when she awoke, was RISING into the air, a pointer without doubt (for reasons) to ancient Rhizon, smack beside Kotor. The latter was named from the line of ABRAM (Abraham) and KETURah, and it just so happens that Braems/BRAMe's have a different-colors Coat version of the Risings/Risons, the latter first found in Norfolk with Abram-like BRAMtons and Bank-connectable Benjamins. It begs whether Keturah was from the tribe of Benjamin. Kotor-like Cutters were first found in Dorset with Beautys. End insert]
Benjamins (almost the Braem cross) were first found in Norfolk with Hake's, and with Braem-like Bramtons/Bromtons who in turn share the Coat of Duce's/Duceys; the latter were first found in Staffordshire with Hicksons and Sauts/Salts while Sales'/SALLETTs were first found in Cheshire with Leghs/Leys. Hicks are said to have been at a Low LEIGHTon location. Kings, sharing the giant Kingston lion, were first found in Devon with Hicks-branch Hooks and Hykes'/Hacks. Leightons/Leytons were first found in Shropshire (beside Cheshire) with vaccine-like Vychans who in turn share the fleur-de-lys of Sales'/Salletts. The latter were first found in Cheshire with Birds/Burds sharing the Hicks fleur-de-lys, and then Berts (Devon with Hacks) and Burts (Norfolk with Hake's and Beauty-related Haydens) almost have the Vaxon/Foxton Coat! Vaxons/Foxtons are new to me this month. Vychans were related to Moses' who can be linked to the calvary symbol of Crystals (Yorkshire with Calvarys).
The Orr/Ore motto is connectable to the "bon heure" motto phrase of Hicks', and Eure's/Evers share the quadrants of German Mans while Mens-loving Crystals use a "CALVARy" symbol. While Calvarys were first found in Yorkshire with Hicks', they bring to mind the Galveys/Galvins and Calvins.
You may have been thinking, "what's the big deal with the Gold versus Orr surname?" It is a big deal because it appears that God arranged things around it, and if so, it can tend to prove that Jeans are to be in the picture as a pointer to Ms. Marrazzo, which in turn means that Christians have some bumps ahead as per her work in overseeing the next pandemic. The faggots hate us, and want to take rulership of the world away from God. He's been prepared for this for millions of years.
Orrs/Ore's have a motto, "BoNIS omnia Bona," and Bona's, first found in Milan with Maurels/MAURINO's (Lombardy with Casino's/Case's), share the giant lion of Italian Marano's, the latter first found in Modena with Morazzi's/Morinis'. The following is staggering because we got here from the Orrs/Ore's sharing omen-like "omnia" with Dons: Maurels/Maurino's have one of the Morazzi/Morinis fesses, and moreover the eight-pointed stars of Maurels/Maurino's are the one of Morinis-connectable Teegers, and almost the Duc/LeDuc star, which gets more important where the latter were first found in Brittany with French Maurels/Morels. The latter's fleur-de-lys is colors reversed from the Morazzi/Morinis fleur, tending to explain why the latter surname has a version of the Morello Coat.
Morello's were first found in Florence with Bruno's while Browns/Bruns, first found in Cumberland with DUCKERs/Dockers, share the Maurel/Morel fleur. Therefore, we are all over LeDuc kin with Morazzi kin, and this tends to convince me that God is pointing to Jeane Marrazzo and James LeDuc together with the Galveston mugging. English Bruns happen to share the cross of Morinis-connectable Osborns while Browns/Bruns were first found in Cumberland with Burns and Bernice's/Burnes'.
The English Valence's are very important for the pointer to James LeDuc because they have the five fesses of Ducks/Duckers in colors reversed while the latter were first found in Westphalia with Valence-branch Velins (ducks) and Velins/Valence's. The latter share the martlets of French Alans definitely for a related reason, and Alans were from Brittany, where Ducs/LeDucs were first found.
Having said that, let's go to the write-up of English Valence's: "The surname traces back to 'a place on the confines of Poitou, in France, {which} gave name to William de Valance, who was son of Hugh le BRUN,..." It tends to nail the Bruns to the Osborns (Kent with Valence's) who both have the same cross, wherefore we can conclude a pointer to both James LeDuc and Jeane Marrazzo because Osborns and their Morinis kin are in the Deering write-up while Morinis' list Morasso's/Morazzi's. Is that amazing or what?
Orrs were first found in Renfrewshire with the Pack-connectable Spears while seven spears are used by English Duckers/Dockers. The latter were first found in Cumberland with Daggers who were large in my last update in connection to things-COVID. As concerns us here, these Daggers share the red bull with Sabine's and French Packs while Sabine's share the scallop of English Jeans. Packs are mentionable due to the "Pax in bello" motto of Osborns, and then "Pax COPIA" is the motto of Cope-connectable English Reeds (same place as Manners/Maness') while Orrs/Ore's have a "cornuCOPIA." Scottish Mans were first found in Aberdeenshire with Scottish Reeds.
Gas Atoms Inter-Repel, Spoil Big-Bang Theory
The video below suggests, with me in agreement, that Christians need to be more offensive. However, my take on Christians not being offensive enough in my country is that they lack zeal for salvaging God's righteousness in our waning, earthly society. Without zeal, we tend not to respond with backbone when sinners speak sinfully in our presence, or when anti-Christs offend our Jesus. "Sticking up for Jesus" ought to be our new flag waved proudly:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eych20HTly0
There are wrong ways to be offensive, but let's not let the fear of sticking up for Jesus a little wrongly keep us from doing it. If we realize we did it a little wrong, we can learn from it and correct it for the next occasion. If you wish to partake in the Resurrection, get God's eye to focus on you when you stick up for Jesus all alone in a crowd of sinners. That's called carrying the cross, isn't it? You can, of course, stick up for Jesus in a nice way, but, as for me, if the sin is harsh, I don't see being nice as an option...unless the crowd is a dangerous one. That might be a good time to tone down the rebuke, it's your call. If the Spirit is there, you may have no control over what or how you say it.
Many years ago, I started wondering whether church attendance made me timid. It's possible. You may have asked the same question. If you fellow church people are timid, chances are it will rub off on you. I truly wish I could be like Jesus everywhere so that the Father would be pleased, but I regret, I'm nowhere near like Him. We need to get in Him, remain in Him, if we wish to speak the things He wants spoken. When He speaks, fruit grows.
Are we going to be afraid of atheist idiots and fools? Do we look up to them as having higher intelligence? Shudder. The world says you are smart if you remember what you were taught, but smartness is defined as thinking well for yourself, not simply remembering what the teacher taught, and then copying it down on the exam paper. That's called a good memory, or a keen interest that facilitates memory, but wisdom-smarts are different. God has created a fantastic Creation too high for us to fully comprehend, and then He also made such a stinking thing as death.
Wisdom can be defined as escaping death by honoring the Creator. Fear of God is the launch pad to wisdom. Evolutionists are bankrupt of this wisdom, absolute fools. I don't care how well they can remember their stuff, and teach it too; it's worse than meaningless if they teach what is false. They are the walking graves; the stink of death hangs on them. Shall we let them be the rulers of the planet? God says, don't make me laugh. In Revelation 17, atheists and pagans are shown drinking death and getting drunk on it.
In the video above, Eric Metaxas says the scientists have admitted that the air would be unfit for life if the diameter of the earth were a little smaller, or a little larger. He didn't give the sizes. I can perhaps elaborate. If the earth were smaller without much change in gravitational force, the air gets more dense. A little more dense would be fine, more oxygen to the muscles, but too much oxygen to the brain makes it pass out. Conversely, if the earth were larger, air would thin out because air density depends on the distance of air atoms to the gravity source, and scientists are wrong when they define gravity as a gravity particle in all atoms. This particle not only causes a gravity pull on the gravity particles of other atoms but is therefore attracted by gravity particles in other atoms.
With their definition, the gravity source is as much on the earth's surface as it is at the core. But this cannot be the definition of gravity because it can be demonstrated that all gas atoms and molecules repel one another. The proof comes due to the existence of gravity because science has demonstrated that gas atoms weigh down on the earth, or on a weight scale. For example, the air/gas pressure in any direction upon an object is identical as the weight of air/gas. The only way for this to be true is for gas atoms to repel one another (inter-repel). It cannot be true if they attract one another.
Although gravity pulls air atoms toward the ground, they resist coming into contact with one another because they inter-repel. If they inter-attracted, gravity would pull all air atoms into contact with one another in a heap on the ground. The leading scientists tried to wiggle their way out of this fact by claiming atoms in constant motion (at hundreds of miles per hour) that cannot be slowed due to their law: energy cannot be destroyed. They allowed themselves to be tricked by this law because their number-one need for their evolutionary theory is that all atoms attract, otherwise suns could not form from the big bang. But there was no big bang. They lie in desperation. They are the destroyers of the human race. People have become openly Godless and therefore demonic on their account.
The fact is, energy is not literally destroyed when atoms make contact and slow down. When two or more items collide, their overall velocities slow because they absorb each others' energy of motion. Absorbed energy is not literal destruction of energy, but they teach that the slowing down of atoms is to be defined as a loss (destruction) of energy because they deceptively define energy in the first place as the velocity of atoms. No, energy is not to be defined as the motion of atoms, but rather as the push-force from other particles. One can exert energy into an object that does not move. The energy is absorbed by the object even if it does not pick up velocity/motion. When atoms absorb each others' energy, the energy is used up to slow them down. You can define used-up energy as destroyed energy, in which case energy can be destroyed, or you can define used-up energy as something else, but you need to understand what the finks won't teach you: energy can be used to slow atoms, meaning that there is no such thing as their kinetic theory of atoms.
When a car crashes into a cliff face, the car comes to a stop, and the cliff does not move. What happened to the energy? The car sent energy into the rock, and the rock sent energy into the car to cease it's motion. The crashing car does not send rock atoms into higher velocities as claimed. The rock atoms do not vibrate with faster velocity as claimed because the rock atoms repel one another.
Yes, it's true: atoms bonded as liquid and solid molecules repel one another, even as they also attract one another. At first, this seems like a contradiction, but it is no more contradictory than two magnets repelling each other even while glued into contact with one another. There are two things going on simultaneously, one that causes them to repel, and one that caused them to bond. In the case of atoms, their bond is due to inter-attraction from a second thing, separate from the thing causing them simultaneously to repel.
You can prove it. If you add heat to any solid or liquid, you can weaken the thing that causes atoms to attract, and therefore the inter-repulsion forces cause the atoms to move away from one another (even while they attract by the other thing), explaining why heated objects expand in size. You can heat any item to the point that the atomic attraction becomes weaker than the atomic repulsion. What do you suppose happens when the attraction has become less forceful than the repulsion force? It's a no-brainer: the atoms separate from one another, wave bye-bye and turn into gas atoms.
But evolutionists of old could not subscribe to this view, even though they recognized it as truth. They chose to lie, to brainwash their students, because cosmic evolution required gas atoms to attract one another. They invented the kinetic theory of atoms, the idea in which atoms never cease colliding with one another, and never lose total velocity during the collisions. They taught the error: when one colliding atom slows, the other atom in the collision speeds up by as much as the other slows. STUPID SCIENCE. Fool's gold.
