Hall of Names is once again showing the descriptions of the Coats of Arms presented at House of Names.

---

We are told, in the Gospels, that, after Jesus was raised to bodily life again, he showed his disciples where it was written of Him to do so in the Scriptures. One of those places is Isaiah 53, but Luke, in his book of Acts, informs of another:

And we to you announce the arrival of the promise of the fathers, that God has fulfilled to the children the raising up of Jesus, which has been written also in the second Psalm: "You are My Son, today I have begotten You."...Wherefore, also in another Psalm he says: "You will not give Your holy one to see decay" (Acts 13:32-33 and 35-36).

If I was reading that Psalm in the days of David, I would have no idea that it referred to a single person. I might see it as a general blessing to all whom God has chosen, yet I would have trouble with it because, forgoing decay...??? What could that mean? A resurrection from the grave wasn't even a theme from the books of Moses. It's not in Genesis. Yet Jesus was brilliant when he told a Sadducee, who didn't believe in the Resurrection, that the God of Abraham is not the God of the dead, but of the living, i.e. wherefore Abraham would be resurrected. It's not something anyone thinks of when reading, "God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob."

David wrote the Psalms a few centuries before the Resurrection was penned by Isaiah 53. It's not even very subtle there. It seems that God was usually subtle whenever He mentioned Jesus (in the Old Testament), so that only the people after Jesus could catch them, or fish them out. I have loads of underlining in Isaiah when it's referring to Jesus. You couldn't catch those things in the days of Isaiah. He was Jesus' "favorite" prophet, for he quoted Isaiah most often. It's not until the prophet Daniel, after Isaiah, that we get a full-boned, unmistakable passage of the resurrection of Old-Testament saints. Prior to that, one could easily skip over it, even as Jews skip over it when they read 53 today.

God remains subtle in Isaiah 53, where, in 52, Jesus is introduced only as "My servant." What's that? Who's that? It could be anybody. Yet, it's not just anybody when we read on, for this servant is killed to make atonement for the nation of Israel. What? Where do we read anything like a man like this, or an act like this, prior to Isaiah? We don't really...unless we live in times after Jesus, when, and only then, do we understand that the animal sacrifices were, aside from celebrational barbecues, a teaching aid to Israel, a copy of the Sacrifice of the Lamb. The animals sacrifices were intended to inform Israel, of Jesus' days, that their God had always intended, from before the birth of Moses, to offer the Jesus form of salvation...from the grave.

Suddenly, a big surprise to Israel, the good news: the resurrection of Jesus is all about the resurrection from the grave of God's chosen ones. Magnificent. What a gigantic stroke of "good luck." Yet most of the world spits on this gift, as sick-to-the-head children without proper understanding.

And in keeping with God's will to make the willfully-sick children suffer a terrible end, He was subtle about Jesus' coming in the Old Testament so that the sick-hearted ones could believe God's enemies when they chatter away, saying that Jesus was just a phony, or that Christians are cleverly distorting the old prophecies so that they seem to point to Jesus. That's why God, who decided to remain invisible until the end of this history, anyway, has presented Jesus in such a way as to allow some to clamp themselves to Him while the hard-hearted can confidently remain blind, confident that Jesus is a fake, or that God doesn't exist at all. There's going to be two kinds of big surprises.

Of the "Servant" in Isaiah 53, we read that, after he dies for the sins of Israel, he will see life again and become the ruler of the planet? "Servant" is therefore a great understatement, if we might get the impression that he's a slave-type person. This is the Eternal King, yet the father chose to call him a servant. And that's because the Father and the Son together are our servant, for those who serve Him. God is naturally a servant. What else could He have to do with His time, to enjoy Himself, but to be kind to the most-important creatures He's created? If you know to be kind to your dog, and if you can enjoy loving your dog, which loves you in return, do you have any doubt that God has trouble loving us, His pets? The distance in intelligence between you and your dog is infinitely closer than the distance between our intelligence and His, yet He wants to love us??? Don't despise this staggering "stroke of luck."

There's no way we can serve God as well as He can serve us. That's part of the Good News. He's not an over-Lord who receives the benefits of our service without being genuinely king toward us. Even if we solely get eternal life in bright light, and thereby evade permanent death / darkness, we can't serve good enough to deserve it. While's there much more that He does for us personally, and collectively, He's not in the business of being your personal genie. We need to respect Him enough not to make Him our make-a-wish-upon-a-star God. He's going to give us tough times as they come our way, and may even create tough times for us when he sees that we need them, for our good. Part of walking the Faith is to come to terms with this hard-to-understand thing, which tests our Faith.

If we as Jesus to deal with a sibling who is trying to rob the lion's share of the inheritance from a parent(s), Jesus might respond, "Who made me your lawyer for such matters?" In other words, the Holy Spirit has been given the directives to help us in certain ways only, and not to transfer to the Father every wish we have on our wish lists. Sometimes, it depends on how we make requests, what our motives are. He's see what we are made of. If your dog begs you to do what he/she enjoys most, to go out to chase the neighbor's cat and give it a right-good scare, you're going to say, "NO." Sure, I could enjoy spending a million bucks, but God's going to say, "Uh-uh."

Instead, stay the course in the discipline that He set aside for you, and wait for your reward, pet. He's not going to ask you to do tricks, by bribing you with cookies, so that He can laugh at you. We are not that kind of pet. We are more like dogs in training for military battle, trained to sniff out evil, to bark it away, and to fend off evil spirits.

But, truth be told, we are evil ourselves if not for the steering of the Holy Spirit in our hearts, which is why most of our requests are amiss of God's will. God wants to make us like Himself, to make us understand how He thinks, His priorities, that we might willingly be that way without need, anymore, one day, of being steered/trained. See that? We are being trained to get up on our own two feet, to act respectfully by our own wills rather than being puppies pooping all over His house floors, or tearing up His couches when He's not looking. There could be times when we're in the dog house, on a chain, for bad behavior. Nothing new under the sun. Make God upset, we get appropriate treatment.

Daniel 11 is the most-extensive prophecy on the activities of the anti-Christ, portraying him as a military animal, the theme also in Daniel 8 and Revelation 13. After he's shown coming to a suicidal end in Daniel 11, Daniel 12 starts off with a post-tribulation resurrection, which can only be the resurrection that Paul speaks of, which he glues to the rapture. A pastor would be diabolically crazy to place that Resurrection at any other time that after the anti-Christ comes to his end, which is exactly what Paul says in 2 Thessalonians 2. You decide what ails pre-tribbers, if you think my explanation is wrong.

Most church leaders push a pre-trib rapture as though it's undeniable, which, I guarantee you, is an offense against God. Some of those who claim to be the shepherds of the flock thus become like the enemy, if it's God's will to prepare to endure the 1260 days. Pre-tribbers are demanding from you that you not prepare anything, or in any way, to endure those days. And when I ask myself what it is that motivates them, the only logical thing coming to mind is that they don't want Christians to put their last weekly dollars, after all the bills are paid, into tribulation preparation for fear that it will eat away at church donations.

As you know, money is important to people, and therefore important to churches. If the money is not at the secret root of pre-tribulationism, then, with the Bible making a post-trib rapture so plain, what else could motivate pre-trib pastors to be so passionate, so adamant, such heart-wrenched beggars in some cases, on behalf of pre-tribulationism? Why were they making sure to repeatedly indoctrinate you with that false theory? If true that we will not go through the trib, and if they were truly worried about our wasting money on tribulation preparation, then they would say so: "don't waste money on preparing foods and firewood, etc.," they would plainly say. Instead, they say nothing, not even wanting the idea to enter the heads of their members.

Since the advent of the Internet, post-tribulationism got it's voice into the Christian community, and it may waves and tracks, converting many pre-tribbers. Fair to say, we were all pre-tribbers at one time, for a short time, anyway, back in those years prior to the Internet. So many outspoken post-tribbers on the Internet have made it difficult for pastors to repeatedly indoctrinate their people lest post-tribbers act in response, or become offended.

Let me tell you that, when I was on a Jewish-missions course, the leader of the group stood at the front of the class to kick off the year, and started to go in detail into the pre-trib rapture doctrine. I considered this completely off-topic from the missionary purpose we came for, and so I spoke up, which couldn't help but show my opposition to that theory. The leader chewed me out, in front of the class, with my wife sitting next to me, and threatened that we could leave the event. So I responded nothing for her sake, but, he didn't go on talking about pre-tribulationism, that day, or ever again that summer. Eventually, we both forget that day. But, you see, the passion, the misguided passion, for that lousy theory, exists amongst Christian Zionists, and they fomented that shameful idea, in those days (1980's), as they had opportunities, violating the minds of God's people, polluting them, which ultimately leads to endangering Christians in the final generation.

Eventually, my wife, who at first never showed disagreement with my post-trib belief, showed that she was pre-trib. I think she thought that I was a trouble-making Christian, or maybe half nuts. I'd call the editor of the local paper and blast him for some of the letters that appeared in the editorial section, like when his writer called Christians "Nazis, or pushed factory. I was nuts, for sure, because liberals were making me nuts, but I'm sure that Jesus approved of my reactions to anti-Christ liberalism. On some three occasions, maybe four, I swiped my arm across the porn mags in milk-and-bread stores, pushing them all over the floor, and walked out. I was Nuts for Jesus. And I think I still am. I didn't want to see my society, the one my kids had to grow up in, becoming as it was. Eventually, the liberals won this war hands down, as you can see everywhere, but I await God's hand to came along and swipe their souls into Hell. Selah. I will then cease to be nuts.

The last verse of Daniel 11: "And he [anti-Christ] will come to his end without a helper on his behalf." Daniel 12 starts like so: "At that time, Michael will stand up, the great ruler who stands for the sons of your people. There will be a time of distress, such as not happened since the existence of the nation until that time. And at that time, your people will be delivered, everyone whose found written in the Book. Many of those who sleep in the dust of the ground, some to everlasting life, and some to everlasting reproach and abhorrence." It's clearly a post-tribulational-rapture setting, no denying it whatsoever. What motive would make church leaders and full denominations go counter to what you see in that text?

Some invent the concept of two resurrections of the saints, one for the Church before the anti-Christ appears, and one for the remnant of Israel. The one above, some may venture to say foolishly, is for Israel. They say this who feel they cannot deny the post-tribulational setting of what you just read. But the text implies that Daniel himself, and those in times before him, will partake in this post-tribulational resurrection. It says EVERYBODY written in the Book. Do you think you have the guts, or stupidity, to counter the obvious Intention of the text? Would you go so far as to invent another resurrection taking place before the one above? Are we nuts, in the evil sense? Be nuts for Jesus, but not for the devil.

You can find the "first resurrection" in Revelation 20, along with the second resurrection. The first is for those in the Book of Life, and the second is for the wicked, same theme exactly as Daniel above. Yet the first resurrection is clearly after the anti-Christ has come to his end. Would you be such a traitor to these two prophecies as to invent a first resurrection before the anti-Christ arrives? Would you be that irresponsible to the God you claim to serve? Then why are so many church leaders that way? I'd be willing to guess that while 90-percent of Western pastors adhere to pre-tribulationism, only about half the Western Christians do so, at this time. Almost all Christians, outside of the West, and all Christians prior to the 1800s, were post-tribulational in their view to the resurrection-rapture. It could even be that pre-tribulationism is more rife in big-city centers.

You can take polls by reading the comments sections of videos on this topic. If you find 25-percent to be post-tribbers in a pro-pretribulation video, figure that many post-tribbers just didn't click to video at all. Had they clicked, and had some commented to show which side they take, it could be that more than half the Christian body is now post-trib. Don't go by the percentage of pastors, because many of them are expected to be, or were chosen to be, pre-tribbers. Here's a video, "How do Churches Choose their Pastors?"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lk4ZHRZ5F40

The video above shows why church committees would rule out people like Moses or the Galilean fishermen. Sorry, school education lacking, speaking ability poor, they don't get the jobs today. Instead, sharp-shooters in slick suits often do, who've considered all the angles on how to be liked best. Pastors can't be much successful today unless they are liked much. My being a nut disqualifies me. I might chase out all of the liberal believers, even those who hold to evolution. I'd rather have 50 radical Christians than 250 mish-mashers.

However, I will never judge churches or pastors with a broad brush. It's not for me to judge. I don't feel comfortable railing against all organized churches. I will point out some things, such as the sackcloth that God once desired of worshipers, but that's as far as I'll go. I'll point out the desperation and foolishness of pre-trib leaders, but the rest is out of my hands.

