Calvarys share the brown owl with TEGGERTs. In their motto, Irish Teegers love the Diems/Dittmayers while Ditts and Dwights use a TIGER. Repeat: "German Carlsons are first known in Schleswig-Holstein with the Dittmayers sharing the Ukraine flag. The latter Carlsons share the giant griffin of Berta's who are in Kepke colors and format, border included." Tigers, Suffolk with Owls and Kidds.
I didn't know until now that the two comBATTANT Kidd goats of Kidds are called "saliant," which looks like code for the Salian variation of Slam-like Salems/Salemans. Battants/Badens share the axe with the Walser goat, and the Arms of Baden is the bend of Keeps because Veringers of Baden were from Maria of the Kiev Varangians. Keeps are first known in Sussex with the Reines-connectable Foss', and the Reines' (Bavaria with Walsers) get us to the Fantis' sharing the Chief of Italian Martins. It could explain why the two "human heads" of Fantis' look like kids. Humans/Yeomans happen to be first known in Gloucestershire with English Walls/Wales'! Zikers, look at that. German Walls, first in Baden.
Maine's share the hand-held dart with CuthBERTs, looking related to the hand-held spear of Humans/Yeomans because Yeo's/Yeomans are first known in Devon with Walsh-connectable Maine's, Berts, Stewarts, and Darts. Cuthberts are first known in the same place as Slams (share Stewart lion). Berts are in Walsh / MAINE colors and format. Scottish MANs (Human/YeoMAN colors) have more goats.
Berta's are in Kepke colors and format, border included, and while Keeps are first known in Sussex with Boards, Borders/Boarders are first known in Somerset with the Kidd-beloved Battants/BADENs, and with Battys sharing the goat of Mans and Kopffs (Bavaria with Walsers and Weis'). Battys are first known in Somerset with Sticks, beloved of Kepke-branch Kupe's. Manners/Maness' are first known in Northumberland with Bilders essentially sharing the Bert and Burt Coats. The split-Kopff Shield is with Hunters (Shropshire with Bats) who in turn share the Bat saltire.
Houseofnames is a never-ending problem when changing first-known locations, but often it's helpful. I've just noticed for the first time that Hunters are now first known in Sussex...with Coopers/Coppers and Keeps. The Cooper/Copper Crest shares the leopard of Mosca's of Reines-connectable Pisa, we may gather, because Mascals were previously first known in Sussex too! The Reines' got us to Comet Ping Pong pizza of James AleFANTIS, and so let's repeat that Fantis' share the Chief of Kepke-connectable Berta's.
Berts have HUNTing horns, and while Bilders have the Bert Coat without the hunting horns, Bilders are first known in Northumberland with Horn-branch, Hebron-like Herons, Keep-beloved Hebrons/HEPBURNs, and with Keep-related Lorraine's. The latter share the eagle's of CHILDs, first known in Hertfordshire with Horns/Orne's. Burts, same place as Orions/Irons (Norfolk with HIPPERns/Hipkins). Childrens use Bert-like birds while Berts are also Births. Childers love Buckle's (Suffolk with Martin-connectable Kidds). Kids and children pimped off by hellish Epstein goons.
The Hope's (Shropshire with Hopkin-beloved Pistols) take us to Hopkinsons who share the lozenges of Reno's/Rhine's. Kopff's are first known in Bavaria with Reines'/Rhiners/RAINers, and then the Hope's have a "rainbow."
The "water drops" of Mans are called, "GOUTTes d'eau" in French, which could be part-code for Yeo-like Eu. Guttes' (Hamburg with Trips/Treffs) use a giant rose for Varangian Rus. German Rose's are first known in Silesia with Weis-branch Wies'. Drops/Trupe's are first known in Norfolk with Burts (share Bert Coat), and Scottish Trupe's/Troops are first known in Banffshire with the Baskins sharing vaired fesse of the Hookers. Waters (Essex with Epping and Childs of Wanstead) in water drops share the Epstein Coat.
While Shettleworths and Settle's, both suspect now as per Shetland, are first known in Lancashire with YEALand, and with the Sorrys/Sowreys sharing a fasces with Assi's. The latter are first known in Shetland with Yells. Assi's share the "balance" of Kepke-connectable Justice's, which Kiss-branch Cass/Cash's call a "scale." Assi's are also Cass-like Ass', and Chase's (beside Soars/Sore's), sharing the Soar/SORE lion, are first known in the same place as Keppe's/Kippers. Kepke was SORE when he saw Peare and I kissing. Again, Lawrence Kepke points to Lawrence's of Yealand-RedMAINE while Redmaine's use a cushion that can trace to the Cush variation of Kiss', which is why I had to kiss his two ladies. Maine's almost have the Irish Walsh Coat.
Chicks/Chicks are first known in Essex with the Marks suspect with the Hicks fleur due to Hicks' of Low Leighton in Essex. Hicks were a Hook branch while Hockeys are first known in Essex who happen to share the KICK crescents! Kepke demanded to the bouncer to KICK Peare and I off of the property, I remember that word. We are back to Hookers who share the vair of CHICHesters (Devon with Hooks).
Chicks/Chichs, as well as the Fitch's/FITTs expected in the Cheek/Chick fitchee, are first known in Essex with Esters and ANGERs. ChichESTER. Kepke had a FIT as he barged out the doors, ANGRy with Miss Peare! Fette's/Fitts are first known in Kincardine, where PEARtree's/Patria's (same place as Mans) were previously first known! Chichesters share the checks of Dutch Flamings. The flaming star of Pero's. Irish Flemings (said to have had branches in Devon) even have the Chichester Coat in reverse. Fitch's/Fitts/Fitchets are first known in Essex with the MontFITCHETs sharing the Epstein Coat.
Checkers are first known in Hampshire with Keppe's/Kippers. See that? I kissed his lady on the cheek. German Flamings love the Wolfs, in Chip/Chipman colors and format. Capua's/Capone's are first known in Naples with giant-wolf of Romania's with the split Dittmayer Shield in colors reversed. Chepmans/Chapmans share the Cheek/Chick crescent. Checkers share a Shield filled with checks (different colors) with Chichesters. See that? It means that God caused me to kiss Kim on the cheek in my FireBIRD after she slammed the door on Kepke, leaving him outside. Luffs/Love's share the Cheek/Chick fitchee, but Love's/Luffs add a "bird" with theirs. Fire's/Furs connect to the vair FUR under discussion. Fiers/Fears and Horns/Orne's are first known in Middlesex with the Stans/Stains who can be gleaned, by a read of the Montfitchet/Muschat write-up, at Stansted Montfitchet.
Kim SLAMMED the door as Kepke then sat down on the CURB, and I had pointed this to the Curby variation of KIRKbys long before Erika Frantzve Kirk was in the news, a relative of the Solomons. Slam-like Salems/Salemans/Salmins now look applicable to that slam i.e. to the Salome's/Solomons, first known in Rhineland with Frantz's, where one could logically expect the origins of Reines'/Rhiners. Again, the Salems/Salians can be in the Kidd goat shared by Kepke's. I showed how Reines'/Rhiners link to Italian Carla's and Reines-connectable Foss', and so let's repeat that Erika Kirk was related to Karla Solomon. The Salian variation of Salems goes to the Salian Franks at the mouth of the Rhine river, but now also goes to the saliant goats of Kidds. SLAM. In the 2nd update of September, 2022:
I'll even repeat here that when Miss Walsh slammed my car door (it was a FireBIRD) on Kepke, leaving him outside, he sat down on the curb beside the fender...As I said, something made me kiss Miss Walsh on the CHEEK as she slammed the door on Kepke,...
I repeated that story in the 3rd of September, 2025, shortly after the Kirk-shooting event. But in the update above, I also told that a SLAMMED a window and broke the glass when Kepke took Miss Peare away from me on a low-down ruse: "I went out to show resentment toward Kepke, and slammed the living-room WINDOW hard, breaking the glass." That was on Lawrence avenue (Toronto), a few weeks after the rush-up-stairs event, and Glass', sharing the fleur of Keppock-connectable Weddings, happen to be first known in Bute with Kims.
The Chichester checks are also with Kepke-connectable Waddle's/Weddels, first known beside the Solomon-connectable Scottish Vaux's while English Vaux's share the full Chichester Coat. Therefore, yes, the slamming of the door and glass does point to the Solomons. Vaux-branch Faux's are first known in Essex with Chicks/Chichs. The Foi's in the Chichester motto come up as "Foix," first known in Auvergne with Bauds who in turn love the Rams (Essex with same-colored Chicks/Chichs). Irish Foys share both the Cheek/Chick crescent and the "eel" with Ships/Shiptons (Oxfordshire with Cheeks/Chicks).
I've shown in several recent updates how Heron-loving Horn's/Orne's link to Orrins/OREMs (Aberdeenshire with Scottish Carla's) via Scale's and Scayle's, and so let's add that the Chichesters have "A heron rising." Then, Orrins/Orems and Scayle's/Schools share the lozengy Shield of English Patents/Pattens, first known in Essex with Chicks/Chicks. Charlie Kirk faked his death, with Erika's help, at a school in Orem.
Scottish Patents/Patiens', sharing the Yell crescents only now in FLAMES, are in the motto of Dove's, who are not only in the colors and format of the giant dove of Italian Paloma's, but share the white, dancetty-fesse of Kiplings, the latter first known in Yorkshire with Keppochs and Palms. The latter share the Chief of Chichesters, and I kissed Kim at La Paloma! The Foi's/Foys in the Chichester motto can take one to English Foys (Suffolk with Kidds) sharing the Coat of English Lacys.
Herons (share Orne/Horn Coat) are first known Northumberland with Keep-loving Hebrons, and with the Store's/Sturys who share the stork with Choke's (see Chalkers too) who in turn link to Cheek-related Love's/Luffs. ChichESTER-connectable Esters are also Sturs. Sturs/Stowers are first known in Hampshire with Keppe's/Kippers and Checkers.
The last update had my realization that my beating or punching a table, as Jeffrey Epstein drove by me, was also SLAMMING the table. That topic began two updates ago, in the same update that I investigated a coffee-table event with Kelly. The point here is that Table's/Tapleys, Tapps/Tabbs, and Tabers have since tracked well to the Pierleoni of the TIBER river, in Rome, where Rita's are first known who share the Kelly and Chick lion. It works where Kellys were L'Aquila elements (from a ruling circle in L'Aquila) while Chicks and Tabers are first known in Essex with English Este's while Aquila's share the Coat of Italian Este's. Kelly's father was a song-writer, and Rieti-suspect Wrights/Rite's use leopards, a Pierleoni-line symbol, as do Tabers. Chichesters share "foi" with the Bothwell-like Boswells.
I've got more to add concerning my punching the table (slamming fists upon it) where Punch's/Poyntz's are said to be from "Pontius," for Ponts and Ponters share the black boar with Boths/Booths and English Bush's while German Bush's/Bushers are first known in Rhineland with Salome's/Solomons, where I'm tracing the Slams / Salems/Salemans. Slags/Slacks are first known in Yorkshire with Boths/Booths and Bush's. Bothwells share the Coat of Linch's, the latter first known in Galway while Galways share the bridge with both Ponti surnames. Italian Ponti's have "three arched bridge with a tower, over water in base," and Towers, with almost the Comet Coat, were kin of Lufkins (share Bush, Music/Musy, and Salem/Saleman eagle).
Perhaps it's a coincidence, but Spanish Ponti's show the same bridge, "with three arches," of Slags/Slacks who in turn have a different-colors version of the Salome/Solomon Coat. I looked the latter up because houseofnames says that Slams/Slowens developed a Slag-like Irish variation (though houseofnames typically thinks, without evidence presented, that the Irish variations are the originals). Slows are also Slough's.
Italian Ponti's put "wavy WATER" under the bridge, very good for taking us to Epstein-connectable Waters, first known in Essex with Muschats and Chicks. I see heraldic wavy as code for Weaver elements, and wavy-bar Webbers are first known in Somerset with Poyntz-like Points, and with Bridge's who in turn love the Crabs. As Epstein was TURNING the corner (at the intersection) while I punched / slammed the table, it thus looks like a pointer to Turning Point's links to Epstein and or Musk (both pro-Israel).
Chicks are connectable to the Cheeks/Chicks, kin of Luffs/Love's who have triple fesses in the colors of the triple chevrons of Waters, Muschats and Epsteins. This gets important where Slams have a lion in the colors of the Muscats/MUSKs (Cambridgeshire with Ponters and Crabs) and Luffs/Love's lion heads. Both of the latter were previously first known in Suffolk with Linch-like Lings and Starlings/STARLINCH's, and so I'm seeing Elon Musk's Starlink satellite company.
The Poyntz variation of Punch's are said to have owned the Linch manor is Sussex immediately after the Montague's did so, and the latter, first known in Somerset with Points, share the black border with Parrs and Furness' (both in Lancashire with Plate's and Ponti-beloved Towers), both of whom I trace to king Pharnaces of the PONTUS. The Punch's/Poyntz's are said to derive in "Pontius."
We may add that while Montague's are also MontaCUTE's, Cute's (Pilate-like plates) are first known in Lincolnshire with English Pilotte's, a branch of Pellets who are in turn first known in Sussex with the Linch manor of Poyntz's, and with Write's/Rite's sharing the double Parr fesses. Pellets are loved by English Foys while "foi" is a motto term of Bush-branch Boswells, first known in Yorkshire with Lacys sharing the Foy Coat. Then, French Pilotte's list Pilate's suspect in the line from Pontius Pilate.
Sussex is also where the Acorns are first known looking related to the Coat of Planes'/PLATTers (Suffolk with Lings). Epstein was turning the corner, and Corners show an acorn. German Corners have another black boar (used by English Bush's), in the colors of English Bushers (Dorset with Planes-branch Palins), and English Corners share the fleur-de-lys of German Bush's/Bushers (Rhineland with Salome's/Solomons). The Solomon relations of Erika Kirk are being reported as a gangster family. George Bush was a government gangster.
English Corners are listed with Garners while German Garners have a giant lion in the colors of the lions of English Bushers. Otto Busher. Auto's/Otto's are in the colors and format of Chaffins (Dorset with Bushers) while Chaffins share the giant, black dog with Furness'.
Calvary-like Calfs/Caufs and calf-using Vile's/File's are first known in Gloucestershire with Walls/Wales'. Calvarys (Yorkshire with a Calf/Cauf branch) look like kin of Sadducee-like Saddocks. Walls/Wales' love the Vile-loving Griffins. Calvarys (Yorkshire with Scottish Morleys/Maule's) are first known in the Morley part of Leeds, and Calvers (share Morland fleur) are first known in Derbyshire with English Morleys. Griffins use a "NE vile" phrase while Needhams, sharing the Knee/NEE Coat, are first known in Shardlow of MORLESton of Derbyshire.
I was about to kiss Sleeping Beauty, but touched her knee instead, at the top of her calf, interesting where Calvers almost have the Kiss Coat. I had my shirt off at the time, and the Shard variation of Shirts (Cheshire, beside Shardlow) may have named Shardlow in Morleston. Calfs/Caufs have three calves in the format of the three bulls of Beautys (Dorset with Griffin-loving Chaffs), and neither Coat shows anything else. It indicates to me that Joseph Caiaphas was a Hyksos liner, recalling Apphus Maccabee, like "Apophis."
Abbas'/APPS'/Epps are first known in Huntingdonshire with Otters while Otter-loving Balfours almost have the Calver Coat. Balfours are first known in Fife (beside Abbe's/Abbys) with a Crail location while Crails (Cambridgeshire with Popps) are listed with Crabs while the Apophis asteroid is going to become visible to the eye in the crab constellation. But this is another story. On the other hand, if it hits the earth, isn't that a kiss? Yes, a kiss of God to His Bride, for it will relieve persecution against us, when we get off our knees and hold our heads up in expectation. Got your lamp oil yet?
