Previous Update....... Updates Index
if google refuses to load Updates-Index, copy and paste:


November 19 - 25, 2019

Cosmological Hoaxes -- Red Shift and Big Size
Ukrainian Scandals Opening Wider

If you're waiting for Jesus to return, see Post-Tribulation Rapture
(if google refuses to load this link, copy and paste this:

I probably should have proof-read this update.

I really enjoyed the talk on the big bang late in the last update. While I desire the destruction of liberal powers in our world, these are essentially identical to the powers of Godless / anti-God evolutionists. The sorts of bald-faced lies and unanchored unreasonableness we are seeing from Democrats has been exactly the evolutionist versus the Creationist, just a bag of tricks to force the world into The Lie.

Edwin Hubble thought he had proof in the red shifts of star bodies that the universe was expanding, though he knew that there was an alternative explanation for red shift. It's not easy to find a good article explaining red shift because google and the liberal educators have together become almost useless for finding and doing research in specific areas. Whenever we ask for things, we get the too-basic pat answers. I therefore don't have the easy opportunity to explain it to you as i see it. All articles coming up to explain red shift do not do it justice. What we want to know is what exactly is meant by the shifting of lines toward the red end of a spectrum, and why it cannot be called the red side shifting toward the lines. How do they produce the lines seen superimposed on the prism spectrums they produce? What determines the specific location of the lines verses the positioning of the spectrum? Why is this information hard to find? We want to know whether they are correctly interpreting things.

A definition of red shift seen online is that light is stretched due to objects moving away. That's not good enough because it assumes that Hubble's interpretation was correct. That's the sort of pat answer or indoctrination that's grossly unacceptable. Here's one article's full treatment on what I'd like to know: "The red shift of a distant galaxy or quasar is easily measured by comparing its spectrum with a reference laboratory spectrum. Atomic emission and absorption lines occur at well-known wavelengths. By measuring the location of these lines in astronomical spectra, astronomers can determine the red shift of the receding sources." This is a garbage explanation, very typical for the articles that google throws into our faces on any science topic. The article doesn't explain what a reference laboratory spectrum is. It doesn't explain what atomic emission and absorption lines are, or how they are made. Therefore, the explanation is an indoctrinating one, where the reader is asked to simply trust the science. Why did anyone provide this short article at all if they couldn't commit to a better explanation? Is this the best that google's people can do at the top of their search results for "explaining red shift"?

Cosmological red-shift involves the study / peculiarities of straight lines on a spectrum. The spectrum is formed by passing the light of a stellar object through a prism, and the lines are the fingerprints for various bodies. Before you want to believe that red-shift proves the big bang, don't you want to be confident that the controlled, dictatorial and scheming astrophysics establishment hasn't played a trick on us with these lines? Are they able to fudge with the locations of these lines? Are faint objects in the sky really able to produce these lines reliably, or do the workers do more guess-work than factual?

Assuming that they are accurate with their spectral-line science, let's go back to the quasar. I'm not at all read-up on quasars, but for this discussion it's sufficient to know what I read last week. Quasars are defined as very-bright, far-away objects / galaxies. But this is based on red-shift technology that the establishment knows may or may not be correct. Therefore, why do they state as fact that quasars are bright and distant?

There is no such thing in particular as a quasar if they are wrong about its great distance. In the telescope, it looks roughly as bright as other objects seen all around it in the same telescopic view. Some of the objects have high red-shifts i.e. the quasars, and so they are deemed much further away than the surrounding objects having low red-shift...because specific distance is one of their red-shift dogmas. As the high red-shift objects appear roughly as bright as the surrounding objects, the dopes assume, but teach for fact, that these distant "quasars" are unusually hot = bright (otherwise they would appear much dimmer than surrounding objects). And to "prove" what they claim, they may show pictures of quasars that look bright. But don't be fooled, because any dim object can be made to look bright by leaving the camera shutter open for long periods.

So along comes one of their evolutionary fellows, Halton Arp, who claims to have found ways to prove that quasars are not further away from neighboring objects. That is, he claims to have found ways to prove that bodies having high red-shift similar to quasar red-shift levels are body parts ejected from a neighboring galaxy having low red-shift. Oops, objects deemed quasars can be the same distance away as low-red-shift galaxies, which in itself can destroy EVERYTHING on the map of the big-bang universe, destroying even the Hubble premise for the big-bang expansion of the universe. If Arp is correct, red-shift has NOT to do with specific distances of stars.

I gave an alternative explanation for the expansion of the universe: "If you upon a water raft spray a fire (big) hose at someone upon a raft spraying a big hose at you, the two rafts will drift apart when the two water spays make contact. Ditto with stars." The idea here is that stars shoot electrons at one another, and because electrons are in contact with one another by their inter-repulsion forces, all stars can generally move apart from one another in all directions. Cosmic electrons are in very real and undeniable fact a cosmic ether. The old concept of the cosmic ether that Einstein rejected, even while he discovered electrons ejecting from materials, is made of electrons ejected from stellar atoms. Ironic, tisn't it, that the "genius" should fool himself like that.

To put the raft-hose analogy another way: as stars continually increase the density of cosmic electrons, the latter are forced closer to one another, and therefore their inter-repulsion increases so that they seek to spread out into space that they have yet to invade, which of course is the space at the perimeters of the universe. Hence, electrons push stars toward the outer realms of space, increasing the size of the material universe.

Where else do electrons go as stars emit them? They don't tend to become more crowded in the same space because space has no walls to contain them. They are, therefore, forever spreading out. They are matter, having mass, and therefore they push whatever gets into their way. Why do we not hear of this theory from the ever-so-thorough establishment? Because, it's thorough only in pushing, by crook or by hook, its anti-God cosmological system.

The evolutionist blowhard would laugh at me for this outspreading-ether proposal, first because he would see the electron ether as a very weak force for pushing stars along. But who cares about what he thinks, since he's not good enough yet to admit error and defeat in rejecting the cosmic ether to this day. He cannot deny its existence, because he claims that individual stellar winds exist, but he will not point these electrons out as being an ether, or one capable of transmitting waves. He's a fraud. He doesn't want to call it an ether because that term demands that light waves can pass through it. He's had over 60 years to announce that stellar winds constitute the light-wave ether, but has failed the world, precisely because he's an imposter posing as a truth seeker.

It's known that every object falling to gravity will continue to accelerate forever if there's no friction to slow the speed of the object. Ditto for objects attracted to or repelled by a magnet or electromagnetic entity. In other words, if we apply a constant, unchanging push-power to an object not affected by friction, the object will, not go at the same speed constantly, but accelerate. Once it has achieved five miles per hour, it will go faster yet because it's still receiving the push while going at that speed...and so on will it go to an infinite velocity. This is easy and reliable science.

So, when stars are pushed apart, they accelerate forever apart. If we let that happen for 6,000 years, that's a long time, and a pretty good speed. It's not going to be as fast as the big-banger blowhard will claim when he tries to make the universe as big as he can in order to kill the Biblical-Creation timeline as best he can, but stars are probably out-spreading at a good clip. If he's wrong about red-shift, he doesn't even know the size of the universe, as he thinks he's knows it. There is no other known measuring stick aside from red shift, for distant objects, which underscores why he's adamant in interpreting red-shift as he does. He will not easily let go of it, even when proven wrong.

The electron ether is essentially a single unit or sea, predictably much like an atmosphere, and traversed by constant waves of energy (light waves) originating from all stars and deflecting off of all stars. One cannot see the single electron when light reflects from it, because light does not reflect from it. Instead, a light wave jolts the electron as part of the light wave. Come again: the light wave is defined (in reality, not in textbooks) as a longitudinal line of jolts of motion through a line of ether electrons. The smallest part of the wave is a single jolt of motion from one electron to another; there's no other such thing as light (such as the non-existent photon) that could reflect off of the electron. That's why we can't see them.