Designer jeans and expensive t-shirt for church is way over-dressed. Take off that lipstick, ladies, before your God, if indeed you go to church to worship Him. He doesn't care to look at your thickened eyelashes, or your eye shadow. Why did you pick this color today, for your eyes, instead of that color? Ask whether God cares about your reason/motive. Did you do it to match the dress, or the shoes, or maybe your fingernails? I'm not hitting women, but helping them. It's crazy, I know, but somebody's gotta say it. Some would say that it's not what people have on the outside that matters, but on the inside. Spoken just like a half-the-story liberal. What's on the outside is chosen by what's on the inside. Wearing green hair to church shows a fracture on the inside, the divide between modernism and God, an unwillingness to drop worldly affections. It should be tolerated for only so long, but while almost nobody appears in church with green hair for long, an increasing number of ladies are painting their faces.

What's With Ukraine?

The last update had some amazing heraldic pointers to Trump's pick, Tom Homan, for ICE director. ICE enforces immigration issues. The Blond surname played a big role because Ukrainian Homans have a woman with "blond" hair. However, it wasn't until Monday evening of this week that I loaded Bondi's, to be reminded that they are also Biondi's/Blondi's. Trump has chosen what some say is a shoe-in for becoming the next Attorney General of the Unites States. That position will fight federal law suits brought on by the Democrats to check Trump's deportation plans. I'm assuming that Bondi will be on-side with deportations, if done legally.

You can load Bondi's now, which loads on another tab, in order to load other surnames, to better follow the heraldic links.

As Blonds are first known in Suffolk with Kepke-connectable Kidds while Justine's, with a Coat connectable to Kepke's (Trump colors and format), share the lone and erect sword of Bondi's/Blondi's, it can trace the latter to Ukraine by the fact that my friend, in my youth, Mr. Kepke, had a Ukrainian father. And Ukraine is where Blond-loving Homans were. Plus, Homan-like Omans/Omens are first known in Suffolk with Blonds. It seems that God set up these heraldic links to point to Tom Homan and Pam Bondi.

Trump is so transparent in his hypocrisy. He's a big goof, but doesn't know it. All he did was tell his targeted voter base all the things they wanted to hear, except for admitting that the pandemic was criminal, which, for me, was a bit of indication that he's slated to do another pandemic.

Trump has chosen the war hawk, Michael Waltz, to be his national Security Advisor. Waltz was on TV telling Trump voters that he and the snake, Jake Sullivan, are of one mind in Ukraine agendas (to topple Russia). Kepke's are first known in Saxony with Weiss' who in turn share the goat of Moline's, the latter first known in Devon with Wise's. The point is, the Moline and Weiss goat is in the colors of the Waltz/Walser goat, and this latter surname can be shown to be a branch of Walsh's while Mr. Kepke was engaged to Kim Walsh. His brother did marry Kim's sister, Nikki, a potential pointer, in this picture, to the war hawk (pro-Ukraine war), Nikki Haley.

Kepke came to topic, years ago, with Lorraine (she's in the last update). I didn't know at the time that Lorraine's descend from princess Maria of Kiev, but I did know that Keeps and Lorraine's share the same bend. I got to telling readers that Kepke and Lorraine were both "sun-bright" blonds, but I don't think it was on my mind (at the time) that Herodotus told of the Budini, who lived at/near Kiev, being blonds.

It was while saying "sun-bright blonds" that I decided to check for a Blond surname (for the first time, I think). You really need to appreciate this, because, along with telling of their blond hair, I was telling readers that Lorraine (my old date) had gotten a foot/feet and a babe symbol. When the Blond Coat had loaded, there I was, shocked, looking at a "foot" on a sun in their Crest to nearly match the sun in the Babe Crest. I was floored. Both Coats are similar all around, but at that time Babe's are first known in Dorset. Later, houseofnames changed the first-found location of Babe's to Suffolk, where Blonds are first known. And some years later I checked for a Baby surname to find it first known in Ukraine.

Suffolk is where TUNE's/Towns are first known, suspect in a syllable of the English Homan motto. The bear of Ukrainian Homans is in the colors of the Weiss / Waltz goat. The bear became the symbol of Russia, which country was named by Varangian Rus of Kiev.

But there's more, because German Babe's/Babels share the double-tailed mermaid with Waltz's/Walsers. To top it off, Keeps are first known in Sussex with Babels/Babwells and Coopers/Coppers while Kepke's have a version of the Kupe/Koop Coat. There is nothing good in anything that Mr. Kepke has pointed to, one being poison vaccines / bio-weapons. And so if we think that God is now pointing to Michael Waltz's plots for Ukraine, under the Trump administration, what could it predict? Or is God using this heraldry to alert readers that we are nearing prophecy fulfillment as concerns Gog, whom I think is the anti-Christ?

For what it could mean for those who might know, Waltz's wife is the sister of Janette Nesheiwat, Trump's dastardly pick for surgeon general. As you may know, Trump's former choice to lead the FDA was a COVID-vaccine fiend. His pick this time around is Marty Makary, a surgeon who writes for the CIA (so to speak) at the far-far-left Washington Post. He could be a propagandist, for many writers are at the Post.

To put it another way, I'm not at all happy for the American people under the choices who would manage another pandemic under Trump. It seems to me that any one of them could be turned into a pro-vaccine stooge under the heat of battle. There are no hard-nosed anti-vaxxers because Trump won't allow them to enter his government only to shame his vaccine shams at the behest of Fauci and company.

Waltz's/Walsers are first known in Bavaria with Weis'/Wise's and WEIShaupts, and the latter share the goat with Kepke's and Weiss'. Bavaria is where Herzogs are first known who, when ignoring their symbols, have the Ukraine flag in colors reversed. I trace VARANgians of Kiev to Varns, and the latter's bend-with-scallops are in the colors of the bend-with-stars of Herzogs, and in the colors and format of the bend-with-cinquefoils of RUSSell-connectable Sarah's/Sayers. The latter share the "Bear and forBEAR" motto of Barwicks (Northumberland with Lorraine's and Keep-loving Hebrons) who in turn have bear heads in the colors of the Homan bear. Sarah's/Sayers are first known in Essex with English Este's while Italian Este's share the giant eagle of their kin, Bare's/Barrs.

Ukrainian Homans have a woman with "blond HAIR," and Herzogs were likely a branch of Hair-connectable Here's/Herrs. Hermits (Yorkshire with Keppochs) look Kepke-connectable by their Coats. The Homan woman is said to have "bare" arms and feet, and Lorraine had a feet symbol. Bare's/Barrs are first known in Ayrshire with Scottish Hairs. Bill Barr was Trump's previous attorney general, now to be filled by Pam Bondi, a sun-bright blond.

Barwick-branch Berwicks have "Two EARs of wheat crossed," and ear-like Eyers/Ayers share the Coat of Scottish Ayers, first known in AYRshire with Bare's/Barrs and Hairs. Eyers/Ayers are first known in Derbyshire with Here's/Heyers who in turn share BLUE wings in Crest with German Here's/Herrs and Herzogs, which might explain why Ukrainian Homans have "a woman dressed in blue."

Walsh's/Walchs were from Wallachia along with Benjamites from Israel's Rimmon. I trace those Benjamites to the RIMNa river of Wallachia, and proof for this is where Scottish Walsh's almost have the English Benjamin Coat. The point is that French Benjamins share the black bear with Homans.

Wikipedia's article on ROXolani has them in two places, one on the Dnieper river through Kiev, and the others at the Ialomita river. The latter is beside the BUZau river (Wallachia), and I saw a map having Roxolani across the Buzau too, which is to the near-south of the Rimna, explaining why Benjamins are first known in Norfolk with Bus'. Kepke was engaged to Miss Walsh. George BUSH Jr., who was "adopted" by the WALKer bloodline, married Laura Walsh. English Walkers are first known in Yorkshire with Bush's. Lorraine had a bus-stop symbol. Scottish Walsh's are first known in ROXburghshire, and Irish Walsh's/Walchs have the Stop/Stubb pheons in colors reversed.

The swan of Irish Walsh's/Walchs takes us to Swans/Sions, and Sion in Switzerland is in the Wallis canton which named the Waltz's/Walsers.

Wallachia is in the Ukraine-looking side of the CARPathian mountains, and Carps, in Kepke and Trump colors and format, are first known in Pomerania with Trumps. Carps are also CarpFFs while Donald Trump is thought to descend from Drumpfs. Drummonds are first known in Hamburg with Trips/Treffs, from Trypillians of Ukraine.

The Kopke variation of Kepke's could have named KopFFs. The latter have a giant goat, black, like the goat of Weishaupts, both first known in Bavaria. Adam Weishaupt founded the Bavarian Illuminati. The Kopff Coat looks linkable to Hunters for a pointer to Hunter Biden's crimes in Ukraine. Bidens are listed with Budins, expected from the blond Budini of Kiev. The Geloni partners of Budini may be in the "galley" (ship) of Keeps. French Galleys have variations like "Galati," a location near the mouth of the Buzau, which can explain why Bush's are first known in Yorkshire with English Galleys and Gale's.

English Galts/Galls, first known in Perthshire with Bondi/Blondi-connectable Justine's, use a giant bear. Ukrainian Homans have a blond woman on a bear, and Home's/Hume's along with Berwicks are first known in bear-depicted Berwickshire. German Galts are first known in Hamburg with Trips/Treffs while Trevors/Trefors share the Coat of Pennants who are in the "pennants" on the "ship" of English Galts/Galls. Pennants are also with Keith-branch Caddys (Yorkshire with Keppochs) while Keith-branch Kettle's are first known in Perthshire with Galts/Galls. Kepke and I were GOLF CADDIES at age 14, and Golfins are listed with Gulls, suggesting that Kepke elements were at Galati. The Galt/Gall bear has a "red MUZZLE" while Musselburgh is near the first-known Keiths.

The Galts/Galls have "pennants FLYING", suggesting the Flynns whose wolf is in the colors of the Bather and Scarf wolf heads. Justine's are from Justine of Picenum, suspect with the name of Piacenza at the Trebia river. The Flynn Chief is the Treby Chief, I think, because the Arms if Piacenza had used a wolf in colors reversed from the Flynn wolf. Kepke's look linkable to Justine's.

Here's from the last update after telling that Floods/Floyds are in the colors and format of Flints: "To nail Bathers to Floods, Bathers have wolf heads in the colors of the Flynn wolf while Flints are also Flans. The latter share a "sine" motto term with Gullys..." It makes Gullys and Gulls look like Galati elements. Pennants are first known in Flintshire! It proves that Galts/Galls were of/from Galati because their flying pennants are from Flynn / Flint elements connectable to Pennants. Gullys and Gulls share the Julian cross while German Julians are first known in Saxony with Kepke's. See that?

Kepke and I (and at times his brother too) collected golf balls in the river through three side-by-side golf clubs, to sell them to golfers, in the two years before were caddied for golfers. Golfins are listed with Gulls. See that? God's telling us a story. Kepke's must have been in Galati, in historical Moldova. I trace it to "GILEAD" in Israel, location of Jabesh, where the 600 Benjamites of Rimmon got their 400 wives after they lost the ware to Israel's other tribes.

AHH, wow. Moments ago, I had loaded Galt-like Glads, and noted that French Glads (Brittany with Jordans) are in the colors and format of French Jordans, yet they are both in the colors and format of Keppochs too!!!! Jabesh-Gilead was at the Jordan river!!! That's pretty cool. I love this job, sometimes. So, yes, Kepke's at Galati, and while the Geloni partners of Budini look like they may have been from Alans, the the Alan surname was all over Brittany. Gells/Jells (Yorkshire with Keppochs) are in the colors and format of Barwick-connectable Sarah's/Sayers, suspect in the "sara" motto term of Russells (share Sauer and Rossi lion), they being likely from Varangian Rus of Kiev.

After learning that Trump nominated Marco Rubio for Secretary of State (one of the military tentacles), I checked that surname to find it listed curiously with Rossi's. Rubio is from Florida, Trump's home, and also where Pam Bondi has been the attorney general. Rubys are very interesting for almost having the Coat of English Amore's and Damorys/Amori's, for Italian Amori's are first known in Sardinia with Bondi's/Blondi's. The latter share the stars of Italian Dere's/Res' while Dero's are listed with Spanish Ros'. The latter share the giant double-headed eagle of Jeepma's/JAPPA's/CHEPs, whom I trace to the Japodes on the Kupe-like Kupa river. I trace JABESH of Gilead to "Japodes," and Kepke's have a version of the Kupe Coat. See that? It suggests that Kepke's / Keppoch/Kippax's could have derived, after many evolution of terms, in "Jabesh."