Beauty and I were raptured at the second I touched her knee. I've never interpreted that scene like this, with the Calvers almost having the Kiss Coat, then insinuating Apophis. Can she point both to Epstein hookers and to this Apophis picture? I've shown how Apophis can land in the Atlantic ocean, location of Epstein's island. Apophis is scheduled on April 13, 2029, the night of the new moon i.e. perfect sky blackness, two weeks after Passover. I'm writing this on Passover, April 2. Is it going to slam down? I was slamming my fists as Epstein drove by. Hykes-connectable Drove's/Drive's, Hampshire with Poppins/Pophams and Aster-branch Sturs. Asters, Essex with Epping. Apophis, the fist of God?
When we go to the kiss on Kim's cheek, note that Cheeks/Chicks can take us to Chicks/Chichs sharing the triple lions of James' (Surrey with Salems/Slamins), interesting where Epsteins owed the James islands in the Virgin Islands. Virgins share the Slam lion.
The Slam-like Salems/Salmins happen to be in the colors and format of Vile's/FILE's, first known in Gloucestershire with English THOMAS'. Is this a pointer to God's release of the Epstein FILES thanks to Thomas Massie? EXPOSURE of those who sin against little ones, woe demons, woe to you. Massie is trying to make the exposure more exposing, but Trump opposes him. Woe to Trump, and to those who embrace him, adore him, respect him. Woe to the fooli$h virgin$.
English Thomas' share the Coat of Elis' (Yorkshire with Alis Meschin-Skipton) while Alice of Slam-connectable Saluzzo (Piedmont with Massie-branch Masci's) was the daughter of Thomas, and so the Welsh Thomas' (share Kim cinquefoils) are suspect with the Saluzzo Shield while adding griffins. The "talbot" of English Thomas' has "spots" while Spottens/Spauldings (Lincolnshire with Meschin-related Tailboys') are said to have been associated with the Meschins, first known in Shropshire with Talbots and Sallows. Slams are SLOWens too. Slows share the crescents of English Thomas'.
Welsh Thomas' are first known in BRECONshire while Brecons/Brechins are first known in Angus with APPS-branch Abbys, and the latter were previously first known in Middlesex with Horns who are in turn in the Coat of Brechs (Shropshire with Saluzzo-branch Sallows). Just wondering whether Apps'/Epps are a pointer to Apophis landing at the outskirts of Epstein's island. How many other islands in that area are running crime gangs? Brecons share the Coat of English Buckets while French Buckets share the Gang cinquefoils, half in the colors of the Welsh Thomas cinquefoils. Brechs share the hunting horns of Wearings who in turn share the checkered bend of Pope's.
Slam Pointer to Rick Cutler
I don't remember seeing TRAFFIC LIGHTs at the corner, but I expect them with Epstein turning the corner. Lights/Lite's love Swans (Lanarkshire with Linch-connectable BOTHWELLs. We had arrived to the Montague variation of Montacute's from their owning the Linch manor immediately before the Poyntz's owned it. Lights, in Bridge colors and format, are first known with them in Somerset, along with Punch-branch Points, Montacute's, but also with Webbers sharing the fleur-de-lys of English Bush's and Mascals (early in Sussex with the Linch manor). Bush's are first known in Yorkshire with Boths and BOSWELLs. Muscels (Lincolnshire with Cute's) share plates with Cute's while Montacute's share the Reno/Rhine lozenges while Comet-loving Reigns'/Rhiners can take to the Mascal-branch Mosca's of Pisa.
Simsons> are about to come to topic who use a "falcon" while French Falcons/FalCONTE's are first known in Languedoc with French Conte's/COMITES' and Constants/Contans who in turn love the Pine's, first known in Limousin with Comets. See that? It's like a pizzagate connection to Romanian Angels, or to some child-trafficking operation in Constanta. "COMITE" is a motto term of Slam-like Slane's, and while I expect Slams/Slowens to have the Stewart lion, Slane's are first known in Shropshire with proto-Stewart Alans and Sallows.
Having said that, wow, CUTler-branch Cutters are first known in neighboring Dorset with Bushers. RICK Cutler was the guy who looked like he shot a palm gun from a few feet directly in front of Charlie, then went to "assist" Charlie as he lay on the ground, then got into the van that supposedly sent Charlie to the hospital.
Cutlers are first known in London with the Tooth's having the TRAFFord/Treffor Coat in colors reversed, and the Trafford/Treffor griffin is in colors reversed with Ponti-beloved and Light-connectable Bridge's (same place as Points). See all that? Cutlers love the Dragons/Drainers, first known in Kent with RICKetts/RACKETs and Darks of Arque's. The Cutler Crest looks like it's of the Crest of ARCHers (Cutler colors and format) and their Larcher branch. This recalls the arches of Poyntz- / Point-like Ponti's. Compare Punch's/Poyntz's with CAMERons and Larchers, for CHAMBRE is on the Ark river of Savoy.
My atlas shows a "Chambre" on the Ark, about 25 miles south-east of Chambery, but google thinks Chambre does not exist. yet google is being an anti-educational goon again because, if I ask for "La Chambre on the Ark," it knows it, but if I ask for "Chambre" alone on the Ark, the google computer fakes like it's lost it's head, giving me something at the Arkansas river.
As Camerons are also Camera's, perhaps Cutler had a palm camera, for he pointed his FIST toward Charlie just as the shot went off. A palm gun is held in the palm of a closed hand, with the tiny barrel sticking out between two fingers. I suppose a camera could work exactly like that. Whatever the case, his FIST is showing at the sound of the gun, and tele-MARKETers try to sell us something. I was slamming my fists angry at tele-marketers, and if Epstein was turning the corner at traffic LIGHTs, note the "LoyaLITE" motto term of Markets, a term that can also point, with Loyola's/Lolita's, to Epstein's plane, "the Lolita Express."
Rick Cutler was at a Fairy Lake in Montana, shortly after the shooting event, with other Turning Paint people, which was likely to talk over how the hoax was progressing, and how to progress it in the future over some of the obstacles developing online from the public. There is a Fairy Lake park (Water street) in NewMARKET, Ontario, which I've been to many times, directly across a provincial police station. "Rick Cutler is a retired police officer from Irving, Texas, with 29 years of service, who moved to Guatemala after retiring in 2019 for missionary and training work." Irvings, who happen to have a "Constanter" motto term, share the Coat of Scottish Jacks, first known in Renfrewshire with police-like Policks.
Baron Coleman, on the day he discovered Cutler's appearance at Fairy lake, showed how he's been involved in saving children from sex-trafficking, a perfect disguise, along with a claim of being a missionary, for abducting children.
Ricks were kin of Ely-related Cravens while Elys link to Muscats/Musks, and then Irish Foys, with an "eel," look related to the Chapmans ("pondere" motto term), first known in Cambridgeshire with Punch-connectable Ponders/Ponters, Muscats/Musks, and Ely. As another eel is with Shiptons, while Skipton is in Craven, note that Shiptons are first known in Oxfordshire with the Cheeks/Chicks sharing the Chapman and Foy crescent. Chicks/Chich's, perhaps God's pointer to young girls, are first known in Essex with Epstein-connectable Waters (and Muschats) and Fairy-like Vere's/Vairs, mentioned as per Water street above at Fairy Lake. Essex is also where Montana-like Mountains are first known. Italian Montana's are interesting for using hexagrams in the colors of the comet-hexagram of Reines'/Rhiners. Spanish Montana's use a border while Borders are first known in Somerset (beside Cutters) with border-using MontaCUTE's. CUTlers and Cutters.
Fairy's (Lanarkshire, beside Mounts) happen to share the Slam and English Mount lion! AND ZIKERS, English Mounts share "constanter" with Irvings! It appears to be Rick Cutler's connection to Romanian Angels! English Mounts add a "Pruder" motto term likely for the Prude's/Pride's (Lanarkshire). Irving is in Dallas, and Dallas' share the Coat of Lanarkshire's Biggars. Fairy-like Fears are in the motto of Mund-beloved Peacocks (Essex with Mountains). Fairys are also Ferrys, and they love the Plows, first known in Shropshire with Slam-connectable Sallows.
I was SLAMMING the table as Epstein turned the corner, and Salems/SALEMANs/Slamins are possibly even in the Cutler write-up: "...Saleman le Cotiler as holding lands at that time. The same rolls listed Matilda la Cutiller, Lincolnshire." Lincolnshire is where Cutler-connectable Cute's/Cutts are first known, in Sale/Sallett colors and format. Then, I almost forget: Cutt-like Cudds share the dart in Crest with Cuthberts who in turn are first known in KIRKcudbrightshire with Slams!!! Zikers, that dream is pointing to Rick Cutler.
The Cudd fesse-with-star is in colors reversed from the fesse-with-crescents of KIRKbys/CURBys (Lancashire with Traffords/Treffors and Travers/Travis'), and the Cudd fesse is shared by Fore's/Forez' who in turn have a "TOUT TRAVERS" motto linkable to the TOOTHs (London with Cutlers). Mont Pilat is at the Forez mountains. I link Tooth's to Bumps, which recalls the snow-on-bumper dream that pointed to Mitch Snow, who claims he saw Rick Cutler and Erika Kirk at Fort Huachuca, (Arizona-Mexico border) the day before the Kirk-shooting event. Huachuca is where Mr. Snow had earlier caught the government trafficking drugs over the border. Mitch's are listed with Muschats.
As I slammed the table, a previous tenant of mine, Alysha, stood at the opposite side of the table. She had pointed to child trafficking in the Dominican Republic almost a year before this dream under discussion. One way to explain Alysha's presence in the slam-table dream is where "Alis" is a motto term of Scottish Simsons while English Simsons almost have the Coat of Trevors (not "Traver"), the latter first known in Herefordshire, beside the Humans/Yeomans whose Yeo/Yeoman branch share the Coots Coat, and then Coots' share the Alis motto, which is the Orphan and Mascal/Keith motto in reverse while Mascals/Keiths are first known in East Lothian with the Simms.
Yeo's are first known in Gloucestershire with the Nutters suspect in the "Alis NUTRior" motto of Simsons; the latter are first known in Buckinghamshire with the Pens in the Simms motto. Michael Pence can be pointed to where Michaels have another feathered "pen" while Pence's are listed with Pens. Pense's/Pincons and Simons are first known in Devon with Yeo's/Yeomans.
Some insist without fear of law suit that Mike Pense is a child molester. With Trump now wanting protection and support from the Epstein crime ring, it makes sense that he chose Mike Pense to be his deputy. Pence sported a rabbit symbol, and Rabbits are in Bunny and Yeo colors and format.
English Simsons almost have the triple crescents of Kirkbys (Lancashire with Travers and Traffords/Treffors). The same Simsons share the lion of German Garners/KARENs while Roet-connectable Karens are first known in Silesia with German Rosers/Rose's while Welsh Rosers are in the colors and format of Scottish Simsons. It's important here that TRAFFic lights are expected at the intersection corner while English Corners are listed with Garners.
Roets were kin of COLTers, and Colts/Cults are first known in Perthshire with Roet-related Rollo's, and with axe-using Halperts/Halberts in the "halbert axe" of Simms'. Scottish Roets are first known in Somerset with an Axe river, and with Lights/Lite's in the colors and format of Halperts/Halberts and the Albert-loving and Halper-connectable Sledge's. While the neighboring Axe river (Devon with Pense's) flows to Seaton, Seatons are first known in East Lothian with Simms', and with the Fortune's in the Simms and Rollo mottoes.
Simms share "spur rowells (different design) with Panters (Angus with Nevers/Neve's). English Simsons have a "Never" term in their English-version motto while Nevers'/Neve's look slightly related to Elis', first known in Yorkshire with Alis of Skipton. Nutters share the pheons of Pilate's (Burgundy with Messeys/Messier's) while Mussels/Muscels, expected in the "muzzle" upon the bear of Simson-beloved Alis, love the Plate's (Lancashire again). Mussels/Muscels are first known in Lincolnshire with English Messier's.
Coots-like Coutes' can be gleaned of the Colts/Cults (Pilate pheon in colors reversed), and then Colters/Culters are like "Cutler," though I can't see hard symbolism links to show that the two were branches. If they were branches, it underscores why Alysha was standing at the table now pointing hard to Rick Cutler. There's also Alice of Saluzzo that I suspect in the naming of Alice of Skipton (due to both being related to Meschins / Masci liners), and while Saluzzo's were a branch of Sallows (same place as Mussel-branch Meschins), Slams are also SLOWens. Slows, first known in Buckinghamshire with Alis-loving Simsons, look like Elis, and have the Never/Neve cross in colors reversed. Lookie there. Slows and Simsons share white crescents.
The last time Cutlers were mentioned was in the 4th update of this past January, when they were not yet first known in London: "Lille's are first known in Oxfordshire with Cutter-branch Cutlers (dragon heads) and Cottars/Gotters." Cutters are also Gutters. Lilys are first known in Worcestershire with Snows. Lille's use the Sallow-like swallow. The Cottar/Gotter lizards are "Evetts" while Evetts (share dragon with Cutlers) are first known in Perthshire with Colts/Cults. That can link Cutlers very closely to Culters/Colters.
AHHHH, very glad that I just loaded Colts/Cults (don't usually when mentioning them). They share a hand holding a dart with Cudds and Cuthberts, and the latter are first known in the same place as Slams/Slowens!!! I'm now convincing that, when punching the TABLE, I was also slamming it as a pointer to Salome's/Solomons, first known in Rhineland with Frans'/Frantz's and Shalls. The latter share the Table Coat. It's begging whether Rick Cutler is in cahoots with the Solomon family that married the sister of Erika Kirk's father (Kent Frantzve).
Cutters and Cutlers love the Dragons/Drainers, first known in Kent with Welsh Phillips' and English Neve's. The latter share the fish with Cabots, but I'm wondering why they are not in the same colors, and for Mitch Snow says that Cabot Phillips was with Erika Kirk at Fort Huachuca the day before he saw Rick Cutler there. However, Cabot-like Capets/Capes', now likewise said to be first known in Kent, were previously first known in London with Cutlers! Lookie there. Cute's/Cutts and Sallow-branch Swallows are first known in Lincolnshire with Fish's, and MontaCUTE's are first known in Somerset (beside Cutters) with Roets, the family that owns the Catherine wheel in the Coat of Cutler-like Culters! Cutters are first known in Dorset with Capet-connectable Chaffs and Chaffin-connectable Bushers.
Capots/Capone's are first known in Forez while the Touts in the Fore/Forez motto can get us to Tooths (Capet/Capes colors and format), first known in London with Capets/Capes'. Capua's/Capone's are first known in Naples with Romania's, and English Capone's are first known in Cambridgeshire with the Jeune's (share the fleur of English Constantine's) who incorporate the Coat of Scottish Fore's/Forres', first known in Moray while Morays have a "Tout PRET" motto while Prets are first known in Staffordshire with Jeune-branch June's, and with the Duce's in the Slane motto.
Recently, about the time of the table-slam dream, I had another where there was a shoe BOX at the front door of Alysha's home. Roets use the "book" while Box's/Boxers share the lion of Swans, first known in Lanarkshire with Culters/Colters. The Frans/Frantz's share the annulet of Severs and the split-Shield of TRANS'/Trents, both first known in Somerset with Roets. Then, "TRANSfigam" is a motto term of Colts/Cults. Plus. Box's are first known in Wiltshire (beside Roets) with English Neals who not only share the Box/Boxer lion, but the split Shield of German Colters/Geltsers/Galzers...who can explain why Scottish Galts/Gaws are first known in Perthshire with the Colts/Cults/Celts and Kelts. Bear-using Galts/Gaws share "vincit" with bear-using Alis'.
Elis' share the Coat of Elias', and the latter are first known in West Lothian with the Tenants while Alysha was my tenant. Tenants share the crescents of Scottish Patents while "Patentia" is another Galt/Gaw motto term. The latter's Crest has a "pennant" on their "ship" while Pennants almost have the Coat of Alis-loving Simsons. English Patents/Pattens share the Orrin/OREM Shield while Orions/Irons are first known in Norfolk with Hawk-beloved Pilgrims, Risings, but also with the Sparrows in the "sparrowhawk rising" of Pattons (not "Patten"). Alis' and Allisons (same place as Culters/Colters) share the "hawk," and both love the Truths/Trots who share the six pale bars of Coots- / Coutes-like Coats'/Cotes'.