If not for the observable fact that light travels in straight lines past objects, we could not know that a light wave is a special type, one that moves longitudinally only, without spread toward the sides as has both a water wave and a light wave. Light waves move in one direction only. The reason that radio waves, or light waves from a light bulb filament, go in all directions is that many electrons are being emitted from the source in all directions, each emission of one electron providing exactly one wave. The emission electron is the first jolt in the straight-line wave. I see no other explanation as to why the light wave goes only forward: the electron jolts (of motion) are too fast to cause sideways effects. It's a very logical and provable idea.

Take a magnet and slide or roll it fast past a stationary magnet shaped as a ball, and if it's fast enough, it won't budge the stationary magnet. There needs to be sufficient TIME in their acting magnetically upon one another for causing the onset of motion. We can assume that, on earth, light-wave jolts transfer waves at 186,000 mps, though this does not require any individual ether electron to be moving at that speed. For example, assume that, in a row from sun to earth, there is no lag time when one electron jolts another. No lag time means that E2 starts to move exactly as soon as E1 starts to move, etc. Now assume that each jolt is electron motion at just one mile per hour. The speed of individual electrons is immaterial; the wave will reach the earth instantly (faster than 186,000 mps) because there is no lag time. The row of electrons acts as a long stick; as soon as the end of the stick is moved earthward at the sun, the other end pokes the earth. When light waves act at 186,000 mps, it's due to some lag time between jolts. You see, no super-fast particles needed, just a fast wave transit.

If you know your light-theory stuff, you may realize that you've just read the best-ever explanation as to why light is a wave yet acts as a particle when striking an atom. The light wave has a row or rod or spear of many particles, and the last particle (electron) in the row is the one that pierces, or splashes down, into an atom. It only pierces part way into the atom's electron atmosphere, or in the case of transparent materials, circles right-round the electron atmospheres and continues on to do the same in the next atom. That's right, every atom has its own ether all around the protonic core, because there can be no such thing as orbiting electrons. Every protonic core is covered with many electrons, let's give our faces a good slap if we've been duped into envisioning orbiting electrons.

When Einstein discovered that light had to be a particle that splashed into atoms and sent some of their captured electrons flying, he fooled himself into believing that light was a single bullet (photon) from light source to atom. Sorry, Mr. Genius, you didn't give the longitudinal light wave a chance. You wrongly discarded the light wave. And when science later proved light to be a wave, the establishment stupidly retained the photon bullet. They stupidly married the bullet to a wave in an incomprehensible, strained way. Or, only a lunatic can "understand" their quantum physics, and, the scary part is, some claim to understand it.

Look at this simplicity. An atom in a light source releases electrons. Each one forms a wave that goes out to another atom and jolts it. Eureka, a simple, logical, non-stretchy explanation of light that the establishment is loath to adopt. But why? Because, the idiots don't want to admit how badly they went off-track from reality lest the whole world mocks them for passing themselves off as conceited imposters.

They have great mathematicians who can figure out exactly how old the big bang is from the expansion going on today...except, hardy-har-har, they don't know distances to stellar bodies nor how much the universe is expanding. In other words, their math can be correct, but it's a useless exercise if the math is being used to discover that which is false. They can use math to figure out the time it takes for the criminal's drive from Cincinnati to Kansas City if they know his speed, but if the criminal didn't drive from Cincinnati to Kansas, the math is a waste of time. How much money have evolutionists wasted, do you think, with their untrue Godless theories?

I watched Mr. Arp in an interview last week; he sounds like he has clinched an undeniable fact: quasars are not quasars, and red-shift has not totally, if anything, to do with stars moving away from earth or from one another. Debate on this issue will be on whether the high-red-shift objects are in fact remnants of the neighboring low-red-shift objects. The loath-to-believe can always deny this. Arp's interview and some of his arguments can be found here:

This week, an amazing thing dawned on me that can possibly explain how we can see stars that are more then 6,000 light years away. However, caution, because we don't know for a fact that any stellar body is that far away. If red-shift / blue-shift has little or nothing to do with the distance of stars, then it can even be true that galaxies are nothing by exploded stars (supernovas) in our own solar system i.e. there is only one galaxy in the universe, our own. Talk about revolutionary.

The theory starts with a fact needing no experimental evidence: stellar wind electrons accelerate in all directions away from stars because all electrons are under a constant, inter-repulsion force. It's a content-push force on electrons, and the law says any such object not restricted by friction will continually accelerate. All electrons to the backside of the flow will push the ones to the front further forward. But this is only the backdrop to the amazing theory, hang in there.

So, in the vicinity of stars, for example our sun, there is a greater density of solar-wind electrons. For example, there is a greater density of electrons at the distance of earth than there is further than the earth. The reasons for this are that electrons get more sparse when further from the sun, because: 1) all particles rising from a sphere become eight times less dense per every doubling of distance from the sphere; 2) all electrons move outward progressively faster with distance from the sun. The faster they go, the less sparse they become faster.

A light wave is absolutely a wave through these stellar electrons, in which case it seems to me that the light-wave speed changes continually with distance from the sun, growing faster (perhaps proportional) with the continual increase in electron speeds. That's the new theory, and I'll take you step by step to check it out. I've been working with electrons in my mental experiments for about 25 years, and so I'm getting pretty good at it.

I think we can check this out with only the first two or three electrons in the light wave. Picture the first electron in the wave, the one ejecting from an atom. No matter where in the sun the ejected electron is, there will be a greater density of free electrons toward the core of the sun. Whether they are free within the sun, or outside of the sun, they constitute the body of ether or solar wind. Regardless of how fast one ejects from an atom, it will push / jolt forward the first electron (E1) in a straight line spaceward within the ether. As per the explanation above, E1 is moving slower than E2 in front of it, itself moving slower than E3 to its front. The question is, does light speed increase as E1 jolts E2, and then increase again as E2 jolts E3? Wow, what if it does? It would tend to reveal that light speed increases progressively so long as the ether electrons are increasing in speed.

These electrons do not make physical contact, but jolt one another via their repulsion forces. As soon as E1 starts to move toward E2, the latter starts to move toward E3, for there is no friction here due to the pull of solar gravity, for, as was explained in the last update, gravity is defined as the negative charge of free electrons in the sun, and, consequently, solar / stellar gravity repels electrons into space. Yes, solar gravity (it's defined as the ether in the sun) contributes largely to the acceleration of the solar wind in the region of the sun.

I suggest that the difference between light moving through a mass of stationary electrons versus through a moving electron wind is faster light waves. However, I also think it possible that, as the electrons become further apart with distance from the sun, the waves weaken in intensity. Faster light results in higher frequencies, naturally. That's the best-ever explanation for light frequency, as it should be: waves per unit time. I used to think that light slowed down as electrons moved further apart, for it seems logical. It could be correct, and if it is, then light slows with distance from the sun on one factor, yet speeds up with distance from the sun on the other factor. Which of the two is boss?

To understand how unreliable physicists are in yet another way, they claim that a photon particle always travels at the same speed no matter how many collisions it makes with atoms or electrons. Only an absolute fool would subscribe to this idea knowing that the laws of physics forbids it. They ought to know better, that light speed is not going to be the same in space as it is in a lab on earth, but doing away with a light-wave medium caused them to become their own fools. They should have known better than to create a photon monster. They turned a simple photon particle into a wave-particle duality, an impossible monster, rather than adopting the solar wind as the logical and obvious wave medium.