The reason they invented the kinetic theory is to explain why gas pressure exists. There can be no gas pressure unless atoms inter-repel. It's the repulsion force of atoms that cause them to expand in all directions, and, if sealed in a container, they apply pressure to the container's walls as they seek to expand. It's such a no-brainer, yet they could not have it. They had to find another way to explain gas pressure, and they found it in the speed of atoms...in order that they could claim inter-attracting atoms while causing gas pressure in some other way besides inter-repulsion. They viewed atoms constantly crashing on the container walls, causing pressure thereby upon the walls. As gas pressure does not change in a sealed container, they taught that the speed of atoms in the container did not slow down, even though they knew that items in collision always slow down, with each collision. Bimbos, liars, conspiratorial deceivers.
When a hammer crashes down on a nail, the atoms of the nail do not vibrate faster because the atoms are not vibrating at all prior to the hammer coming down. Atoms become stationary automatically when no force is applied to them, and even the vibrations in a nail, from the smacking of a hammer, disappear almost instantly. The reason that atoms of solids and liquids become stationary is that they both repel and attract, and consequently the atoms seek a specific distance from one where the attraction exactly equals to repulsion. This is important for explaining why atoms absorb energy of motion yet cease motion after doing so.
Gas atoms merge due to attraction which can only take affect once the atoms come into contact. If they are not in contact, they exert only repulsion on one another, and this therefore is a force that applies at a distance, through the space between atoms. View atoms as tiny, inter-repelling magnets. But of course, repulsion between atoms must yet exist when atoms merge, or liquid atoms would not be able to revert to gas atoms. Pure logic, and this dawned on scientists, yet their cult maintained kineticism as the means for gas formation. The evolutionary sciences are cults; if the lower scientists do not conform to kineticism, they are ridiculed and even ostracized.
The inter-repulsion force between two atoms is stronger when they make contact because repulsion force increases with less distance between them. Yet there is an attraction force set up upon contact that overcomes the repulsion force. Yes, upon contact, the atoms attract one another more than they repel, and so the two atoms begin to merge. They sink into each others' electron atmospheres.
There is a reason that the proton-captured electrons of every atom are not in contact with each other at the peripheries of all atoms, and that reason is the inter-repulsion forces of electrons. Can you dig it? If electrons were in contact with one another at the peripheries of atoms, atoms could then not merge. It would be a block wall going against a block wall, and gas atoms could then not bond to form liquids.
It is ridiculous to claim that electrons orbit protons at zillions of miles per hour. Trash that thought. The inter-repulsion forces of electrons captured in a magnetic protonic field cause them to seek distances as far apart as possible, at which points the electrons will become stationary. This is a no-brainer; go ahead and imagine inter-repelling electrons surrounding a proton. How will they end up. This is easy. Yet the evolutionists cannot take this reality because they need speed for their kinetic theory of atoms. Therefore, they put electrons circling protons at fantastic speeds...impossible for orbit formation.
Protons attract electrons with more force than electrons repel one another away, and so, another no-brainer: electrons become captured over the protonic surface. It's likely that electrons are in contact with each other, in spite of their repulsion forces, if they are directly on, or near, the protonic surface.
However, as protonic attraction weakens with distance from the surface, the electrons on the outer parts of the atom will repel each other to the point of putting space between themselves, and so they literally hover in space. That picture can be defined as an atmosphere of electrons surrounding the proton. Atoms, therefore, are not like concrete walls toward one another. Instead, the electrons of one atom can penetrate into the spaces between electrons of another atom. Of course, as gas atom repel one another, something needs to force them to make contact, otherwise gas atoms would forever remain gas atoms. Gravity is one force that forces gas atoms/molecules into contact.
New magnetic forces are set up as atoms begin to merge. What does this new magnetic force look like? Another no-brainer: the proton of one atom attracts the electrons of the other atom. Yet, atoms can only sink into each other so far, and no further. This is because the protons of both atoms inter-repel. The deeper the atoms sink into one another, the stronger the protonic inter-repulsion between them. No-brainer: when the attraction force of merger equals the protonic inter-repulsion, the atoms cease to sink deeper into one another. Therefore, any weight of gas always becomes the same volume of liquid...because liquid atoms always sink into each other to the same depth. The deeper they merge, the less liquid volume there will be per any amount of gas. Protonic repulsion makes it near impossible to mechanically compress a liquid to a smaller size than the liquid becomes naturally i.e. apart from mechanical compression.
A liquid becomes smaller in size when its temperature is reduced. No-brainer: something about heat causes atoms to repel stronger. Therefore, no-brainer: heat consists of a repulsion force. Therefore, no-brainer: heat consists of FREE electrons (not captured by atoms) surrounding all atoms.
Another thing: in the process of atomic mergers, the repulsion forces are weakened that keep gas atoms apart. This well-explains why atomic attraction is set up in the first place when atoms make contact. As I see it, following logic, two atoms kissing one another, but not yet merged, are repelling one another at maximum force. This force is due to the net-repulsion force from the electron atmospheres. That is, electron atmosphere repels electron atmosphere so that atoms inter-repel.
However, as atoms begin to sink into one another, the merged section of electron atmospheres double in electron density. That situation cannot be maintained because electrons repel one another with greater force when they are closer to one another, and increased electron density is defined as electrons closer to one another. Therefore, half of the electrons in the merged sections will be sacrificed until the merged section revert to the pre-merger density.
Where do the electrons go when sacrificed from the merged sections? Not in other parts of the electron atmosphere, because the density of the electron atmosphere is already at maximum capacity prior to merger. No-brainer: the electrons in the merged sections go FREE into the air/space outside the atoms, and thus these electrons become heat. That's why every merger of every atom always produces heat.
Every gas of any weight always produces the same amount of heat when it becomes a liquid, no matter how many times it's turned to liquid. Every liquid of any weight always absorbs (from the air) the same amount of heat when it becomes a gas, no matter how many times it's turned into a gas. That's because the depth atomic mergers are always the same, and therefore the number of electrons released or acquired by atoms is always the same.
As two atoms release progressively more electrons in the process of merging more-deeply, the inter-repulsion of the atoms decreased progressively too, for it was the captured electrons that causes the inter-repulsion in the first place, when the atoms were not yet merged. Therefore, with merger, an atomic attraction sets in that overcomes the atomic repulsion. It is all amazing because, without this, nothing much could exist on earth. God really shines on this invention, the atom as He framed it, and I haven't even scratched the surface of what atoms can do.
I've had to say all that to show how atoms absorb energy yet go stationary in spite of it. When atoms are fully merged in a nail or rock, for example, they resist getting nearer to one another. When you smack the nail with a hammer, the effect is to force atoms to merge deeper into one another, and yet they spring right back to the depth of merger they had prior to the hammer strike. It's like smacking a spring with a hammer to reduce the spring's length, yet it springs back to its original length. Once the atoms spring back, they seek motionlessness. No-brainer: kineticism is false, atoms do not remain in eternal motion.
Gravity Alone Forms Air Pressure
Atoms in the earth's atmosphere hover because they repel one another. Gravity pulls them down, and therefore the atoms near one another only as far as gravity force is capable of bringing them closer. The closer the air atoms are to the gravity source, the more dense they will end up. If the earth were a few hundred miles less wide, and if gravity force remained the same, it's possible that the air density would become poisonous to living creatures. A good thing, if you were a chicken, is that you would be able to fly with dense air.
But, what if birds could not fly in air even a little-more dense than it is now? Or conversely, can we ask: how much thinner does the air need to be to forbid most birds from having flight ability? This is evidence of Intelligent Design, for birds fly excellently at the current air density.
I maintain that chickens and other flightless birds once flew like other birds, prior to the Flood. This catastrophe added about a mile, on average, of sedimentary rock worldwide. The Flood may have raised the net-height of igneous rock too. In other words, the pre-Flood air would have been more dense when the ground level was a mile or more lower than it is today. If chickens cannot fly if even two miles below sea level, then I would argue that the earth was warmer before the Flood because it can increase air density in spite of warmer air having less density than cooler air.
Creationists argue that the earth was warmer before the Flood. There's two ways to warm the earth: the sun, and internal heat from the earth's rocks. The latter is the gravity source. Yes, gravity is the negative force from heat freed from atoms. Something in the earth is causing captured electrons to go permanently free from atoms, and this dense accumulation of heat at/near the planetary core has a net-negative charge.
There are other ways to prove that heat is defined as free electrons besides the evidence given above. But when you think about it, the only alternative that anyone can think of, aside form the false kinetic theory of heat pushed by evolutionary science, is heat = electrons. There is no way to produce heat without the new presence of free electrons. Be smart, make fools of evolutionists today.
Okay, so if evolutionists agree that electrons are negatively charged, and as they agree that electrons exist at all heat sources, and as they agree that electrons are rife at all high-temperature areas, what is their problem in failing to announce gravity as the negative charge of free electrons at the earth's core? Why can't negative charge attract atoms? But of course it can. Gravity attracts all atoms, and the only trick is to find how negative charge can attract all atoms. I'm pretty sure I know how this works.
The point was: if the earth was hotter before the Flood, then gravity was stronger, wherefore the air was more dense because stronger gravity squeezes air atoms closer together toward the surface of the earth. People were thus stronger before the Flood, more healthy, and chickens could fly, explaining why God gave them wings appropriate for flight. The chicken is the first clue that the pre-Flood air was thicker.
With thicker air, boiling point goes up, and food cooks faster thereby. Wood lit faster, and burned better with maybe no CO. Water pressure goes up with thicker air, making everything, including living bodies, float a little better, perhaps to the point that children didn't drown if they couldn't swim. Makes sense. With thicker, heavier air, plant roots grew better. The wind was slower but stronger.
If you had a gun that shoots negative charge, and if you pointed the gun toward a gas atom of any species, what would happen when you pulled the trigger? Clue: the atom is surrounded by electrons of negative charge. Clue: negative repels negative. Clue: when your negative-charge gun repels some electrons off of the atom, they fly off into space. What else happens then? Clue: the atom becomes net-positive. What happens? The atom becomes attracted to your gun. Is that correct? I don't see how it can be wrong. Gravity force is that negative-charge gun that causes all atoms to be attracted to itself.
I've said most of these things before, but want to say them again for new readers because they are my personal discoveries that I don't want to keep to myself. I believe the logic / proof is undeniable for these positions which I have shared.
Let's assign the specific gravity force at sea level as g-zero. At one mile above sea level, where it's a little weaker, we can call the force g-1. As any one height, all atoms weigh the same. This is something that evolutionists will never confess because it destroys their all-atoms-attract mechanism for the beginning of cosmic evolution. You need to understand that this mechanism is king for them; they have lied it into the science textbooks. They have created phony experiments to "prove" that every atom, of any species, has its own gravity force acting on all other atoms at a distance. This is untrue, and the all-atoms-weight-the-same law helps to prove it untrue.