Time Past Due for Baron to Fess Up
Baron Coleman is deep into cheating his audience. He will not face the facts. He knows that there is no viable explanation for how Charlie Kirk was killed. He's seen the video released by Candace Owens that shows a tube coming from the "wound" in Charlie's neck. And anyone with morality would spot, from that rear view of Charlie's head, that there was a Hollywood-type squib at the "wound" by which Charlie faked his murder. Candace likewise won't come clean with her audience.
Baron is, at this time, cornering Andrew Kolvet, a leader in TPUSA, showing his guilt where he created a fraudulent aircraft itinerary in an attempt to prove that he was on a plane to Provo in the second half of the afternoon, on the day Charlie faked his death (five minutes from Provo). Baron is doing a good job proving that Andrew was on a plane in the first half of the afternoon, and Baron is even insinuating that Andrew appears guilty as an accomplice to the shooting. But Baron needs to realize that, if anyone at Turning Point is guilty of the murder, even as an accomplice, nobody there would take the chance of faking an itinerary, even if the Paradise aircraft company is complicit with the faked itinerary (see Baron's Sunday show).
If anyone ended up in court charged with a part of the killing, they would not want to have a faked itinerary to deal with, because, as attorney Baron rightly says, it makes Andrew look guilty, especially if the plane he was on took off (from California) roughly a half hour before the faked shooting. That is, Baron thinks that Andrew was headed toward that plane starting from about an hour before the faked shooting, which plane landed in Arizona near the home of Charlie Kirk. Andrew went there to be with Erika, that is, or so is the claim of both Baron and Candace.
On the other hand, if the crime is merely a faked killing that was agreed to by Charlie, then, as Baron should know more than anyone else, one could take the chance of providing a fraudulent itinerary to protect Charlie. But Baron is intent on becoming a youtube millionaire, and therefore does not want to change course, because seeking the real killer is how he's making a LOT of money from his audience's gifts.
With the claim, and there's evidence for it, that Andrew went to Erika's presence, on his noon-time plane flight, it also makes Erika look guilty of the shooting. There was then a flight from Scottsdale (Erika's home) to Provo in the first half of the afternoon, and so Andrew was likely on that flight with Erika. The team then arranged a plane from California to Provo in the second half of the afternoon to make it appear that Andrew was on that flight. Baron has proven that Andrew was not on that flight, yet Andrew claimed that he was.
In the video below, we have a known government operator feigning like he's an independent-thinking podcaster as per the Charlie-Kirk shooting. We find here that someone close to, or perhaps at, Turning Point, gave him the call to air the theory that Charlie was hit in the chest, but with the bullet deflecting up and hitting him in the neck. I think that this theory was decided upon by the plotters because they had two needs, one of which was to hide something that went wrong with the squib valve i.e. at the fake wound.
The plotters decided to doctor a couple of camera shots (I don't know the number exactly) such that Charlie's shirt inexplicably goes up for a fraction of a second, only to unexpectedly "return" to the original position. It didn't actually return because it didn't go up. The shirt was doctored in the upward-gone position because they needed the collar to hide the squib's valve. Perhaps some piece of fake flesh popped off such that it would give away the fakery.
The other need in claiming that the bullet struck a chest plate is that the plotters were not planning on having the bullet exit the neck, and so they would explain it as per the chest plate taking the bulk of the bullet's energy such that it didn't have enough to exit the neck. But when a camera shot of Charlie, prior to his sitting in the chair, showed his nipple outline visible through the shirt, the whole team, including the goof above at Paramount Tactical, had to abandon the chest-plate theory. He's a government goof because he's maintained that Charlie was struck by Robinson's gun direct. He lost respect by sticking to the government story, as has Trump and company.
Early this week, a news article popped out telling that the ATF, a government anti-crime agency, reported that the bullet in Charlie's body was not from Robinson's rifle. There's more than one way to interpret this report short of more details.
One theory is that the ATF refused to go along with the FBI story i.e. to lie as per Robinson doing the killing. As part of this theory, the ATF could be sitting on a fence, not necessarily saying that the bullet was ruled out as from Robinson's rifle, but that it could not say one way or the other. In this way, the ATF is refusing to be a participant, in this regard, with the fake job, for this bullet fragment is a fake job; it was NOT found in Charlie's body.
If the government planted the rifle, it can also plant the bullet fragment. In keeping with the claim of no exit wound, the government is forced to go to a fragmented bullet to explain why it did not exit. This becomes a stretch because there is no bone in the neck that can fragment a bullet. Even, so, Megyn Kelly had two pro-government guests on her Wednesday show to push the Robinson narrative, what a compromised FOX-y coward she is on this issue.
The other theory is that the ATF has ruled with certainty that the bullet did not come from Robinson's rifle. One branch of this theory is that it was the government plan all along to get Robinson out of his predicament as per a deal made with him before they staged the killing. In this view, the ATF is not at odds with the FBI or the government prosecutor, but it calls for seeking a second gun that could match the fragment.
Megyn Kelly said that the FBI is now working on a "second" test of the bullet fragment, which begs why the FBI took so long to do a entire string of testing. How long can it take to test a piece of metal for matching it with the three other bullets found with the rifle? In my opinion, the FBI would not do testing because it knows the shooting was faked. But, for the court case, some bullet test is necessary to convince the public that Charlie was shot.
X-rays could have located other fragments, but if they don't have other fragments in their possession, it's to be expected because there never was a bullet in the body. However, at any time, if possible, the FBI could produce another fragment or two, for I don't think anyone has claimed that only one fragment exists in the possession of the government.
If the ATF claims that it handled the fragment, and tested it, I would conclude that the purpose is more-simply to keep the falsification strong that Charlie was shot...even if by a different bullet. That's the number-one task of the FBI, to make the world believe that Charlie is dead. Candace Owens and her back-ups are solidly helping the FBI with that job.
Seeing that both Trump and the FBI are going down in infamy with the Robinson narrative, I suppose it's to be expected that a higher-rung group of deep-staters (or even Trump himself) have been pushing to trash that narrative in favor of a new one: a smaller gun i.e. a different bullet. Don't be surprised if suddenly a new camera view is made public showing evidence for that second gun.
On Wednesday, Baron Coleman went over the court filing of the prosecution against Tyler Robinson. Baron refused / neglected to comment on the claim of Tyler's parents that the camera footage of the man with limp (a few minutes before shooting time) looks like their son, which argues for the likelihood that the parents and Tyler were, and still are, part of the crisis actors involved in the staged event. One inference leads to another, but Baron didn't want to go there, because he's lying to his audience, and he can't find it within himself to confess it. He thinks that as long as he believes that Charlie was murdered, he's not lying. I disagree, because he does not entertain, nor comment on, a faked-murder possibility, which reveals his heart as less than up-standing.
The added inference is that the parents are involved with the government and the prosecution "against" Tyler. If he's indeed their son, the parents would not likely tolerate his sitting in jail all this time, and until at least 2027 (trial time)...unless maybe he's getting paid much money. The next inference is that the defence team is part of the staging. This is expensive, and so I wonder who's paying? To make it less expensive, the FBI essentially closed its investigation long ago, not seeking anyone else as a possible suspect.
On the Wednesday show, Baron says he doesn't think Blake Neff was "in on it" just because he ran away FAST once he heard the shot. What a lousy thing for a lawyer to say. If he's part of the fakery, why couldn't the fakery include running fast? Baron is lying to his audience, because he knows that Neff ran toward and across the line of fire, directly behind Charlie's head, meaning that Neff knew there were no bullets flying toward Charlie. If Baron can't figure that out, he's either stupid, or he's lying to his audience.
THEN, ON HIS THURSDAY SHOW, BARON DOES A SHOW ON THE NECKLACE EVEN THOUGH HE SHOULD HAVE THE SMARTS TO SEE THAT IT'S A PLASTIC TUBE. If for nothing else, it can't be a chain because there's no way to explain how it exploded off of his body, duh. Plus, if it did explode in some way, no cross or other item can be seen at the end of the "chain" to produce the neck wound. Barons dreams that this might be true, but he's a liar, because the MUCH-BETTER theory is that Charlie was wearing a squib-with-tube. LIAR.
A chain whiplash to the neck is not going to produce a deep wound to make Charlie immediately motionless. Nobody plans on killing a man by gifting him with a new exploding necklace, and then creates a neck wound too to feign a bullet hole. If there's a faked bullet in play, or a real one, there's no need to use an exploding necklace. Plus, such a thing should make a hole or something in the shirt. This is Baron's desperation to keep alive in the mind of his audience that Charlie is dead. Baron is half a creep.
Shortly after Baron begins to explain the neck chain, he says that the chain coming across the wound remains in Charlie's shirt at his chest. It doesn't fly out of the shirt like the rest of the chain does. In reality, it's a plastic tube that goes to the wound, meaning it's not under his shirt at the chest. The part that flies out the back of the collar was at his chest area, however, as part of a pressure-making device that I suspect was in his arm pit. Apparently, the device made too much gas, and the tube exploded off of its nipple attachment.
By the way, Baron reverses the scene of his room such that his left side is really his right side, meaning that when he points to his right side for the wound, he's in reality pointing to the left side.
Baron admits that the charm / pendant on the chain, whatever it was of three different options, is not seen with the flung chain. Therefore, he has the immediate problem of explaining how a chain can go flinging if the charm is the thing that exploded to cause the fling. Therefore, Baron can't claim that the charm exploded. He's convinced that the bullet could not cause the chain to fling, and nobody has been able to understand how the chain was flung...because it did not fling.
Baron then shows a clip of Andrew Kolvet claiming that someone "ripped" the chain off of Charlie's neck as part of stopping the bleeding. To me, that sounds like Andrew playing us as per someone ripping the tube and/or squib and/or body tape and/or armpit device off. That was the most-important thing to do, get rid of the evidence. Somebody, while under the table where the camera could not see, had transferred some or all of that evidence into a pocket or bag.
He claims he's zoomed in on the chain to see the links, but doesn't show his audience this close-up even though he knows some of the audience thinks Charlie faked his death. Instead, he snarls at them for thinking it's a tube. He therefore claims that it's not a tube, even though there's no explanation for how a chain can be flung off of the chest. Doesn't he realize that his audience would like to see that evidence of a chain versus a tube? Of course he realizes. That's called cheap and cheesy. He even admits that the chain links are not normal links, but unusual ones. Ya, probably not links at all.
He's trying to make the case that Erika badly wanted that chain after Charlie was "shot," but as she gifted him with it in the first place, maybe it was secretly a listening device, a bug that she and the Israelis didn't want Charlie to have any longer.
Baron then shows a news clip with some witness who says he saw Charlie got shot in the heart, and so Baron exploits this for possibly explaining why the neck chain was made to go flying, though not by the bullet. Ya-but, in my opinion, thanks to Paramount Tactical, the original plot was to have the shot go off of a chest plate, then into the neck, and so this "witness" looks like a plant to help cater that narrative, which we soon-after never heard again once Charlie's nipple's were seen showing through the shirt.
Besides, it's just a bad theory that the bullet went into Charlie chest if there was also a neck wound. It makes no sense. The only way to make sense of this is a squib-and-tube system. But as Baron REFUSES to explore that possibility systematically: LIAR. All of his theories are those of a LIAR. Why couldn't there be a plastic tube with ribs that look like chain links? Why couldn't a liquid-pumping device cause the tube to go flying? The tube can be seen going smack-dab to the "wound." But, NOPE, Baron wants none of such questions, because he then reveals what a self-serving investigator he's been to his audience for raking them for, oh maybe $100,000 and counting.
He actually says that something under Charlie's shirt was the murder weapon, maybe some James-Bond-type electrocution device none of us understands. Ya-but, how illogical, because we now need to ask how they accomplished both that and an authentic neck wound. He can't say that the neck wound was faked as per giving Charlie the impression that he was to merely fake his death, only the entire team decided to kill him secretly in the chest with a booby-trap charm on his chain. THAT'S NUTS. Baron can't take that approach because the obvious conclusion is the fake wound ALONE is the reality, without the booby-trap charm. Therefore, he's not saying it. He wants nothing of a squib ever since Candace released this back-of-the-head video scene, because this scene screams squib.
Baron is worse than cheap and cheesy, for when he shows the "chain" swinging behind Charlie's head, he does not show the best shot where it can be clearly seen going toward the "wound." He doesn't tell the audience why that can't be a squib tube, because, it makes so much sense that a large part of his audience would see the logic. He doesn't want to birth that idea in their minds. That makes Baron and Candace obstruction-of-truth goons while quasi-accusing Turning Point of conspiracy to commit murder. Here's his Thursday show showing how typically-little progress he makes trying to figure out how Charlie was killed:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6EnhrHNCuGY
Near the end of the investigative part of the show, he says that only one third of his audience clicked the Like button (video above). That makes sense. He didn't say much for the time that he took. The video gives some evidence that there could be some vaticanite plot afoot to take over Turning Point using Candace, Baron and Costello as a weapon against it. On the Thursday show, Baron was trying to get his audience to relish the idea of his or Candace's CEO position in Turning Point.
In the triggersmart video below, we have triggersmart once again leaving out facts as he describes potential explanations. For example, when he shows the bullet test of RangeDayBro at the near-start, he doesn't argue against RangeDayBro's assessment that the shirt puffed up, which it did not. The mic-on-shirt didn't even move, whereas on videos of Charlie, the shirt mic goes up a few inches before returning back down, inexplicable from a bullet shot to the neck.
Moreover, triggersmart is absolutely DISHONEST by not pointing out that the chain likely broke, on the gel dummy, due to the bullet striking it upon exit from the "neck." That argument cannot be used on Charlie.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQDPMfkA88k
Then, triggersmart shows a second bullet test, this time from Chris Martenson, who was the first to come out with the "cavitation" theory for explaining the shirt motion and chain break. Once he got his feelings hurt, because people were unconvinced, he went and did a test, meaning it can't be trusted, and, besides, I'm not at all convinced of anything from the little triggersmart shows of Martenson's result.
It was my opinion that Martenson's cavitation theory was pawned off on him secretly by a government operative, in hopes of hiding something the government wanted to hide. At that early time, I too believed that Charlie had been shot, but knowing now that Charlie faked it, I can easily see why government operatives would want to convince people that cavitation broke the chain, because it wasn't the chain we see flinging out of Charlie's neck, but the squib tube. The plotters wanted everyone to believe that it was a chain, and, for all we know, the plotters may have doctored the video granted to Candace Owens such that one or two frames now show what looks like chain links up close.
Nobody I know of has shown a close-up of this flinging item to prove it's a chain. Not even Baron, not even Candace, and they of all people have the most to gain by proving it's not a squib tube. I assume the thing is too foggy when up-close to see exactly what it is. In the beginning, some podcasters, in studying the item, thought it was a typical wire for an ear phone, which could be flattish i.e. a lot like what a squib tube is expected to look like.
Cavitation is a fancy word to indicate neck swelling due to the powerful impact of a powerful bullet. The reason that people poo-pooed Martenson's cavitation theory is that cavitation is not going to happen with a weak bullet from a pistol, and where there is no exit wound on Charlie, it rules out the 30-6 bullet that Martenson needs to create such gigantic cavitation as to break the chain.
Besides, Charlie's chain appears to be as long as 30 inches, but even at 24 inches, it requires the neck to grow to 8 inches in diameter just to make the entire chain tight around the entire neck. As flesh is soft, the neck diameter needs to be a little larger yet to snap the chain at the weakest link. Anyone who caters cavitation for breaking the chain needs to add that a neck more than eight round is expected to rip the neck skin. I've not heard one podcaster with that sort of insight or honesty (I don't join X or chats of any kind).