Unless particles are held down by gravity, a bird cannot flap its wings and fly. If the bird is in a vacuum with nothing but electrons, the latter will not offer any resistance to flapping wings, but will move out of the way of the wings with absolute ease, because gravity doesn't pull electron bodies down to a surface. There is no such thing in space as electron pressure as there is atmospheric / air pressure on earth. When the earth moves through solar-wind electrons, there is essentially zero friction. The scientists in Einstein's days, seeking evidence of the ether, concluded, for one, that since there seemed to be no resistance of the earth through an ether, they rejected its existence. They assumed that it should have weight, since it was regarded as having mass, yet they should have allowed a theory wherein ether particles were not attracted by gravity. Evolutionists were loath to do that. Self-fooled dopes, they were, and still are, guilty of stupidity on behalf of their much-needed Newtonian gravity.

There is no light that reflects from an electron. If they say they have photographed one, they are fooling us. If it has a smell or taste, we don't know it because we were born smelling and tasting electrons. But while we can't feel the pressure of electrons as we run through them, we can in fact feel electrons invading our skin as heat. That's right, and we can feel them leaving our skin as the sensation of cold. When you hold a pen, you are holding enough electrons for a massive, nuclear explosion, but unless they become freed from the pen's protons, they do not enter your skin as heat. Rub the pen, and a few electrons will be released. The electrons surrounding every object forbids us from touching protons. We cannot photograph a proton unless its stripped of electrons, that's impossible to do short of destroying the proton. You don't want to try that.

All reflected light is from the motion of electrons upon protons. If the atomic electrons are motionless, the color of an object is darkness. When we turn off the lights in a room to darkness, it's not true at all that we can't see. Instead, we are indeed seeing the picture of motionless, captured electrons. Everything you see that's lit up is the motion of atomic electrons due to light waves striking them, setting them into motion. Just look at the great variety God has given us in merely electrons alone, yet all of the different colors are not due the electrons only, but to how their waves affect our eye receptors.

Let's take this to the big-bang explosion, for it would have filled the universe with electrons even before stars formed, right? Imagine a crock-pot bomb filled with small ball bearings and one cannon ball. Ignite the crock pot. What happens when the pot is split open by the explosive force? The ball bearings go flying fast and far, and the cannon ball doesn't make it ten feet away at a very slow speed by comparison. Well, then, if the big bang let loose electrons and protons, the electrons, being less massive, would have exploded further and farther, wouldn't you say? Electrons could then not come together with protons until the protons caught up to them, if they could ever catch up. Electrons have the advantage of going much faster to begin with, and they are also much greater in numbers than protons (the one-electron-per-proton orbit model of physics is bogus).

Next, even if the protons could catch up to electrons, do we imagine that the electrons had a special knack to enter true orbits around protons? Are we nuts? How many zillions of electrons are there, and most ended up in orbit???? Is that not the most-insane idea ever? Well, actually, there's one nuttier thing yet: that electrons leave orbits and come back in routinely. Modern physicists have been, and continue to be, dangerous fools. They fill minds with confusing, God-killing trash.

Okay, so the bulk of protons finally catches up to the body of electrons, and they both race at wild speeds in the blackness of space, with nothing to slow them down. How in tarnation will electrons orbit protons in that situation? Both particles are traveling in the same direction, but, worse, its protons catching up with electrons, making it impossible for electrons to enter orbits. In order to enter an orbit, the electron must be sped past the proton, but in the real big-bang expectation, protons are passing by electrons.

You can clearly see why evolutionists will not buy into a big bang producing electrons and protons from the get-go. I have no idea how they imagine the particles at the initial explosion, but they have probably decided not to talk about it in public. It's completely problematic. Once the protons pass the electrons, there's no way for them to share the same space again; protons will kiss them goodbye forever. They are all moving so fast that it makes protonic attraction of electrons nearly impossible unless two such particles come very close to one another, far less than an inch apart.

The bottom of Wikipedia's article (link below) on emission lines shows many spectral-line examples, though I don't think the article describes how the lines are formed in the lab. For example, how do they get the lines for helium since it doesn't burn in order to emit light? Their explanation for the formation of the lines doesn't allow me to grasp at all what they talking about, and no example is given, as is typical of Wikipedia writers who seem to be talking to those already in-the-know. The article doesn't mention the unreliabilities of this field of science, only what the science is used for. It admits multiple reasons for line shifts but seems to be hiding a key reality while saying so:

[A spectral line's] center may be shifted from its nominal central wavelength. There are several reasons for this broadening and shift. These reasons may be divided into two general categories – broadening due to local conditions and broadening due to extended conditions. Broadening due to local conditions is due to effects which hold in a small region around the emitting element, usually small enough to assure local thermodynamic equilibrium. Broadening due to extended conditions may result from changes to the spectral distribution of the radiation as it traverses its path to the observer. It also may result from the combining of radiation from a number of regions which are far from each other.

Okay, so it first says that shift can be due to conditions at a star, for example, what Arp calls "intrinsic." And then the paragraph seems to be hoping to hide the unreliability of cosmological red-shift by talking about changes to light during transit e.g. something taking place in the light between a star and the science lab. Why doesn't the writer just spell it out for easy understanding that cosmology is out to lunch for not informing the average reader that red-shift is not necessarily a FACT of a Doppler effect during light transit to earth. Yet cosmologists state stellar red-shift as a Doppler-in-action fact. Dishonesty in science? But of course.

Wikipedia's science articles are generally identical to Mr. Schiff announcing the "facts" of the impeachment. The criminally-minded are in charge, and use tricks galore to keep us in the dark. I guarantee you, I am not exaggerating, activist evolutionists who run the system are criminally-minded. It is they who aspire the most to control Wikipedia articles, and it is they who have the most-likely chances of controlling the articles. Their job is to come off as though they know what they are talking about when they pass well-engineered theories for well-established facts.

Okay, so the reality is that, where stellar wind meets stellar wind, there is a collision of winds, and because electrons are all in inter-repulsion contact, the result is the pushing apart of stars. Take a minute to imagine the situation as several winds collide with one another from various directions. Every collision of two winds pushes two stars apart. Aside from the physical energy of wind electrons in motion, there is also the wave energy (originating in explosive interiors of stars) of one star colliding with other stars. Wave energy isn't much at far distances; we can't feel the wave energy on our bodies, for example, but it is there, and it will contribute to stars acceleration for the "expansion of the universe" (not to be defined as the creation of more space, an idiotic invention of big-bangers).

I do not think that light waves cancel one another out as do water waves. For example, your telephone call is turned into waves through a wire that has many other conversations coming through the wire from the opposite direction, yet all of those individual waves do not ruin your wave; otherwise your voice transfer would be ruined. So, waves can go in both directions through the captured electrons of the wire's atoms. Ditto with starlight, or we wouldn't be able to see all of those stars.

However, it is possible that starlight is affected in small ways, perhaps even canceled to some degree. Or, as is logical, light waves can be curved where stellar winds meet stellar winds. As Einstein didn't know of stellar winds, he didn't realize the true reason for light curvature. If I'm not mistaken, he took the wrong idea that stars attract light (his photon, that is) and thus curve it through space. As they say that atmospheric wind causes star blinking, then swirls and chaos in stellar winds can change the direction of light waves, for atmospheric wind changes the positioning of solar-wind electrons within our atmosphere. Yes, air flow pushes electrons along, as you can verify above a fire on a breezy day. Curved light means that we see stars where they are not. The real position of a star would be a little ways over from where we see it.