Galileo showed that all objects fall to gravity at the same rate of acceleration. Dropped from any height in a vacuum, they all hit the ground at the same time. There is only one way to explain this: every object is pulled by gravity with identical force, regardless of how heavy it is, regardless of how many atoms it possesses, regardless of what atom species it is made of. THIS IS A FACT, and evolutionists have understood it, but have hidden it from you. They have not told you what I just told you in the italics.
If every object falls to gravity with the same speed, then it must be true that every object is somehow pulled by the same force of gravity. It is simply a no-brainer that if one object is pulled by a magnet more strongly than another, it will move to the magnet faster. NO-BRAINER. Science can prove this easily, and scientists familiar with magnetic experiments know it.
But if you ask a scientist to explain why gravity pulls all objects at the same speed, he's not going to be able to be forthright for fear of being ostracized for teaching the things that go against established science. In private, he might admit that gravity pulls all objects with the same level of force, so long as they are at the same height off the ground. There is only one way to explain it, and the solution came to my mind almost instantly when I tackled the problem, meaning that it has come to mind for countless physicists too. And some of them were bound to speak up about it, and all of them must have been silenced by the establishment, because we never hear about it. If all objects speed toward gravity identically, then gravity pulls all atoms with the same level of force.
That's right, a no-brainer. It doesn't matter how many atoms there are in a piece of steel, the steal falls to gravity at the same accelerating rate of speed because gravity attracts each atom individually; all atoms fall at the same speed. NO-BRAINER. You cannot accept this fact, if you are a trained (brainwashed) physicist, because you can't accept that all atoms, of all species, are pulled by gravity with the same force, because the specific force of gravity is known to define weight, and the establishment says that all atom species have different weight.
There's no trick here. If gravity pulls a steel ball with g-1 force one mile into the sky, and if gravity pulls a plastic ball with g-1 force one mile into the sky, they both have atoms weighing the very same. Again, weight is defined as the specific pull of gravity force. The more gravity pulls an object, the more it weighs. If it pulls an object with 20 pounds of force, it weighs twice as much as another object pulled with ten pounds of force. What's the mystery? The mystery is that physicists have been chicken-guts fools for not coming out to tell you the truth: all atoms weigh the same.
If the 20-pound object falls to gravity at the same speed as the 10-pound object, even though they don't weigh the same, then gravity pulls each atom individually with the same force. Even though the one object, as it falls, possesses twice as much force than the other, which creates a bigger crater in the soil than the other, yet gravity pulls every atom with the same force.
If both objects are made of the same material, then, a no-brainer, the 20-pound object has twice as many atoms. It is necessary, no wiggling out, that all the atoms weigh the same because that law explains why the object with twice as many atoms falls with twice the force. The truth is as clear as day: the object striking the ground with twice the force has twice the force because it has twice the atoms all pulled by the same level of gravity force. The math demands this law. The formula is: difference in number of atoms x difference in atomic weight; in this case: 2 x 1 = 2 times the strike-force.
The differing force of falling objects (dropped from the same height) must always be nothing other than number of atoms x atomic weight. The math will not work if you use atoms of differing weights. That is, the math will not work when we compare the strike-force of two objects of different materials. If, for example, the atom species of the 20-pound object weighs 3 times as much as the atom species in the 10-pound object, and if the first object has 4 times as many atoms, then the formula, number of atoms x atomic weight, is: 4 x 3 = 12 times the strike force. Does that look correct to you? It can't be correct because the first object weighs twice as much and will therefore have 2 times the strike force, not 12. Strike-force depends on the weight difference alone. Stop. Think. STRIKE-FORCE DEPENDS ON WEIGHT DIFFERENCE ALONE. What does this tell you?
The physicist can use any numbers he wishes for differing atomic weights, and any numbers he wishes for the differing number of atoms per object, but he cannot arrive to the correct strike-force with those numbers because the only correct number is 2 times the strike-force when the object weighs 2 times as much, and 5 times the strike force when the object weighs 5 times as much. The modern physicist is in fact quite the stupid man.
But wait. Isn't it true that strike-force is found by number of atoms combined with atomic weight? Yes, but then why am I saying that strike-force depends ONLY on the differing weight? well, that proves the law I'm talking about, all atoms weigh the same. The only thing that counts for finding strike-force is the differing weights of objects, if all atoms weigh the same. For this math, we can treat all atomic species identically. It doesn't matter what those different atoms look like, what they are made of to make them different; if they all weigh the same, we can plug them into the math with the number, 1.
That is, if the number for "atomic weight" is always 1 in the formula, number of atoms x atomic weight, then we can ignore the atomic weight and use the formula, number of atoms alone. That is, the difference in the number of atoms alone is what determines strike-force.
Yes, it's true. An object having 12.3 times the strike force has 12.3 times as many atoms. That's all there is to it. This is what Galileo inadvertently discovered. And physicists are all wrong about their varying atomic weights. What a mess this makes for them; their establishment can never recover from it. This is good news because God plans to make fools of the "wise" who seek to thwart His Plan for mankind. Start making fools of God-killer physicists today.
If an object weighs 8.4 times as much as a second object, it hits the ground with 8.4 x 1 = 8.4 times the force. This is known. It's not my idea. The strike-force difference of all objects is always proportional to the weight alone, meaning no other factor changes the strike-force, meaning that all atoms must weigh the same. Otherwise (i.e. if atoms all had different weights), the strike-force formula would need adjustment on behalf of the changing force due to atoms not weighing the same.
I can show how gravity causes all atoms to weigh the same. In that case, I must have the correct view of gravity. This is your lucky day if you are reading here, because you can now know how gravity works once and for all. Gravity is the negative charge of free electrons in the earth. At any given distance from the source of gravity, all atoms of all species receive the same level of negative charge from gravity. This negative charge is the gravity force, no mystery whatsoever, you can grasp this.
Gravity will "blow" (remove) electrons from all atoms, but only the electrons held to their protons with less force than the gravity force. Right? If any electron is held to the proton more strongly than the force of gravity to blow it away, how can gravity blow it away? An atom's captured electrons are held more strongly the closer they are to the protonic surface, and so gravity can only blow away the electrons at the outer edges of the atom.
It means that the outer edge of all atoms (at the same distance from gravity) has electrons more-or-less hanging on to the proton with attraction force equal to the repulsion force of gravity upon that atom. It also means that the protonic force at the outer edge of all atoms, regardless of species, is equal. For this part of the discussion, it doesn't matter than the outer edges of all atoms is equal to the force of gravity; what matters is that all atoms at their outer edges have the SAME LEVEL of positive force radiating outward. As gravity attracts positive force, all atoms (at the same distance from gravity) are pulled by gravity with equal force i.e. all atoms weigh the same.
There is no giant coincidence to cause all atoms to have the same weight. One would ridicule this claim because one cannot at first grasp how possibly all atoms could weigh the same. But it becomes explicable, and a non-coincidence, if one factor alone causes all atoms to weigh the same, and that factor is gravity itself, so logical. One can grasp this. Put an atom into a gravitational field, and it automatically gets attracted by a certain level of force dependant only on the specific distance from gravity.
The proton is itself a gravity source of sorts because it pulls electrons just as gravity pulls atoms (though I'm not sure that "pull" is the correct way to describe attraction). The outer captured electrons are held more weakly to the proton for more reason than being further from the protonic surface. The inner captured electrons repel the outer captured electrons, meaning that the extreme outer layers of captured electrons receive the most repulsion from the bulk of captured electrons. This situation predicts that outer electrons, as they hover in-place, have much more space between themselves than the inner electrons.
I imagine that the inner-most electrons are very packed, explaining the gigantic levels of explosive energy that science calls "nuclear energy." The closer the electrons are held by the proton, the stronger they will shoot out from one another, if the proton should be crippled or wholly destroyed so that it's positive force is greatly diminished.
I'll bet my life on it: atoms do not have orbiting electrons. If the atom is left undisturbed, its electrons are motionless from the fact that they repel one another in all directions while being captured by protonic gravity. The electrons seek equa-distance from one another, and yet the electrical forces mentioned above cause them not to be equa-distant.
The electron atmosphere of the proton is exactly the same situation as the earth's atmosphere, where atoms repel one another seeking equa-distance while simultaneously trapped to the earth by its gravity. Yet the outer air atoms are more distant apart due partly to their distance further from the gravity source. The weaker gravity acts upon the atoms, the more they can spread out from one another due to their inter-repulsion forces.
If air atoms did not repel one another, neither could they weigh down on the ground. As gravity pulls them downward, the atoms exert air pressure in all directions, not in the down direction alone, because their inter-repulsion goes out in all directions. As they are pulled downward, they get pressed sideways too against the side of a vertical post, or any object.
It is not a coincidence that air pressure sideways is 14.2 pounds per square inch upon any object while a single column of air, from top to bottom of the atmosphere, if its one square inch in size, weighs 14.2 pounds. It cannot be a coincidence because science has admitted that air weighs down on the ground at 14.2 pounds per square inch. But modern science is unable to explain this, and for this reason science is forced to chalk it up as a coincidence because they do not view the cause of the weight of air identically with the cause for air pressure. I do.
The reality is that the downward force of gravity upon air atoms is what causes air pressure. I have his in my favor, they do not. Whatever the downward force of gravity is, it's going to be the same sideways, air-pressure force too. You can grasp this. But science defines air pressure, not from the inter-repulsion of air atoms, but as their speed in collisions with, for example, the side of a post. In that case, they must claim that the speed of collisions just COINCIDENTALLY causes a pressure of about 14.2 pounds per square inch, the same force as the air causes on the ground due to its weight.
Can you see their problem? In their view, the atoms are striking the ground continuously. At any one given moment of time, there are only a small portion of total atmospheric atoms striking the ground, making it impossible for air to weigh on the ground. It is impossible for atoms in the space above the ground to weigh onto the ground if they are not repelling each other. Therefore, the evolutionist fool teaches that the air pressure on the ground equals 14.2 pounds per square inch in spite of the air being unable to weigh down on the ground. They must teach that, by sheer coincidence alone, the air pressure from air-atom collisions with the ground equals exactly the weight of the atmosphere if it could weigh down on the ground.
To solve this problem for the fool, we just admit that air atoms repel each other. But the evolutionist fool cannot have this, because he wants to convince us that the big bang created the stars. The evolutionist is worse than a piece of trash because a piece of trash is not generally dangerous to human life. The evolutionist gives people the lure toward eternal damnation. Many evolutionists have converted to Jesus, but the bulk of them are remaining at war with Him. The more the science points to Creationism, the more we threaten evolutionists, the more that some of the sociopaths amongst them might want to persecute us rather than conform to reality. At-all-costs evolutionists are sociopaths, pushers of fantasies, portraying realists as fantasizers.
In a sealed container the size of a gallon, gravity causes probably a minute amount of the gas pressure, because the air is very light in that height of a container. Most of the pressure is from inter-repelling atoms. But in the open field of space above the earth, gravity alone causes atmospheric pressure because the inter-repelling atoms are free to move away from one another as far as infinity. The height of the atmosphere depends on how far the accumulation of air atoms can reach against pull of gravity upon them. In warmer air, the ceiling is higher because heat contributes to their inter-repulsion forces.