Besides, if the neck swells large enough to break the chain, the chain will be circular at the time of snapping, in the shape of the neck's cross section, and that doesn't play to a flinging of the chain in any particular direction. It might cause a fling if the pendant were a part of the fling, but there is no pendant at the end of the flung item. Plus, with a chain wrapped tight around the neck, the pendant(s) would become visible at the Adam's apple such that it should stay there after the chain rips away from the pendant, and afterward move around the neck to the shoulder if indeed the chain took off completely from the body.
Baron showed that someone at Turning Point claimed that somebody ripped the chain off of Charlie's body in order to seal the wound without it getting in the way. This tends to show that, whoever decided to feign that the squib tube as a chain, it wasn't Turning Point's decision, because, if TP was in on the chain-feign fling, it wouldn't have told publicly that the chain was unbroken immediately after the rifle shot.
At 8:34 of triggersmart's video, there is a frame showing Charlie's shirt puffed by gas under the shirt. Triggersmart can clearly see that this puff is not from the swelling of the body, but rather looks like a sudden burst of gas under the shirt, perfectly expected if the squib device malfunctioned, because it can use gas production to push the fake blood through the tube. This puff is on the backside of the shoulder, suggesting that the device was there, although, judging from this particular scene, the puff could extend as far down as the armpit, where I think such a device is best located so that it doesn't show through the shirt. In best being very compact, it seems best if the device produces gas by a chemical reaction of a small amount of solid / liquid material rather than having it's own gas tank (of pre-pressurized gas).
Have you noticed how cheap podcasters are when sharing other video clips, where they keep their own faces about as large as the video clip so that it's harder to see detail? Get your face of the screen, triggersmart, and make the image full-blast giant for your audience. You can show your beautiful face later. Baron does this too. If they neglect to mention what looks like an air puff, how can I be less descriptive than to call them literal liars to their own audiences? It's not a court-worthy lie, but it's a lie by omission of the apparent facts. It's dishonesty. If they were even a little honest, they would say something like, "what do we suppose could have caused a gas puff under the shirt?"
If indeed a close-up of the video granted by Turning Point to Candace shows a chain, it explains why the video was unexpectedly granted to her at all, in order that somebody would "see" the chain. But I would argue that the video was doctored before transfer to Candace for the express purpose of modifying the tube to a chain.
Possibly, the shirt puff could be from a pressure-release valve built-in to the device in case it makes too much pressure. The extra pressure would automatically force open the valve to let the excess gas get out so that the device doesn't explode to cause skin injury. Makes sense.
Triggersmart than goes wildly off base by suggesting the possibility of an exploding chain pendant intended to murder Charlie by shooting some object into his heart. In this scenario, a squib is required to feign a bullet shot (decoy) in order to hide the real murder weapon i.e. the pendant.
There is no need to argue that the pendant exploded such that it caused the neck wound and killed him by that accidental method. That's a bizarre take on things by people intent on denying a squib. Clearly, the Tyler-Robinson narrative shows that there was a decoy in play to hide the reality, and hence we should have the brain power enough to realize that such a decoy requires a squib where there is no other possible alternative method of actually killing the man.
The technical problem is that a pendant intended to shoot metal into the heart must explode outward such as to show a large puff in the shirt at Charlie's chest, whereas all camera views show no such puff. I argue that such an explosion would show some sign in the shirt, such as tear or stretched / deformed fabric. I rule that theory out. Triggersmart puts several minutes on this theory and zero seconds on the back-of-shoulder shirt puff. How could an exploding pendant cause an air puff behind the shoulder? Shouldn't he instead be speaking several minutes on a potential device near that shoulder area?
I'll add that the palm-gun theory (from the palm of Rick Cutler) is not bad at all if someone has practiced shooting with one to the point of becoming an expert. Such expertise would be the goal, for example paid killers who use that method. Baron argues that it's unlikely the plotters would use a palm gun due to the difficulty of hitting the target on the first shot, but one could argue that Cutler missed the target, the head, when striking the lower neck. We can imagine someone practicing his shots, from 20 feet, on a target until the shooter could always get to within six inches of the bull's eye.
The only problem I've had with the palm-gun theory is how little a gap shows between the fingers. It doesn't look any more than a quarter inch. When one subtracts the thickness of the metal in the the gun's barrel, the largest a "bullet" can be is little more than an eighth of an inch. It's hard to see how the plotters would depend on a single shot from a bullet that small in full view of the public cameras, and right in front of their victim. There was never a second shot planned if indeed the palm gun was used, for Cutler puts his hand down the second he appears to be taking the shot, and moreover we don't hear a second rifle shot to act as a decoy for a second palm-gun shot.
We don't even see a barrel sticking out from the fingers, meaning that the bullet couldn't have been very long. The less long it is, the less weight it has for deeper penetration into flesh, and moreover the head has lots of bone to penetrate before damage is done. i.e. very risky using a too-short palm-gun barrel. The lighter the bullet, the more gunpowder needed to make it dangerous, but that creates more blast pressure on the palm i.e. the amount of gunpowder is limited for a palm gun. We don't see Cutler's fist move as if some super-violent force took place within it. Yet, his fist moves toward Charlie the instant the rifle sounds.
It would be a better argument if the bullet was at least a quarter-inch wide and at least an inch long. The trick would have been to cause a rifle sound by some method the instant the palm-gun went off.
Still, there's no way that a palm gun can cause a chain to fling around Charlie's neck. The only way to make sense of this theory is by what Baron himself proposed, that Charlie was convinced to fake his death with a squib, but that Turning Point killed him for real in the process. The palm gun could play to that theory, but the risk to the plotters is gigantic. Baron wouldn't have trouble arguing that while the palm gun wasn't enough to kill Charlie, the Turning-Point team would take him down to the floor and begin there to finish him off, an idea Baron holds to where he thinks the team all-but finished him off on the highway drive to the hospital. It's so crazy / dangerous a plan, I prefer to see solely a faked death.
How to Kill the Kinetic Theory with Bounce
Some may have read this material from me in the past, but for new readers, I'll do it again. To kill Kineticism, one needs only to prove that two identical atoms striking each other will slow down with each collision. For example, two such atoms in a head-on collision at the same speed will cause both atoms to become motionless aside from whatever motion is caused by the bounce factor. Aside from that which can cause bounce, all the motion energy from one atom will go into cancelling the motion of the other atom, and any motion still existing from any possible cause of bounce will be very slow in comparison to the roughly 1000-mph average speed at which modern science views air atoms.
Once the head-on collision reduces the speed enormously, the second collision will have less motion from bounce, and so on until the kinetic theory is dead of atom speed in less than a second, for these imposter scientists imagine air atoms striking each other billions of times per second. To be exact, one writer featured by google says: "...molecule has of order 10 [to the power of 10] collisions per second." That's 10 billion. Therefore, even if we allow bounce capability, and I think it does exist with atoms, the slow down to near motionless will occur in less than a second.
The imposter deceives you and even his own children with the statement, "energy cannot be destroyed." He uses this statement to teach that total atomic velocity does not change due to collisions. What one atom loses in speed, another picks up exactly. The best way to show how he's wrong is to simply imagine a perfect head-on collision of two atoms travelling at the same speed. You have a choice between two options, where we disregard whatever bounce factor atoms may have. Objects can bounce upon collision due to two reasons: 1) they change shape, such as a tennis or rubber ball, and 2) the atoms of the colliding objects shift slightly in position, then spring back in the opposite direction toward their initial positions, which is the redirection of some remnant motion energy into the direction from which the object came to partake in the collision.
The best way to make imposters of the imposters is to imagine a motionless atom (or a steel ball if you wish) struck with 10 pounds of force such that it moves with 10 pounds of force. Next we imagine the same stationary atom struck simultaneously from opposing directions, say by two pool cues, each strike taking place with 10 pounds of force. You can easily see that the atom will not move simply because one 10 pounds of force cancels the other 10 pounds of force.
Next, instead of imagining two pool cues striking the one atom from opposite sides, we imagine one pool cue shooting one atom at 10 pounds of force, while the second pool cue shoots a second atom at 10 pounds of force, to make a head-on collision such that the situation is exactly the same as we have above, where one balls cancels the motion of the other upon impact such that both stop moving at impact.
The imposter teaches that the balls will bounce away from each other at the very speed at which they collide, because, he argues, loss of motion is "destruction" of energy, and that can't happen. Can you see what a buffoon he is, knowing better than to make such an argument, yet he would teach it even to his own children.
The way I explain it is that the energy is not destroyed when two items collide, but rather energy is used up to slow the objects. Therefore, energy used up to slow objects should not be viewed as destroyed energy. Instead, we should teach that motion energy can increase, reduce, or eliminate motion upon collisions. It's just a simple fact of life everywhere.
Just like that, you can know that gas atoms are not moving around dizzily in all directions. As the imposters define gas pressure by that picture, it means that we need a new way to define it.
But first, let's imagine one pool cue striking an atom with 10 pounds of force, followed by the same cue striking a second atom in the same direction with 20 pounds of force. The first atom is travelling half as fast, therefore, and so it's going to be struck on its behind by the faster atom. This time, instead of becoming motionless, the slower atom picks up speed at the collision point, and the faster atom loses speed. My inclination is to see the faster atom moving at the new speed of exactly to new speed of the other atom. For example, if the first atom is moving at 10 mph versus 20 mph for the other, both will move at 15 mph after collision.
We can learn something here where the original 30 mph remains 30 mph total after a rear-end collision. We learn that this best-case scenario is directly opposite the worst-case result when a head-on collision cancels all motion. We thus learn that atoms / objects striking at any other angle, than in a direct-rear collision, will lose some motion energy, and that collisions at 45 degrees cancels exactly half the motion.
If the first atom is motionless when the second atom strikes it at 20 mph, and if we have no gravity affecting either atom to cause resistance to motion due to inertia, the motionless atom receives the full 20 pounds of force such that it must begins to move at 20 mph at collision point. Therefore, as we cannot create more motion energy than we started with, the original moving atom must become stationary at the collision point. You see this principle when metal balls strike each other hanging on a pendulum. The moving ball, the striker, essentially stops moving while the one ball moves at the velocity that the striker had prior to collision.
If three balls on a pendulum strike as a unit against one motionless ball, then, upon contact, two of the three will move with the motionless one, all at the same speed, while one of the three becomes motionless due to the original motionless condition of the one ball. Proof here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0LnbyjOyEQ8
Don't let the imposter fool you with a two-ball bowling-ball pendulum, because bowling balls are not solid plastic. Some bowling balls even float. If two bowling balls strike at the same speed, at the bottom of the pendulum swing, they appear to bounce away at the speed at which they collided. But that's where the bounce factor plays a role. It doesn't mean that two atoms striking each other in that way should go bouncing away at the speed at which they arrived. Don't let the imposter fool you with the bowling-ball pendulum.
If you did the two-ball bowling-ball act with lead balls, they would not bounce away with anywhere near as much velocity. If zero bounce factor played a role, two objects striking would cease total motion at the bottom of the pendulum swing. Therefore, the imposters are required to teach that view of atoms, but they refuse. The pendulum incriminates the kineticists before their very eyes.
They are geared to teaching, by their "educational" brainwashing, that colliding atoms either have 100-percent bounce factor, or that, by some other law not operating at the macro-level, they never lose any velocity. There is no such other law. Even your common sense tells that I'm correct when saying that, two identical atoms striking head-on at the same speed will cancel each others' motion. DEAL WITH IT. That's the only law to be respected, and we need to come to terms that a ceasing of motion is NOT destruction of energy in the pure sense. In another sense, it can be defined as destruction of energy if by "destruction" we mean a cancelling of motion.
You don't need to wonder, where did the energy disappear? You know where it went. One ball's energy went into the other. Energy entering a substance can slow motion as much as speed motion. Duh. That's not destruction. It's utilization. It didn't disappear at collision, because the motionlessness is the evidence of its existence. After motionlessness, there is no energy left over to cause motion (if the two atoms collide at the same speed head-on, and if we ignore the internal affects that cause bounce).
There is no other law operating, but there is some bounce factor with atoms whether they are in the solid, liquid or gas state. In my atomic model, where protons at the core of each atom are surrounded by an atmosphere of captured electrons, the latter form a cushion. It's a cushion because outer-layer electrons hover in space above the proton, balanced by as much attraction force toward the proton as repulsion force from other electrons deeper down into the atmosphere.
It's important to understand that the electrons hover, not only because orbiting electrons are impossible, but because they are repelling one another while captured by protonic attraction. It's important to understand that electrons move as far apart as possible due to that inter-repulsion, such that, if one electron is moved in any direction by some force, it will be repelled back to the original position.
Therefore, when two atoms collide, the atmosphere of one collides with the other's such that electrons are expected to compress closer to each other, then bounce into the opposite direction seeking their original positions. This is going to be much like two tennis balls colliding that possess a cushion of air within.
As there can be no such thing as ever-colliding atoms, air atoms are themselves under inter-repulsion. It's the only alternative way to define gas pressure if kineticism is ruled out. Gas atoms too seek to get as far apart as possible, meaning that the air atoms in a tennis ball are at equal distances from each other, and stationary in their "locked" positions. When the ball is racketed against a brick wall, the air atoms are forced closer together, wherefore, when they immediately seek to return to their original positions, it causes the ball to bounce off of the wall. There is no other force to cause a bounce aside from the air atoms. The tennis ball does not bounce due to some event in the material it's made of. The air atoms are the inter-repulsion cushion, same as what every atom possesses, a spring-back ability.
Therefore, to find which atoms in a solid have the best spring-back ability, one does a simple collision experiment where objects have no gas within. It's not so simple when wanting to know the spring-back abilities of atoms in a gas. But it can be done, in a vacuum, where one sprays various colored gases against a surface at an angle. The gas that forms the longest flow, after bouncing off the surface, is the one with the best bounce.
I think it's highly likely that atoms do not possess 100-percent spring-back ability. Even if they possess 99-percent ability, they would, if indeed they are racing around, come to a motionless state within one second, due to the high numbers of collisions per second envisioned by the imposters.
They are worse than imposters because they know that there is an alternative way to define gas pressure, but they refuse to teach it as a viable definition even though it is viable, and even unassailable. If there is a way to assail gas pressure by atomic inter-repulsion, I of all people would know it because I've been at this theory for decades. But I see nothing amiss with it.
One realization leads to another. First realization: there is no such thing as kinetic atoms. Second realization: ALL gas atoms repel each other in order to cause gas pressure. Realization three: ALL gas atoms cannot inter-repel unless there is some common agent in their midst to cause it. Realization four: FREE electrons, streaming into the air from the solar wind, is the commonality that forces gas atoms to adopt inter-repulsion, because electrons inter-repel each other and thus force gas atoms further apart while doing so. All bounce ability is thanks either to captured electrons upon atoms, or free electrons between atoms...included between atoms in solids and liquids.
Realization five: free electrons entering the atomic spaces of solids and liquids, or between gas atoms, is the true definition of heat. This means that the kinetic theory of heat, from kinetic atoms, is NOT NEEDED. It means that you should trash it. It means that there is an alternative definition of heat as the material of electrons, and that the imposters are worse than imposters for not including it as a viable scientific theory.
Does it make any sense to you that the solar wind should carry solar heat? Duh yeah. That means that electrons=heat is more than a viable theory, because one can easily establish that kinetic atoms are impossible, as I did above, though there are other ways. .
What is your expectation when free electrons invade (push one another) into a solid or liquid material? Is the material expected to shrink or expand? As the electrons repel each other, the material is expected to expand, and because all materials expand with added heat, it means that electrons=heat is more than a viable theory. It's the only way to explain heat. I've been at this for decades: there is no other way to explain heat. There is no other possible heat material aside from electrons, and while heat can be obtained from within atoms, the imposters are lying to you as to how it's obtained. The simple reality is that heat from atoms is from their captured electrons, if one can release them into the free state.
What is happening when electron atmospheres collide? If a two rows of 10 electrons were propelled head-on toward each other, all electrons would near each other to some degree when the leading electron of one row collided with the leader of the other row. Whatever the level of motion energy is used to move the electrons closer, the same level would spring back to cause the bounce. Someone might argue that this situation predicts the bouncing away of atoms at the same speed by which they collide.