Have you ever wondered why those photos supposedly of men working at space stations never come with stars? Isn't that suspicious? Let's face it that, if they say stars don't appear due to being too faint for the camera to register, one can easily leave the shutter open a little longer to make the photo more dramatic and likeable, if only they showed the stars. But they never do. Very suspicious. They are putting out real-looking computer animations that have stars, however. NASA is hopelessly destroying space photos by putting out fakes; one may soon not know what the fakes are versus the real ones, and even those they claim to be real are bound to be stacked with deliberate fakes. We already know that moon-landing pictures show no stars, and we know why they don't show: because the Apollo program never went to the moon.

One would not be very convincing to argue that the first reported moon walkers were not absolutely astounded by lack of starlight on their way to the moon. If they were in fact going to the moon, they would have reported the lack of starlight to mission control, and mission control would have reported it to the world as a great mystery. The world did not receive that message because NASA was hoping that the lack of stars wouldn't be noticed by anyone. They couldn't add stars to their faked moon photos (taken at an earth studio) because star experts would be able to prove that the stars were not in their correct spots. It would have been an astronomical task to position the stars (in each of the photos) just right from the perspective of the moon's position at the time, and also from the perspective of the location of the spacecraft's landing spot at that time. So they decided to make an excuse for the missing stars. How long will you be their fool? We see some stars in the brightness of late afternoon / early evening here with an atmosphere; shouldn't stars be visible on the day-side of the moon since the sky is pure black even then? Don't be their stupid. They did not put men on the moon. They have been lying to the masses from before that time, and deceiving them since evolutionists took control of science. Deception of the masses is not a new science.

I assume that the physical energy of the solar wind is roughly equal to the wave energy because waves are caused by emitted electrons while that emission itself is the physical energy (when it lands on something). A few strikes of solar-wind electrons into air atoms is all that would be needed to slow solar-wind electrons to a crawl, at which point they need to be pushed toward the ground. This is when they become heat particles. Earth's gravity repels them up, but the solar wind pushes them down, in spite of gravity repulsion, on the sun-side of the planet.

The sun-side of the earth is hotter than the night side because solar electrons do enter the atmosphere. It may not be true that most of the entering electrons leave the earth on the night side, as logical as that seems. Fact: if as much heat volume did not leave the planet as enters continually from the day-time side, the earth would grow progressively hotter. Fact: heat leaves the earth by a quantity equal to the heat entering.

Here's the trick. Heat particles surround the planet, all pushing outward into space. They go up on the night side with no restriction from an incoming solar wind, and for this reason it's logical to think that most of the heat leaves on the night side. However, it may not be correct. The noon-side of the planet gets inundated with electrons, and due to their sharp increase in density coupled with their being repelled by gravity, they begin to deflect SIDEWAYs to all sides of the downward flow. The latter occurs in a spherical tunnel; my mind experiment tells me so, though I don't know the diameter of the tunnel.

Eventually, while still on the sun side, though all around the noon tunnel, gravity will get the upper hand to repel the electrons upward in defiance of the incoming solar wind, due to the sharp increase in electrons filling the regions all around the tunnel. Gravity doesn't get tired pushing electrons; the more there are, the greater the upward flow force. So, the result is that the solar wind will be kept from entering the atmosphere on the east, west, north and south sides of the entry tunnel. The solar wind will be deflected, forced to pass around the planet, probably explaining the Van Allen belts as a high-electron-density region.

While electrons are forced around the earth at high altitudes, it's not true that electrons have not also entered the atmosphere.

Back to the bird flapping wings in a vacuum. Although there is essentially zero friction when wings flap against electrons in a vacuum, it is not exactly zero because electrons do have mass. If a piano were floating in space that weighed zero, you could push it along with a finger, but you could also throw it at another weightless piano that's glued to the floor, and cause damage to both as energy transfers from one to the other. Even though they weigh nothing, they carry energy when in motion and do transfer energy when striking something.

I'm not sure whether there would be damage if a weightless piano were thrown at another weightless but stationary piano while both hover in space. But if both were thrown toward one another, there would definitely be damage.

So electrons colliding with electrons head-on or nearly head-on will transfer significant energy into one another. Physical (or kinetic) energy transfer happens even though they weigh nothing. I'm sure that, just like a billiard ball with no top or bottom spin, one electron striking a stationary one head-on (= full transfer of energy) will cause the stationary one to move at the speed that the one in motion was moving while the one in motion will stop dead in its tracks. If two electrons in motion at the same speed hit dead on, both will stop dead in their tracks because each transfers its full load of energy into the other (cancelling the energy that gave them motion in the first place). It's identical to having two equal pool cues striking a single ball from opposing directions: the ball will not move. The energy from the pool cues did not get destroyed, did it, even though the ball did not move? All of this explains why all collisions of moving particles suffer net slow-downs continuously, and that's why evolutionists are despicable goons tricking us with law-breaking lies.

They claim with straight faces that both particles hitting dead on at the same speed bounce away at the same speed because, they say (as a trick), there can be no destruction of energy. They trick us with that scenario. Transfer of energy that results in non-motion is not destruction of energy, but rather it's energy used up. DECEIVING IMPOSTERS! Throw the bums in jail. They use this trick to argue that particles have been in constant motion since the big bang. LUNATICS masquerading as science experts. Their kinetic theory of heat is therefore bogus, and so the only alternative, as an explanation for heat, is that heat is a form of material particles invading objects, under its own locomotion, through their atomic pores. And that locomotion is inter-repulsion of the particles. What else can the locomotion be, since motion always goes toward stillness?

No material known to man can stop heat transfer through it. Heat particles repel one another through a material, any material, for as long as the density of particles is higher on one side of the material than on the other side...because denser electrons have more power of inter-repulsion than sparser electrons. The varying density of heat particles is thus the true definition of varying temperatures. It doesn't take a genius to realize these things, just someone willing to acknowledge that physicists have become mad on behalf of their big-bang garbage. I realized it the year I became a Christian. Some 10 or 12 years later, I started to form my own atomic model using a college textbook on physics to spot their many mistakes. It is such a shame that they indoctrinate children as well as adults. God has an appointment with the underminers of truth.

What do you think will happen where stellar wind meets stellar wind with the resulting increase of ether electrons at the collision points? Naturally, the electrons in the higher-density regions will spread out seeking equa-distance with one another. While we're on equa-distance, let's add that no more heat will transfer through any material if electrons on both sides of a material are equa-distant. When electrons are equa-distant, they cease to move around because there's no region having a higher density to push them around.

Again, where two stellar winds collide, electrons increase in density as compared to the density of either wind, and therefore the electrons in the collision regions spread out. This helps us to understand the heat loss from bonding atoms. For atoms are encircled with electron atmospheres. All electrons at the outer layers of atoms are hovering at equa-distance from one another if there is no energy input into the atom to move them around. That's the way to envision an atom, all atoms. So, as one atom is forced to contact, and then merge into, the second atom, there will be a region of increased electron density exactly where the atoms are merged. It's so logical and easy to understand. The higher-density region will see electrons spreading out, and since they seek equa-distance, the electrons will exit the electron atmospheres of both atoms and go free as heat particles. There's no where else to spread out, anyway, but outside the atom's atmosphere, and since the atom was fully-loaded prior to merger, it can't hold the extra electrons anyway with its positive force. This explains why atoms always release heat when they are forced to bond. Atoms resist bonding because they repel one another, but nature alone (without man included) has ways to force them to merge.

Everytime the same atoms are merged by the same depth, the same amount of heat is released. And if we or nature unmerge the atoms after they have released their heat, the protons recapture the same number of electrons that went free, just because the positive force of protons seeks to be fully-loaded with electrons at all times. Experiments show that atoms release the same amount of heat when merged as they absorb (recapture) when unmerged. An example of unmerging is when liquid atoms evaporate, and that process creates cold (for example on the skin) because atoms re-attract heat particles (for example, the free electrons on and in the skin). Your body is filled with free electrons, and leaks them constantly. The body releases them from, for example, fuel-burning chemical reactions in your body. You are reading true science, hope you appreciate it. It's not every day when you get it.