The Jeepma/Jappa/Chep eagle is also with German Belows, first known in Pomerania with Carps (Kepke colors and format) and Trumps. As some evidence that God is pointing to Marco Rubio, Italian Marco's share the lozenges of Chaffs who share the Chief-Shield colors of Chep-like Capes'. With Marco's, the Marici co-founders of Pavia come to mind, with the other co-founders being the Laevi Gauls whom I trace to the Levite blood in Joseph Caiaphas, the chief priest of Israel who killed Jesus. Thus, "Kepke" can also be a distant variant of "Caiaphas" (i.e. from the same stock).

English Marks are first known in Suffolk with the Kidds sharing the Kepke goat. German Marks share the giant Tromp eagle, in the colors of the Jeepma/Jappa/Chep eagle.

Ruby-like Rube's share the scythe of Here's/Herrs while Herzogs share the bend-with-stars of Gells/Jells. Rube's add the hexagram of Pero's/PERICHs while Pierro's/Pero's/Petri's/PERICHs are first known in Pavia. Mr. Kepke almost married Miss Peare before getting engaged to Miss Walsh, then went back to Miss Peare, but not for long. Pear-using Parrots share the Chief-Shield colors of Chaffs and Capes'. A "PERCH," with possibly the Speck/Spice eagle, is used by Botters/BODINs, first known in Hampshire with Keppe's and Bidens/BUDINs, from the Budini of Kiev. Specks/Spike's were a branch of Speccots (Devon with Spice's) who are in turn in the colors and format of Keep-related Lorraine's. The latter's bend-with-eagles are with Gorsuch's, first known in Lancashire with Specks/Spike's, and with the Spice-loving Towers. Towers and Tours are suspect from the Tuareg Berbers, possibly Numidians, for I trace Spice's and Spike's to the Numidian ruler, Syphax.

If Gorsuch's were of the Gore's, note that Gore's are first known in Kent with Trips. The latter use the "scaling ladder" while Scale's share the scallops of Capes'. The latter are first known in London with Tooths who in turn share the giant griffin of ladder-like Lauders, suspect with Lotharingia of Lorraine province. The Lauder Coat is almost the one of Capes-connectable Chaffs. Lauders are first known in Berwickshire with Home's/Hume's in turn having a Tooth-like "to the" motto phrase. Spice's are in the colors and format of TRUDeau's, first known in Ile-de-France with CHAPPES' and Levi's. See that? Caiaphas the Levite killer of Jesus. TRUDE's/Trots are suspect from the Trotus river, not far north of the Rimna river of the Jabesh-related Benjamites. You're getting an unusual education today/tonight.

I've said many times that Kepke had a black Lab, and you can see one in the Coat of Chaffens/Chaffinch's, first known in Dorset with Chaffs. Another black and giant black Lab is with Furness', first known in Lancashire with Lawrence's/Laurence's. Bennets, with double scaling ladders, were at Furness.

Lauders share the motto and tree stump of Larrys/Laurie's, and Mr. Kepke is Larry / Lawrence. Lawrence's/Laurence's were at REDmaine (Lancashire with Speke's/Spike's), and Reds/Reeds, with a Kepke-connectable "copia" motto term, are first known in Northumberland with Keep-loving Hebrons and Lorraine's. Keppe's are first known in Hampshire with Copps, and Keeps in Sussex with Coopers/Coppers, but also with the Packs suspect in the "Pax copia" motto of Reds/Reeds. Bennets-like Beans are first known in Aberdeenshire with Scottish Reeds and Copp-branch Cups/Cope's.

How many times have you carried a 32-foot extension LADDER on your shoulder, down a street a few blocks? I carried one, and one only, of any length, past the apartment of Lorraine, about a year after we dated, and carried it to Hunt street while Hunts are listed with Hunters.

As Hummers are listed with Humbers/Umbers while sharing a white griffin with Lauders, Home's/Hume's may have derived in Humbers/Umbers. The latter share the triple fesses of Finchems while we just saw ChafFINCH's. Finch's/Vince's, with one of those triple fesses, are first known in Hertfordshire with the Capes-connectable Scale's. These triple fesses are essentially those of Beaks, first known in Dorset with Chaffinch's and Chaffs. The latter share a giant griffin on red with Lauders. The latter are first known in Berwickshire with the Battle's having the giant Chaff griffin in both colors.

The Magnificent Electron

This is a follow up to the cosmos discussion of my last update, where I show a better definition of gravity than the Newtonian gravity honored to this day. The evolutionist goofs, worse than goofs, need Newtonian gravity to make it physics-possible for the creation of the universe from a Godless big bang. They absolutely need to explain how suns formed from explosive matter screeching at unimaginable speeds through space, with all particles ever-growing in distance from one another. For when an exploitation takes place from a single point, all exploded matter goes out such that the material spreads out. How could it ever come together in that scenario?

You understand this, of course. When a grenade explodes, the further you are from it, the less likely you'll be hit with metal because metal pieces spread out with distance from the grenade. The big bangers, deceivers, don't tell you this when explaining the formation of stars. They start with a gravitational pool that has already formed in some spot in space, that attracts all particles to itself while protons attract electrons to form hydrogen atoms, the stuff of stars. This is why they need Newtonian gravity, the deceivers, the insidious liars, because it attracts electrons, they think, as well as protons.

Although we can prove that gravity repels electrons, they won't show you the evidence. For obvious reason, because the big bang is of utmost importance, and they will deceive you to keep the big bang alive, because against all odds, they deceived the whole world successfully, for many decades now and running. Shame on the world for not assaulting the big bang until its proponents are shamed everytime they open their arrogant mouths. They consider themselves the kings of the science castle, and will take you to court if you try to put Creation science into the classroom. These are the demons who put the kindling into the fire that is now burning down the whole forest, society.

Even if they admitted that gravity repels electrons, they would maintain the big bang by saying that electrons and protons first attracted each other into forming the hydrogen atom, and, in the meantime, or, after ward, gravity pools formed all over space, each one forming a single star by pulling in the atoms. But what they don't show you, when showing a drawing of the gravity pool with a proto-sun forming, is how the pool formed, or how the pool can attract atoms that are screeching at fantastic speeds many miles apart?

How far apart would those exploded atoms be? I don't know, because only the evolutionists are wacho enough to figure it out. But they're not telling, even though they tried to figure it out, because it makes the formation of stars impossible by merely the wee-wee-wee attraction force between a proton and an electron. How small is that force over just one mile? You can't even imagine how small. Non-existent would be the truth. Even if the protons and electrons were not traveling at fantastic speeds; even if they were dead still, they still wouldn't be able to attract over a mile of distance, but imagine how many miles apart they are in the big-bang scenario. Cosmic evolutionists are mad dogs wearing science masks. They plant invented fantasies on invented pillars of science, and they abuse true physics in the meantime to make it fit big-bang needs.

How many miles apart would atoms be a million years after the explosion? Not two inches. Not two feet? You see, on the one hand, they need lots of time to make big-bang formation of the universe look palatable to you, yet that time is the very thing that grows large the impossibility of the matter. The more time they put between the explosion and the formation of gravity pools, the more problematic the theory becomes, because it depends first on electrons and protons attracting each other from vast distances. How many miles apart would these particles be after 10 million years of travel at the fantastic speeds the "scientists" calculate? It doesn't matter, because only a lunatic thinks it was close enough for atomic particles to attract each other and bond.

You should know right off that they are lunatics when they claim that all of the material in the universe came forth from a little pin-prick of a circle. Hahahaha, who are they trying to kid? Only lunatic anti-Christs would take that position as scientific. If you have been guilty of imagining all the material in the universe inside a dot the size of a pin head, or even the size of a crop circle, shame on you. If you think evolutionists are somehow holy-wise far beyond our mental faculties, because they can fathom all of that material in a small dot with a serious look on their faces, great shame on you. They're laughing at you when not talking seriously in your face.

According to their own version of gravity, a cosmic gravity pool needs atoms to form, because they claim that gravity is sourced, and exists, in atoms. The whole earth's gravity, they claim, is an accumulation of gravity force coming out of every atom that makes up the earth. Your body is part of that outgoing gravity force, they claim, that holds the moon in orbit. But if atoms are needed to form the gravity pool that forms stars, how did the atoms come together in the first place to form the gravity pool? This is where the liars lose the foundation for their big bang. They don't have any means to form the gravity pool, and so they just draw a picture of it already existing, and expect you to not ask any questions as to how it got there.

Do pieces of a grenade form a pool of metal pieces? Imagine a grenade exploding in a vacuum where no gravity exists? How will the pieces end up close to one another when their directions are ever-further apart? There's nothing in their cosmos existing to re-direct them toward one another. There's no air to make them curve. Newtonian physics doesn't allow objects in motion, in a vacuum, to curve.

A person on a moving bicycle overcomes some (not all) of the pull of gravity, with forward motion. As long as the bike maintains a certain speed, or faster, even if the rider is doing a sharp curve with body weight to one side of the center, vertical line above the bike, gravity is not strong enough to pull to the ground the rider. This occurs at slow speeds in the midst of full-blown earth gravity, a force far greater than a single atomic particle. The problem is, the fierce motion of the exploded atomic particles more than counters any attractive forces from neighboring particles. Attraction forces are going to be in the negative, and there's nothing to slow the particles.

For example, a cannon ball. It is attracted to gravity when it slows by friction through the air. But if shot in a vacuum, and if shot at a certain speed parallel with the ground, it would not fall to earth gravity, but would continue to move parallel with the ground, which we call a satellite in orbit. If the cannon ball is shot any faster than the speed needed to maintain an orbit, it will spiral out of orbit. The faster it goes past orbital speed, the more it counters gravity force such that this force becomes negative, as if it doesn't exist. The ball's motion has counteracted all gravity force, and then some.

Therefore, the fantastic speeds of atomic particles in the big-bang scenario has them all countering any gravity pool that may have formed, even if one forms by the artistic hand of an evolutionist bent on deceiving both the general public and science minded individuals. It doesn't matter if the gravity pool is moving as fast as the particles it's supposedly attracting. We can't use the argument of relativity, arguing that neither the pool nor the particles are moving (in relation to one another) if they are moving at the same speed. The moon overcomes all earth gravity at it's current speed even though it's always at the same distance (more or less) from the earth's gravity.

If the earth were flat, the moon would travel parallel with the ground at its current speed and current distance from the ground. However, one can play a trick here, claiming that the moon, or any orbiting satellite, is forever falling to the earth while simultaneously moving slightly away from the earth at a 90-degree angle (where zero degrees is a line from satellite to earth core). The two, they say, combine to maintain a circular path. In the former theory, the moon is not falling at all, but is rather locked in limbo while EXACTLY overcoming, not more and not less, the gravity between the two bodies.

It's not going to be easy to prove which theory is the correct one, unless we can get hold of a flat planet in a vacuum for to do an experiment, but reason tells that any object in motion can fully overcome gravity by the force behind that motion, with zero fall possible. It could be true that a bullet shot horizontally will maintain a perfect-horizontal line for some distance, until the air slows it sufficient for gravity to bring it on a downward curve.

If astronomy is correct about "escape velocity," then they prove that motion can overcome gravity permanently once a certain speed is achieved. Escape velocity has to do with objects moving AWAY from gravity. In this theory, once a rocket accelerates upward to a certain speed, the engines can be turned off, but the rocket, instead of slowing and eventually falling to gravity, will maintain the same speed forever, especially as gravity force upon the rocket weakens as it moves away from gravity.

I'm just saying, big-bang atomic particles cannot attract each other at the fantastic speeds "scientists" imagine for them. Even if they convince you that there exists a micro-iota of attraction, yet the particles are increasing distance between themselves, far more than one foot with each passing second. There's no way that the micro-iota of attraction can bring two particles even a millimeter closer together per second.

Does anyone ask how the big-bang model could arrange for electrons to orbit protons? Can't you see from this claim alone that science is filled with nutbars? At least they make for some good entertainment, lots of laughs. Don't let this attitude of mine discourage you, evolutionist, from seeking ways to make the big-bang viable, for the more you seek, the more you'll realize you've been duped by science abusers, unless you're one of them but won't realize it.

I'm very sure that evolutionists keep a well-guarded secret: they have evidence that gravity repels electrons, but don't want you to know it. If gravity repels electrons, then gravity is a negative-charge force.

You never hear them explaining how atoms contain a gravity force, because their erroneous atomic model, concocted with the wand of science abuse, is already too complicated that they throw in a gravity particle into each atom. If there's no gravity particle in atoms, what possibly could be within them that causes gravity from a non-electromagnetic source? It defies. It mocks the evolutionist. It's crying out, "you're crazy, stop this."