However, there is another law or principle active at collision to reckon with, the one that dictates: all motion going against motion slows motion. This principle is so easy to understand, to obviously correct, that the imposters are worse than imposters. Even if we entertained that collisions of electron atmospheres results in zero slow down on the bounce, there is yet the proton to reckon with. It's an object, and so when the motion energy of one atom goes against the motion energy of another, the law states that the protons will slow.
How does kineticism explain bounce? It can't. Bounce requires that atoms or electrons repel each other. Bounce requires a spring action from repulsion force. Compress inter-repelling particles closer together, and they spring back. But if atoms are not inter-repelling, as is the claim of kineticists, then there can be no spring back if we move the atoms closer together. The most he can say is that, when a gas is compressed to half its volume, twice as many atoms are striking the container walls so as to double the gas pressure. It has nothing to do with spring-back pressure.
First of all, it's not true at all that compressing a gas to half its volume results in twice the collisions with the container walls. For example, a square container 10 inches wide has six sides each with 100 square inches: total 600 square inches. But if we alter its size to half volume, we will result in two sides 10 x 10, and four sides 10 x 5, for a total 400 square inches, which is not half of the original 600. Therefore, although the number of atoms are doubled in density when reducing the container's volume in half, there are not half as many atoms striking every square inch, but more than half as many, meaning that kineticists are bound to predicting, not 50 percent, but 67 percent, the original gas pressure. The good news is, kineticism isn't the reality so that you don't need to bother your head about it.
You imagine atoms racing around and colliding. You then artificially move one atom forward a little in its direction toward a collision. How is that going to cause spring back in the opposite direction? It's not. The atom will merely strike sooner, and then go in its merry way.
Therefore, when a tennis ball strikes a wall, and when the atoms are forced closer together toward the front of the ball, there's no explanation for the bounce from the kinetic theory. The most the imposter can say is that the atoms push harder toward the back of the ball due to being closer together. Yes, that's true, but not because the atoms are racing around, because the most that scenario can claim is that the atoms will go back to their original density, but without any bounce factor involved.
When the ball strikes the wall, a small vacuum situation sets itself up at the back of the ball as the atoms are forced toward the front. In the kinetic theory, the atoms don't speed up as a result of the ball's collision with the wall. All they can do is enter the small vacuum and start to collide against the back of the ball in the way they did -- with the same pressure they did -- prior to contact. How does that create the extra backlash on the back of the ball that causes the bounce? It doesn't. The kinetic theory can't explain why pressure should increase on the back of the ball superior to the pressure prior to wall contact. Only atomic repulsion can explain it.
The ball's contact on the wall increases the pressure on the front of the ball, as compared to the pressure on the front prior to contact, and all of that pressure springs against the back of the ball. BOUNCE. In order to form the bounce, more pressure by far needs to act against the back of the ball than was there prior to contact with the wall. Kineticism fails because its atoms don't increase in speed or numbers due to wall collision. It can't explain that extra pressure.
Don't be deceived. In the kinetic model, moving gas atoms closer together does not increase their pressure on one another. The best the goof can argue is that there are more atoms striking a particular area of surface when gas pressure increases, but there is no higher atom-to-atom pressure expected. The only expectation is that, when kinetic atoms are closer, they strike each other faster, more collisions per unit time. How does that increase atom-to-atom pressure? It doesn't. Atoms striking at the same general speed, when brought closer together, predicts SAME ATOM-to-ATOM PRESSURE. You must resist imagining that the atoms strike each other harder just because they strike each other in less time.
The only way for the kinetic theory to explain a hard backlash on the backside of the tennis ball is by arguing that atoms closer together will spread out faster than atoms not as near to each other. Ya-but, he argues this because he knows that gases under higher pressure, defined as gas atoms closer together, do in fact spread our faster and harder. His problem is, the kinetic theory doesn't predict it because more strikes per unit time doesn't demand faster out-spreading of the gas, because the atoms are striking each other at an average direction of zero-direction.
No matter how close kinetic atoms are, they travel east as much as they travel west, as much north as south, as much up as down, so that the average direction is motionless, or zero-direction. The imposters have a big problem here, their fat heads.
But if we imagine a vacuum developing at the back of the ball as it strikes a wall, the kinetic theory will allow for air atoms to move into the vacuum. Dandy. But they move in at no greater speed than prior to contact with the wall, and so how will they create an unusual backlash on the back of the ball?
As the ball is moving toward the wall prior to the vacuum forming, how will the ball move away from the wall just because kinetic atoms refill the vacuum? There's no spring-push action in the atoms, and no faster atoms, nor more-numerous atoms. FAT HEADS. LIARS. They see the reality that kineticism cannot be true, but they ignore it.
As the average direction of kinetic atoms is zero-direction, how do they keep from smacking into the front of the ball, to become like a pancake there, when the ball hits the wall? As the kinetic air atoms are not inter-repelling, what keeps them from smashing into the front of the ball. Half the air atoms are moving toward the front of the ball, and half toward the back of the ball. There are no rods between atoms, nothing to keep them from coming closer to each other once the ball smacks the wall. What keeps them ALL from smashing into the wall as the ball does?
We imagine one row of air atoms with every second atom moving toward the wall, and every other second atom moving toward the back of the ball, but we also need to figure in a tennis ball approaching the wall at 50 mph. What keeps every one of those atoms from smashing into the front of the ball at 50 mph?
Why do the air atoms remain apart at wall collision? Why do they continue to fill the entire ball throughout the collision event? If the atoms did not remain apart at collision time, the ball itself would pancake on the wall. It's the resistance of the atoms to move closer to each other that keeps the spherical shape at wall contact. ATOMIC REPULSION.
If we take the position that the air atoms have zero inter-repulsion innately, but acquire what amounts to conveyed / adopted inter-repulsion from the free electrons in their midst, then the ball's bounce is ultimately due to the nearing of the free electrons to each other, which sends the atoms on a backlash toward the back of the ball.
But when a solid rubber ball hits a wall, the bounce cannot be credited to free-electron compaction, or air compaction. The situation is now different, with atoms attracting each other as much as they repel each other. A solid material has atoms perfectly balanced between equal forces of attraction and repulsion. There can be no other conclusion, for if there is a surplus of attraction between atoms, the atoms must move closer until the attraction equals the repulsion between them.
Atoms of Solids in Equilibrium
Try to merge atoms closer together, and the repulsion force gets the upper hand to oppose that movement. Try to move the atoms further apart, and the attraction force gets the upper hand to oppose that movement. This is why solid materials bounce, because their collisions bring their atoms closer together for a split-second.
When you know what causes the attraction, you can also know what causes the opposing repulsion, by default for lack of any other cause. As the attraction can only be from protonic attraction to another atom's electrons, the only available cause of the repulsion is proton-to-proton force. When the attraction force brings protons sufficiently near to one another to create equal repulsion force, the atoms cease to merge (such that their protons cease to come nearer to one another). It's a fantastic design, give glory to God.
Therefore, when you smack a rubber ball against a wall, you force the atoms to draw nearer, and consequently, they "desire" to move back to their original positions, and so they SPRING back. BALL BOUNCE.
Here's a good example of scientific ignoramusism: "The more energy absorbed by the surface, the less that remains in the ball for it to bounce. This is why you should have seen that when you bounced the basketball on a relatively hard surface it bounced higher (it lost less energy) compared with when it was bounced on a softer surface (where it lost more energy)." No, brainwashed one, the ball loses all of it motion energy both when landing on a pillow laid on concrete versus landing on bare concrete. When the ball comes to a split-second stop at the collision point, it has lost all of its motion energy, and the only thing remaining is the bounce factor.
Bounce performance has nothing to do with how much ball energy is lost to the collision point. It has to do with how compressed the air atoms become. If a basketball strikes a pillow, it doesn't bounce as high because it loses speed slowly, and consequently the air atoms do not get as crushed as when the ball strikes bare concrete, when the ball goes to zero speed faster than when landing on a pillow. The ball is temporarily at zero speed immediately before bounce.
The pendulum teaches that the striker ball looses ALL of it energy to the stationary balls at the bottom of the pendulum, such that the only thing remaining is the bounce-energy backlash due to compaction events in the atoms. It is part of ignoramusism to claim that, the higher a ball bounces, the less energy it looses to a surface. Ignoramuses are created by kineticists.
The same applies to a basketball not inflated well. The ball takes more time to come to zero speed, and consequently the air atoms don't become as dense. Less atomic rebounding results.
I asked google: "why do atoms of solids continually vibrate while under attraction?" The response:
If an atom moves away from its equilibrium position due to its kinetic energy, the attractive force pulls it back. Its momentum makes it overshoot this point, causing a continuous back-and-forth oscillation or vibration...atoms also experience repulsion if they get too close. The constant juggling between these attractive and repulsive forces creates a "shaking" effect...
That is, bonded atoms are trapped between equal attractive and repulsive force such that, if something causes them to move toward the one, the latter will force it to move toward the other, and then latter will send it toward the former, in cycles where the velocity of the atoms never slow, says the kineticist. The atoms are locked into eternal vibration, he says, which can explain why he chooses to view bonded atoms NOT in contact. He thus creates an erroneous atomic model in order to keep this kinetic situation alive.
Yes, I heard it from google AI that modern science does not see bonded atoms merged into each other to any depth, but rather they are "bonded" at a distance from each other, which is ludicrous. It's impossible for a balance point between repulsion and attraction to occur while atoms are not yet in contact. Atoms not in physical contact are yet gas atoms, and once you understand that gas atoms are inter-repelled from each other, you learn that attraction forces between them cannot be set up until they enter one another.
Probably, one of the reasons that the goofs did not want to envision the electrons of one atom existing inside the sphere of a neighboring atom is that the circling electrons add chaotic force toward the perfect balance needed to keep the atoms vibrating. No friction can be allowed to act on that perfect balance, but electrons entering and exiting the spheres of neighboring atoms is exactly applied friction. Nobody with a non-distorted mindset thinks that such a situation would act to keep the vibrations in perfect balance. Any continual slow down of the vibrations would kill the vibrations.
Besides, to show what utter ding-dongs we are dealing with, they imagine on the order of a trillion vibratory cycles per second at the phenomenal atomic speed of HUNDREDS OF MILES PER HOUR. Imagine how close the atoms are. It's laughable that the atoms should vibrate that fast, going toward each other, then putting on the brakes and going in the opposite direction. This is so ridiculous that the kineticists are apparently singing a new song. The below is the first I've ever heard of it:
At room temperature, the atoms in a solid vibrate about their equilibrium lattice positions at a typical speed of approximately 6–7 mph (around 3 m/s).
google AI got that from somewhere, but until now, all I've ever read is that atoms of a solid vibrate only slightly slower than they fly about as gas atoms. Indeed, how can atoms travelling in the thousands of mph suddenly slow to 6 mph as solid atoms at room temperature? I call this criminal. I call this filling humanity with trash. From brainly.com: "The maximum speed of a typical atom vibrating in a solid is approximately 3.17 m/s [= 7 mph]..."
Apparently, there is a circle of kineticists trying to undo the damage of past lunatics who claimed vibrations in the thousands of mph. For example, we find google AI borrowing the following: "The average speed of water molecules (which includes their translational movement and vibration) at room temperature is approximately 1,300 to 1,500 miles per hour..." INSANITY.
Or: "At room temperature, the average vibratory speed (thermal velocity) of iron atoms in steel is approximately 1,000 to 1,500 miles per hour (mph)." Buffoonland. They don't know how to be honest; they never come to their senses.
I asked: "why do some claim 7 mph for the vibratory speeds of solid atoms, and others say 1500 mph?" The response can indicate that a trick is in play where the definition of vibratory speed is being changed in order to drown that ridiculous concept out of existence:
The discrepancy between 7 mph and 1500 mph (or higher) for the vibratory speed of solid objects...stems from confusing two different physical concepts: vibration amplitude velocity (how fast a point moves back and forth) and [sound] wave propagation speed (how fast energy moves through the material).
That's nonsense. I've read over and over that atoms VIBRATE at hundreds of MPH, which makes sense where gas atoms supposedly fly at such speeds, and now suddenly we are being taught that the writers were talking about sound-wave energy that passes through materials? AI is either confused, or there's been an attempt to reduce vibrational speeds.
Let me spell this out to show that we are being lied to. We read above that: "At room temperature, the average vibratory speed (THERMAL VELOCITY) of iron atoms in steel is approximately 1,000 to 1,500 miles per hour (mph)." Thermal velocity is not the sound wave, but is the vibrations that kineticists imagine due to their kinetic definition of heat. To be sure, I asked google: ""is thermal velocity the back-and-forth vibrations of atoms?" Response: "Yes, to a large extent, thermal velocity represents the back-and-forth vibrations, jiggling, and random movement of atoms and molecules. It is a measure of the particle's kinetic energy due to heat."
Therefore, there has been a claim indeed that solid objects do have atoms vibrating at roughly 1,500 mph, and google AI has been programmed to alter such statements, apparently, no doubt due to science-important people who are starting to see the obvious problem(s) with it.
I'll even repeat from above once more: "The average speed of water molecules (which includes their TRANSLATIONAL MOVEMENT AND VIBRATION) at room temperature is approximately 1,300 to 1,500 miles per hour." You'll want to know: "what is the 'translational movement and vibration' of atoms in a solid?" google response: "In a solid, atoms...are constantly in motion, vibrating in place around these fixed, average positions." Therefore, why did google AI try to trick us by saying that the 1500-mph figure does not refer to atomic vibrations?
When two atoms are only kissing at their outer edges, the protons of each atom are farther apart than the distance between a proton and the other atom's electrons. Therefore, as can be predicted because there is no other choice -- because there is no other way to explain liquid formation -- the atoms attract each other just as soon as some merger begins between the two. The attraction between a proton and the neighboring atom's electrons becomes stronger than the proton-to-proton repulsion, but only after some measure of merger has taken place.
The atoms cannot attract if they are merely kissing with zero merger because both atoms exert net-repulsion on one another. Part of that repulsion is between the electron atmospheres. But as merger takes place and goes deeper, the atmosphere-to-atmosphere repulsion dwindles for two reasons: 1) the merged sections, due to becoming twice as dense initially, immediately release half their electrons as environmental heat, and 2): the shared electrons in the merged section cannot exert more repulsion on one atom than they do on the other, meaning that all the electrons in the merged section are made lame; they can no longer act to keep the atoms apart, like they do when the atoms are fully apart.
The deeper the merger goes, the larger the merged section, the lower the atmosphere-to-atmosphere repulsion. However, the big-boss protons are drawn nearer to each other during merger, and that sets up a continually-building proton-to-proton repulsion to counter the attraction that got set up from the merger.
To prove that heat is what disallows atomic mergers, one needs only to cite dew as a reliable witness. The kinetic theory fails here because dew forms only on top surfaces. It's moronic to claim that dew forms on grass blades due to a downward flow of the atmosphere, because, although the atmosphere contracts as a whole, it means only that air atoms move closer together, not that there is a downward flow of air mass in order to explain why due forms only on leaf tops but not on their bottom sides.
The kineticist believes that cooler temperatures at night slow water molecules such that they form liquid droplets. That theory expects as much liquid on the bottom of the leaf as on the top. As the kineticist thinks that air atoms are continually defying gravity, he can't define dew from gravity pull on water molecules. I can, and I do.
Rising atmospheric electrons by day keep the water molecules aloft, but as the cool of the night arrives, the lift dwindles to a degree until gravity gets the upper hand, pulling the molecules downward. There is a literal flow of water downward from the sky, a thing that the kinetic theory does not allow because its water molecules defy gravity force. Only the water flows down, not the atmosphere as a mass, which can only be explained by what you just read: less lift power in cooler temperatures.
Air atoms don't come down as the water molecules do, partly because the latter are nine times heavier than O and N atoms. I know this is hard for the modern scientist to believe, but I've explained why it's correct, and won't re-explain here except to say: 1) gravity arranges all atoms to weigh the same; 2) water molecules are in reality an 08H molecule, nine atoms in all.