As electrons have mass, it stands to reason that the earth slows down while orbiting through the solar wind. Not much, but some. Maybe a 5.25-day slow down in the year over 6,000 years.

Another way to prove without a doubt that gravity repels electrons is that the atoms of some substances, for example a hydrogen atom, rises in air. I kid you not, the modern physicist is telling you a bold-faced lie when he says that hydrogen rises in air because it's lighter than air. He's fooling you with what you see in water; any object lighter than water (per unit volume) will rise in water and float. But he knows that this does not apply with single hydrogen atoms, but only when hydrogen is placed in bulk into a balloon. Yes, a balloon filled with a substance lighter than air will rise in air by the same principle as objects rising in liquids, but this is not the case with individual atoms.

In the case of a balloon, air atoms under the balloon are under slightly higher air pressure than air atoms above the balloon, for air pressure is greater as one moves toward the ground. This differential of air pressure from top to bottom of a balloon is known to be the reason for the rising of a balloon filled with hydrogen or helium. Sorry to drag this out, but it's necessary to make a criminal fool of the modern physicist, for he knows that such air pressure does not affect a single hydrogen atom, yet that atom will still rise in air.

This discussion is complicated by his erroneous view that all air atoms are constantly racing in all direction in the so-called kinetic theory of atoms. But even if we entertain that theory, it's ludicrous to say that the hydrogen atom gets struck by more air atoms to it's bottom side than to its top side, as an explanation for the rising of free hydrogen gas in air. You would do well to ignore the kinetic theory and stick with the reality: all air atoms are under inter-repulsion to one another, explaining why air is a gas i.e. a material wherein the atoms do not touch one another.

Air pressure is due to the pull of gravity on air atoms, forcing them closer together than they would otherwise come if there were no gravity. If ever I've said that air atoms would spread out and fly off into outer space if gravity was shut off, I now think that's debatable. The rise of electrons in air explains why hotter days have a larger atmosphere (with higher ceiling) than colder days, or why the day-time air has a higher ceiling than the night-time air. Hotter days have more rising electrons, and their flow has an upward-knocking effect upon all atoms in the air, including water atoms (molecules, technically). Hydrogen gets the most lift (of all atom types) from the upward flow of electrons, and nobody but me knows the reason, unless they have read it from me.

Water molecules can't get very high in the sky in the absence of wind. Every type of atom capable of joining the air (apart from wind) has a limit as to how high it can get. It's a conflict between the pull of gravity upon it, and the upward flow of electrons upon it. As the volume of space above a sphere is eight time more voluminous per doubling of distance (from the earth's core, not from the ground) above the sphere, atomic lift due to rising electrons gets weaker with altitude simply because electrons spread out thinner into the extra volume of space. Sooner or later, gravity will get the upper hand over atoms that rise in air due to electron lift.

At night, when the electron density is cooler, some of the heavier water droplets come back down to hit the ground (as dew). As clouds exist in winter when it's far colder than a summer's night with dew on the ground, one can gather that winter days have enough upward electron flow to keep water molecules from falling to gravity. Dew cannot therefore be an accumulation of falling, single water molecules, but of heavier droplet, meaning that electron flow can keep even droplets afloat in air.

The question is: why isn't the entire atmosphere rising into outer space if electron flow can keep multiple water molecules afloat that weigh much more than individual air atoms? The only allowable answer is that, yes, oxygen and nitrogen atoms would fly off into space if they were not a massive whole, i.e. all weighing down on earth as a single unit. Try to lift one air atom at the ground, and one must lift the entire atmosphere because all air atoms are connected by their inter-repulsion. I've just brought you to a remarkable understanding.

To prove that air atoms repel, and that they are one unit connected by inter-repulsion, it's well-known that the weight of any column of air, one inch square at the ground, weighs about 14 pounds (the column stretches from the ground up to the ceiling of the atmosphere). It means that all atoms have their individual weights transferring to the ground as an accumulation of the whole, an impossibility if the kinetic theory of gases were correct. Atoms in kinetic motion have no way to transfer their weights to atoms further down, end of story, the physicists are imposters worthy of punishment for deceiving the human race knowingly. Spread this good news. The Eternal Timeless Day belongs to Christians making fools of unrepentant evolutionists.

It is impossible for the atmosphere to have formed on earth slowly over millions of years, especially if the goons imagine a hotter planet in evolutionary history, because a few air atoms formed little-a-time would rise into outer space to be lost. The original atmosphere must have been massive enough as a unit to keep rising electrons from sending the air into space. It speaks of a Creator arranging the situation as needed.

Just so you don't miss the point: if atoms inter-attract while racing around and colliding, they are usually not in contact with one another and cannot therefore be a unit so as to weigh down as a whole upon the earth at 14 pounds per square inch. Even if they do make contact for a split second at collisions, it's not going to exert a force in the downward direction that can be interpreted as weight. Please have the wisdom to see that I'm right, they're wrong, and stop listening to them, stop respecting them, stop advancing their deceptions by honoring them. Instead, dishonor them as they continue to fight against truth in every sphere of life. Call on the government to rid them from the textbooks. But wait: the Western government is usually them.

Is it really true that, just because atoms are in continual collisions in the air, that gravity is not going to bring them all down to earth until they cease to move due to friction with the ground? The imposter physicist with evolutionary mindset doesn't want you to ask that question, does he? He wants you to think that, no matter what atoms strike, they never lose energy. DEVIOUS DESPICABLE FOOL. What could possibly be the difference between a golf ball hitting the ground and a single atom doing so, since a golf ball is an accumulation of atoms? Why is it that a golf ball transfers its energy into the ground with each bounce until it comes to a stop? Because, it's the law. What are we to believe, that me-only can figure this out but that the entire physics establishment can't? Of course not, but rather, they lie, and advance the lie, generation after generation, because their father is the devil.

Prism Light

There has been a discovery (decades old) that red-shift values are quantized, a thing that threatens to destroy the big-bang as a whole even by non-Creationist cosmologists. Without going into the definition of quantized red-shift here, let me just quote: "The fact that red shifts appear to be quantized has interesting implications for the study of the universe. This suggests that the red shift may be caused by something other than the expansion of the universe, at least in part. This could be a loss of energy of light rays as they travel, or a decrease in the speed of light through discrete levels. Maybe there is some other explanation." However, those who espouse this data are accused of being the fridge party of cosmology while the big-bangers, those who routinely reject the data for the sake of saving their theory, are working to retain ownership of the establishment on behalf of the bog bang.

The supporters quantized red-shift are those who sought new red-shift data disproving the Doppler-effect of red-shift, and they found this evidence.

I've tried my best to date to understand the realities in the light spectrum of a prism, but I always come away unsure. The last time I looked at it, I was wondering whether the different colors were simply an effect of the prism. That is, the more glass material that the light is forced to penetrate, the more it changes color toward one end of the spectrum. If correct, the spectrum has nothing to do with light frequencies from the light source, and the joke is on physicists.

As physicists have butchered atomic theory, I doubt that their explanation for the spectral lines is accurate. It could of course be important to get that explanation accurate. If the colors of the spectrum have nothing to do with the light radiated from different materials, then the only thing left are the spectral lines? What are they; why are they there? These lines show up after the light is forced through a prism. It means that the lines have themselves been bent through the prism. Apparently, lines for identical materials (in a star) bend more than others, depending on which star is being examined. For every star, there is a different / unique amount of spectral-line bending. Why? A clue might be in the reason that light bends in the first place, but I have doubted that their explanation -- a change in the speed of light through glass -- is correct.