That's right, for heat is nothing other than free electrons streaming into the air from the sun. The evolutionist fool is so afraid that you will recognize this that they have made a law: electrons from the solar wind are redirected away from the earth by the earth's magnetic field. They don't want to teach, over and over again, that the solar wind's electrons enter the air, because too many people to contend with will simultaneously get the idea that these electrons are the heat material, and moreover too many people to contend with will simultaneously get the impression that electrons in space (includes air) are the light-wave medium. So they teach error, that solar-wind electrons are pushed to the sides of the planet, and pushed away into outer space beyond the earth. You, little one, cannot prove otherwise, they think. But yes you can. You can prove that heat is nothing more than electrons entering substances.
I have the dishonor of discovering that gravity repels electrons. It's an amazing discovery. It's the way to explain how the earth does not fry. The fools who make up any fantasies needed at every discovery of their errors can now claim that heat escapes the earth. At one time, they claimed that outer space was empty, but, oops, they thereby made it impossible for solar heat to escape into space via their kinetic theory of heat. The only way for heat transfer to occur in the kinetic theory is by atoms colliding with other particles, but without atoms in space, they could not explain how solar heat left the atmosphere after entering it. In that picture, the earth would fry.
So they invented many other microscopic particles besides atoms, and perhaps they now claim that air atoms strike these, from the solar wind, in order to send the atom's heat energy into space. But this doesn't work because, if air atoms can contact these mystery particles, then the latter must also be entering the air and contributing heat to it, for the blockheads define heat as the motion of particles. The faster the particles, and the more of them, the hotter the environment, they say.
Heat cannot be defined as the motion of atoms because atoms cannot maintain speed upon collisions, wherefore the science establishment is openly admitting that its leaders have been blockheads for over a century and counting. But if gravity is a negative charge, it must repel electrons into outer space because there is nothing to bring the electrons back once repelled to the heights. This is how heat escapes the planet, and it does so in roughly the amount that enters each day from the sun. God arranged for gravity force to remove by night the heat that enters by day.
In order for this to be true, the air density needs to be such that it restrains the loss of atmospheric heat sufficient to allow life to thrive on the ground. If the earth were larger while having the same gravity force and air content, air would be less dense because gravity then pulls air atoms with less force, allowing air atoms to expand further from one another. The specific density of the air determines how fast heat escapes into space. God had to make the earth just the right size for the specific gravity force that He chose for it, but He first needed to choose the right air density fit for plants and animals.
First choose the air density, then make the internal heat level conform. That is, the planetary heat level determines the level of gravity force because gravity is sourced in the internal heat. Therefore, the appropriate air-density level is governed by a combination of earth size and internal heat level.
If you put your mind to it, you could serve up various arguments to help prove that gravity repels electrons. Once this is done, you have proven that gravity is defined as the electrons in the earth, unless you wish to invent another negatively-charged particle that's down there. Yes, internal heat repels atmospheric heat, what could be more logical.
The more heat in the air rising into space under the propulsion power of gravity, the harder they give lift to air atoms while striking them on their bottom sides, and thus the higher goes the atmospheric ceiling. Plus, the more heat in the air, the more that electrons press into the electron atmospheres of atoms, making the atoms higher in negative charge so that atoms repel one another with more force, which is a second factor contributing to the increase in height of the atmospheric ceiling. Now you know the reality because this system works in every way while atomic kineticism, and the kinetic theory of heat, are impossible. Do the right thing, don't be a blockhead. Resist the crashing-atom nonsense.
We can't have air atoms escaping into space by either system. In their system, an atom at the ceiling moving toward outer space is pulled back down by gravity. Whatever energy it loses while going up toward outer space, it regains exactly when dropping back to gravity so that no net loss in heat can take place with this kinetic theory. It's gravity that causes the air atom to come to a stop at top-dead center of it's outward flight, and it's gravity that brings it back down again. No net loss or gain in motion energy, a big problem because fantastic amounts of heat must be loosed into space constantly. That's why God made the night. The night is needed to let solar electrons fly off into space.
It's possible that the very highest air atoms are pulled by gravity with exactly the force of rising electrons to propel them into space. What I'm trying to say is that, possibly, the maximum density of the air has been achieved, and is in play at all times. Therefore, when plants and other processes produce more air atoms than animals and plants consume, the excess air atoms are pushed away into the solar wind, thereby flying away, never to return to earth. The solar wind is an erosion force upon the atmospheric ceiling, taking with it some air atoms, in other words.
If air density is to full capacity, the solar wind maintains that full-capacity level as long as the processes which make oxygen and nitrogen continue to do so in amounts higher than the solar wind takes away. Full capacity is when the solar wind has the power to erode air atoms away from earth. If it doesn't, then air density should increase continually from the production of air atoms. If plants produce more air atoms than are lost, then the density of oxygen should be increasing. But if it's not increasing, it's possibly due to air being at full-capacity density already.
Relative Sizes of Atoms
The blockhead is already at war with my ideas, but let's go for the gusto, make him see deeper red. I will claim with confidence that hydrogen atoms are the largest of all atoms, while he claims that they are the smallest of all atoms. I'm confident of my claim because hydrogen atoms have the most lift of any other gaseous atom, even the gaseous atoms of materials that are normally liquids or solids. Helium has the second-best lift factor, better than oxygen, but these differences of lift force have nothing to do with the differing weights of atoms...because all atoms weigh the same.
You see, if the blockheads read Galileo properly at his Pisa experiments, and if they were willing to let go of their big bang, they would have realized that the hydrogen atom is massive compared to most other atoms. Instead, they allowed their big-bang needs to lead them astray on the entire gamut of their views of atoms. There is virtually nothing they have in correctly describing the atom. All of their atomic model can be proven false with simple logic available to common sense.
Is all atoms weigh the same while hydrogen gets the strongest lift force, it must be the largest atom because more rising electrons can get under it thereby. As lift factor is created by rising electrons, it's follows that the H atom has the biggest behind. It's that simple, any child can grasp this. A flat disc three inches in diameter, positioned horizontally, gets more lift force from a shot of upward air than a disc of one-inch round. Duh. Therefore, if the fools followed reality rather than chasing the big-bang wind, they would have discovered that long ago.
So, what they did was to reason like so: hmm, as H atoms go higher faster than any other atom, it must be the lightest. BLOCKHEAD. If you make a vacuum in your head, and if you put a hydrogen atom next to an oxygen atom, what reason can you give for the H atom rising faster than the O atom? Zero reason. In fact, as both are attracted by gravity, they should both be pulled downward if there wasn't something to lift them against the force of gravity.
Only bimbos (not true-to-heart thinkers) would tell us that H gas rises in air by insinuating the buoyancy principle. Online from google: "Hydrogen gas is highly diffusive and highly buoyant;..." Shameful BIMBOS educate us. I'm not referring here to a hydrogen balloon, but free hydrogen in air. There is no buoyancy possible in their kinetic theory of atoms. In their view, all atoms in any space are islands, separated from one another, not in contact with one another, unlike a balloon in contact with water molecules. There can be no buoyancy (upward motion) without physical contact of a material against a thing it forces upward.
In their view, atoms are merely in collision, and as such they will knock one another as much downward as upward. There is nothing to produce the upward rise EVERY time an H atom is placed in air. The one H atom will rise right away like it's on a mission, and it will go STRAIGHT up. Atoms in crashing-kinetic motion don't do that. They would go in all directions equally so as to essentially go nowhere fast. Duh.
If you need proof that free hydrogen in air rises as far as it can get, note what is amply available online: propane gas sinks to the floor if it leaks in your room. It does not spread out evenly in the room; ditto for any gas. Online: "Hydrogen is 14 times lighter than air and rises at a speed of almost 20 m/s, 6 times faster than natural gas which means that when released, it rises and disperses quickly."
The truth is, the wider the atom or molecule, the greater the lift force. An atom/molecule with twice the width (of another) would get four times the lift because its bottom area is four times as large. Let me tell you why hydrogen gas rises six times faster than a natural-gas molecule even though the latter is expected to be wider than an H atom. The natural gas molecule is made of as many as eight atoms according to my atomic model, and as such it weighs as much as eight times more (all atoms weigh the same). On this factor alone, the H atom should have eight times more lift, but only if it were of a width identical to the natural-gas molecule. The latter is larger, however, and as such it gets more lift on that factor alone, wherefore I'd expect the H atom to have less than eight times more lift.
When considering upward lift, we also need to consider restriction to the upward path. The air atoms are locked in a grid due to their inter-repulsion. They don't want to move aside when a rising atom/molecule comes their way. There's a whole lot of bumping going on when atoms rise through air, especially with molecules larger than air atoms. Yet, the bumping may be a bumping only into the repulsive field of air atoms. That is, when an atom is rising toward an air atom, their respective repulsion forces may force the rising atom around the air atom without physical contact. The rising atom does a S-curve as it rises, I imagine. If a rising molecule is wider than the space between air atoms, there will result plenty of restriction.
A water molecule consists of eight oxygen atoms and one hydrogen atom, weighing nine times more than an H atom. You can find online that water vapor weighs nine times more than hydrogen, and the atomic facts demand it, let me show you how. If you can follow this, you should be amazed. We start with the experimental fact the TWO gallons of H gas, mixed with ONE gallon of O gas, produces two gallons of water gas. They call this H2O. They stupidly think that Two gallons of H with ONE gallon of O produced a molecule consisting of TWO H atoms merged with ONE O atom. They think this because they have taken the utterly-stupid position that all gallons of gas, at equal temperature and pressure, have the SAME NUMBER of atoms. There is nothing in all the vast land of coincidences, nor in the scientific evidences, to suggest that this situation should be true.
You need to be utterly stupid to take such a position, or, at best, you need to be self-interested in taking it, for example to facilitate some evolutionary process that becomes problematic otherwise. Had the evolutionists hearkened to Galileo's message, they would have started on the correct premise: all atoms weigh the same.
Go get your grade five son or daughter to ask them a question. Ask them this: as one gallon of hydrogen weighs 16 times more than one gallon of oxygen, how many more oxygen atoms are in the gallon if all atoms weigh the same? It should take long before you get the answer: 16 times more oxygen atoms.
The next question might need a grade-8er: when two gallons of H gas are mixed with one gallon of O gas, where the O gallon has 16 times as many atoms per H gallon, how many O atoms will there be per one H atom? Clue: half of the O gallon mixes with one H gallon, and the other half of the O gallon mixes with the second H gallon. In that case, there will be eight times as may O atoms, per H atoms, in both gallons of H gas. Therefore, each water molecule consists of eight O atoms per one H atom, which is not an H2O molecule, but an O8H molecule. As there are nine atoms in this water molecule, a gallon of water vapor is expected to weigh nine times as much as a gallon of hydrogen gas, and in fact that is the experimental fact known by science.
Just think of it: you now know the truth about the look of a water molecule, and all of science does not. There's nothing you can do with this reality because they will clobber you if you try to push this on the world. But I'm having fun anyway, making monkeys out of the enemies of God. Or, let them repent, and I'll praise them. The irony is that even Christian physicists teach the errors spawned by evolutionists.