They don't heed the warnings. The must concoct an atomic model lending viability to big-bang creation. Anything short of this is disallowed. They concocted an erroneous hydrogen atom as the "simplest" atom, just one proton with one orbiting electron. They use this tool to explain star formation from the big bang, for stars are mostly hydrogen. The simpler the atom, the faster it can form in the big-bang timeline, and so they beg you to believe with them that hydrogen atoms formed first of all, and made stars that then made orbiting planets. And that's how they roll. And you're going to say something like, "well that makes sense," not realizing that their simple hydrogen atom does not exist. No atoms can have orbiting electrons, first of all, and hydrogen atoms have the most electrons of any atom; I can, and I have, served good evidence for it.

The orbiting electron is one of the biggest goof jobs of modern science. Just use your common sense with what little you know on orbit formation, and orbit maintenance. Just think of how foolish and lacking in insight Elon Musk is, who knows the intricacies of putting satellites in orbit...at just the right speed at just the right distance at just the right angle of motion. Yet he thinks that all atoms have orbiting electrons. Just tinker about that. Modern science teaches that atoms can lose electrons, but then regain them instantly in orbit as if orbit formation were more natural than extremely unlikely. I shake my head.

Why does nobody ask whether electrons can be captured by protons in a different way aside from orbital capture? Just think of how weak the electron capture is if merely in orbit, where any slight jolt (a lot less than the bash of a hammer to a nail) to the atom would knock electrons out of orbit. For, orbits are delicate, where the orbiting object is in perfect balance between its speed and an attraction force. A hammer is a lot bigger than an electron. Imagine the moon as a hammer, bashing one of Musk's satellites at a 200 miles per hour. Can that satellite remain in orbit? Are we nuts?

Everything you see in material things is electrons. You can't see protons buried under electron atmospheres surrounding all atoms. All you can see is the light reflecting off of the outer layers of the atoms' captured electrons. When you zing a nail with a hammer, you strike countless electrons. If they were in orbit, they would be knocked out, and would never regain those orbits by any means. The atoms would be permanently deprived of orbiting electrons. Just use your head and confess that I'm correct. I'll help you move on to physics sanity.

No matter how you imagine the big-bang scenario causing protons and electrons to draw nearer to each other, how are we going to explain that every atom in existence got orbiting electrons? As the formation of an orbiting body from random forces is a near-miracle, shouldn't there be a zillion protons in space today that failed to capture an electron in orbit versus the very few that succeeded? Shouldn't there be many-more times lone electrons in space than the few that ended up in orbit? Yes, and the prediction is: there should be many-many-many times the number of protons that captured electrons in the ordinary way versus orbital captures. See sanity yet? The ORDINARY WAY. It doesn't help the big bang, but it's the true way. What are you going to choose?

Where are those protons with ordinary-way captures of electrons? Everywhere. All atoms in the universe have electrons under ordinary-way capture, same as how a magnet captures iron filings, straight-on stuck to the magnet, no orbiting filings. STRAIGHT-ON STUCK by the glue of protonic attraction. What don't we understand about this? Yet, you will never hear the goofballs so much as mention this ordinary-way capture of electrons. They must be afraid of it, probably because their orbiting electron is a vital need for the big bang. I can show that their kinetic theory of atoms -- atoms forever in motion without losing total velocities -- is a false theory concocted on behalf of their big-bang theory. It seems they are so dizzy in love with forever-motion that they wanted electrons forever in orbital motion. That's how they rolled: whatever the big bang needs, the big bang gets. The big bang birthed forever-motion, and so the creators of the big bang sanctified forever-motion in everything.

There are only two ways for the air/gas in a balloon to form the balloon: 1) all gas atoms repel each other and thus force some of their numbers against the balloon material, to blow-up the balloon; 2) all gas atoms attract each other but are forever flying about so as to knock against the balloon material. The first theory has atoms pushing, and the second has atoms knocking. The latter has atoms attracting each other, and because the big bang can conceivably form suns when atoms attract each other, and especially as suns can never form by random processes (with a God in play) if atoms repel each other, the big-bang wizards chose the knocking-atom theory over the atom-push reality. DO YOU GET THIS?

They CHOSE the theory that remains faithful to the big bang, because they were its inventors. Like husband and wife. Part of the inventions is the concocting of an atomic model that complies, for if someone else slips in with an atomic model that does not make the big-bang process possible, they shoot it down as if it were the mortal enemy.

It's not me who has the problem of explaining how atoms can keep the same total velocities when it's known that objects in collision, in the macro world, lose total velocities with every collision. They trick you into believing that atoms cannot lose motion energy, and thus they cannot lose total velocities. What they fail to tell you is that energy absorbed in collisions goes toward slowing the objects. That's right. The energy is not destroyed when objects slow down in collisions, but is absorbed. The absorption process results in slower speeds. What don't we understand about this?

Example: two identical cannon balls colliding head-on at the same speed will, if we ignore/eliminate bounce physics, stop dead in their tracks. Where did the energy go that both had? It transferred into each other. One ball stops the other because each one strikes the other with as much force as it took to put the ball in motion in the first place. Where y force puts the ball in motion from a motionless position, y force striking it in the opposite direction will make the ball cease motion again. It's a no-brainer that the goofs don't want you to know. They want you to think that the energy transferring from one ball will keep the second ball moving at the same speed. SHAMELESS TRICKSTERS. Grown men telling lies to the children on behalf of their crusade to murder God and relegate Jesus to an eternal grave.

In reality, cannon balls will bounce a little off of one another when they strike head on (assuming they don't break into pieces), but this has to do with how atoms react collectively when collision energy flows across them, and all materials react differently, some with small bounce, and others with larger. I believe that atoms do have some bounce capability, but, as we can prove in the macro world, it doesn't matter how much bounce-back colliding objects have, they yet transfer energy into each other that serves to slow them down, with each collision.

If you can imagine gas atoms colliding at a thousand miles per hour while not knocking their mutual electrons out of orbit, then, you, dear reader, are a goofball. There's no hope for you in achieving physics sanity. Does someone need to tell you that an electron in orbit is held by such a tiny force that a crash at a thousand miles per hour of the much-larger protons will destroy the atoms wholesale for lack of orbiting electrons (after the crash)? You don't need to conduct a real experiment to know this certainty. How will the protons get their electrons back into orbit??? Are free electrons just hanging around in the vicinity at just the right speed, at just the right angle at just the right distance, to enter orbital circles? You know the answer, and so join me in the quest for physics sanity by scrapping the orbiting electron.

Can you imagine something flying across the air in front of your nose at a thousand miles per hour? How fast would that be? Can iron filings remain on two magnets when colliding at that speed? Yet the filings are held much more tightly to those magnets than orbiting electrons to protons. The moral of this story is: don't be a goofball, get smart. I'm helping you out here.

When two objects, such as two magnets, collide, they release many captured electrons from their outer surfaces. Some electrons in the interior of the magnets get knocked off of protons, but are trapped in the atomic spaces, and so those spaces get hotter, for freed electrons are the true definition of heat. The electrons that go free from the outer surfaces of colliding objects create, in the air, what we call the heat of friction. Scrape any surface of any material, and electrons going free is what defines frictional heat.

Electrons are easy to dislodge from the outer layers of atoms, and harder to dislodge where they are situated closer to the protonic surface. You don't need an experiment to know this certainty. The closer the electrons are to the attractive force of the proton, the more-tightly they are held. SANITY.

You may be asking how ALL gas atoms could attract each other, or how they could ALL repel each other. Or, you may be thinking, aren't some gas atoms neutral in charge in their ordinary existence? In the theory of ever-colliding gas atoms, the goofs need ALL atoms to attract each other to explain liquid formation. If their atoms slow down enough, the goofs tell us, they attract each other with sufficient force to bond i.e. to form liquid droplets. Otherwise, if they are faster, their motion energy prevents them from attracting strongly enough to meet and bond. They claim that, the hotter the gas, the faster the gas atoms. Oops. They just admitted that atoms near the big-bang explosion were going to fast to attract each other into a bond. Oops.

But, in fact, they don't admit this. You need to fish it out from their theories. I learned well what they believe when I was developing my atomic model, not my pet model, but when seeking what the atomic reality is, as best as I could grasp it. I didn't invent a fully-developed pet model only to fetch the proof afterward. I took it one step at a time using the respectable, reliable laws of, and discoveries in, physics. I set side all of the ridiculous claims such as orbiting electrons, and sought the real way in which electrons are attached to protons. One step at a time, and with no big-bang monster to feed and keep alive, I knew I had a huge advantage over those goofs.

It's possible that some scientists today will deny that all gas atoms attract. But this is because nobody has made it a bone of contention as to whether all atoms attract or not. That is, its not big-bang dangerous to claim that not all gas atoms attract, because people don't generally connect that idea to big-bang viability. But when we force that connection, the evolutionists need to stand their ground with mutually-attracting atoms, especially hydrogen atoms.

In the beginning, evolutionists had to conclude that the only way for clouds to form is when water molecules cooled with elevation from the ground, and, therefore, the molecules slowed sufficient that they could attract each other into a bond. Or, no matter what object you take out of the freezer, water molecules will form on its outer surface because, they say, water molecules SLOW DOWN when approaching the cold surface, making it possible to form atomic-sized droplets to begin with, and visible water accumulation with time.

In this theory, ALL atoms MUST attract, for if the atoms of the cold object repel water molecules, how could the theory explain water formation on cold objects? And so, you see, their erroneous theory, made for the big bang, demands that all atoms attract each other, all solid and gas atoms both. For condensation can form on any material, and as such, the solids must attract the water molecules, or evolutionists are out in the rapids without a paddle as goes their kinetic theory. At least, I don't know of any cold material that doesn't form condensation; there could be one or two odd-ball materials made in a lab. Anything taken out of the freezer gets soaked in water.

In their theory, the only way for gas atoms to bond begins when a first gas atom passes near a surface. However, I'm talking about a gas in a sealed container having no wind. The physics fact is, gas atoms do not bond ANYWHERE within the gas, no matter how slow they become. That is, it's known that liquid formation does not occur in a gas body, signalling that gas atoms repel each other.

You may have heard that cloud/rain droplets form on the surface of atmospheric dust. That makes sense, but wind can also knock water molecules together, and there is yet a third means, when water molecules reach their top-most elevation and form their ceiling there. That is, water molecules rising upward toward the ceiling collide with water molecules at the ceiling, and thus they bond. But they do not collide as per the bang-bang model of atoms, but because rising electrons in the air give water molecules lift from under their arses. See that? It's called SANITY.

Yes, it's true. Gravity pulls water molecules downward, yet they can rise when the air is warm enough because the atmosphere has a continual flow of rising electrons that get underneath atoms, to give provide them lift. With height, the density of these flowing electrons decreases, meaning that the lift power on atoms and molecules decreases with height. When the lift power comes down such that it equals the downward pull of gravity (upon atoms and molecules), the water-cloud ceiling forms at that height (though wind currents can spread the ceiling upward yet more), for lack of further lift power. In the evening, as air cools throughout, gravity gets the bigger advantage over the flow of rising electrons, wherefore water droplets / molecules come downward to form dew.

The bang-bang theory can't properly explain this up-and-down motion of water, though the bang-bangers fool you with a fine-sounding method using a buoyancy principle. The problem is, there is no buoyancy principle applicable to single atomic particles, because they are not air balloons. They say that an air balloon gets it's lift from a BODY of atoms underneath the balloon, in what is correctly a function of buoyancy, but they don't tell you that there can be no body of gas atoms lifting single atom. You need either a single atom to lift a single atom, or a body of smaller electrons, but, in their bang-bang theory of atoms, there are no atoms that give lift more than they push atoms downward. Their bang-bang theory has atoms striking upward under atoms as much as it has atoms striking downward on the tops of atoms, and so no net lift can be achieved.

THEREFORE, I declare to you that hydrogen atoms, helium atoms, and water molecules rise in the atmosphere from the lift afforded by rising electrons, for there is nothing else that can give those particles lift. Hydrogen atoms rise the highest, and form the highest ceiling, not because they are the lightest, but because they are the largest of all atoms. The larger the atom, the larger the body of electrons giving it lift. The goofs have it backward, claiming that H atoms, which they want you to practically worship, are the smallest.

Anyone who assails their H atom is guilty of blasphemy. It's their god, creator of the suns which birthed the planets which birthed the apes. But I have proven with indisputable evidence that H atoms are the largest of all. They thus have the most captured electrons, explaining why the combustion of hydrogen nets more heat than any other combustible material. The more captured electrons that atoms are forced to release (they don't do it willingly), the more heat they release.