The difference in light bending through a flat pane of glass and through a prism is that the entire ray of light travels the same distance through a flat pane but progressively smaller distances through a prism. The different colors may have nothing at all to do with what they think, that there are distinct colors in the original white ray, all mixed together. The colors may be due to a single light ray forced to go through different volumes of glass. Some actions in the electron atmospheres of the glass atoms at the entry point of light can be interfering with the ray, apparently by spreading the white ray that contacts the glass after the initial-ray contact. The full cross section of the ray, as I see it in online diagrams, does not contact the glass at the same time, but rather the initial contact is by a corner of the ray, which I expect to splash electrons in front of (interfering with) the rest of the ray as it nears glass contact.

By the way, I think the diagrams are false when they show that colored light can be seen while traversing the glass, or when it's exiting the glass. I think the truth is that the colors cannot be seen until the light is made to strike a white surface. The colors will be different if made to strike a different-colored surface. It's clear that a prism is used to create the spectrum because it doesn't happen in a flat pane of glass. It seems that, the more glass that a single ray is forced to traverse, the more it goes to the blue end of the spectrum. The many diagrams offered by google are probably not true to reality as concerns the specific angles of the light to the glass surfaces, or, if some are, we have no idea as to which ones.

As I know that light is a wave traversing the electron atmospheres of glass atoms, I have a good theory as to why light bends in glass when the ray is made to strike at an angle. It does not bend if made to strike the glass dead on. The theory is hard to explain in print, but I'll try. The wave goes faster and further around the far side of each light-struck atom (when light hits the glass on an angle).

Let me put it this way, that when a light wave hits a single atom of a transparent material (e.g. oxygen), the wave enters at a point and then circles the entire electron atmosphere (in all directions), which I imagine as a sphere in shape. The wave ends up at a second point directly opposite the point of entry, and then continues to flow through the electron ether outside of the transparent atom.

If the light is made to strike at an angle upon a point in a glass atom fixed to other glass atoms, the situation changes because most of the electron atmospheres of glass atoms are merged with the atmospheres of neighboring atoms. More importantly, the part of a glass atom on the surface of the glass that faces the outside (the air / space) does NOT have its atmosphere merged with another atom. If the perimeter of the surface atom were likened to a clock (has nothing to do with time, but rather with positioning), the 12 o'clock position is the center of the non-merged part, or the point in the atom that faces straight up / perpendicular from the glass surface. We can now say that the non-merged part of surface atoms extend from roughly 10 o'clock to 2 o'clock.

Next, we take a light ray and make it strike the surface on an angle. It initially strikes at 10 o/clock. If this were a single atom in space, the light would wrap around the entire atom and exit at 4 o'clock. There would be no such thing as entering a single atom at an angle, but with atoms fixed together in glass, there is such a thing as entering on an angle.

Next, we try to realize what would happen in the electron atmosphere of the atoms when light first strikes them straight-on upon their 10 o'clock position. Don't confuse this; straight-on to the 10 o'clock position is at an angle to the glass surface. Will the light exit the atoms at 4 o'clock? If it does, then the light will not bend when going through the glass. In the prism diagrams, the light is bending such that the light waves in my scenario under discussion exit at roughly the 6 o'clock position of each surface atom. But what could be the explanation for this?

My view of electron atmospheres has always been that its proton-captured electrons are not fixed / glued to protons, but can move around or even circle as a unit (like greased ball bearings) around the proton...when light strikes electron atmospheres. So, when light strikes at 10 o'clock, it's going to send the electron atmosphere circling towards 11 o'clock. Can you guess why that direction should be the case as opposed to the opposite direction, from 10 > 9 o'clock?

Grasp this: the light wave circles in all directions around the entire atom while the atom's light-wave medium (the electrons) is itself circling in a certain direction. If you were in a hurry to get to 4 o'clock, you'd choose to hop onto a 10 > 11 o'clock electron rather than the other way around. By the time that you got to 4 o'clock, the wave passing around in the 10 > 9 o'clock direction is only at 8 o'clock because it's going up-river, slower. Therefore, the wave circling one atom will meets at 6 o'clock.

It's debatable as to whether we should view it as one wave around the atom, or many waves. Each wave(s) around is caused by one incoming wave (from outside the glass), yet the wave splits up in all directions around the glass atom because there are many captured electrons sharing the wave. The point is, a wave cannot exit the atom until it meets itself in a collision on the opposite side from the light-entry point. If it collides at 6 o'clock, it exits at 6 o'clock. That's my explanation for light bent through glass: it enters at 10, and exits at 6. The collision forces it to jump ship.

Why does the electron-circling of the atom go left toward 11 > 12 o'clock rather than right toward 9 > 8 o'clock? For this we view the incoming light wave as a wind or flow of water. Atoms on the very surface of a material are partially buried in atoms. You can easily understand that, if a wind or flow of water could not strike the atom between 10 > 9 o'clock because that part of the atom is shielded by being buried in neighboring atoms, the wind / water flow will cause the electrons to move in the other direction, from 10 > 11 o'clock, because those atoms can see the sun, so to speak i.e. they are not buried. In short, the light-wave flow strikes the atom on an angle upon the 10 > 11 > 12 > 1 o'clock region only, causing the captured electrons to circle in that direction.

If I'm correct on this, it's not because I'm a genius, far from it. It's because I took the time to understand the stupidities of modern physics, but also because I wanted to know the realities. It's because I realized easily the reality that atoms are covered in many electrons that can spin, circle, and/or jolt around above a proton. I'm not afraid to insult you as a complete dope if you envision orbiting electrons. There is no hope for you in the field of physics because you are a yes-man, the stooge of the wicked, swallowing everything they feed you like a reckless idiot not realizing his own death by poison even while the bottle has "POISON" written plainly upon it. If you were not an idiot, you wouldn't be so proud of yourself for understanding their science. Everyone who carries their science and passes it off to others comes off as an egotistical science geek hoping to make you proud of the theories too. They are actively at war with Christ, and even Creationists latch onto too much of their false science. If you're a Christian and proud of modern physics, you have a serious problem. Cut loose, because modern physics is attuned to the big-bang needs of our mortal enemies.

Again, the red end of the spectrum bends the least through a prism, and all the colors of the spectrum (minus the spectral lines) are likely an effect of the glass, not intrinsic with the light ray. Stars with spectral lines shifted more toward the red therefore have their light bent less. What could this mean? Well, if we go back to the clock, it means that the electron-circling of atoms is weaker for deeper red-shift. That is, a starlight with low red-shift has waves exiting in the 6 o'clock direction while deeper red-shifted light exits more at 5 o'clock. It tends to tell me that deeper shift is weaker incoming light. Don't get confused; deeper red-shift does not mean that ALL spectral lines are in the red region.

Light can be weaker due either to less intensity of the wave, or less frequency. In my view, a star sending out more-forceful waves also sends them out more frequently. It just makes sense that a hotter star has more emitted electrons per second, but also more forceful emissions (intensity). By the way, my definition of light frequency is not at all like that of the goons. True light frequency is the number of waves per unit time. There is no such thing as a wave length if it isn't defined merely as the time interval between waves. A light wave does not have a physical length because no one can imagine such a thing without being a lunatic in fantasia. The important thing about frequency is how many times waves collide with an object per second.

I've tried to wrap my head around the stated belief that frequency can remain the same while light intensity goes up. It doesn't seem possible so far as emission from the star is concerned. For example, if we shine two red lights on a white surface instead of one, there is a brighter red produced i.e. more intensity. But it's also undeniably twice the number of waves per second. The physicist will say that the frequency has remained the same (when shining two red lights instead of one) because he views red light as a function solely of frequency. Something wrong there. Fix it.