The erroneous atomic weights of atoms as put out by the dummies is informative because these weights can tell us the relative sizes of the atoms. The smaller their atomic weight, the larger the atom. Nitrogen, with an atomic weight of 14 as compared to 16 for oxygen, is larger than oxygen by a small amount. Nitrogen gets a little more lift force as compared to oxygen, but, thankfully, the wind keeps it all mixed up fairly well at ground level, otherwise we would have only oxygen at ground level if there were no wind.
The water molecule is larger than the O atom, getting more lift force on that factor, and yet it's nine times heavier to cancel most of the extra lift force. As water vapor rises in air, it suggests that it does have some net-lift factor. If the water molecule were a little more than twice as wide as an air atom, it could have a lift force of eight or nine times as much as an air atom.
Therefore, if I choose a lift force of eight times more, the water molecule is not much larger than twice as large. Or, put it this way, that if the water molecule were four times wider, it would get 16 times more lift force than the air atom. Let me tell you what happens as rising electrons lift the water molecule. Excluding wind from the picture, water molecules rise only to a certain height in the zone of rain clouds. They cannot rise higher because, as they rise, the density of rising electrons decreases, meaning that there are fewer electrons giving lift. When the molecule reaches a height where the lift force has decreased to equal the pull of gravity upon the water molecule, it ceases to rise. It's in equilibrium, and therefore hovers at the same height. As water molecule follows water molecule to this height, clouds form, an ingenious system, praise the Creator so super in intelligence.
We can gather that the water molecule has very little net-lift force in the battle between gravity and rising electrons. Reminder, rising electrons is identical with rising heat. As the earth turns away from the sun at evening time, the air cools i.e. there are fewer rising electrons, and so the water molecules start falling back to earth, and they land on leaves and grass and on your beautiful head as you eye the full moon.
A small change in temperature of some 15 degrees F is the difference between rising and falling water molecules. We couldn't have enough rain if this delicate balance were not the reality. It's a fine-tuned situation. God had to make the water molecule just so-large and so-heavy together.
Plus, if not for wind, we wouldn't get clouds in winter when there is insufficient lift for water molecules. When the air is still in winter, the sky is usually clear. When it rains here every February, it's ALWAYS quite windy, not merely breezy.
What causes wind? It's the differential between electron density in one part of the air versus another part. The more-dense the electrons, the closer they are, wherefore the harder they push each other away. Where do they push each other away? They push air atoms into zones less dense with electrons. A no-brainer. The higher-pressure electron zones move into the lower-pressure areas.
It's too simple, really, but simplicity with God works because he's a genius, able to organize this air system just right to make it all work for us. Earth size, gravity force, air density, heat-particle density, water-molecule weight, all just-right to work together. Man is pleased by it all, has his needs met, yet forsakes the Creator who gave it. BLOCKHEAD-FOOL. And because he rejects God, he also sins liberally against his fellow man, even in common business dealings, but with much more. The legacy of evolutionism is already gross sinfulness, but we haven't yet seen the end of its fruit.
Light-Wave Medium is Trash Can of All Energy
The evolutionist is bound to contort his thinking when he begins with error in the atomic model. Unless he abandons the errors, they will breed error until he comes up with monstrous "facts." One of these phantoms is the light particle-wave duality. He thinks that by calling it "duality," he's making a ghost look respectable. He comes up with all sorts of names for all sorts of phantoms in his attempt to make us think they are real. Just admit it: light cannot be both a particle and a wave. Just admit it, you went wrong somewhere. And I know where they went wrong, and how they lie.
Einstein played a role in sweeping the cosmic "aether" under the rug to where it was no longer seen. The establishment "proved" that it could not exist. Einstein played with electrons, helping to prove their existence and to show some of their behavior. He was playing with light while playing with electrons, but he didn't realize that light was a wave through the solar electrons that fill both the solar system and the air. It hadn't yet been discovered that electrons stream from the stars.
Solar electrons rate as an aether, do they not? But of course they do. And so why hasn't science announced its error, that there is an aether after all through which light waves can move? Because, modern science is not based on truth where it gets in the way of the primary mission: convincing the world that God does not exist.
An aether is made of material, particles, like an invisible gas. They were looking for a stationary aether sitting in space. They reasoned that, if such a thing existed, it should slow the orbit of the earth, or in some way should show friction as the earth passed through it. But if they had realized (maybe they did but didn't publicize) that the aether consists of a stream of particles from the sun, they would have been able to explain why it should not slow the earth (or lunar) orbit: the earth spends exactly as much time going into the solar wind as it does going with the solar wind, meaning that whatever velocity it loses when going into the wind, it picks up again when going with the wind.
What happens when an electron is shot into the aether of electrons? The force of the shot enters the aether. Duh. Even if the electron is shot insufficiently fast as to physically contact an aether electron, it does make "contact" with aether electrons via their mutual repulsion forces. Thus, an electron shot into the aether moves aether electrons. Duh. And what would you call this motion, if you were a scientist?
Come on, I just know you can answer that question. You shoot an electron into the aether, defined as a sea of electrons that is in a real sense an non-atomic gas. The motion energy of the shot electron cause one aether electron to move in accordance with its direction of motion, and the aether electrons that moves then causes another aether electron to move as it itself moves toward it. What is it called when motion energy moves electron-to-electron through this aether? It's a wave of energy. Duh. Is anyone going to claim that the scientific establishment has yet to realize that a shot electron will cause a wave through the sea of electrons? Of course they realized this, yet they don' want you to know it. Instead, they feed you the particle-wave monster, and just look at how many science buffs are stupidly eating it up, then feeding their crap to others.
A light wave moves far more freely than a sound wave in air because aether electrons are not held tight by gravity force. A sound wave is atom-to-atom, yet as gravity holds air atoms as tight as possible to the floor of the planet, there is restriction to the passing of a sound wave through air. There is also restriction in the passing of a sound wave through a solid material because solids are made of atoms bonded together, and as such the atoms are able to bring the energy of a wave to a standstill.
The point is, a light wave through the aether receives as little as zero resistance because electrons are not held tight to any surface. We can say that, when an electron is shot into the aether, all of it's motion-energy is transferred to the electron ahead of it, and so on to other electrons, with no loss of energy. Now you know why the establishment does not want this reality to be known, because zero restriction in a light wave can cause light transfer to be instant. That is, the speed of light in outer space can be instant, ruining their concept of a light-year of distance. If starlight travels instantly, it's then not true that stars we see today is where they were billions of years ago. Therefore, it's no longer possible to use this premise as proof that the universe is billions of years old.
We could theorize that, due to air atoms in the lab, the speed of light is reduced there from instant to a crawling 186,000 miles per second. You might say that one can measure the speed of light in outer space by measuring it on earth in a vacuum, but this may not be true if the light needs to pass from the vacuum to some air when going to the "eyes" that measure the time interval. In any case, whatever substances they bounce light off of in measuring its speed may themselves reduce the speed of light. If we bounce light off of a mirror, the silver can possibly reduce the speed, but they don't tell you that part.
So, we can see why the evolutionists favor the eradication of the aether to this day, because it can destroy their proof of stars being billions of years old. I can offer proof that light bounced off of a mirror causes a slow-down in the speed of light. That's because atoms have springs. If you shoot a ball into a round spring, the ball slows down as it compresses the spring until it's motionless for a split-second. The spring then shoots the ball back in the opposite direction, but never as fast as it arrived to the spring, because the spring (its material) absorbs some of the energy of motion. We energy of any moving object is absorbed, there's a slow down in its velocity. Duh. Therefore, why has the establishment not told us that light-speed experiments can be bogus due to light-absorption by mirrors?
In fact, they view light as a photon particle rather than a true wave. And they know the laws of physics: materials lose speed when making contact with materials. Yet they claim that a photon never looses velocity no matter how many times it crashes, zillions of times per second, into electrons and protons. LIARS.
At atom is a spring because it's surrounded by an electron atmosphere. If you could poke your finger into that atmosphere, there would be resistance. The electrons are unable to move toward the protonic surface unless forced to do so. They are unable to move further away from the protonic surface unless forced to do so. Your finger needs to push the electrons inward, and once you remove your finger, the electrons SPRING back to their original position. In other words, when a light-wave electron pushes into the atmosphere of an atom, it's shot back out again (i.e. reflected light) by the spring action of the captured electrons. This is sometimes called photo-electricity, and at other times it's called the color of reflected light, though the establishment won't express the mechanics it as I've just done. They have no clue as to how light bounces out of the atom, and they feed you a monster in this regard.
This monster has impossible electrons circling the proton at impossible speeds, and also has photons being grabbed by the speedy electrons only to shoot them out again without loss of photon velocity. These are clowns from Hell. How can a photon crashing into an circling electron not cause the slow-down of one or both particles? IMPOSTERS. QUACKS.
They know that some light is absorbed by materials, yet they refuse to see this absorption as loss of energy of light particles. That's a contradiction. If the energy is absorbed, there is loss of energy, and therefore there is loss of velocity since the energy was from velocity to begin with. They feed you duh-monsters in many ways, this being just one.
When a light-wave electron is forced into the atmosphere of an atom, most of the energy is reflected out again probably at/near the spot where it struck. But reason tells us that some of the energy spreads atom-to-atom too, because a light-wave electron pushes the entire atom too as it strikes the atom's atmosphere. Therefore, some of the light-wave energy dissipates into the atomic material to some depth. It is true that this energy cannot be destroyed, yet it can be absorbed, and absorption always reduces the speed of the "bullet" because some of the energy does not come back to it.
Therefore, when the captured electrons are squeezed by a light bullet toward the protonic surface, they bounce back out but never deliver as much energy into the adjacent space/aether that it took to squeeze them inward. Some of that energy, even if only minute, got "lost" elsewhere. He thinks he can argue that all energy of motion entering the atom ultimately finds its way to other atoms to forever keep them at the same total velocity, yet this violates the law.
The law is this: a ball set in motion with 10 pounds of force, when struck in the opposite direction with 10 pounds of force, will stop in its tracks. The force of motion has been canceled. Energy was not lost, but motion ceases. The 10 pounds that set the ball in motion is counteracted exactly so that the expected result is a reverting to zero motion.
If the 10 pounds of force, from the opposite direction, is from an identical ball at an identical speed, both balls will stop in their tracks because the one ball causes the other to stop. They do not bounce away again at the velocity at which they make head-on contact, yet the latter is how the evolutionist envisions colliding atoms. Duh-monsterably false.
What happens to the energy of both balls when they come to a stop? It can't all go out as sound energy because both balls would come to a halt even in a vacuum where sound is impossible. The stop-energy causes the atoms of both balls to vibrate, and when atoms vibrate, the captured electrons jiggle. When electrons jiggle, they shoot out toward the electron aether, and thus the energy of balls colliding goes out into the aether as weak light. The law: all electron motion causes light waves.
Therefore, when atoms collide, they slow down partly because energy dissipates into the aether, and energy in the aether escapes into outer space. Weak light is fast light too, and so energy from atomic contacts escapes almost-instantly into space. God can see the light shining from two balls colliding.