It's easy to discover the cause of the release of electrons from H atoms, when O atoms invade the electron clouds of H atoms, when H and O atoms bond, when they are attracted electrically to each other, by a spark or other concentrated heat source.

You can't have the captured electrons of O atoms invade into the captured electrons of H atoms without the O's electrons, in the invasion zone, going free into the air. The invasion zone increases in electron density for obvious reason, but as the H atom is already fully loaded with electrons prior to the invasion, the invaders get repelled away by each other. For increased density (they are closer together) forms increased mutual repulsion forces, because repulsion force grows stronger when electromagnetic objects are closer together. There's no place for the invaders to repel each other away but into the space outside of the atoms. HEAT ENERGY at your service, the freed electrons.

What happens when we mix H and O atoms in a sealed container, and then give it a spark from the inside? The bang-bangers have no explanation for the explosive/enormous heat energy that comes forth. The container bursts open, and the air outside of the container is blown away. Bang-bangers have only one explanation: the atoms become fiercely fast, for that is their definition of high heat. But how did the atoms become fiercely fast just because a spark took place in their midst?

The spark, because it's made of freed electrons emitting from one atom or both, changes the electromagnetic charges of one or both atoms, causing O and H to attract and bond. Even if bang-bangers try to explain this situation by saying that the attraction force creates enormous speeds for the atoms, they then have the problem of explaining how the bond takes place, since the atoms were already going too fast to bond before the spark takes place.

? Therefore, if the spark makes the atoms travel at many times their speeds prior to the spark, it's impossible for the O and H atoms to bond, according to their own theory of bang-bang atomic physics. They will need to invent some means to explain the bond in spite of their theory predicting impossibility.

The reality is that, when some O and H atoms bond, they release electrons sufficient to change the charges of neighboring O and H atoms so that they too attract and release some of their electrons, and so a chain reaction is set up that releases enormous numbers of freed electrons within the sealed container. As they repel each other, they burst the container and push outward into the air in what we call an explosion. That is the true definition of heat energy, the repulsion forces of freed electrons. They push things.

When a gas is compressed in a sealed container, liquid forms only on the container surface, proving that gas atoms do not attract each other, otherwise, droplets would form within the gas body as well as upon the container walls. What do you think the gas looks like when liquid formation requires a non-gaseous surface? This is the key to discovering how gas atoms are situated in the gas. I bring you sanity, brainwashed ones. Cleanse yourselves with realities, not with the foam-at-the-mouth of the evolutionist killers of God.

We have only one option. As gas atoms cannot collide millions of times per second without coming essentially to a near stop after one second alone (as they slow each other down per collision), the fact must be that all gas atoms repel each other. And why not? What is wrong or impossible about this theory? Are we afraid to violate the big bang? Not I. If it seems unlikely that all gas atoms should repel, there must be a cause behind it. Every gas must be given to the fate. What do all gases have in common that could be the common denominator causing all gas atoms to repel? It's atmospheric heat. It's everywhere, even in atomic spaces of liquids and solids, but especially surrounding every gas atom.

What could atmospheric heat be, do you think, once you've rightly slaughtered to death the bang-bang theory of heat? The wonderful thing is, once you deny one of their theories, there's often only one other option...otherwise I wouldn't be bringing you the good news. It makes it easy for me to find the realities just by clobbering to death all of their fantasies. If atoms can't attract, voila, we discover instantly that they repel. It's that easy. No geniuses needed. If banging atoms can't define heat, we look to a material. What material always exists wherever their is heat? NO GENIUSES NEEDED, only honest people who care not for the big bang.

They define heat as the collisions of atoms. But if those collisions do not exist, we need another definition, and the only other option is easy to discover, because it's known in physics that free electrons exist in every heat source known to man. Therefore, it's easy to discover that free electrons define heat. As electrons are small enough to invade the atomic spaces of solids and liquids, and as they repel each other no matter where they exist, that's why solids, liquids and gases grow larger with increasing heat. It's such a no-brainer to arrive at this definition of heat, and the fact that the goofballs won't even mention this theory to you is a testament to how badly they need atomic attraction for their big-bang pet.

If we can come up with an alternative theory of heat aside from their bang-bang theory of atoms, then heat becomes a MATERIAL all its own, for there is no other alternative. The idea that heat is a material was the going science fact prior to the formation of the bang-bang model, but, in those days, science had not yet discovered the electron, and did not yet know that there existed particles that repel each other to explain the expansion of materials filled with heat material.

But even after the discovery of repelling electrons, evolutionists denied the science establishment the concept of heat as the material of electrons. They kept that idea hush, apparently, for I know of no controversy in science where there arose a faction of scientists clamoring on behalf of the electron theory of heat. That movement is long overdue. It's time to make goofs of the goofballs.

They tell us that gas atoms are flying well over a thousand miles per hour, ON AVERAGE. Some gas atoms fly faster, and others slower, but, the point is, they can't have some gas atoms at 1,200 miles per hour while the average is 1,800. Whatever they deem the average, the slowest ones need to be close to it, because they are all in continual collisions with the faster atoms. If any atom gets slowed, it's likely that, after two more collisions at most, maybe three, it's going to become faster. As these collisions occur so fast in time, it's actually impossible to have slow atoms versus fast. Can you fish that out? They are generally going to be ALL at the same speed, don't let them fool you.

Just tinker about it. If faster atoms speed slower ones when they collide, and slower ones slow faster ones when they collide, the atoms in a single jar are going to be all at the same speed in short order, before your next blink. The faster one can't make the slower one faster than itself, and the slower one can't make the faster one slower than itself. Therefore, every collision of two atoms results in both atoms becoming closer to the middle speed between them, and the same will be true in the next collision, and the next, until they are all going at the same speed before you can say, GOOFBALL. Therefore, even if we entertain their fantasy that atoms never suffer total-velocity loss, there can be no slow atoms by which to form liquid droplets in any sealed container. Yet, liquids can be formed by compressing any gas, even where the gas is at the same temperature as the outer air (i.e. no slow down of gas atoms by colder air on the outside).

The physics fact is: at any compression level (gas-pressure point), only so much liquid forms on the container walls. You can wait a week, but no more liquid forms...until the gas pressure is increased. The more the pressure is increased, the more liquid formation, wherefore it can't be true that liquid formation is from slower gas atoms, because, no matter what the gas pressure, there are always going to be slow atoms in that gas, in their view. If slow atoms formed the initial liquid, then there's got to be more slow atoms in the gas that should continue to form liquid long after gas compression.

Or, let's ask: why should compression of the gas slow atoms so that more liquid results? Each time the gas is compressed a little more, a little more liquid results. They would need to argue that compression causes some atoms to slow down. However, compression only forces the atoms closer together, not affecting their speeds. There should be no difference in the specific change of atom velocities, during collisions, just because the atoms travel further, or less far, prior to collisions. Therefore, if gas compression cannot explain why gas atoms slow down, an alternative explanation for liquid formation is needed. It can be explained only by gas atoms under mutual repulsion.

A sealed jar of air sitting still consists of motionless air atoms all at equal distances, because all are repelling each other as far apart as possible. Some of them are repelled onto the container walls, wherefore some air atoms are bonded to the atoms of the container. Those air atoms on the container walls are forced to bond with each other too, by the same push of gas atoms in the gas body. We can't see the bonded air atoms forming liquid when the air is at room temperature, because the layer of liquid is too thin for the eye to see.

Visible droplets can be seen only when the air is compressed enough, or, alternatively, when more air is pumped into the container. In both cases, we increase the air-atom density, causing atoms to repel more of each other against the container surface. The fact of the matter is as simple to explain as that. No zig-zagging atoms.

But what about water forming on cold objects while the air is at a constant pressure, with no increase in gas pressure needed? Yes, but the process that forms water in the open air is not the same as air gas turning into air liquid in a sealed, pressurized container. In the open air, free electrons (heat material) rush into the cold object, because heat always flows from hot to cold regions, never vice-versa. The colder the object, the faster and longer that free electrons flow into it. They push water molecules in their path against the surface of the cold object. This is a wind of free electrons, totally different than what goes on in a compressed gas.

Sane Gravity

In keeping with my definition of gravity as a negatively-charged force from the heat of the earth, or from the heat of the sun, or from the heat of the moon, you might like to say: aha, John, if heat makes negative gravity force, why doesn't the can of frozen orange juice grow more negatively charged when filled with more heat? It probably does. How do you know it doesn't? I don't think modern instruments could detect the increase in negative charge between a frozen can of juice versus a can of juice at 200 degree F. But, truth be told, I'll bet that molten metal shows some detectable negative charge.

We can't say that gravity is a force from negatively-charged rocks because gravity attracts rocks, meaning that rocks need to be positively charged in order to be attracted by negative gravity. Besides, there's nothing in the earth that could make rocks negatively charged aside from interior heat, and so the conclusion is that heat is the negative charge all on its own. The heat within the atomic spaces of the rocks is earth gravity.

This is a revolutionary "discovery" (others figured it out long before I did) that shouldn't merely turn modern physics upside-down, but should toss it into the trash can. We need to start all over, with the facts this time. This discovery not only reveals the true nature of gravity, but affirms that heat is made of free electrons, a double revolutionary discovery.

It even tells us the source of gravity, in the captured electrons of the earth's atoms. So long as they're captured by protonic attraction, electrons are STORED energy, not yet heat. But when released from protons, they become heat because they can then abide in atomic spaces, and there they do their thing to heat rocks, even to a molten condition. Logically, the largest gravity forces radiate from molten rocks, yet even non-molten rocks have some gravity force. All free electrons offer a gravity force.

You can't detect the negative force of ordinary air if you build an electron detector in ordinary air, and set it to zero in the air. For when you set it to zero, the negative energy is already included in that zero reading. If you want to build the best electron detector, you need to build it in a space absent of free electrons, at absolute-zero temperature. Or, if we build a detector in the air, we need to heat the air to see whether the needle moves from the zero setting.

A magnet is an electron detector. For example: "The current flowing in the wire gives rise to a magnetic field around it which exerts a force on the compass needle (which itself is a tiny magnet) kept nearby and deflects it." What's in a moving electrical flow that affects the magnet? Heat. Yes, as electrons flow atom-to-atom in the wire, some come off and become heat, at which point they throw off some negative energy toward everything nearby.

But the goofballs tell us that electrical current is non-orbiting, freed electrons flying through the wire, such idiots I just can't express that enough. They envision the orbiting electrons of metal atoms flying away down the wire, through the vast space...that they imagine in every solid material. They'll tell you insanities such as: the wire is more than 99-percent space. LUNATICS.

No, but the negative end of a magnet(s) at the electrical plant forces the outer layers of captured electrons to flow down the wire, atom-to-atom. They transfer from the outer layers of one atom to the outer layers of the next atom. It can't be any other way. I'm "smart" on this subject only because there's no other option. It's easy to understand what's happening when there's no other option. That nick in the electric wire, that never goes away, means that atoms are not flowing, not changing positions. It means that only the electrons flow.

The deeper captured electrons are held more tightly to protons, and so at some point within the atom, the electrons will not flow unless the magnet at the electric plant is made larger / stronger...or by using a different metal that allows deeper electrons to flow. Most materials won't allow any electron flow. Why not? The point is, electrons flowing from one atom to the next can't help but become quasi-free as they flow, and this sets up a negative charge from the wire, but also makes the metal atoms more positive in charge, as can be expected if they lose captured electrons. These charges affect a magnet, and the negative force creates gravity force, because gravity force is just negative force.

We don't know of any attractive-at-a-distance force aside from electromagnetism. For anyone to say that gravity is a force based on something besides electromagnetism is unjustified until electromagnetism is ruled out. Newtonian gravity was formed before the discovery of electrons, and I say that evolutionist goons worming their way into science establishments, or forming them in the first place, rejected electromagnetic gravity because they loved, and perhaps invented, the concept of every atom has gravity force. When's the last time you heard a discussion on whether gravity could possibly be a negative charge?

One thing I know, I can't take science "facts" as facts just because science tells of them. Why should I believe that the south pole is a magnetic pole? Just because science likes the idea? What if it was invented to counter the idea that gravity is a negative charge? Have you ever heard anyone telling that a compass needle at the tip of South America, or in Australia, is attracted by the south pole? What if that's a bogus claim? Just because one compass needle gets attracted to the north-polar region doesn't necessarily mean that the opposite end of the needle is being attracted by the earth's south pole.

If you stand over the north pole so that one end of the needle points into the ground below your feet, the other end will point into the sky, i.e. not because it's attracted by the sky, but because it happens to be on the opposite end of the needle-half that points down. You can make one half of the needle plastic, and it will point to the south pole when the steel half points to the north. The plastic is not being attracted by the south pole, is it?