The point is, water molecules refuse to bond because they repel each other, but if there exists an outside force, such as gravity, to force them into a merger on a material surface, voila, water droplets.
We can get a glimpse of how tenuous the water-molecule bond is where gravity can pull molecules together at the same temperature that molecules can evaporate i.e. break away from the grasp of gravity. I assume that air currents can facilitate dew formation when pushing them together once gravity has caused them to draw very close. Too much wind increases evaporation and can thus eliminate some or all dew.
The kineticist would like to argue that water droplets form in the air such that they are no longer racing around at 1,500 mph. He would like to argue that gravity pulls full droplets down, but not single water molecules, to explain top-surface dew. However, dew can form at 15 C or higher, yet google AI says: "In a typical sealed house at 10 C with humidity below 100 %, 0% of the water in the air exists as water droplets; it exists entirely as lone water molecules (water vapor)."
Clouds, they say, are made up primary of droplets, yet dew commonly forms after a perfectly-blue-sky day. Therefore, I argue that gravity pulls lone water molecules down to a leaf top, a claim the kineticist can't make. I'm reading: "On a cloudless day, over 99% of the water in the air exists as individual water molecules (water vapor)." Therefore, the kineticist is out of luck for explaining top-surface dew. But, he refuses to slap himself in the face for pushing trash down the throats of the children, and working to make them die of old age with that trash in their bones.
When a merged atom moves toward a neighboring atom, the proton-to-proton repulsion eventually becomes dominant. This is called net repulsion acting between them. But when two atoms move apart, the proton-to-electron attraction eventually becomes dominant. Smack between these two conditions is the balance point, where the atoms come to a FULL STOP if ever they are made to vibrate. Of course they can vibrate, when a material is struck, but as they don't vibrate forever, something makes atoms come to a halt.
There must be some frictional force slowing atoms as they vibrate in cycles toward the attracting and repulsing ends of the perfect-balance situation at the center. With each motion toward either end, the vibrations become less intense i.e. the atoms slow. In short order, the vibrations cease. As the electron atmospheres are merged, we could point to them as at least part of the reason for the friction. As atoms vibrate, electron atmospheres "rub" each other. Commotion sets into the atmospheres due to the vibrations, and so captured electrons move randomly or swirl around, each electron affecting its neighbors. That looks like friction to me.
To eliminate this frictional picture, the fool denies that the atmospheres exist, and they moreover don't permit atoms to merge at all when defining the liquid or solid state. They thus prioritize the kinetic theory's need for uninterrupted, unhindered, eternal vibration. FOOLS. That's not science, it's a concocting of a big-bang-friendly fantasy.
For anyone who hasn't read other works from me, the reason that kineticism serves the big-bang creation of the universe is that stars cannot form if gas atoms repel each other. Gas atoms repelling each other is death to big-bang evolution even before it gets under way. This is why the fools protect kineticism with priority, why they bury the caloric theory of heat by ruling it out without fanfare as a miscalculation.
It is especially grievous to the fools to define heat as the material of electrons, because it requires what I've told you above, that gas atoms repel each other more in higher temperatures. If there were some material that could define heat that allowed gas atoms to attract each other, the fools would have latched onto the theory, but they will absolutely will not latch onto to heat by electrons, for it then becomes obvious that the electrons cause gas atoms to repel with greater force when there exists more electrons in their midst.
True, even in the kinetic theory, gas atoms refuse to come together in hot environments such as proto-stars, but the fools can deceive you if they can have some method of atomic attraction acting between gas atoms. They cannot even begin to deceive you if all there is are electrons in the midst of gas atoms that translate to atomic inter-repulsion. They mix kinetic atoms with some atomic attraction...to deceive you for the purpose of cosmological evolution.
The way they hope to get out of the conundrum is to ignore it. Instead of focusing on the fact that hot gases spread out thinner such that it contradicts proto-star formation, they invent the cosmic gravity pool that forces atoms to come closer together as a proto-star. This is so problematic, to have a gravity-force pool prior to atoms accumulating at the core of the proto-star, that there were attempts to redefine gravity, to abandon Newtonian gravity for some lunatic theory, the Einsteinian gravity trick, for example.
The caloric theory of heat inevitably leads to the conclusion that gravity force is from heat. It's inevitable because it's necessary for the earth to discard as many solar electrons as enter the atmosphere daily. If they were not discarded back into outer space, the earth would overheat in little time. Therefore, the only permissible definition of gravity source is free electrons within the planet that form such a massive negative charge (radiating in all directions) as to repel atmospheric electrons into outer space. That massive negative charge is a gravity pool.
Gravity is thus an electromagnetic force, but this is death to the big-bang evolution of the universe because electrons will not form a gravity pool alone, nor any pool, for they spread out if they are alone. A gravity pool cannot exist apart from a solid or liquid material that quasi-traps the electrons while simultaneously producing more of them to replenish the ones that get away.
Free electrons in a planetary interior issue from atoms such that there cannot be a gravity pool aside from atoms existing first. It is not possible for a pool of liquid or solid atoms to exist, from merely a big-bang explosion.
No proto-star can exist prior to the formation of a gravity pool, but no stellar gravity pool can exist without a body of liquid that science calls, plasma. The latter is a liquid above its critical temperature, but mixed with many electrons as compared to a hydrogen liquid below its boiling point. Plasma is an electron-atom soup where gravity is strong enough to hold the soup together as a unit in spite of the extreme force by which its atoms are seeking to get away from each other.
I asked google: "how could the gravity force of a proto-star exist before the atoms of the proto star come together?" The response makes no sense, but looks more like a trick by someone pretending to be a science master:
The gravitational force of a protostar exists before the atoms come together into a dense, solid-like object because gravity is a property of mass, not a property of the state of matter. Before atoms unite to form a 'star,' they exist as massive, diffused interstellar molecular clouds of gas (mostly hydrogen) and dust.
That Frankensteinian statement is AI with long screws in its brain, because there is no satisfactory response for AI to fetch. It's desperately trying to salvage the big-bang stooges by making a distinction between "mass" and "matter" when in reality they are the same thing. It first tends to agree that matter cannot exist as a proto star, but then claims that material "dust" is the proto-star, and moreover does not explain how the gravity can exist prior to the dust. It's magical dust of course, merely from a science magician who's an absolute fool, refusing to admit that the big bang has this colossal chicken-and-egg problem. They are a cursed lot of buffoons who refuse to be honest (some of them have repented, bravo, welcome to sanity).
As part of the extended response, we have this:
Gravity does not require atoms to be tightly packed to exist. Every atom, molecule, and particle of dust in a molecular cloud possesses a gravitational field. When a large region of this gas becomes slightly over-dense due to disturbances (like shockwaves from nearby stars), its total mass exerts a gravitational pull.
A protostar forms when this cloud fragment overcomes internal pressure and begins to collapse under its own "self-gravity". As the gas falls towards the center, the accumulated mass creates a strong gravitational well that attracts even more material.
It didn't answer my question, but simply shared the spiel of the evolutionist. The question was: "how could the gravity force of a proto-star exist BEFORE the atoms of the proto star come together?" The response assumes the prior existence of a gas cloud that offers some gravity force to build the star, but does not tell us how the gas clumped as a "cloud fragment," to be distinguished from the rest of the cosmic environment where such clouds do not form. Only a tiny fraction of the cosmos is represented by stars. Why should congregations of big-bang material form here and here, but not there and there? Instead of massive stars, why isn't the universe filled with tiny but more-numerous proto-stars that barely shine, if at all?
google AI doesn't venture a response because it's impossible for atoms to come together in what it calls "a large region of this gas." It's impossible, not only because gas atoms inter-repel / spread out, but because they are moving further apart with each passing year as they sail away from the big-bang spot. Before long within the millions of years they imagine, atoms will be too far apart to inter-attract by any miniscule gravity force that the goofs assign them.
If the protons and electrons are merely making contact (one diameter apart, center-to-center) as they come out of the big-bang hole or hose, think of how far apart they will be due to the law wherein particles become twice as far apart with every doubling of distance from the big-bang spot. Hello? Is any lunatic listening? Within the first second, the particles would be innumerable diameters apart such that nobody should expect protons and electrons to come together to form H atoms in the first place.
I've just put the screws to AI's head with: "how far apart were protons one second after they came out of the big-bang spot?" Not wanting to admit that protons were very far apart after one second, it claims that the materials somehow stayed close together over a vast expansion:
According to one interpretation, the universe one second after the Big Bang was roughly 20 light-years in diameter, but it was incredibly hot and dense, not the sparse space we see today.
I'll leave it to your imagination if you think it's worthy of yourself to imagine what that picture could look like. In my mind, protons could be no closer at their inception than one diameter apart center-to-center, and, in my mind, they would become at least hundreds of miles apart (I'm guessing) after the cosmos expanded to 20 light years across. Soon after, they are expected to be millions of miles apart. That picture cannot form proto-star dust in a clump. They cannot have it both ways, an explosion so vast and far-reaching on the one hand, and cosmic gases with atoms closely congregated enough to become a star.
The way to form star or planetary gravity is to allow free electrons to leak from atoms. God creates the bodies and "hangs" them in their places, and He also creates an original gravity force that makes heaviness. The heaviness of material predicts a forcing of deeper atomic mergers such that the atoms release electrons as heat, which counters downward weight because the free electrons repel each other upward. But as the electrons work their way up and out of that body, the gravity force can continue to force atoms closer together to release more electrons. The process is self-regulating. As electrons worm their way up, gravity continues to form more of them in the deepest depths. But Somebody needs to build the machinery in the first place.
I've got to assume that, when atoms were squeezed so closely together, in the distant past, that their protons made contact, the next step was a squashing of the protons and therefore a full release of their captured electrons due to the ruin of the proton's positive-force capability. It predicts a steady destruction of protons, to this day. What might a layer of proton material look like, I wonder?
If you think about it, a planet could not emit a vast negative charge unless some protons are destroyed. For as long as protons are radiating as much positive force as the electrons radiate negative, the outgoing force is balanced, as if there is no force one way or the other. Therefore, it seems that, as protons are destroyed, gravity force gets stronger century after century, which may be part of the explanation as to why chickens and other winged birds can no longer fly well. It can also predict a faster-orbiting moon that might in turn predict that there were 12 perfect months to begin with, per year, while there are now about 12.4.
When gravity becomes stronger, the moon falls closer to earth and consequently orbits faster, reducing the duration of the month. That concept would not be as pronounced between sun and earth because there's a big difference between 1 orbital rpm annually and 12.
The earth's orbital speed is predicted to slow due to constant collision with the solar wind, which is the cosmic aether than modern science scrapped in favor of their big-bang "science." On the other hand, the moon does not constantly go into the solar wind in the same direction, as earth does. The solar wind always strikes the sun-side of the earth, and the front edge of the earth (the earth's hood versus the trunk) always collides with the solar wind. But the moon's front equally drives with or against the solar wind, in units of time. Therefore, the solar wind neither speeds nor slows the lunar orbit.
A good guess is that the earth, at the time of Adam, took 360 days to complete one orbit, one degree of travel daily for a total of 360 degrees annually. But, it now takes longer due to friction with the solar wind. Then, if the moon had 12 perfect months initially, each was 30 days long.
Granite Formation
Igneous / lava rock is made of 50 percent or more of silicon atoms joined to oxygen atoms. Pure silicon is rare, but allows a coating of oxygen atoms to form, meaning that both types of atoms merge into each other. It suggests that every part of igneous rock, at/near the earth's surface anyway, was fully in contact with oxygen prior to formation of the rock. It suggests that the earth was molten to the planetary surface, and that MUCH oxygen was in solution within the molten silicon prior to cooling into hard rock.
However, I'm reading that, at the melting temperature of silicon, only a maximum 40 parts per million (by weight) of oxygen joins the silicon in solution. That's not going to create silica rock when cooled, because silica or granite has about 50-percent oxygen by weight. How do we suppose God formed the earth's rocks, therefore? Wouldn't it have required a massive volume of oxygen in the planetary interior that rose upward and forcefully through the molten silicon?
Yes, but as oxygen is known to leak out of molten silicon, aside from 40 parts per million that stays behind, we thus learn that igneous rocks hardened WHILE plentiful oxygen was in the act of rising through it. Nobody thinks that oxygen was rising through the earth's magma for millions of years, let alone billions, for there cannot have been that much oxygen in the planet.
The fool and his stooges will tell you with straight face that the earth was a molten ball, right up to the surface, for about 100 million years. But even if it was so for only 50 years, all oxygen and water within it would have vanished into the atmosphere. Or, if you don't agree with my 50-year figure, how long do you think it takes gases to rise through 4,000 miles of hot magma? If 50 years, it's moving at an average of 80 mph.
I tasked google with: "how did oxygen or water gas remain in earth magma for millions of years when the planet was fully molten?" The response should be taken as an act of desperation by those who are firstly stupid enough to believe in Godless evolution, and secondly stupid enough to pose as those who actually know how it happened:
Water and oxygen (or its precursors) remained in Earth's magma during its molten phase by being trapped in high-pressure minerals, dissolved within the magma itself, and buried by 'water-locking' processes deep in the mantle. Instead of escaping instantly, substantial amounts of water were stored in the mantle as the planet solidified.
Why did the response choose molten minerals to trap oxygen and water rather than molten silicon? And do you really think that molten mineral material can keep such things as oxygen and hydrogen from rising unobstructed to the surface of a molten ball? Don't you think the response above is pure desperation of big-bang lunatics?
Confession: "Silicate minerals — which are compounds containing silicon and oxygen — make up over 90% of the Earth's crust, while non-silicate minerals (like carbonates, oxides, and sulfides) make up the remaining 8% or less." Oops. How can minerals, making up less than 10 percent of the earth (which is likely an exaggeration in order to support the desperation above), possibly hold enough oxygen or water which later formed the silica rocks, themselves consisting of more then 50-percent oxygen? See any glaring math problem here? Are big bangers stupid when it comes to simple math? If not, then they are liars, no surprise whatsoever.
Imagine what colossal liars they must be to speak so specifically about what exists hundreds of miles down when the deepest well is less than ten miles deep. They simply invent things as best serves their big-bang model of earth formation, it's embarrassingly obvious. In order to claim locked water in the deep earth, which they need to for the creation of silica rocks, they claim that the earth core, below about 3,000 miles deep, is SOLID due to the weight pressure of the molten rock. So, they say, that solid material holds water. But why would they say such a thing if they haven't got a clue what's down there? Why in tarnation would you take them seriously?
We challenge these children who like to play games with us. How did water get to the core of the planet when the earth was forming from a cloud orbiting the sun? At that time, the core could not be solid because the planet was not yet large or heavy enough. Then, later, any water (obtained from the sun, no less) in a molten core would rise up and escape into space. Yet, they say, today, with straight face, that water is at the very core of the planet. MORONS who do not know how to tell the truth.
Can anyone imagine water in the sun? Yet, they say, water was orbiting the sun as part of the proto-earth that originated in the sun. They invent all sorts of fantasies in efforts to make you believe in a Godless evolution of the planet. Throw the bums out.
Google AI answers me: "Yes, if steam is added continually to molten silicon at high temperatures, the silicon will eventually oxidize completely, turning into silica (SiO2).
Molten silicon is extremely reactive with oxygen and steam, forming a very stable, white solid of silicon dioxide and hydrogen." That is, the hydrogen that disassociates from water molecules leaks out of the molten mix while leaving the oxygen atoms behind to bond with the silicon atoms.
Therefore, we thereby have evidence of a colossal volume of water existing beneath the silica rocks, not at all meaning that it was as deep as the very core. It begs whether pure silicon is deeper down below the internal water, for unless water passes through silicon, it cannot form silica rock. As you may know, volcanoes spew mainly water.
This evidence of vast quantities of water beneath what are now silica rocks answers how Noah's Flood came to be, when God heated the interior of the planet to force out the waters. Did the silica / granite rocks form only at that time? Were there no such rocks prior to the Flood? Was Adam able to take a shovel to dig to pure silicon?