If we say that the vibrational energy of two colliding balls goes into air atoms surrounding the balls, not so fast. Air atoms are "transparent," and as such they do not absorb much light energy. In my opinion after much thought, the only way for light to pass "through" an atom is around its weakly-held, outer electrons. The light wave should take the path of least resistance, not through the center of the atom, but along the outer edges.
In other words, light can pass both through aether electrons and the weakly-held electrons of atoms. Hydrogen, nitrogen and oxygen atoms are amongst the largest of atoms having an abundance of very loose hovering electrons at the outer edges. Metal atoms are amongst the smallest of atoms with few outer electrons, tending to explain why metals are not transparent.
When an atom strikes an atom, there is more going on than the cushion-in-and-spring-back-out effect. When atoms collide and bounce away from one another, they merge for a small time. During the merger, there is inter-attraction of the atoms, which slows the velocity of the spring-back-out part of the collision. Magnetic attraction can be likened to your putting one finger on one object, and another finger on a second object, and pushing them together from opposite directions. As you push them toward one another, they have some speed, but as the fingers continue to push at contact, the objects lose all velocity. If the objects are pushed into contact from any angle other than head-on, they lose only some velocity, not all. Ditto for atoms caught in mutual attraction force.
Attraction force may be unable to keep the atoms from bouncing away after contact, but nonetheless some of the velocity will vanish on account of it. When two identical atoms from opposite directions collide and remain merged in spite of some spring-back, much/all velocity will vanish. The kinetic theory of atoms is a dead imposter.
An atom is a cushion with memory. The latter is the spring-back. This has got to explain bounce. Even solid objects that have no compressed air within, such as a tennis ball, can bounce when thrown against a steel wall. As the object hits the wall, the captured electrons of all atoms move a tiny bit toward the wall (remaining on their respective atoms), then spring back in the opposite direction, forming the bounce off the wall. Some atoms have better bounce capability then others, we may wonder why.
When an object strikes a wall, the atoms in the object merge a little deeper, then spring back toward their original merger depth, contributing to the momentum that forms the bounce off the wall. I suppose that most materials, especially those unable to change shape (i.e. as rubber does), form more of a thud than a bounce, making it harder for the fool to argue that colliding atoms bounce back fully with the velocity they had prior to collision. WACKO. If it wackos like a duck, it probably is a quack.
We can argue until the chickens come home to woost as to how much bounce two colliding atoms possess, but even if they loose only .01-percent of their velocity per collision, they will lose all velocity in 10,000 collisions, which, according to the kinetic science, is only a few seconds of time. See any problem here? The proud woosters can't fly as they cockadoodle-doo. They say that all gas atoms are speeding at hundreds of miles per hour, and as atoms are so close together, they're going to do 10,000 collisions in no time at all.
They say that liquid and solid atoms are vibrating at 100s of miles per hour, but if atoms are merged, they are also under attraction force, which is expected to halt vibration in no time at all. If the attraction force reduces vibration by .01-percent per second, all vibration would cease in 10,000 seconds. If we give it even 10,000 days, that would destroy the universe in a month, if indeed atoms vibrate. If they don't vibrate, neither can they have the kinetic energy to form gas atoms i.e. gases would be impossible to produce. Therefore, the quacks rely on your believing that atoms never lose an ounce of velocity per vibration. Virtually the entire physics roster is made up either of such quacks, or those too cowardly to speak out against this obvious error.
Magnetic force is anti-vibration, anti-motion, what is it that we cannot understand about this? A guitar string soon ceases vibration because its atoms attract one another. Why else? If we stretch a wire tight, then push it up or down with the finger to start string vibrations, we thus curve the wire, making it longer, meaning we've pulled its atoms slightly apart. The stretched atoms want to go back to their original positions. After the finger is removed, the wire returns to its original span (prior to being moved with the finger) when it was non-curved, and the original distances between atoms is recovered, at which time the wire ceases to vibrate.
Law: atom-to-atom attraction is the factor ceasing string vibration. Law: atom-to-atom attraction contributes to ceasing motion. Why shouldn't atom-to-atom attraction make it impossible for atoms to vibrate eternally as the fool-liar imagines them? I realize that string vibrations are not atom vibrations, but atoms of solids tend to lock-in at a certain distance between themselves to which they will revert when either stretched or made to vibrate.
One might say that there's a difference between a vibrating object versus the vibration of its atoms. I'm not so sure that's correct. If we strike a ball with a hammer, what vibrates if not its atoms? There's nothing in the ball to vibrate but its atoms. The hammer sent its atoms deeper into one another, and then atoms spring back in the opposite direction. Why do the ball's atoms cease vibration in a short time? Isn't it because the atoms are bonded by attraction? But of course. Kick evolutionists out of the schools. They have failed. They have ruined minds and spirits alike.
I need to elaborate a little because solid and liquid atoms do not lock in place by attraction forces alone, but with a combination of repulsion force too. It has to be true because, where attraction or repulsion remains superior between two atoms, one or the other is going to be the engine that alters the distance between their protonic cores. Only when the two are balanced will the distance between protons be locked in place.
By the way, every atom has only one proton. It is a monster to claim that every species of atom has a different number of protons at the atomic core. It is worthy of mocking. Protons inter-repel and therefore cannot form a cluster. Period. Just run with that. Be smart. View every atom with only one proton. You don't need more than one. Nothing in true atomic science demands it. They use proton clusters because they got the atomic model wrong to begin with, and so this was their fix in solving a problem(s).
Everytime a gas turns to a liquid, the atoms take the same distance from one another. Why? This is a no-brainer for physicists: atoms merge into one another until the three factors (gravity, water pressure, air pressure) that form the merger are perfectly equalled/balanced by the repulsion forces between protons. When atoms are forced to merge more deeply by mechanical pressures than they do naturally, it forces protons closer together so that they cause the outward spring-back effect.
This bounce-back comes with speed, causing the proton-to-proton distance be become greater than the lock-in distance. What do we call this process? Once the proton-to-proton distance is greater than the lock-in distance, the protons bounce back toward one another. We can call this the beginning of atomic vibration. The protons go back and forth between closer together than the lock-in position, and further apart between the lock-in position...but they don't do this forever. With each back-and-forth, they arrive closer to the lock-in position until they cease the back-and-forth altogether, thanks to both attraction and repulsion fighting it out.
The repulsion between protons sends motion-energy out of the atoms into the aether (where else?), and the attraction between atoms gobbles up motion-energy. I feel that attraction force cancels energy. The ceasing of vibrations proves it. When two protons are moving away from one another during the vibration, they come to a stop before returning toward one another because, simultaneously, each proton is attracting the other atoms' electrons. If not for that aspect, the protons would continually repel one another away without loss of energy.
When the two protons are turned around by the electron atmospheres (what else?), they are also forced to slow down, and they get slower each time they are forced to turn around. How can we say that energy is preserved in this situation?
Suppose we had a steel ball floating in space, linked by a wire to an electrical source. Let's keep the electricity off for now, which turns the steel ball into a magnet. Suppose further that there were iron filings floating in space all around the ball. We then turn on the electricity so that the ball pulls all the filings to itself equally all around. The ball does not move, even though it was struck by a million pieces of steel, because they struck with equal force all around. The iron filings, once in contact with the ball, ceased motion. When did the energy of motion go? Once we turn the electricity to the ball off, the steel filings do not go anywhere because there is no force to send them in any direction. The evolutionist would want you to think that a ceasing of motion like this is an impossible "destruction" of energy. But you now know better.
Magnetism swallows up atomic motion and converts it into vibrational energy that then goes into the aether. Both the atoms of the steel ball and the iron filings were made to vibrate once the filings hit the ball. The atomic vibrations sent part of the motion into the aether, and part of it was gobbled up by the atomic attraction forces. One could argue that even the attraction forces cause motion energy to slip out of the atom into the aether. Either way, whether motion is swallowed, or transferred out of the atom, atoms cannot vibrate for more than a short time.
Einstein got a prize for discovering that all light energy entering the atom comes back out again at the surface in which the light struck, though it's doubtful that all 100-percent comes out. The point is, the energy comes out as electrons because it's electrons that go in. Einstein would laugh at himself if someone could tell him that the photons he invented are in reality solar-wind electrons. He discovered electrons jetting out of atoms when struck by light. For every quantity of light that enters the atom, the same quantity comes out.
The smallest quantum of light is nothing more than ONE aether electron pushed into the atom. It causes the atom's captured electrons to jolt and jiggle about, causing light reflection that the eye sees as color. It is one of God's most ingenious inventions. It's nothing more than a splash-down at the atomic level. The splashing electron causes waves within the electron atmosphere just as a rock tossed into water. The genius part is where God made the eye to receive mere aether electrons in such a way that it produces marvelous color in our brains. The color is not in the atoms, but in or brains. Your green paint is not green at all, but rather your brain sees it as green. What would life be like without color, think of God's kindness here.
Think of it. Everything you see is electrons. You can see no proton because they are all surrounded by electrons. Electrons are the same everywhere. It's so basic, so dismal, yet every atom causes the electrons to reach our eyes with different energy.
In fact, it's wrong to say that all we see is electrons. When you are looking at an orange pot, you in fact cannot see the pot. You cannot see the pot's electrons. It's absolutely true what I'm telling you here. The only thing you see are the aether electrons next to your eyes that splash into your eyes. The electrons in the pot are not in your eyes; you cannot therefore see them. Turn off the lights, and you can see no pot. Turn on the lights, and the light splashes into the pot, then sends a splash into your eyes through the air between them and the pot. A system of pure genius that fat-chance, mutation-based evolution could never invent. True physics is stacked with evidence for a Creator.
The aether shouldn't be viewed as a trash can for energy. It's the reservoir. All collisions of motion are the rainfall running down into the sea of electrons across the rivers of vibration. If I could get a line to rhyme with that, we may have the makings of a good song to ridicule the atheists. All illusions of notion are a painful dumbing down into the creed of selective dogma at the rivers of tarnation. God appreciates it when we love Him for what He has done, and what it promises that He can yet do more gloriously, but atheists absolutely do not want to praise Him for any of it.
Is it possible that God has given us a soul that can be dressed with a body not subject to gravity? Gravity pulls only atoms. There are no naked protons, unless they have been destroyed. All protons are dressed with electrons, and all such atoms are pulled down. But if God has a new body not made of atoms, we can fly, without wings. Why do we need a body at all? Can't we just be naked souls? What does a soul look like in sunlight? Invisible? What might it look like in God's light?
The Stuff of Heat
It's got to be true that the sun, and the interior of the earth and moon, destroys protons, for only in this way can their heat be formed, especially as there is no such thing as heat by "fusion." Evolutionists are demented, thinking they can fuse H atoms. They think this because they don't know what atoms look like or how they behave. These goons are in the dark completely, wasting our money, and stealing much of it in the meantime with a zillion scientific endeavors going nowhere fast.
Solar and earthly heat cannot be a form of common combustion, for that requires oxygen and results in exhaust. It makes more sense that stars and planets have clean heat. I imagine that gravity on planets makes the weight of rocks to destroy protons, and when their captured electrons are released, that's defined as heat. It melts the rocks, and rises slowly through them to the surface. Yet that heat is itself the gravity source, suggesting that God first produced heat in planets to form gravity.