I'm saying this because someone could argue that, if the south pole is negatively charged, people should weigh more at the south pole if indeed gravity is a negative charge pulling our body atoms. As nobody has reported, to my knowledge, that people weigh more at the south pole, I tend to think that the south pole is not magnetic at all. One way to prove it is to hold a compass when standing over the south pole. If the positive end of the magnet points down to the ground, then, yes, that proves that the south pole is a negatively-charged part of the planet. But if someone at random, unimportant to science, makes the claim that a needle points down at the south pole, he/she could be a plant, a trick from the establishment to "prove" that the earth is indeed a two-poled magnet.

You see, science falsely claims that the earth is a two-poled magnet redirecting the solar wind from striking the planet, curving it around the planet at a great height above it, higher than the atmosphere. I realized that this was a false claim when I realized that the electrons in the solar wind are the source of atmospheric heat. That is, solar electrons stream into our air, and fill it as the standard heat you appreciate daily. But as the goons didn't want people to realize that free electrons define heat, I think they invented the concept that the earth is a two-poled magnet that sends the solar wind away. End of discussion on whether heat is defined as electrons, for if they can't come from the sun, then atmospheric heat can't be defined as electrons.

Do you see how important it is to bang-bang science to deny solar wind into the atmosphere? They are stinking cheats. Even if the earth is indeed a two-poled magnet, the solar wind yet gets in, guaranteed.

Knowing that I'm correct in defining heat as sourced mainly from solar electrons, and much less from electrons streaming out of the earth's rocks, I KNOW AS FACT that solar-wind electrons are not redirected away by earth magnetism. Besides, if one pole repels electrons, the other pole is expected to attract them, but this is not what the goofballs claim. Instead, they offer some magical force from the earth magnet that repels them ALL away. They don't lie for nothing, at a risk. They lie for their dear causes.

Solar electrons get concentrated in the air on the sun-side of the planet. Only after entering the air do they get curbed, on the morning and afternoon sides of the planet, by the upward rise of atmospheric electrons, as earth gravity repels them upward. In short, earth gravity pushes them away, back into space.

If something didn't get rid of the daily electrons coming into the air, the earth would fry in a week or less. All night long, electrons rise into space wherever it's night, 24 hours per day, every day, because it's always night somewhere. God has fixed this situation well for sustaining life. It's a beautiful piece of handiwork.

The goons are afraid that, if they admit the entry of solar electrons into the air, something needs to get rid of them, and because they feel sick thinking that a gamut of fellow physicists might discover negatively-charged gravity, the goons had decided to claim falsely that the electrons do not enter the air. End of story, don't even think about it, and, especially, don't even try to figure out what might repel them back into space, because gravity is about the only option.

I proved that gravity repels electrons by calling Sylvania, asking whether their bulbs have vacuums. I was told that their 25-watt bulbs still do. I bought a couple, and covered one in melted wax. After the wax hardened, I plugged in the bulb, but the wax melted (in the first minute) only at the top. The contents of the bulb, according to the goofs, cannot explain that result. And these goofs can create a vacuum better than in a light bulb, it they want to discover whether electrons rise within it (I'm joking). They already know that electrons rise from filaments and all other heat sources.

That's right. The electrons streaming out of the bulb's filament rose straight up, and they passed through the glass of the bulb, and then through the wax, melting it because free electrons define heat. And they did not go downward en-masse, as we would expect if gravity attracts electrons. See that? Proof that gravity repels them, they went UP en-masse. Sure, they filled the whole bulb in less-hot temperatures, because they also repel each other in all directions. But if you touch the bottom side of a bulb with a finger versus the top of the bulb, ouch, you'll realize how gravity has power to repel most of the filament's electrons upward.

And you can prove the same thing if you heat a metal rod passing through concrete, or some other material that doesn't allow air to touch the rod. The heat will rise through the rod in far-greater quantities than goes downward. What more evidence does one need to prove that electrons are propelled upward, and that they define heat? And if they are propelled upward, what do we suppose is propelling them if not gravity?

As gravity acts with straight-down force upon atoms, then, if some material goes straight up, we realize that gravity force is responsible for that too. It's a simple case of attraction verses repulsion. ELECTROMAGNETIC GRAVITY. Hello? All we need to do is discover why all atoms are positively charged. I showed why that's so in the last update (link at top corner of this page).

Their model, called the "kinetic theory of heat," predicts that heat should move up a rod as much as it should move downward or sideways. It's as simple as that to mortify the going theory with a fatal stab. This is not a mere challenge, but is the kill itself. If faster atoms define higher heat, then applying a flame to metal should see heat transferring in all directions equally, but if the heat always goes up more than in any other directions, its the rightful murder of the kinetic theory.

Flames are stacked with freed electrons coming off of the combusted materials. When oxygen atoms bond with the atoms of combustibles, they both release electrons. Anyone who says differently doesn't know the mechanics of combustion. The kinetic theory needs to answer why combusted gases are extremely high in temperature. What makes the atoms speed up extremely fast, if indeed heat is defined as speeding atoms? I have no idea. I don't see a means, I don't see the mechanism.

If hydrogen and oxygen atoms combust, the only thing the atoms do is kiss and bond. It may be a hard kiss, but that's called a collision no matter how hard. The goofs tell us that atomic collisions neither speed nor slow total velocities, yet cold air and cold hydrogen produce extremely high-temperature flames and water vapor. How does the kinetic theory explain this enormous heat if the mere atomic collisions can't?

The electrons are witnessed, by the eyes, in the flames. They explain the enormous heat. When electrons EMIT (or eject) from atoms, whether from the filament's atoms or the hydrogen's, they create light waves in and through the electron aether, no photons needed. The electron aether is exactly the sea of atmospheric electrons that define atmospheric heat. Outside of the atmosphere, this electron sea is the cosmic solar wind.

The solar-wind electrons constitute the light-wave aether that Einstein said does not exist. And all of the evolutionists murdered the aether along with him. They didn't want you to know that the air is filled with electrons that serve to kill Einstein's photon. Light is a wave through free electrons, not a photon bullet. The sun's gravity repels its freed electrons, sending them outward in all directions, meaning the sun makes its own light-wave medium, and sends out one light wave per one emitted electron.

There's nothing in combustion to explain faster, racing atoms. The dumpsters might invent some explanation that sounds like a far-fetched stretch, or a brain-challenging piece of incomprehensible work (as they often serve up), but that's all they can do.

Liquid formation produces heat. Allow water molecules to merge and bond, and each molecule releases heat. Cause water to evaporate, and the unmerged water molecules take in exactly the amount of heat released when bonding. How can that be? Logically, they were as fully-loaded as possible with captured electrons prior to merger, and they go back to that fully-loaded condition after releasing some captured electrons during merger. The released ones become free, and once free from atoms, electrons act as heat. They cannot enter materials to heat and expand them unless they are first released from atoms.

Protons load electrons in stationary positions just as magnets load iron filings. No orbits needed. If you leave an atom alone in the dark, it's still. There's no motion in its electrons. But when you shine light on atoms, the electrons start to jossel like the waves of the ocean. This josseling emits light waves, called light reflection, through the electron aether.

At the outer surface of the atom, every atom, and to some depth into the atom, the many captured electrons HOVER in space because they repel each other while captured by protonic attraction. This means that there is space between outer electrons, and thus the outer atom, for any atom, is not concrete wall.

In other words, the hovering of electrons allows atoms to merge, as the electrons of one atom fit between the hovering electrons of another atom. At that point, the one proton ATTRACTS the electrons of the other atom, and thus the atoms bond in spite of their mutual repulsion forces when at a distance from one another. This second mechanism, mutual attraction, applies thanks only to the contact of atoms, otherwise it does not exist. The mutual attraction is stronger than the mutual repulsion unless the substance is above "critical temperature," as they call it, to be defined correctly as the mutual repulsion being stronger than the mutual bonding. Put simply, heat increases mutual repulsion, and can overcome the bonding attraction.

If gases are compressed into full liquid form under a piston that does not allow evaporation, and if this liquid is heated to its critical temperature or higher, the liquid atoms they won't stay bonded once compression is removed, but rather the substance will disintegrate quickly at the top, which is not the same process as evaporation. The latter is like erosion from within the liquid, when free electrons passing upward through the liquid knock surface atoms into the air, as electrons themselves pass into the air. But disintegration is when atoms repel each other electrically in spite of being forced to bond by a piston's compression.

Everybody knows that a heated gas increases in gas pressure even though there's no additional atoms added to it. What does this mean if it's impossible for the kinetic theory of heat to be the reality? It means that increasing the density of free electrons in a gas body causes the atoms to act as though they repel more strongly. See that? Inserting free electrons into a gas causes the atoms to move apart with more force. This gets tricky, for while I say that free electrons cause atoms to repel, it may not be true in the most literal sense. This is where my brain can't easily grasp the situation in order to make perfect sense of things.

As the density of electrons increases in a gas, they surround and compress atoms from all around it, because electrons repel each other in all directions. Therefore, they add themselves invasively to the sphere of the atom, and though they thus become part of the atom's captured electrons (within the attraction field of protons), they don't. That is, they do and they don't. That is, there's a line between the captured electrons and free electrons, and the latter always press in deeper toward the proton with increasing temperatures. That line could therefore move closer or further from the proton, but it then gets difficult to peg whether some, or none, of the free electrons become captured.

On the one hand, I've said that the invasion of free electrons lend the gas atoms their negative charge such that the atoms increase in negative charge toward one another. However, as this view conflicts (or at best complicates) my view of how gravity attracts atoms, it might be better to say that all gas atoms remain positively charged while the invasion of free electrons forced the atoms further apart so as to give appearances that the atoms are becoming more-highly negative by adopting (or capturing) the free electrons as their own.

Either way, it seems clear that the extra electrons on and all around atoms is what causes atoms to push outward in all directions in what we call higher gas pressure. Simplistically, I claim: ALL ATOMS REPEL EACH OTHER. If indeed they all remain positively charged while invaded by free electrons, gas atoms do literally repel each other, and they do so with or without heat particles (free electrons) in their midst. All atoms need to be positively charged in order to be attracted by gravity.

The trick is to find the best term / phrase to explain what happens when free electrons cause higher gas pressure, and "greater repulsion" of gas atoms is probably not be the best phrase. The simple reality must be that the greater repulsion of more-dense free electrons pushes gas atoms apart with more force, even if the atoms do not become negatively charged. I don't know what succinct name to give the action afforded by the electrons in making atoms push outward harder, and so I say that the atoms repel harder.

I think the explanation above for increased gas pressure is unassailable because the only thing that can enter a gas in a sealed container, when its temperature goes up, is electrons through the atomic spaces of the container. How else could those electrons cause the gas atoms to repel (ah, er, spread out) more strongly unless the atoms receive the effect of the negative charge of the free electrons? The atoms may not receive the negative charge, but they do receive the force of that charge. Remove the excess free electrons from the field of atoms, and atoms repel (ah, er, spread out) less strongly i.e. gas pressure goes down.

A difficult and apparent contradiction to explain starts with the claim of science that with the doubling of gas temperature (on the K scale), when the gas volume goes unchanged, gas pressure roughly doubles. The difficulty comes when cutting the volume of a gas in half or more barely changes the temperature. For example, if you have a gas at 30 psi, and increase the volume by two times so that the final pressure is 15 psi, the temperature of that gas goes down only by 1 degree F, even though the free-electron density in the gas has been cut in half. How can it be that cutting the heat material in half only moves the needle by one degree?

Before answering, see that I'm not making these numbers up: "Gas temperature is reduced whenever pressure is reduced. This temperature drop is about 1°F for each 15 psi pressure drop." I've been looking for those numbers for decades, and finally I've just-now found someone who has verified what I had found through experimentation: doubling gas volume barely changes the gas temperature. My experiment was back in the 1990s. It challenged my view of electrons = heat material because I expected a cutting in half in electron density by doubling the gas volume, but a reduction of just one degree can hardly be a cutting in half of heat density. This was a big problem, but convinced that free electrons define heat, I wrestled with it until a solution arrived.

How did that unexpected heat, twice as much as expected, get into the gas? I doubled the gas volume, forcing the free electrons in that space to use up twice the space, and they were expected to be half their density when filling twice the space. Instead, there was a drop of about one degree (to be viewed as virtually no drop in temperature), meaning they maintained their density, amounting to twice as much heat as was expected. The one degree was measured instantly upon doubling the gas volume, without time for heat on the outside of the container to penetrate the container walls to double the heat density. Where did the heat come from? Only one answer: from the atoms. Look to the atoms.