It makes sense that granite existed from the time of Adam because the oxygen formed, when water passed through the molten silicon, could then form at oxygen content of the atmosphere while the hydrogen content got lost into space due to being more-easily ejected by the rising heat. Prior to making plants and animals, when the land appeared (3rd day), that would have been a good time to infuse the atmosphere with oxygen. That would have been a good time to form silica rocks, that is. But it doesn't speak for the nitrogen content of the air.
You need to understand the asinine acrobatics that evolutionists do in explaining how all the materials found in the earth, including nitrogen, originated in the sun. What a bunch of morons. Anyone who claims with straight face that nitrogen could exist for billions of years, as the sun burns, is worse than a moron. He's the enemy of your children, and he will be happy to see them in Hell.
I don't know of any common nitrogen-containing solid. It becomes a mystery to explain where, in the earth, the nitrogen originated that's now in our lungs. "Nitrogen can be found in reduced form as nitrides or carbonitrides inside diamonds, suggesting it exists in the deep upper or lower mantle." Nitrogen is "funny" in that it's not a part of rocks in general, or in any solid material common to man, while oxygen is ample in solid materials. " While nitrogen is generally abundant in biological systems (proteins, DNA) and the atmosphere, its occurrence in non-biological solid form is relatively rare and concentrated in specific environments." Yet, unless God created atmospheric nitrogen above the planet, there must be, or have been, a vast source of nitrogen within the planet.
"Nitrogen reacts with molten silicon to form solid silicon nitride particles." Therefore, if we resolve that granite rocks were formed when water (steam) passed though it, which simultaneously leaked oxygen into what is now the atmosphere, how can we explain that granite rocks are not also filled with nitrogen atoms? Clearly, the silica rocks formed without rich nitrogen passing through them. The two constituents of the air arrived to the surface at different times. Was the original atmosphere pure nitrogen to begin with? Did the oxygen come later?
Apparently, the nitrogen content of the air was formed separately, but must have existed from Adam because a pure-oxygen atmosphere would kill us. At least, it would if it's at the same density of the present air. Plus, atmospheric nitrogen gets into the soil, vital there for good plant growth. The body needs nitrogen.
Logically, when God made land to appear upon a globe fully covered in water, He heated the interior to a molten state all the way to the planetary surface. The heat caused an uplift of internal material such that it rose above the waters, moving them aside. If this picture is correct, then I don't see how silica rocks could have been formed on day three, just three days before creating man, for silica formation needs molten rocks.
Nothing is impossibly with God; He could have cooled the rocks over two days, but I think I'd rather believe that God created the silica rocks and the oxygen atmosphere a long while before the six days of Creation. The problem now is that making molten material to the very top of the earth seems difficult while all the surface is covered with an ocean. But feel welcome to play with this if you feel inclined. It might be a good waste of time in comparison to anything else you might do online. google AI is red-hot for exposing what fools are the evolutionists, don't squander the opportunity.
When asking google for the deepest known nitrogen source: "The deepest known reservoir of nitrogen on Earth is the Earth's core, which is estimated to contain a massive amount of nitrogen,..." See that? They haven't got a clue what's in the core, yet they speak as if they are God, always with the big bang on the brain. Everything needs to serve the big bang. The second-richest nitrogen source, they claim, is in the deep mantle. THEY HAVEN'T GOT A CLUE. The invert whatever they need to, or can get away with when nobody can disprove their claims.
I asked: "what is the deepest known, actually discovered or handled nitrogen source?" It's no use, AI wants to ignore the question: "The deepest known, actually discovered, and handled nitrogen source originates from the deep Earth's mantle, specifically within "superdeep" diamonds formed at depths of over 600 kilometers."
I found a way for AI to admit it: "The deepest known, manhandled (sampled/handled) source of solid nitrogen is in the form of frozen fertilizer (synthetic nitrogen), which makes up roughly 80% of the nitrogen found in human tissues...Nitrogen gas sampled from boreholes in the Canadian Shield (e.g., Kidd Creek Observatory) at depths around 2.4 km (7,800+ ft)." That's it, that's the deepest evidence for the existence of nitrogen. Asking another question, which you can glean at the start of the response, I got this:
Evidence for nitrogen (N) in the Earth's core and mantle stems primarily from geochemistry, experimental high-pressure physics, and the "missing nitrogen" problem, which suggests that the Earth's bulk silicate Earth (BSE) is severely depleted in nitrogen compared to volatile elements in chondritic meteorites. The leading theory is that a substantial portion of Earth's nitrogen was sequestered into the metallic core during accretion, while significant amounts reside in the deep mantle...
I can agree that there is a missing-nitrogen problem, but there's no evidence that there yet remains a vast nitrogen source in the solid core of the planet. It's merely a guess, and AI didn't state here why it's a good guess, and I'll argue that it's a demented guess because no gas can exist at the earth's core if the earth was formed as the evolutionists claim, from gases rising through molten rock. The core had to be molten before if could solidify (due to great pressures of rock above it).
For all we know, almost all of the nitrogen leaked out prior to the creation of man. But as they find some nitrogen gas in deep wells, they assume it's been leaking out for billions of years such that they envision a large source in the deep mantle. That's the reality for their claim of a vast, internal nitrogen source. It's not science, it's big-bang religion. One may not initially know when their claims and answers to questions are real facts versus what they deem as fact from their "religion," because they don't tell you which is which, because they are goons who don't care if they feed you trash as long as they can make you a evolutionist fool. Asking another question:
Yes, it is common to find nitrogen gas originating from rocks in deep wells and mines...Nitrogen is often found in deep, highly mature sedimentary basins and metamorphic rocks, particularly when buried deeper than 3.5–5 km.
You need to discover the definitions of their lingo. "Mature sedimentary basin" means a relatively OLD rock in the million of years when the reality is that all sedimentary rock was formed in Noah's Flood. It seems their claim is that nitrogen gas forms from rotted life forms (including forests) buried in the sedimentary rocks, even though nitrogen gas is known not to form from buried wood. Their claim:
Nitrogen gas forms in sedimentary rocks from buried life forms primarily through the breakdown of organic matter by microbes in the shallow subsurface...When ancient plants, algae, and animals die, their nitrogen-rich remains settle in sediments and are buried, undergoing geological transformations that turn organic nitrogen into inert N2 gas.
The claim is that anaerobic bacteria not only lives miles deep in the rocks, but creates the nitrogen gas leaking out of deep wells and mines. Is this all factual, or just another invented fact? Either way, the internal nitrogen is from life forms, not initially in the interior, but ultimately sourced in atmospheric nitrogen.
The following is just an invented fact, but assumed to be devised at least partly from what has been inspected / tested from man-handled rock: "The average amount of nitrogen (N) in silica rocks varies based on the rock type (igneous vs. sedimentary), but typically ranges from 20 to 600 ppm, with significant variations depending on the geological history."
The higher figure could be invented to support their claim of vast nitrogen in the planet, but even at 600 parts per million, that's almost nothing. The rest of the response includes: "Average concentrations are typically lower, often cited around 20 ppm in magmatic rocks. However, some granitic rocks can contain up to 250 ppm N." It's even possible that the 20 parts per million is a complete sham for their purposes.
It means that there was a vast upward flow of water through the silicon rocks when they transformed into silica rocks, but no similar, simultaneously flow of nitrogen gas. Why not? I would argue that there was no longer any nitrogen in the interior the likes of which had previously presented itself in the atmosphere. But, in being honest, I'll admit that I don't know whether the atmospheric batch was created by God on the spot, or leaked out from within the rocks.
A problem arises as to how atmospheric nitrogen managed to remain on the planet after much internal heat allowed deep waters to rise through the silicon such that the atmospheric oxygen content was formed. We could expect the latter's streaming, in combination with high, abnormal heat, to push the nitrogen atoms into outer space, beyond the ability of gravity to keep them from flying away. It could argue for an in-situ (on-the-spot) Creation of the nitrogen atmosphere AFTER the oxygen atmosphere was formed.
Or, possibly, the nitrogen issued out of the planet at distinct locations. For example, if it issued from what is now the sea floor, nobody could know about it because the study / handling of rocks beneath the sea floors is not exactly prolific. I'm referring to rocks deep below the sea floor, not practically on the sea floor, where biology can explain some nitrogen content.
During the Flood, there was easy passage of internal gases into the atmosphere via the sea-floor volcanoes that spewed the water forming the Flood. It was of obvious importance that this addition of gases did not badly off-set the balance of the oxygen-nitrogen mixture, though it would be interesting to know if it did so, and by how much, or what affects it had, bad or good.
The number of volcanoes during the flood is evidenced by the massive mid-ocean ridges (all volcanic debris) that are yet spewing to this day to some degree. But, even though the Flood saw a massive amount of volcanic material required abnormally-high internal temperatures, it did not add anywhere near the heat volume expected from an event that saw water passing through all the silica rocks to form them. Such massive flows of water through molten rock required that the latter was in contact with ocean water above it; otherwise there would not have been a flow at all. That is, if there was hard rock at the top of the molten material, there could be no flow of water through it.
If there was not a flow, then the oxygen content of the molten material could not have reached roughly 40-60 percent, yet silica rocks are roughly half oxygen, half silicon.
I asked google what the maximum amount of water is that can dissolve in molten silicon, but it said that water can't exist in molten silicon. Instead, it disassociates into O and H atoms, which brings us back to what was said above: "The maximum oxygen concentration that can dissolve in pure molten silicon, even with water continuously added, is generally capped...at approximately...30-50 ppmw) at the silicon melting point." Almost no oxygen.
This is why I reason that there had to be a flow of water into molten silicon, followed by a flow of O and H atoms. This is why I argue that the existence of the flow needs an outlet at the top of the molten material such as an ocean of water that can then allow the O and H atoms to issue into the atmosphere. However, I'm not referring to the current oceans the floors of which are not fully made of silica, but rather mainly of basalt. I'm referring to the pre-Adamic world fully covered with water.
If the flow ceased while the silicon was yet molten, silica rocks could not have formed. The only way to form the silica rocks (by a natural process) is where the silicon hardens with the O atoms still within it, but without the H atoms. "Silica-rich rocks (such as quartz, granite, or silica-clay shales) generally contain very low amounts of inherent hydrogen compared to ultramafic (iron-rich) rocks."
Follow the clues. The waters beneath or beside the silicon magma had to cease entering the silicon magma at some point. Why? Then, before hardening to at least a plastic state (quasi-solid), the H atoms in the magma had to leak out at the top while some O atoms remained behind. This is explicable because H atoms get much more lift force than O atoms, by the heat in their midst.
It wasn't necessary for the entire bulk of silicon magma to harden. If only the top would harden, it would trap the O atoms within itself, regardless of the fact that O atoms don't like being in molten silicon.
Although I don't trust AI when claiming that deeper silica rocks have less oxygen content than rocks near the earth surface, it suggests that the O atoms rose and congregated in the upper parts of the magma, rather than dispersing evenly in the magna. The latter process generally requires that the oxygen is a solute, but in fact it is not when mixed in molten silicon.
The formation of silica rock required a cooling of the earth interior, but that cooling does not necessarily explain the initial ceasing of water addition into the magma. It seems to me that, if magma is sitting on a pool of interior water, the latter is going to enter the magna by force as the magna weighs down upon it. Nobody expects that the water liquid will sit under the magma liquid. Therefore, I suggest that the water ceased entering the magna when there was no water left beneath or beside it. It can explain why, prior to the 6 days of Creation, the whole globe was covered in water.
In order to explain how the water was originally beneath the magma, the only explanation seems to be that the magna was not always magma. Water worked its way into large cavities in the interior, where the cavities were surrounded by hard rock. Only afterward did the hard rock become melted by an addition of heat source, followed by the removal of all waters in contact with molten rock, followed by the transfer of subterranean O atoms to the atmosphere, followed by the creation of silica rocks once the heat subsided.
As O atoms get roughly the same lift as N atoms, it's not possible, in my mind, for the existence of internal nitrogen mixed into the magna along with the O atoms, or both would have remained within the silicon once the top of the magma hardened.
One of the mysteries of Creation geology is the cavities into which the Flood waters receded, but also the cavities from which the Flood waters originated. The way that I explain the end of the Flood, there's not necessity a need for Flood waters to recede into earth cavities. However, we want to know where the interior water sat prior to silica formation. How could rock cavities exist if they were surrounded by magma? One way is where there nitrogen gas was trapped, fully surrounded by the magma for a short period.
I first imagine that nitrogen gas existed in the crevices of hard rock, unable to escape to the surface. I have no idea, yet anyway, how it formed there. Then, with the heating of those rocks, the nitrogen was allowed to enter the magma, at which time it rose upward to pool at the top of the magma, but did not leak into the air very fast because there was yet hard rock above the magna. In time, it leaked out to form the major part of the atmosphere, and in the meantime the magma that had surrounded the nitrogen pools hardened, and thus large cavities remained behind that were filled with water.
The waters could have been filling the cavities through some crevices while the nitrogen leaked out of other crevices. That's a not-bad explanation for the storage of interior waters the likes of which could partially explain the later Flood water. As the water filled the cavities, the rock around them cooled further.
If we think that there is not sufficient mileage of typical rock crevice to account for the volume of the Flood water, then this cavity-formation theory not only helps, but can reveal how nitrogen got above the planet. It doesn't solve the mystery of internal-nitrogen formation, however. From ammonia?
On Earth, volcanoes generally do not spew significant amounts of ammonia (NH3). While ammonia was likely present in the gases released by volcanoes on the very early Earth, modern terrestrial volcanic eruptions emit gases composed primarily of water vapor, carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and trace amounts of nitrogen,...
In other words, it is assumed that there was interior ammonia from which nitrogen gas may have formed. However, it doesn't seem explicable as to why God would stick ammonia in the interior of a planet He intended for life. The two don't go well together. Temperatures below 900 C turns ammonia to nitrogen gas, but how could ammonia form in the interior from a mix of H and N atoms? If some ammonia did form in the planet by that mix, then lone N atoms were there too. How?
AI then lies to the public by saying that substantial amounts of nitrogen emit from volcanoes or from eroded rocks: "A SUBSTANTIAL [caps mine] amount of nitrogen is stored in rocks. Weathering of rock, particularly in mountainous regions, releases nitrogen into the ecosystem, which can eventually contribute to atmospheric nitrogen." Ya-sure, substantial if going on for billions of years. But that didn't happen. This is fraudulent science, but at least we can eke out some of the factual science due to the boneheads seeking to provide big-bang support for themselves. They are going to be primarily responsible for the victory over them of Creationists, for we use their own discoveries against them, because we are the good guys.
There seems to be virtually no ammonia in the interior, fully expected because hydrogen production is expected from magma-heated waters yet no speakable nitrogen is in the silica rocks. Absence of ammonia argues against the mixing of H and N atoms. How did the nitrogen avoid the H atoms in the magma? It seems that the nitrogen came out first, before the silica rocks were formed.
"Silicate rocks and minerals are exceptionally pervasive near the Earth's surface, forming the vast majority of the crust. They constitute approximately 90% to 95% of the Earth's crust." If that's correct, there was virtually no place on earth for nitrogen to leak out apart from going through molten silicon. It again argues that N atoms did so BEFORE the silicon turned to an oxygen-silicon mix i.e. silica.
In order to form ammonia, H and N atoms would have congregated at one spot, trapped there in rock cavities...aside from some leaving through escape routes in the hard rocks above them. But H and N atoms don't automatically form ammonia by mere contact. They need to be pressed together by high pressure. The rocks definitely have enough pressure by their weights, but if the H and N atoms are in cavities surrounded by hard rock, there is no rock weight acting upon them. If the rock above the H-N mix of atoms is molten, then the atoms can't become trapped; they would rise up and out.
Ocean pressure (21,000 psi at nine miles deep) would likely be able to reach the H-N mix within cavities, but: "Based on standard chemical engineering principles and the Haber-Bosch process, 21,000 psi (roughly 1,450 bar) cannot create significant amounts of ammonia from nitrogen and hydrogen without heat." However, they say that, at double that pressure, ammonia can form without heat, which begs the question as to why H and N atoms generally refuse to remained merged?