The super-mystery is attraction force. I don't understand it. How can something pull at a distance without utilizing some invisible, physical material? Sometimes I wonder whether "attraction" is just the push of aether electrons. For example, when two magnets are placed beside one another so that they attract, the metal atoms within them might repel some aether electrons in the air/space between them, wherefore the density of the electron aether on their back sides is higher. That is, "attraction" now becomes a push on the back sides of the magnets, causing them to come together. In other words, the magnets do not in reality attract; they only get pushed. I don't have any problem with such a theory, until I try to apply it to the attraction of electrons by protons.
If the proton has no attractive force, but only gets covered in electrons because the latter force themselves upon it, then where is the atomic surface? Where does the atom end and the aether begin? All atoms are immersed in the aether, and this aether (= "heat") fills all atomic spaces of liquids and solids. But there needs to be an atomic surface defined as the point in which the proton cannot load anymore electrons. But if the proton does not load electrons in the first place, then such a surface cannot exist.
This is a no-brainer: if the proton loads electrons, it can do so only until the whole accumulation of captured electrons, in any direction, sends out repulsion force equal to the proton's positive force at the atomic surface. In other words, when the positive equals the negative at the atomic surface, no more aether electrons can be loaded because they are repelled by as much force as they are attracted. This is sheer simplicity to understand.
No atom on earth can be in this fully-loaded condition because the gravity force whips a few captured electrons off of the outer edges. Once gravity gets its way, making the atom net-positive toward itself, the atom yet gets electrons upon itself from the aether, in spite of gravity seeking to repel them away. That's because the repulsion force of aether electrons is strong enough to press in on the electron atmosphere, compressing it to some degree, and thus coating the atom with itself.
All atoms wear an aether coat. The proton's attraction force can grasp the aether coat because its this attractive reach that defines the coat. That is, for as far out (from the proton) as the positive force is greater than the negative force, the proton has grasp on aether electrons. Gravity removes electrons below the line of maximum proton reach (= neutral line), but the aether replaces them there. As the aether is pressing in also above that neutral line, I see all atoms as net-negative toward one another, for atoms thus have a preponderance of negative force (from the addition of aether electrons).
That's the best I can do at this time, which can explain why atoms seek to get away from one another with increasing heat, because the latter is defined as a higher density of aether electrons. The higher that density, the more electrons press in all around the atom, and the more negatively charged atoms become. Atoms seeking to get away from one another is defined as gas pressure in the gas department, and expanding materials in the liquid and solid departments.
Heat is a material after all, just as the old caloricists claimed. Go ahead and read up on the reasons that kineticists abandoned caloric heat, but keep in mind as you read that heat consists of WEIGHTLESS electrons that can squeeze into the atomic pores every material. When caloric was the going theory, scientists hadn't yet understood electrons, and even after their discovery, the evolutionist pigs weren't inclined on telling the world that there's no reason electrons couldn't be repelled by gravity. To this day, there's no proof that electrons are attracted by gravity. If the evolutionist claims that there is such proof, he also has established "proof" also for a million errors, that we know for sure. The evolutionist is infamous for errors he once called facts. The evolutionist has been sure to make himself absolutely remockable. To this day, he has not shown proof of his gravity particle which he claims is inside of every atom. He doesn't even talk about this particle anymore.
It is an established fact long ago that electrons come out of a light filament. Anybody can make electrons with a filament light bulb. You can feel these electrons on the top of the bulb as heat. The electrons go right through the glass and into your hand. The bottom of the bulb is not nearly as hot. Guaranteed, if you made the best vacuum possible, with a filament light bulb inside, and if you covered the container with wax, the only part of the container to see melted wax is directly above the filament, proof positive that electrons rise. But how can they rise if gravity pulls them? Why don't they accumulate on the bottom of the bulb??? What excuse will the professional physicist give us for not telling us the fate of all those electrons in the bulb?
Unless you have a wee-wee brain made of wood, you will not argue that the heat rises due to the wee-wee bit of air remaining in the vacuum. If you had any physics senses at all, professional physicist, you wouldn't make that argument stand on your face like Pinocchio's nose. You're sharp alright, like the forked tongue of a snake. How can the physicist claim that electrons orbit metal atoms, and then tell us that electricity is the flow of electrons down a metal wire, where they crash even into metal atoms in the filament? You can't have it both ways.
You can't have both orbiting and flowing electrons. You can't strip the metal atoms of orbiting electrons to explain electricity because the metal atoms will no longer be atoms as you view them. Make up your mind with a straight face.
I'm pretty sure that the electrical-generating station does NOT pump electrons into the electric wires. I'm pretty sure that electricity is formed only by passing the wire beside magnets. The magnets push the captures electrons down the wire. The metal atoms do not move, but rather electrons transfer atom-to-atom (not if they're orbiting they don't). But where do all the electrons come from, to refill the wire, that a town uses each night? I can only think of one place. They come from the air, through the wire's jacket, and then into the wire. As the atoms get depleted of electrons, the aether reloads them. But why are we not told this? Are the creeps trying to hide the aether from us? YES.
Here's a google offering I've just found: "In the case of air and many other materials there are electrons present, but they are firmly bound to individual atoms and molecules and cannot move about the way the free electrons do in metals." See the lie? Why are they hiding the aether? Evolutionists are going to Hell with this lie in their pocket. They can stick it into their mouths and eat it there.
Others admit that free electrons are in the air, why not the creeps too? Electrons in the air are very passive; they get blown around with the wind. Everything gets colder in the wind because a gas passing along a surface decreases the gas pressure at that surface. If you put a hole in that surface, for example a chimney pipe into a house, the air in the house will come streaming out thanks to the wind reducing air pressure at the outer part of the chimney-pipe.
The aether is as good as a gas, and so when wind blows against a surface, the aether pressure is reduced against the surface, which possesses zillions of little holes called atomic pores. Inside of those pores are aether electrons under pressure. Before the wind starts to blow, the aether pressure in the atomic pores is equal to the aether pressure in the air (if both are at the same temperature). If it's 75 degrees outside, and the wind starts to blow, aether electrons will pour out the atomic spaces due to the reduced aether pressure thanks to the wind. It means that the temperature of the thing having the atomic pores will go down. Just ask your own skin in the wind.
How do you explain the sensation of coolness on your skin when the wind blows? If the air is 75 degrees without the wind, the air is 75 degrees when the wind blows. Why then, does the wind make you feel cooler? Because, you are cooler. The wind cools your skin. How? I just told you how. Now you know.
According to the kinetic theory of heat, wind should make you hotter. Yes, for they say that heat is the motion/vibration of atoms. The faster the atoms move/vibrate, the hotter they are, the more capable they are to transfer heat. Well, then, when the wind blows, the air atoms should be faster than when the wind doesn't blow, yet your skin gets cooler in the wind. Even if they can come up with some reasoning to deny faster air atoms in the wind, they can't explain why wind makes things cooler by their kinetic theory. How does wind remove heat from a body according to kineticism? How can wind make the atoms in your skin vibrate slower?
They admit that free electrons are wherever there is heat, but deny free electrons in the warm atmosphere. They admit that, when atoms lose electrons, they reload from electrons in the air. They remove electrons from atoms with photo-electricity, and they know those substances re-load with electrons, yet google decides to teach the world from those who claim no free electrons in the air. Do you see what trash we have in the aether? They are the trash in God's light medium, in God's sea of heat.
They detect electrons by shooting them hard onto a photo-sensitive plate. But aether electrons don't move hardly at all, and cannot show up on such plates. The way to prove that there are electrons in the air is to rub something that loses electrons. All sorts of rubbed things develop an electrical charge, sometimes net-positive, sometimes net-negative. Anything getting a positive charge when giving it some friction is a thing that has had some of its surface electrons removed. But those things soon reload with electrons FROM THE AIR. Where else?
And guess what? Everytime you apply friction, not only are electrons lost from at least one of the two rubbed agents, but heat comes out of both rubbed agents. Every act of friction causes heat because every act of friction releases electrons. Duh. If science won't acknowledge the obvious in this regard, it's because evolutionists are afraid of the threat it poses to evolution, guaranteed. The other thing they fear most is being proven wrong on all the key topics I'm covering here, because they would then be unable to show credentials for the continued indoctrination of the world. They would be compelled to bow out of the educational channels. The world will be a much better place with God in His rightful place.
When mechanical compression is added to some solid like steel, there's no reason that its atoms should vibrate faster, yet compression causes a thing to get hotter. I know why this happens: squeezing a substance forces deeper atomic merger, and mergers release captured electrons. Once free, they are heat particles.
Captured electrons are not heat until they are free from atoms. Touch the electrons on your desk, and they don't feel hot because they cannot enter your skin, because they are captured by the desk atoms. But rub some electrons from the desk atoms, and they will give heat into your skin. The kineticist says that the heat is from your hand rubbing the atoms, thereby making them faster, hotter, but there is no speed-up motion when compressing things, yet they get hotter just the same.
There are free electrons in flames. In fact, the electrons going free from the combustion process are what cause the light of a flame. Why are forest floors, and the ground to their sides, not laden with electrons during and after a forest fire? What happens to these electrons? Don't they go up into the air? How can anyone say that there's no electrons in the air when there is no end to forest fires? Combustion of trees involves the merger of carbon and hydrogen atoms with oxygen atoms, and atomic mergers always release heat, always release electrons.
The bastard without a Father in heaven can prove that electrons rise by encasing a solid metal rod in concrete (or some other insulation) such that the air cannot contact the rod. Let the bottom of the rod protrude a quarter inch below the concrete, and let the top of the rod protrude a few inches above the concrete, and add wax to the top of the rod. Heat the bottom of the rod, and just wait for the heat to rise to the top of the rod. Time it to see how long it takes to melt the wax.
After realizing that heat rises without the facilitation of rising hot air against the rod, re-do the experiment with the concrete and rod laid sideways, to discover that the wax may never get hot enough to melt...because the heat transferred into the rod chooses to go upward through the concrete more than it goes sideway to the waxed end of the rod. To really learn what's happening, turn the concrete upside-down, and heat the rod now at the top, to see how little heat goes in the downward direction (use a torch, of course). Heat thus rises naturally more than it transfers into any other direction. Why is this so? Kineticism can't explain it. No lie: gravity repels free electrons upward, and electrons are heat material, or heat gas. Are these only small "discoveries." Are these only small laws of physics? These are revolutionary. They were discovered long ago, but swept under the carpet to the dust mites.
Two updates from this one, in the 2nd of September, and also in the 4th of September, I have more information on my atomic model, if you are interested.
News
Musk turned out to be a hypocrite / fraud with twitter:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_E7H45cXZo
At the 12th minute of the video, an expert on things-Epstein claims that either Jeffrey Epstein or Ghislaine Maxwell introduced Melania to Donald Trump. That makes sense because Trump has a soft spot for those despicable goons. This can explain why Trump was the bulldog in my dream that placed me on Epstein's island. There's lots in the video above (from a woman who's in hiding because she's spilling a lot of secrets), including the point that Musk needs to posture himself as a friend of the military and climate-change establishments. Musk is becoming a real and present danger to Christians.