The writer above goes on to say that a drop in pressure by 150 psi, from 400 psi to 250, has a drop in 10 F, showing that the drop is constantly 1 degree per 15 psi in these high pressure ranges.

My explanation became thus: when free electrons press in on gas atoms, they squeeze and store some of their numbers upon them. They push the captured electrons, which hover in space above the proton, toward the protonic surface, and thus the free ones cram in on the protonic sphere. COMPACTED ENERGY STORAGE. When the gas volume is increased, relieving some pressure on the atoms from the whole body of free electrons, these stored electrons come forth into the gas body, preventing the temperature from decreasing much.

If you know the going physics, you may know that the goofs define both gas pressure and heat transfer as the same atomic collisions, with zero difference made between the two. They will differentiate only by saying that temperature is defined as the velocities of atoms, yet they say that heat transfer occurs at atomic collisions. Slow=cold atoms, they say, slow down, and therefore cool, any faster atoms they collide with.

Therefore, in a gas volume extended to twice as large, their prediction is half the collisions on the container's atoms, per second. In that case, if the gas is cold by comparison to the container and the air outside of it, it will take twice as long for the container to bring the gas to the container's temperature, because there are only half as many atomic strikes against that container from which to receive its heat. Their prediction is that, the lower the gas pressure (or gas density) in a sealed container, the slower the heat transfer into the gas. For a vacuum in the container, their prediction is zero heat transfer.

But, in reality, a thermometer stuck into a vacuum will register temperature changes as heat either enters the thermometer's liquid from the vacuum, or exits the thermometer's liquid into the vacuum. The thermometer makes liars out of these goofs, yet they refuse to repent and give glory to the free electron.

Although I haven't done the experiment, I predict that it's not true at all that a gas stretched to twice its volume will take twice as long to match the temperature of the container and the air outside of it. I predict that it's not true at all that a gas stretched to four times its volume will take four times as long to match the temperature of the container and the air outside of it, which is the prediction of the bang-bang model of gases. Even a container filled with a vacuum at zero degree will heat up roughly as fast as cold air at zero degree. That's because free electrons from the outer air come through the container walls and fill the vacuum without any problem. It takes a little longer to fill a vacuum to any particular temperature, but only because there's more space in a vacuum as compared to one filled with atoms. Now you know the truth about the true nature of heat.

There's more atoms in a gas than you may realize. They are on the order of a few atomic diameters apart, maybe only two, three or four diameters. One can plow easily through air, however, even though filled to this degree with atoms, because they have the best-possible "lubrication" existing between them: their inter-repulsive forces. You know that when you hold two inter-repelling magnets closely, there is easy slide between the two. Gas atoms and magnets at a distance from each other are LITERALLY in contact through repulsion force, yet friction occurs only when atoms physically contact atoms, in which case the electrons of atoms are sinking into each other.

Both captured and free electrons are moving down the wire in electrical flow, but the free electrons, stuffed in the atomic spaces of the metal atoms, are a hindrance to the flow. This is known because, the hotter the wire, the more resistance to electric flow. When there's zero free electrons in the atomic spaces, at absolute zero temperature, the metal becomes a super-conductor such that the electrons can keep-on flowing with no further push from a magnet. Therefore, this reveals that the captured electrons suffer no friction as they transfer atom-to-atom, because they hover, and because they suffer no friction from their mutual repulsion forces.

Friction slows things down when the electrons of atoms mesh together, when the atoms make momentary bonds as two objects rub together. The atoms of a marble rolled on the floor mesh momentarily with each floor atom as it passes by them. Each meshing causes some attraction between atoms, which slows the marble. Attraction force can slow things; ask the ball that you throw straight up. Therefore, in the theory of ever-colliding atoms, they are instead predicted to slow with each collision due to friction alone (i.e. not including the absorption of motion energy). Friction kills the bang-bang theory of atoms, but the goof wants you to believe there is no friction when atoms collide. Ask your piano about that, as you slide it across your floor.

Piano versus evolutionist dimwit, no contest. Thanks to gravity, the piano's atoms are dug into the atoms on the floor, and the attraction between them resists your sliding the piano. Therefore, when two moving atoms kiss as they make contact from opposing directions: FRICTION. It murders motion. What don't we understand about the facts? A ball bounces less high everytime it comes down and meshes with the atoms in the pavement. The atomic attraction at every bounce slows the ball's bounce. A rock skipped on water skips less far everytime it skips. The bang-bang theory of atoms is dead, and evolutionists are thus proven to be liars.

Not merely wrong, but liars, because they've known what I've just told you for at least a century, but have not yet repented from their bang-bang sin. Everything has friction, they say, when materials contact materials, but they deny friction for atomic collisions. INTOLERABLE SINNERS who teach good men to sin with them. They have brainwashed all scientists from the time that they were young students, and they have forced them to tow their lines. Cut the cords, be free of them.

The goofs contend that, when atoms bond, they don't come to a full stop, but vibrate at fantastic speeds. NUTBARS. Can you imagine two bonded, wee-wee-wee-wee air atoms vibrating at over a thousand miles per hour, and yet they do not detach from each other? NUTBARS, wicked bastards without a Father in heaven, who refuse to let go of their big-bang physics.

In their scheme, atomic vibrations mean that one atom travels over a thousand miles per hour inward toward the proton of a neighboring atom, then travels roughly in the opposite direction, outward from the same atom, at over a thousand miles per hour, repeatedly. Do you really think that the attraction force of one vibrating atom can hold another vibrating atom, even when both are travelling in opposite directions, each at over a thousand miles per hour? It's fierce energy enough when only one atom is moving away from another at that speed, but, in every second, there would be millions of instances when they both travel at that speed in OPPOSITE directions, and yet they still keep their bond???

Let me be-labor this. If, for example, gas atoms travelling at an average of 1,500 mph are incapable of forming a bond because the two bounce off of each other in collisions, we then reduce their speed to, say, 1,300 mph hour, when they are able to grab each other with sufficient force to form a bond. In this scenario, an atom crashes into another, and begins to bounce away at 1,300 mph, but the other atom prevents the bounce-away, and thus a bond takes place. This speed is not fast enough to bounce fully away to freedom.

The problem is, the two will vibrate each at 1,300 mph in opposite directions, in the first split second of the bond, which forms a force equivalent to one atom travelling at 2,600 mph in one direction. But if one atom striking another at 2,600 mph can't form a bond, due to bouncing away during bonding opportunities, how will bonded atoms keep their bond when that same level of force occurs as the two move away from each other in vibrations?

Besides, only a nutbar would claim that atoms can collide at that speed and keep a bond, for the attraction forces set up between atoms, during collisions, is utterly weak. And on top of that, atoms repel each other intrinsically. The reality is, atoms bond in soft contacts, but only when below their critical temperatures. Air atoms collide constantly in the wind, but they refuse to bond because they repel each other, and because they are far above their critical temperatures, even at the south pole.

When free electrons in a gas body compress each other into the captured electrons of atoms, the compressed ones are more dense (than in the gas body) because the protons are simultaneously attracting them. It seems that there are enough pushed-on (stored) electrons surrounding atoms to come off and double the free-electron density of the gas for each doubling in gas volume.

Keep in mind that free electrons are stored upon atoms beginning one degree above absolute-zero temperature. By the time a gas is at room temperature, that's a lot of stored electrons already.

Look at how the "experts" goof with the world, confusing everyone. When I ask google whether the north pole is positively charged, someone writes: "Generally, the south pole is termed positive, and the north negative." GENERALLY? What does that mean? Is it hard-and-fast science, or does "generally" mean, "maybe, maybe not"?

Someone else doesn't stand by the above, saying: "Magnets can also be divided into a negative and a positive pole based on the characteristics of the poles. However, these terms are colloquial. One could therefore assume that the North Pole is positively charged, and the South Pole is negatively charged." So what's this writer saying, that the north pole isn't really positive in charge? There's no evidence of it? Apparently, yes. But if there's no evidence of a charge either way, how can anyone be justified in calling the earth a magnet?

Here's someone else who sounds like an authority on the topic, yet he's passing off some typical word salad that you're not supposed to understand: "The Earth isn't negatively charged on one end. Magnetic fields aren't generated by an accumulation of charges in one place, they're generated by an alignment or a motion of charges in the same direction. A magnetic field doesn't repel + and attract -, it deflects both + and - in opposite directions along the field." Say whaaat? This writer sounds toxic, keep your distance.

The magnetic field this writer above is talking about is probably adopted from the pictures you'll see of iron filings making a circular shape on both sides of a magnet. I'm telling you, that shape is not the shape of a magnetic field. That round shape has nothing to do with the existence of a literal force field radiating from the magnet. That shape is simply the shape that iron filings happen to make when placed near the magnet, when they themselves become little magnets, thanks to the large magnet itself acting on the atoms of the filings. But that's another story. The point is, ignore those cosmic pictures you run across where the earth's magnetic field is drawn (yes by an artist) with the same curved shapes between north and south poles.

Let's go to someone else: "The North Pole is a geographic location, and it does not have any form of electrostatic charge (especially as it's essentially in the middle of a sea which makes it at earth potential). The Magnetic North Pole is some distance from the geographic North Pole, but that, too, does not carry an electrostatic charge." Oops, it sounds as though there's in-fighting in geophysics. Why is this writer in denial? Sea venturers have been using the compass for centuries, and now this guy comes along and says, nope, there's no charge at the north pole to attract the needle of a compass?

But for a really-big screw into your skull: "Believe it or not, that's the way it is. Earth's south magnetic pole is near Earth's geographic north. Earth's magnetic north pole is near Earth's geographic south. That's why the north pole of a compass points toward north because that's where Earth's south magnetic pole is located and they attract." Does anyone know what they're talking about, or are these inconsistencies from those who've tried to reconcile personal experiences with false evolutionist claims that they don't want to see or accuse as false?

I don't know how they assign a negative charge to the north pole, but if it's from a choice only, where they could have chosen either negative or positive, I submit to you that they chose the wrong one to guard against what I'm telling you about solar wind.

Nobody has a clue on whether the north pole of a magnet is negative or positive, in the sense of comparison to electrons assigned the negative charge versus positive for protons. The only way to know what charge the north pole has is to see whether it attracts or repels free electrons. How can we do that? It's not like evolutionists could carry a bag load of free electrons to the north pole to check it out.

I have a possible method to do just that: the south pole's average temperature is about -45C while the north pole's average is -20C. Both poles face the sun by exactly the same amount, six months out of each year. Both poles face the sun for six month by exactly the same angle. Therefore, one way to explain that the north pole is unexpectedly warmer is to suggest that it attracts solar-wind electrons while the south pole does not.

If the north pole has a positive charge, attracting solar wind electrons, it does not necessarily follow that the south pole is negatively charged, nor does it necessarily follow that the earth is a magnet.

It's known that thunderstorms have excess electrons that cause lightning bolts. It's known that lightning bolts can strike the ground due to the positive charge of the ground. But why should the ground be positive while the air is negative?

I'm sure the establishment knows that electrons are freed from water molecules when the latter bond. It's the same scenario described above for O atoms intruding into H atoms: the invaded parts of the electron atmospheres give up their electrons to the air. Same goes with the bonding of any atoms / molecules by processes not involving combustion. So, because thunderstorms have thick clouds, there's more water-molecule bonding, and consequently a larger release of electrons.

The point is that air atoms can be encircled with many-more times as many free electrons than rock atoms. The latter can only see the invasion of free electrons into their atomic spaces, and thus there's a limit to how many of them can crowd around the rock atoms. As such, rock atoms, including the atoms of all solids, could retain their positive charges that gravity gave them.

Rather than heat causing the expansion (in size) of solids by making the solid atoms more negatively charged, we could say that the invasion of free electrons is the thing causing material expansion without making the atoms more negatively charged. The forced entry of free electrons into atomic spaces of solids and liquids is just like pumping air into a balloon, which expands it. It's that simple.

I can now move again into the explanation as to why all atoms are attracted by gravity: gravity is a negative force or wind that blows some captured electrons off of every atom, leaving every atom positively charged. It's such a simple explanation, I should get a science prize for it. But the goofballs despise my Christianity, and for this reason God calls them worse than I do. Instead of granting me a science prize, they would cancel me for bashing their big-bang fantasy.

My point is that while rock atoms were made positively charged by gravity, it appears that they retain their positive charge with certainty while air atoms give the appearance of becoming more-negatively charged with increasing free electrons. The point of the point is that some rocks could be more positive than others, and this may be the case at the north pole. I suppose we might suggest that rocks with less atomic space retain more positive charge for rock atoms than is otherwise the case.