I'm reading: "Without heat, the nitrogen molecules will not break apart, and the reaction will not proceed at any practical speed, even at extreme pressures." They view nitrogen as a diatomic atom, meaning two N atoms merged together, but the quacks may be out to lunch with that theory, as I suspect. Instead, nitrogen can be a molecule of two different types of atoms, explaining why there are not many nitrogen-based solids or liquids. A two-atom nitrogen "molecule" is in reality simply a liquid molecule, and so I tend to think that it doesn't exist as a diatomic molecule.
The formation of ammonia from nitrogen and hydrogen gas doesn't produce a third type of gas, suggesting that the nitrogen "atom" could be a molecule of one H atom with multiple atoms of an unknown kind so deeply merged into it that extreme high heat is needed to disassociate them apart. It could conceivably explain why it tends to not bond to more H atoms to form ammonia.
In reality, the ammonia molecule is not, as they say, and NH3 molecule. The "NH3" means only that roughly three identical volumes of H gas mix with roughly one identical volume of N gas...which produces two similar volumes of ammonia gas. As the water molecule is one H atom with eight O atoms merged within it because a ninth cannot fit, my good guess has in the past been that the true ammonia molecule is one H atom with five N atoms merged because a sixth cannot fit. However, if the N atom is in reality an H-atom molecule, that idea needs to be discarded for something else.
If the N atom is one H atom into which multiple atoms are sunk, then the ammonia molecule could conceivably be three H atoms force-merged into one unwilling N "atom," because a fourth will not fit. In the meantime, the mystery atoms sunk into the N atom do not come out, and therefore do not reveal themselves as to what type of atom they could be.
The weight of ammonia gas at STP is 8.5 times as much as H gas at STP. If there are three unknown atoms sunk into one H atom to explain the N atom, the whole "atom" weighs 4 times as much as the H atom. Then, when we add three H atoms to that N molecule to form the ammonia molecule, it's going to weigh 7 times as much as an H atom, which is probably the maximum, and probably the best guess to explain why ammonia gas weighs 8.5 times as much as H gas.
To explain this to some degree, ammonia atoms weighing seven times that of H atoms need to be slightly closer together in a gas than H atoms are in their gas (all at STP) in order for the ammonia gas to weight 8.5 times as much, for if the ammonia atoms were the same distance apart as H atoms, ammonia gas would weigh only seven times as much. I cannot allow the ammonia molecule to weigh as much as 8 times that of an H atom because the mergers involved in the ammonia molecule won't allow it (I won't explain the reason here as it's extensive and off-topic, but it has to do with atomic-lift capability from a combination of atomic weight and atomic cross-section size).
I don't usually view the N atom in this way. I usually see it as a true atom a little larger than the O atom due to N and O gas having similar weights at STP. However, the resistance of ammonia to form under very high pressures seems to require that the N atom is a stingy molecule that won't give up its secret-atom buddies to the environment. I'll try to remember this, but I have other things to do that can out it out of memory.
It's important that while ammonia looks like water, and weighs 8.5 times as much as H gas at STP, water (steam) at 100 C weighs 9 times as much as H gas at 100 C. If one could extrapolate the weight of steam at STP (0 C), it might weigh 8.5 times as much as H gas at STP. Ammonia's boiling point is lower than water's, which checks out where the ammonia molecule is lighter than the water molecule (e.g. seven atoms of weight versus nine for the water molecule).
It's not problematic to view nitrogen as a four-atom molecule four times heavier than the O atom, where both have similar boiling points. The N molecule is much larger than the O atom such that the molecule gets more lift per given temperature, and thus the two can be lifted off of their respective liquid surfaces at roughly the same temperature.
:
The purpose in going into this what-is-nitrogen adventure is to see if nitrogen can be explained in the planetary interior as a hydrogen-based molecule. It could then be formed from water as water disassociates in magna. Possibly, but not likely, the N molecule could be three O atoms merged deeply into one H atom, formed in some way as water is forced to flow through silicon magma.
There is almost no nitrogen in silica, however, and so one needs to come up with a reason as to why nitrogen leaked out of the silicon prior to its hardening into silica. If the lift force on nitrogen is roughly the same as on O atoms, how could the one escape long before the O atoms escaped, into the atmosphere? Perhaps nitrogen didn't form in the deeper magna due to the pressure, but did form near the sea floors where the silicon was solid (due to colder water) but brittle.
They say that silica is a brittle metal, or that, due to how brittle it is, it's classified only as a quasi-metal. This characteristic can explain how gases could escape the magna, into the water and thus into the air, by the break-up of the solid silicon, creating passageways between the magma and the water. I can imagine molten material reaching very close to the ocean bottom, less than 100 feet.
The only way to keep the sea from reaching the magma, through the hard silicon layer, is for the magma to send up gases through the passages (in the silicon) more forcefully than water pressure wants to send the water down.
It makes no sense to me that N atoms merge with O atoms at over 1200 C without applied pressure, unless nitrogen is a molecule. At those temperatures, the N and O atoms are expected to resist each other whether they are lone atoms or molecules, as heat seeks to drive them apart. Therefore, the high heat does something to the N molecule such that it "combusts," forming what is called, NO. NO2 can also be formed after above 1200 C, likewise without applied pressure.
It is a fact that when atoms merge, they release heat, but lookie: "The formation of nitrogen monoxide (NO) from nitrogen and oxygen ABSORBS heat..." That absorption can take place only if some atoms are unmerging simultaneous with the merger of the N and O atoms. Plus, the unmerging atoms need to have larger merged sections than the merged sections of the final NO molecule, otherwise there would be roughly zero heat absorbed or released if the merged sections of both processes were identical in volume.
I'm thinking that the N atom is an H atom with three mystery atoms merged into it. When all three get popped out to a degree by the high heat, an O atom is able to get in there to have a bite of the same H atom. The partial unmerging of the three mystery atoms absorbs more heat than the small bite of the O atom releases.
I'm being told that NO2 can form directly from NO in the atmosphere, suggest that perhaps wind and/or sun alone is needed to pop an extra O atom into the NO.
When I asked, "does NO2 form first, before NO, as the temperature rises in a mix of N and O gas?" Response: "No, NO forms first, not NO2, as the temperature rises in a mix of Nitrogen and Oxygen gas." I expected the latter to be true.
The following suggests to me that, after NO2 is formed, added heat will revert it to NO: "Yes, at temperatures above 4000 °C, nitrogen atoms bond with non-metals such as oxygen and SILICON..." I wonder, might the mystery atoms in a nitrogen molecule be silicon atoms? Might the rise of water into molten silicon create nitrogen atoms? Quite a thought.
The response continues: "Nitrogen reacts with oxygen at high temperatures to form nitrogen oxides (NO), which is a crucial step in high-temperature chemical processes." In other words, above 4000 C, and even above 5000 C, AI claims that nitrogen gas can form NO, but we need to be careful here as to how the goofs word things, because they routinely call their theories for facts. In this instance, they claim that, at those temperatures, the N2 molecule (common nitrogen gas as they see it) has broken apart into individual N atoms, and that the latter are what forms the NO, without a catalyst even, just high temperatures. But that's impossible. Individual atoms at those temperatures repel each other extremely hard, and will not join with each other, bank on it.
You can see what the imposters are up to, trying to make you think that atoms will bond at the high temperatures expected in proto-stars. It's very confusing to do this work when I can't trust a thing they say.
Square brackets mine: "Formation at High Temperature (5,000°C): At extremely high temperatures, nitrogen and oxygen in the air react to form nitric oxide [impossible as stated]...As it cools, it becomes thermodynamically unstable and wants to revert to N2 and O2."
Chew on this: "Nitrogen reacts with silicon to create silicon nitride, a technically important ceramic, which can be formed through direct combustion at high temperatures, similar to metal nitride synthesis." Direct combustion means no catalyst, just heat. However, this is possible because we are not dealing with two atoms coming together both of a gas, which at high temperatures will not come together. We are now dealing with nitrogen gas in a silicon liquid,, and this makes atomic merger easy by physical contact of the atoms.
They define silicon nitride as Si3N4, which they view as three silicon atoms merged together with four nitrogen atoms. If we can trust them with their creation of "Si3N4," it means that silicon liquid equivalent to three volumes of silicon gas at STP merge with four similar volumes of nitrogen gas to produce silicon nitride. However, they mistakenly teach that all volumes at STP have the same number of atoms, wherefore they think that the seven volumes above create a Si3N4 molecule. Because, they are too hard-headed to realize that all gases at STP can absolutely not have the same number of atoms.
Now that we know that nitrogen, whatever it is, will bond directly to silicon at magma temperatures, why shouldn't we consider the possibility that the nitrogen molecule is a central H atom imbedded with a some silicon atoms that never come out, no matter if it's engulfed in an environment at 10,000 C? The problem with this theory is that the silicon atoms are predicted to be significantly smaller than O atoms such that too many silicon atoms will merge with one H atom, making the N molecule very heavy.
If we make the central atom an O atom, that would reduce the number of silicon atoms needed to fulfill the N molecule, but then there's the problem of relatively small O atoms merging with plenty of relatively gigantic H atoms when forming ammonia. I'm shooting in the dark, I've never given this idea thought in the past.
The odd drilling project has encountered magma, from which it was learned that the upper-most layers of magma (a couple of miles below ground level) are at about 1000 C. That's roughly the temperature needed to form silicon nitride, meaning that nitrogen will bond with silicon magma.
NEWS
Deserved Trump criticism that Trump won't acknowledge:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbd3CUVHzMo
Owen insinuates that the "forever wars" are for Israel, but I think Israel is only the excuse because the real desire is to take military money overseas in order to enrich political pockets and corporate bank accounts. It's about time that podcasters disappointed with Trump start to call the Iran war the Gaza-Rebuild war. It's so obvious why Trump is disappointing his base with this war: to speed up the Gaza rebuild. He needs to stay on the good side of certain Jewish Zionists in order to play a less-problematic role in Gaza, though he has another choice: do it selfishly as a dictator openly conflicting with the Israelis. With him, such a thing could happen, if he thinks it will regain his base's political support.
If he has such a plan, he might decide to keep Israel as a friend at least until Iran is converted to a pro-West government. If anything like this starts to take place, I will announce that he MIGHT be the False Prophet. However, that would entail a deal made with the anti-Christ such that the latter takes Jerusalem with Trump's will while Trump goes ahead with his Gaza plots. This scenario might seem less a stretch if leftists take over the Israeli government. Leftists essentially hate their own country. Leftists are lunatic-style destructive who do not fit in with good people. They come to hate good people because good people ostracize them, because they have rotten tendencies.
A good example of leftists are the feminists of the 1960s onwards. In those days, the housewife had it very good. The kids could be allowed to go anywhere without fear of abduction. Nobody heard of pedophiles. Society was tranquil and enjoyable, aside from leftists becoming like lunatic militants, and then came the demonic musicians and destructive movies, more leftists. That's how society got to be what it is now, and leftists today are still pushing their anti-Bible agendas in spite of the destruction from their precursors.
Feminists convinced housewives that their husbands were abusing them, leaving them at home while the men got to enjoy going to work. LUNATICS. The housewife had the comforts of home, the kids to enjoy, the lawn, the quiet neighborhood, and could casually go shopping without stress. In the meantime, the man was in a wee office cubicle, without the comforts or size of home, or on a dirty and loud construction site, or in a factory, you get the point. The man was a man who would never think of staying in the comfort of home while sending his wife to work instead. But the feminists made housewives believe that she could never be happy unless she abandoned the kids to secure a career. DESTRUCTIVE LUNATICS. Housewives were stigmatized.
The price of everything sky-rocketed with double-income families, such that the women ended up working for practically nothing more than paying the higher prices. How was that not destructive? How did men tolerate it without a peep to put it down? Because, leftists owned the media who conditioned men and women to plod forward with the new feminist agenda, and before long it added the anti-Christ spirit, as a fundamental inclusion, to feminism, because anti-Christs, living in the closet so to speak, saw that their moment of opportunity had arrived to topple the Christian society, and to stomp upon it as victors, the love of sin. I fell in as a friend of these people as teens, I was a witness to their determination and waywardness, and so were many others who eventually opted for Jesus instead, very good choice. Those who did not repent, people like Trump, now rule much of the world, and the political right has attracted Christian hypocrites and prosperity gospelites to pollute things worse.
There's no news much worth mention in my opinion, but here's a video with some good points on the most-important thing for a Christian to be reminded of:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIgVAlI8T2c
The video above makes the best point, I think, where Mike says that even a small sin is a putting-off of God, as if what He feels doesn't matter, meaning that it's not a small sin at all, but gigantic. This is a good principle if you desire to become clean for Him. People can do nothing better for themselves than to become clean for God. If we keep attentive to be approved by God when there is a choice to sin or not, that's what being clean is all about, that's what keeping your lamp burning means. KEEP READY for the challenge not to sin, because if we forget God, we will fall into sin easily. Keeping ready is to not forget God. To carry my cross daily means not to forget God, or my requirements to God.
Obeying God is more important than worship, but worship is important to be approved by God, because worship is the heart-to-heart love. Obeying God (choosing not to sin) is a different kind of love, called loyalty. The epistle of John has the loyalty type of love. God wants unforced love. He wants us to know that He FREELY reciprocates any love we offer Him. He's not a taker only. We can't out-give Him. If we love God one pound, He will return five or ten to urge us to love Him two pounds, then three, then with everything we have.
Don't give up midstream, stupid, don't give up after you've climbed half the mountain toward Him, in return for some selfish endeavors, for He is a much-greater reward than any numbers of mountains of sin you have to choose from. Choose wisdom.
But anti-Christs think that God is a hog, who Lords his throne over us while we kiss His feet. They don't understand that God gets off of His throne to live amongst us, as Jesus well exemplified. God gets off his throne to ride a donkey to His own death in order that anti-Christs might have a change of heart, that they can experience the rewards of loving God. How pitiful for them to go to their graves hating God. The activist leftists, the evolutionists, who make it a priority to prioritize / uplift fellow sinners.
The Cross allows us to fail, after our conversions, that we might CONTINUE, striving to do better at the next opportunity that sin has against us. If the Cross could forgive only the sins prior to conversion, we would be doomed, and the Cross was worthless. When we fall for sin as Christians, see the error, the sooner the better, GET UP, and don't do it again.
The Cross was so-drastic a Solution for reasons, partly to remind us of how terrible it is to ignore God, because God had decided to allow demons to fill the hearts and minds of those who forsake Him, which tears His heart when He sees it, but the alternative is to allow God-haters to hate and sin freely without punishment. How would that curb sin in the world? Rather, when sinners become infested with demons, everyone comes to see what losers they are, what lunatics they become, and this eventually produces a deterrent against sin, and a turning away from it, even in pagan circles, especially when God punishes a society harshly in what looks like an act of God, because it is. But anti-Christs would have you believe that God rained burning sulfur upon perfectly-good people, because sinners see one another as perfectly-good people.
It is God who makes the faggot a worse faggot by allowing him to be infested by demons. But if he repents an iota, even for one day, God will send him a thick rope to let him pull himself out of the pit. He can chose to climb half way up, then return to the pit, or he can choose to climb fully out. God gives us that choice. Jesus' words are the Thick Rope. It's our job to climb, to conquer, and then not to jump back into the pit. The task doesn't end once we are out of the pit. The task ends when we die, and God wants to know whether we are in the pit at our death, or miles away having run from it.
On Saturday, some news to speak of, a story that should never die. Apparently, some sector of the FBI was doing it's job when seeking the pipe-bomber, but the deep-state sector got her off the investigative hook, yet this was only a small part of the FBI's role in conducting a faked insurrection. It becomes a bigger story knowing that not even Trump, nor his FBI, is wanting to expose or arrest the FBI people involved in that hoax, and there are dozens of them to choose from. Trump continuously gets exposed as a fraud, which is the good news:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPFimollRzI
Mike Winger on the struggle Jesus had at Gethsemane:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bg8qeKvfXls