By the way, I saw a close-up of Musk's Halloween outfit. It doesn't have a goat as claimed, but a smaller animal. If I recall correctly, it was a rabbit.
Ticking-Timebomb Carlson has made a grave mistake to set up a Trump interview because Trump is the cult leader of a satanic cult supported by many Christians. When a cult leader has sway over people who profess to believe in Jesus, that man has a target on his back. If you want to get hit by God's shrapnel, stay close to Trump.
DeSantis might be making mRNA shots illegal, see video below. If DeSantis is made the next president, he might hamper the vaccine goons nationally with federal powers. I absolutely do not trust Trump to do anything to vaccine providers and distributors, the fear mongers, the gangsters.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/ZfqZsxGDFMFq
Beware mRNA from meats:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/fJIw3PSFu4Ds/
It's possible that scare stories are going around about livestock injected with mRNA when nothing of the sort has taken place, at least not yet, because globalists don't want people to be happy with meat. Scaring us as to what may be in the meat can cause us to sacrifice buying it. However, I think there is a big chance of their pumping mRNA into animals because it's a huge money maker, especially if the government pays for it. Therefore, buy your meat locally from one you trust. Get together with others, and but a quarter cow, or ten chickens each, and run an extra freezer for it. It's a low-cost insurance policy. Dry lots of meat today in case the powers soon force even the local small farmer to vaccinate his meat with these gene-based substances.
Western powers are gearing up to re-mask society all over again because, probably, they did a poll to discover that there may yet be enough fools who will become COVID cops once again on their behalf. The communist-pig society is their goal. The goons have cried all year long, as even the ones who once stood by them took off their masks. Ohh, how that hurt the self-appointed mask police, almost all women, by the way, but aided and abetted by traitorous males. They are a sick blight on humanity who require workers to wear masks eight, ten or twelve hours daily, three four or five days per week. That is shameful. Tell these self-appointed police that they are ignorant.
Here is communist-pig Ontario and canada up to the highest courts:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/41ahhbpun-s/
The politicians supporting another vaccine scheme this year are taking a big chance because we saw many politicians fall, or take a beating, after the first scheme. This time around, we can expect the public to despise them in greater numbers. This time around, many people who took vaccines freely are no longer willing. This time around, we might get a heavier iron fist, a bid to arrest and detain people in concentration camps who refuse the vaxx, but I can't see this flying this winter, except maybe in Australia. Poor Australia. It might be well worth wearing masks this winter if it disempowers some key climate-change and vaccine criminals, and wakes up yet more people who couldn't previously believe that Western governments have become gangster organizations. This is what will kill Western governments: Western governments. Let them swing their sickle freely, because they slash the feet off of their own partners when they try to harvest a profit from their schemes. In gangsterism-tyranny, every gangster wants to be first, every gangster tries to suppress every gangster in seeking to be first.
I suggest that all churches close down, ask their membership to meet in homes, and spend the $avings on their physical preparation to meet the final 3.5 years. Pastors will generally not listen to this good advice because they make a honor-ous living from church systems, and sometimes I think they have a very easy job if all they need to do is work up a 30-minute sermon once or twice per week. Possibly, once they get good at it, after a few years, they could do a 30-minute sermon with almost no preparation at all. Not all pastors are the same, and so we can't swipe them all with a bad brush, but, we have seen gone-bad pastors who are good at their paid job. Whether they go beyond their paid job is the concern of God. If not, they have received their reward in full with their pay checks, or at least that's how I read Jesus.
This is a church. This video tells that the Hungarian government paid out millions to help Maui:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bSPJZuYltcs
The Maui situation is heating up with the following news this week at the start of this video:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/xdUypiwWuhyU/
If the following video isn't doctored with blue umbrella's inserted to a Maui fire-zone scene, it's something to keep in mind, showing that some lasers cannot burn blue color. In other words, this video might act as evidence that Maui was hit by a government laser weapon. In the future, if only one or two colors survive fires, then the fire likely involved a laser weapon. However, the question is: why didn't the umbrellas get burned by nearby flames:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/WFIbG0aHtYZO/
Someone pointed out that UN helmets are light blue. It might be true that things shooting war-grade lasers are programmed to stop shooting when seeing a blue helmet in their sights. Everyone paint your roofs light blue.
The near-end of the following tells that scientists have created bona fide fossils in one day, under mechanical pressure in a lab, proving without possibility of rebuttal that fossils were created under much weight in water i.e. Noah's Flood. There's no rebuttal possible because the alternative, animals buried slowly millions of years ago is a non-starter. Only a non-thinker or a professional science fool believes that:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zignS602-f8
The video below has Steven Collins claiming to have found Sodom on the north side of the Dead sea. If you need to expedite things, he starts giving evidence for this location at the 34th minute:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GkATIhRxxaE
Mr. Collins says that most archaeologists tried to ridicule this find, to deny it, because they have, for a long time, claimed that the Biblical story of Sodom was a myth. Note that this find comes after the year 2000, simultaneously with Western Sodomites rallying to turn the modern times into a neo-Sodom. One could say that God is warning those faggots not to do it with this find, or God will do them with fire all over again. And we know that God will do it again because the anti-Christians will refuse to repent, according to prophecy. This is like the hard-hearted Exodus pharaoh all over again.
See Musk's hypocrisy at twitter, where he's allowing his globalist CEO to censor anti-vaxx members just as we are headed for a new lockdown attempt. Musk looks like a fork-tongued dragon here. It's in the Jaxen Report at about 30 minutes into this video:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/0qeMWdfzuJNo/
In this video below, you can see the conflict between big-daddy government and the people on the issue of whether homeowners should be willing to risk their lives / bodies to salvage their homes in case fire gets to them. The police won't let the homeowner take that risk, but is this the right thing to do? Of course not. If people are willing to risk their lives for something not irresponsible (such as a dare-devil stunt), they should have that legal right. It means that evacuation orders should be illegal. Evacuation suggestions are fine, but not law-binding orders:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/VNvgx2kUKdcP/
In these days, the government can provide minute-by-minute satellite images of where fires exist, wind directions, etc., allowing homeowners to decide when they should abandon their homes. If a forest fire is coming from one direction only, there is no need at all for an evacuation order, since the homeowners can flee in the opposite direction at any time.
The police said they were worried about looting, but how can anyone come across the bridge with loot when the police is guarding the bridge? So, for fear that someone MIGHT (or might not) lose a few household items, the others can lose their houses. Does that sound as though daddy-government knows what it's doing, or does it sound like typical canadian, heartless, heavy-handed tyranny. The police in canada are PIGS. I was once offended by teens who called them that, but now I call them by that name because it fits.
Globalism treats everyone like a potential criminal, and thus rights are denied for fear of some criminality (or some other off-the-wall danger) when in very fact the globalists are the criminals denying us normality if it means they can suck more money out of us. That's defined as a pig, or a parasite, take your choice. Cops become pigs when they obey their pig leadership. The people are asking the cops to quit their jobs, go dig ditches if need be, but stop doing the will of the government pigs. See some more canadian pigs here:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/FqsySP7sJ2x6/
Here's an online comedian (3 million youtube followers) who's telling that evil in the world, of late, is making him take Christ seriously. Very surprising. When I first became a Christian in the late 70s, it was the trend toward evil, even then, that contributed to my Faith. But, now, 44 years later, things are looking, left and right, as though prophesy is playing out, and this shakes people up, causes them to make a serious decision, either for or against satan, and often for Jesus:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6etpmQUc2M
He even understands that we need to connect with God, which is really the central pillar of Christianity. Real connection with God is necessary, and REAL connection is where God is pleased to connect with us...which He will not do if we don't think and act sufficiently pleasing for Him. I expect this comedian to lose followers now, to get backlash, but it'll be worth it for the ones he can help to think right. Hoping he does more videos like that. However, I don't remember his mention of Jesus or forgiveness of his sins, but maybe he's trying to ease that way for his audience, one step at a time, as he thinks best.
The following video of a man's partial ordeal in the Maui fire, where he becomes trapped at the ocean, is strange. I suggest you begin about a third the way in. The strange part is toward the end, when the smoke is very thick and hugging the ground. I've lit many fires clearing land of brush; even on low-breezy days, the smoke clears out and up into the sky. Yet, this video shows winds nearing gale-force level on that afternoon, and yet the smoke thickly hugs the ground, with no evidence of it spreading out much at all. Is this a faked video, therefore, with pasted-in smoke from the goons, perhaps to make it appear that many people got burned after passing out from smoke inhalation? Note how few people are at the oceanfront even though that smoke is so thick so nearby; we'd expect many people getting out of cars and homes (in the smoke) to run into the clearing at the ocean, a no-brainer. Where are those people?
https://www.bitchute.com/video/btjSkE5lNooK/
Here's a short video from roughly the same place at the ocean, now with many people, and with the smoke blowing around fast and wide:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/Mazowq4DtWiw/
Just listen to the government guilt here:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/jtv5gufMbaOR/
The Maui fire is going to be great for turning people against government, a very good thing to expose how murderous it has become at the direction of some billionaire-class goonery. God is going to show that Hell is deserved, no need to feel sorry for souls who end up there, not even for poor souls who end up there, for God knows which poor people would have become the murderous goons had they been millionaires too. The end times is the rich class versus Jesus, bring it on.
I in no way excuse the police officers who would not allow people to drive out of town just because they were following police-chief orders. I doubt very much that God would excuse them.
Pity those in Trumpland social media who are ignoring the Maui story while emphasizing Trump's mug shot. It's like image-of-the-beast worship. Trump would love to be worshiped; he would not turn worshipers away. I'm not saying he's the anti-Christ.
Here's a short video on why rock formations the world over are proof of Noah's Flood, in case this is a new topic for you;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L3M4LsUeNNI
If you need physical evidence of Jesus' resurrection, you can investigate the Shroud of Jesus starting with this short primer:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffG63ShRTCY&t=7s
See after the 10th minute for evidence of a laser attack in Maui:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fl-36XY-aNw
The owner of the video above is not very swift or insightful about the Maui-fire facts. Someone in the comments section: "The most interesting part about that [Maui-fire] book you bought is that it was published 8/10 2 days after the Maui fire started on 8/8. The book is still on Amazon under a different pen name Dr. Kathryn Forbes Ph.D with a new publish date 8/17. Got screenshots of all of it." I say this book was written before the fire, sponsored to some degree by the goons who orchestrated the mass-murder.
There may be a globalist ploy in play to begin blaming the Revelation plagues on climate-change factors in order that people do not think it's fulfilled prophecy from God. A couple of the plagues have widely-burned grass and trees.
This week, Tucker Carlson asked Trump how he thinks Jeffrey Epstein died, and Trump gave the response that he probably killed himself, exactly what the deep state would want him to say. Yet Trump promises to go after the deep state if he's re-elected. My prediction is that Trump knew he as in legal and political trouble when the FBI arrested Epstein because the only-conceivable reason for that arrest was to force Epstein to confess his ties to trump. In my further opinion, Trump then called on Bill Barr, or some of Barr's friends, to form a scheme to murder or free Epstein while in jail.