Stronger light is predicted to bend more through glass, and the spectral lines of star materials bend less as the stars get weaker in light due to: 1) lower star intensity and/or: 2) greater star distance and/or: 3) star movement away from earth. One cannot argue against this statement, for all three factors in weaker light are undeniable facts working together. It means that it's impossible for cosmologists, as they should have known from the time of Hubble, to know the distance of distant stars (i.e. those not measurable by triangulation), but also impossible to know the directions of stars. In other words, a star moving toward the earth can yet exhibit a red-shift due to the other two factors i.e. we're out of luck knowing the direction of the star's travel...unless one can pin-point some aspect of spectral lines that plays solely to the travel direction. So far, they haven't found such an aspect, at least not to satisfaction.

Below is a video having a quasi-criticism of Arp's work, yet the only controversial issue of the speaker is whether the quasars or galaxies in question are much closer than the red-shift expectations, though there's no way to answer the question one way or the other. Red-shift due to star intensity is not a part of the discussion, very odd because, where there's no way to know whether red-shift supports the big bangers or not, we expect someone to mention red-shift due to star intensity.

It's a dishonest discussion because it leaves out the obvious. For example, if two side-by side galaxies that appear as partners, for whatever reason, are deemed by big banger not to be partners, the big bangers stay their course by saying that the much-larger red-shift of one of the partners is due to its greater distance and speed away from us. But the truth can just as well be that, amongst two bodies having exactly the same brightness as perceived by the eye (or laboratory gauge), the one with twice the red-shift can be the one much closer to earth due to having less light intensity; it only appears to have the same intensity, because it's much closer to us. So, you see, even when they act like they are being fair and objective, they are being unfair, like imposters.

Here's the so-called first-ever photo of a black hole found a couple of years ago. Go ahead, be their sucker, and believe that this is a black hole:

Is there no other explanation for that photo? How did they create the photo, really? Isn't it suspicious if no one else can recreate the photo? You have seen how Democrats cherry-pick the information given us, all in support of their party, but not covering any news that condemns them, and certainly not seeking any news that condemns them. Ditto with evolutionists. Ditto for NASA. Ditto for a huge swath of this world.

Electrons Rule

This video is pretty good:

The speaker disappoints where he trusts the goons where they say that energy can become matter, an idea I consider loony. All energy consists of matter in motion. Energy is always based on free electrons. All fuel is based on free electrons, and I think this applies also to body fuel. Wind energy is based on atmospheric electrons. I have a much-better formula than the erroneous E = mc2. Energy has nothing to do with the speed of light, stupid. In reality, E = er. Er, Electron repulsion.

One needs to be a complete idiot to believe that energy = mass x the speed of light, as though matter and light speed were woven together. Matter can become energy only when its electrons are released, and light energy is only a minor constituent of that emission, the bulk being heat. Energy can be expressed mathematically as repulsion force x 8 per distance halved between electrons.

But energy can never become matter. Einstein didn't have it all together at all. He looked like a quack because he became much a quack. Time cannot be created, for it does not exist as any tangible thing; we invent time clocks for convenience, but time does not exist. Space cannot be created, what's wrong with these lunatics? You can't create nothing. Stick to logic, and you won't be brought to the edge of insanity by demonics in science. They are trying to destroy our thinking.

I know what they're up to. They want to convince the world that energy -- something like a dark energy -- created the matter of the universe. It is therefore poisonous for Christians to repeat that energy can create matter. It can't. It's a trick of the devil, don't you get it? There are all sorts of things that science has invented to uphold the big bang that the speaker (Spike Psarris) in the video does not yet realize. He unwittingly holds to many, many of those ideas.

They never mention electrons that fill all of space when they talk about dark matter filling all of space. Why do you think they want to hide these electrons from the masses? They say they can't find the dark-matter particles, but never mention the electrons they know to be there. Why do you think that these electrons destroy their big-bang "theology"? I've given you several clues in this update and the last.

They cleverly called their prospective dark-matter particle, the WIMP, and I've just heard that they expect it to create electrons. They have entered the science-fiction zone where electrons can now be created out of dark matter / dark energy, you see. They are working hard to find a theory on the creation of matter, from next-to nothing, for you to swallow the idea that even nothing can create matter. That is their holy grail at this time.

Some of their dangled clowns speak of dark matter as an established fact. "According to many, it would be better to have called [dark matter] invisible matter, rather than dark matter. It not only doesn't emit or absorb light, but it doesn't interact with any of the known, directly detectable particles..." It fits the description of free ether electrons, which can't get attracted by protons until protons need them.

Light cannot reflect off of the free electron. Light can only be emitted by electrons. When light waves strike captured electrons upon a proton, they re-emit light, what we call reflected light. When you look directly at the sun, a star, a flame, or a light bulb, you are seeing electrons in action. But if you look into the black of space, you are looking at electrons that do not reflect any light.

The accumulated jostling / mixing of stellar-wind electrons, where countless stellar winds collide, can be expected to form weak light (as compared to starlight) in random / all directions...which scenario looks perfect for explaining the so-called microwave background (that big bangers apply to their big bang). As they say that this microwave background is always there, wherever they look into the dark of space, it's just got to be from the cosmic ether; what could be more plain? Yet the goons don't want to talk about stellar electrons, the most ignored particles of science. It's like they ignore the king and queen of cosmology. I think this background light energy, in the infra-red zone, is definitely from some aspect of stellar-wind electrons. If it's not from stellar-wind collisions, then it's possibly from the slight sideways "leaking" of waves that standard starlight waves produce when moving longitudinally.

However, they seem to be ignoring their own science when they say they find this background light in the black of space. Their own science claims that there is no black of space, that no matter where they look, there are galaxies. So, in their own scenario, when they take a picture of the black of space, they are taking a picture of faint faint that it's in the infra-red zone. Right?

No matter what they find in space, they try to make it appear as an effect birthed in the big bang. If the Big Bang needs a thing that doesn't exist, they look for it until they "find" it, first by creating a theory that involves it, and later by hardening it into a fact. "For example, during the 1960s, astronomers became aware of microwave background radiation that was detectable in all directions. Known as the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB), the existence of this radiation has helped to inform our understanding of how the Universe began." Why do you think they automatically tied this invisible light to the big bang without first seeking another explanation? By the 1960's, astronomy knew of stellar-wind electrons, but lock-step evolutionists didn't accept them as the light-wave medium, and so the stupids remained stupid, as it should be, for God will make stupids of them, humiliating them in a furnace of fire created for the weeds of humanity. This is no joke, no cheap shot; these dogged educators will be the heart of Armageddon for their brazen animosity against God, and for their insistence in misleading the human race into Hell. There are no greater enemies of God today.

One of their many stooges writes: "The [background radiation] is visible at a distance of 13.8 billion light years in all directions from Earth..." FARCE! That's exactly their age for the big bang. They have faked the experiment(s) that claims to see that far into space. FARCE! How possibly can they judge how far out they are seeing if all they are doing is looking into the black? FARCE! They can't even be sure that the distances they claim for the most-distant galaxies are correct. FARCE! Instead of describing the details of this microwave background, they exert themselves in trying to deceive you into believing their big-bang account of it.

Cosmologists not taking the big bang as their own theory claimed that the background radiation was from galactic starlight scattered off of cosmic dust, which is at least more logical, but big bangers prevailed because God is allowing his enemies to arise so that He can utterly justify their end in Hell. These people would take your son, your daughter, your mother, your father, ALL to Hell with them. How dare do we respect them?