Just as evolutionists had dug-in, into the schools, their fellow warriors took over most of society's institutions, and began polluting the minds, starting much in the 1960's:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIg9vMfcA50

NEWS

Look at this brave woman in Muslim England:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oM7I7wAVfxc

If we're waiting for Christian persecution, here's a reminder that's it's been going on for decades, only now, nobody cares who cares about this world's condition. I don't want to remind you of harsh persecution, because it's horribly depressing, and yet it's callous to ignore it:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/vlLa3SRWUHE

Trump has decided for Kash Patel for FBI director. To show that this is probably in the right direction, here's Bill Barr when Trump wanted Kash for deputy FBI director in his first term as president: "Attorney General William Barr wrote in his memoir that Patel would be the FBI director only 'over his dead body'." The problem is, Kash will have Kim Bondi as his boss on important issues, and I predict she will be Pompeo's or Barr's twin sister, a do-nothing to clean house.

Here's a video, with a horrible theme, where a former "sex slave," as she calls herself, names Pierre Trudeau as one abuser amongst many under what looks like the thumb of David Rockefeller. She portrays the latter just as Jeffrey Epstein has been portrayed in blackmailing powerful / popular people via spies:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A3cD6_m5KeM

Pedophiles in power have so much on the line if they get caught that they can resort to murdering people who come close to exposing them. But this issue is one that Jesus is concerned with. It involves a crime syndicate that He will probably expose, because I think that nothing under the sun will remain hidden when the time comes to change the Guard, when He arrives crowned.

The owner of the video above ends with, "I hope you enjoyed this video." What a mindless thing to say? I've heard a man claim online, in the open, at the threat of jail time if he's giving false testimony, that justin trudeau was involved with a pedophile ring operating out of Vancouver. It seems that pedophiles raise pedophiles to power until they become ingrained, explaining why Western countries are not busting pedophile rings operating online. The torment that Jesus has prepared for them.

If you thought that Trump picking Matt Gaetz right out of the gate was a sign that Trump, this time around, is going to stay away from swampish creatures, ask: why didn't Trump urge Gaetz to stay in the running to help depopoulate the senate of RINOs? All RINOs not voting for Gaetz would be under threat of losing their seats two years later, a good thing. Instead, Trump was rather happy to see Gaetz step aside, right out of the gate, knowing that Gaetz had no chance of getting confirmed. Yes, happy, because Trump loves Pam Bondi, whom he chose to fill Gaetz's shoes. Trump is a Jeffrey-Epstein sympathizer, never forget that.

The video below could give a clue that Trump's buddy, Lindsey Graham, is the one who urged Trump to pick Bondi, because Graham seems so ecstatic to see Pam Bondi instead of Gaetz. This video also outlines some war-hawkish colors of John Ratcliffe, which is one of the things that the swamp wants at the head of the CIA.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/u1vjuoYfctY

I'm wondering whether John Ratcliffe would expose pedophile rings. Trump could chose a man for FBI who promises him to do it, but my pessimism tells me that his FBI pick, along with Pan Bondi, will do nothing of the sort...unless God gives them that score.

I've hated the CBC since becoming a Christian. Only then could I see that CBC was an anti-Christ bastion, always treating issues with talking points opposing the way Christians would like to see society formed, always chipping away from listeners any semblance of Christian values they had left. Now, the CBC is in trouble for all of its efforts:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZH1_XxFzCS8

This week, the Conservatives won a "landslide" snap election in Nova Scotia, but the WEFer Liberals still won't back down. They will continue seeking to install WEF agendas, exactly the satanic values the CBC is committed to. They have only one hope, to silence anti-globalist media, and there's more than one way to do it. But if they get caught trying to persecute their foes, it only emboldens their foes. That's what's been happening. The Conservatives won by something like 43-2 seats, versus the Liberals. That's not a landslide, but a chasm.

Liberalism can only succeed if it infiltrates secretly on toe tips, small degree by small degree with an angelic facade, which is exactly how the CBC operated. But once Liberals start an all-out war in the open fields, they lose, because they are losers, and cannot help but expose it. All-out war means they expose their flank, and everyone sees how hairy it is. Disgusting are the anti-Christs. They need to put on masks if they hope to come back to power in the places they've lost since the vaccine roll-out. Yes, they need pretend masks to hide their disgusting nature. It's how they roll, ashamed of their own true nature, not wanting to expose it for fear of being rejected. Instead of changing their nature, they secretly hold to it tight hoping to amass such overwhelming powers that they can suddenly foist both their dictatorship and their demonic "values" (black light)upon the peoples. They are lunatics who think they can forever hold power under those terrorizing circumstances. WEF had come to openly advertise its plotted terrorizing because it and fellow globalists thought they finally had the overwhelming powers needed.

If Trump's choices for government positions only stave off globalist efforts for another four years, consider them your opportunity to prepare for what could come after 2028, if it appears that the bad guys will regain their powers.

How is it that Revelation 13 seems to say that the whole world will choose the anti-Christ? How will he fashion his movement in such a way as to make brute nastiness popular? Aside from spouting off blasphemies, and taking warriors into his train thereby, I have no idea how that could find success, but won't the "woke" crowds be giddy at that time? What will they do to us who have frustrated them, turning the politics against them?

By Thursday of this week, Trump was hearing of dissatisfaction in his voter ranks on some of the establishment men he had chosen, which could explain some of his forthcoming picks, such as the anti-lockdown Jay Bhattacharya, for the boss at NIH. However, Trump himself will say that he's opposed to lockdowns, unless they're necessary. Besides, it's not the NIH director who decides whether lockdowns will be enforced.

When Brian Kilmeade spoke on Bhattacharya's nomination, he said that Warp Speed was a "success," and his co-host, Emily Campanio, agreed. These people are traitors for the sake of keeping their lucrative and "honorable" jobs. I suggest that the paycheck is doing the on-air talking, knowing that his Fox boss would frown on any anti-vaccine talk, on the air. Here's Campanio, on a show telling that Ratcliffe and Hegseth have been threatened by the diabolical enemy, and of course, if done by phone or email, their identities can be discovered by the FBI and others in less than a day:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q4GvN-pbS0M

Here's how Bhattacharya thinks, a lot like one who opposes COVID vaccines, except that he's not screaming against the dangers of vaccines, as he should be, and seems to quote medical people who are pro-vaccine:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=by8sEVTrqkY

When I was in Texas running my Canadian business by phone, I was getting repeated harassing phone calls by teenagers. I called merely the local police, asking if they could give me the phone number of these teens, and in short order, to my surprise, the police officer called back with the phone number. So, I called the teens, and you could imagine their surprise. The point is, the FBI knows RIGHT NOW ALREADY who threatened these Trump candidates and others. The problem is, the ones making the threats could be so high in the political world that they may have gotten the wink fro the FBI and others, assurance from them before making the threats. The FBI would be very worried about people like Ratcliffe and Hegseth having priority access to top-of-the-line spy equipment.

When Trump's FBI appointee gets the job, will Trump ask him to find and arrest these people making threats? If not, what does it say about trump? It says exactly what he showed his voters starting in 2017, that he's one grizzly of a false promiser. Dire threats go on all the time, but we almost never hear about them because speaking out about them is considered dangerous. Pedophiles know how to keep children silent with threats.

Greg Abbott, the Texas governor, was praising the coming appointment of Tom Holman as the federal Border Cop. Abbott lamented on TV that Biden allowed 11 million illegal crossings through Texas alone, and in the meantime he boasted of how great the Texas border guard is. Yet, nobody asks why the Texas guard allowed Biden to get away with it. When did we hear in the news that Texas was adamantly and continually hampering the aliens that the Bidenites were whistling to? Isn't it true that the Texas guards were told to stand down, and to just make a good show of things for some news stories, for to give the impression that they were doing their job well? What really is going on?

Just think of it. Eleven million aliens into Texas, and Texas doesn't protect Texans from them, even when the U.S. supreme court could easily chose in his favor when he argues that his job includes the protection of his Texas people. Abbott ended up looking like a fake fighter against illegal infiltration.

Things in the courts are yet moving against the COVID-vaccine companies:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_dfszvQgo8

Did you notice that Tucker, above, refused to vilify COVID vaccines...probably because he was part of the pro-vaccine crowd when with Fox news. He's not ready to confess that great sin. He's speaking out of both sides of hs mouth.

The following video tends to expose that Matt Gaetz dropped out, at least indirectly, from the pressure of the deep-state threat. The climax of this longish, government-gangster story, comes in the 23rd minute; notice there how it involves a hostage (Jewish surname) in Iran, a former CIA man:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_ynn8EAxOU

To put this in other words, Trump is turning into a Kevin MacCarthy even while he did a fake appointment of Matt Gaetz, McCarthy's arch foe. Trump is still licking boots of the RINOs, calling them out only if they attack him personally. But when they do evil against the American people, so long as they don't attack him, Trump shines their shoes and combs their hair. That's what this grizzly yahoo is proving to be on this second political binge, though trying to hide it. Most of his voters regard Lindsey Graham, his good buddy, a RINO. Although the latter term is thought to be defined as a Republican secretly / subtly supporting Democrat causes, it should have an alternative definition of Conservatives who lick Rothschild / Rockefeller boots for fear of repercussions if they betray the "Jewish" fat cats. How badly do we think that Jesus wants to expose these Jewish fat cats? Don't we think that His Father has set the times for every exposure? It's going to end bitter for these fake Jews. Don't fear the monsters, pity them.

Did you notice Candace Owens' black nail polish, cutesy appeal, and Jesus statue behind her back? I'm concerned about such political Christians, especially when they are making good money on videos. I don't watch her because I don't care to see every niche of every Trump move. My main concern is globalism, as it builds its war machines against Jesus. After years of political activism, and then more years as politicians, which way will they fall when the time arrives for the fires of God upon end-time Sodom? Perhaps they won't fall at all, due to turning into pillars of salt.

It's interesting that Charles Kushner, Jared's father, was chosen by Trump to be the ambassador to France. Jared Kushner, at least, owns a New-York building that once had 666 as the address (it was changed to 660, or something like it), when Trump first became the president. It's interesting because Revelation 16 says of the 666 man that a frog will come out of his throat, calling the rulers of the earth to gather at Megiddo for Armageddon. The French were called "frogs," for a reason that may not matter, if God used frogs in Revelation to indicate France. Today, France opposes Israel in its wars against Arab neighbors. The French leader, Macron, is a WEF tool, and, very safe to say, all WEF stooges are being turned on Israel.

Wikipedia: "In 2005, [Charles Kushner] was convicted of illegal campaign contributions, tax evasion, and witness tampering after hiring a prostitute to seduce his brother-in-law, arranging to record a sexual encounter between the two, and sending the tape to his sister. He was sentenced to two years' imprisonment,..." It sounds like a Jeffrey-Epstein tactic. Jared marred Trump's daughter, the liberal-minded Ivanka, and Trump supposedly got his wife, Ivanka's mother, from the Epstein circle.

"Frog" can go back to "PHRYGian," especially mythical Marsyas of Phrygia, whom I trace to Maruvium's namers, the Marsi people of Abruzzo, the apparent proto-Merovingian Franks. From them descended the CHARLES-named Carolingians who got mixed up with Grimaldi's, and while the Grimaldi write-up mentions their "frock" symbol, Frocks are listed with the Frog surname. CHARLES Kushner was not born with that first name, but chose to adopt it. In recent times, a Miss Quintana married a Baron Massy in the family of Monaco's Grimaldi princedom, which uses a purple throne. Quintana's use three dice showing 666.

If you're interested on Trump's CDC and FDA picks:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q4GvN-pbS0M

Somehow, Del Bigtree of the High Wire obtained the camera footage of a WHO meet in Geneva, where speakers condemn themselves one way or the other, with perhaps the climax coming shortly after 1hr26minutes (start there to get the full story). I suggest that the guilty are now to the point of admitting no safety studies so as to appear merely over-confident or negligent rather than the reality: they were part of a deliberate murder program to check how much they could safely ramp up mass-murders in a second plandemic. First they do the "useless eaters," as they call them, the aged and mentally sub-par, and then the political enemy. God will then judge them useless "livers" and mentally criminal, and deny them further life.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/PuZLeKsHcAEh

Start this video near the start of the 10th minute to see a vaccine goon chosen by Trump to run a drug agency:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/U-V3xvQVaIw

I like the near-end of this Creationist video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1WkIyZgKYQ

---

NEXT UPDATE

Here's all four Gospels wrapped into one story.

For Some Prophetic Proof for Jesus as the Predicted Son of God.
Also, you might like this related video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W3EjmxJYHvM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efl7EpwmYUs

Pre-Tribulation Preparation for a Post-Tribulation Rapture

---