The big bangers are absolutely sure that the proto-universe was a hot plasma. In other words, shortly after the big bang, before atoms could form, all of the matter constituted a hot bath emitting light that became the much-colder background radiation. The latter is simply the remnant of that hot and brilliant bath. But wait. Where did the light come from if there were no atoms as yet? Bright light can only form from electron emissions from atoms. Ahh, we are learning here that they needed a light source not from atoms, and this is a good place for them to stick their photon invention. They could say that photons were racing around kinetically in the plasma bath. It explains why they stuck to the photon even after discovery of the solar wind in the 1950s. We can readily see that the concept of a light-wave medium was their mortal enemy more than ever starting with their microwave-background theory developed in 1948. It would be best if they not even bring up the possibility that the solar wind could be the light-wave medium.

The plasma bath they perceive of the proto-universe has an astounding problem: its very hot, and their definition of heat is particles striking one another from all directions. Meanwhile, the big bang is not predicted to create such a situation. Instead, it must create an outflow of particles in straight lines in all directions. How do particles exploded from a central point come to collide with one another in all directions? They don't. Big bangers are dishonest even with's the same species of rotten rats as the Schiffites. The universe today does not at all look like the balloon expected from a sensible / logical explosion, wherefore big bangers have contorted their own sensibilities for making everything seen in space dovetail somehow to one big-bang scenario or another, for the ultimate goal is proving the big bang, to hell with realities if they stand in the way. They are disgusting human beings to be tossed out like trash, and burned in pain, undeserving of life. How dare do Creationists treat them with respect?

Look, wherever two stellar winds collide, they strike one anothers' front-wall electrons, and jolt them back in the direction opposite their approach. This sends weak light waves at least roughly back toward the stars from which the electrons came. As there are so many stars surrounding the earth in its near vicinity, it doesn't matter where a telescope points; it's bound to pick up these weak waves whether the telescope operators realize it or not. It's very possible that the cosmic microwave background is not in the cosmic background at all, but more like the foreground, where our own sun's wind strikes the stellar winds of neighboring stars. I doubt very much that weak waves are capable of registering, on equipment of any sort, if they originate million or billions of light years away, give your heads a shake thou big-banger morons.

Back to the dark-matter WIMP: Weakly Interacting Massive Particle. If I understand this thing correctly, they think it's massive (large mass) because they want it to interact with gravity as an explanation for some problematic facet of their big-bang scenario. I don't care to know the details, but this massiveness they are looking for explains why they won't peg the cosmic electron as their WIMP particle.

I wonder, why do they believe in dark matter: "We can observe its effects in the astrophysical laboratory of space, but we've never detected it directly, in a laboratory here on Earth." I wonder, how did they "observe" it? Why should we trust boneheads with such things? "Primary evidence for dark matter comes from calculations showing many galaxies would fly apart instead of rotating, or would not have formed or move as they do, if they did not contain a large amount of unseen matter." Like I said, boneheads. They can easily answer to these problems if only they were willing to violate their own theories. I assure you, their claim that galaxies would fly apart for lack of possessing sufficient mass is due only to their having mistakes in their views of galaxies. They have them much larger than is the reality, and therefore spinning / moving much faster, and moreover they have an erroneous method for establishing galactic / stellar masses even if they did measure the bodies and distances correctly. Their entire foundations are lacking in correctness, explaining their many mistakes and more-numerous fixes. Instead of abandoning dark matter and fixing their problems in other ways that make more sense, they resist to their deaths anything that violates their big-bang crusade. To their deaths they will go denying and infuriating their own Creator.

They now wish to teach the children that 85 percent of the universe is this dark, unseen, and unproven matter. If this is where they have taken the world after just one generation of total control, to where will they take the next generation if they are not promptly stopped?

Wikipedia on WIMPs: "Because of their lack of electromagnetic interaction with normal matter..." How can they know that dark matter has no electromagnetic charge if they haven't yet found it? This is a dead give-away that they are acting fraudulently. I suggest that they are inventing just the particle they need to explain a problem with their theory. They don't want it to be attracted or repelled by any other matter (will complicate their view of the galaxy); they just want lots of matter. If someone claims to have found lots of unseen matter filling all of the universe, the particle of which has inter-repulsion, no attraction to gravity, and with little mass, they will reject it because they need mass, and lots of it. And that's how they work, not by accepting realities, but by accepting their needs. To hell with the cosmic electron; bring on dark matter and the devil too.

If they claim to see the radiation "background" beyond distant galaxies, it serves as evidence that the galaxies are not very distant, which may in turn be evidence that they are exploded or unraveling stars, not galaxies at all. I'm serious. There may be no galaxy but our own. As they don't allow star intensity / temperature into their definition of red-shift, they really don't know how large or far most star bodies are. It's that simple. If they claim to know a stellar body's on-site intensity, it's only because they have "established" its distance. Quasars are deemed to be extra-bright galaxies due only to their erroneous great distances.

The bottom of Wikipedia's Spectral Line article shows photos of spectral lines, none if which have black lines. In the spectral-line offering for hydrogen, there are two light-blue lines in the blue area, a debatable third light-blue in the blue area, and a light-red line in the red area. All of the spectral lines shown for various elements repeat this pattern in which the lines are just a lighter shade of the particular color in which they are immersed. What do you think this can mean if the colors are a product only of the prism, or even if we ignore the colors and stick only to the spectral lines?

They say that hydrogen has four spectral lines, but I can see only three for certain. Hydrogen is emitting three types of light, two in the blue end and one in the red end. How do you think this is the case if you're dummy enough to view the hydrogen atom as having just one electron? If you can't think of an answer, don't worry, the goons will think up a possibility or two.

It's pretty simpleton to suggest that the light from the blue end is from a hotter part of a hydrogen flame (if they use the flame to get the spectrum) while the red end is from a cooler part of the flame. A hydrogen flame (no carbon) is blue, not both blue and yellow like a propane flame (has carbon) can be. Therefore, is it really true that a blue star is hotter than a yellow star? Does wood produce a yellow flame due to it's temperature, or is it because carbon happens to be yellow when burning? "Hydrogen fires have low radiant heat, so you can't sense the presence of a flame until you are very close to it (or even in it).". It doesn't sound very hot to me? "Hydrogen burns with a pale blue flame that is nearly invisible in daylight. The flame may appear yellow if there are impurities in the air like dust or sodium." Does a little dust in the air make the hydrogen flame go colder to orange, or are we being lied to when they say that blue light is hotter then orange? Why are they lying?

They know that oxygen is blue, and the burning of hydrogen produces water (i.e. has lots of oxygen) as the only exhaust. So, maybe the blue in the flame is the oxygen, having not to do with temperature. Stars mainly have hydrogen (and some helium), they say, which explain their blue colors.

The spectral lines for helium are likewise in the blue end, but please tell me how they create the lines for helium since it doesn't produce a flame. Are they tricking themselves with helium lines by the method in which they are produced? We don't often get the specifics of their results; we only get the "facts" that they wish to convey, a very controlled program for indoctrination of the masses.

"Emission spectrum for helium produced when high energy electrons excite helium atoms in a gas discharge tube. There are only five emission lines in the visible light range of light." Are the lines produced as we read above going to be the same as lines from helium in stars? Similarly, "When an electric current is passed through a glass tube that contains hydrogen gas at low pressure the tube gives off blue light. When this light is passed through a prism (as shown in the figure below), four narrow bands of bright light are observed against a black background." On a black background? Yes, true, there are no rainbow colors that normal light exhibits.

How can they compare their lab result above (see photo of spectral lines), having no graduated rainbow colors, to a spectral line set from stars that do come with all of the graduated rainbow colors? How can they know that there's a shift in the spectral lines of stellar hydrogen if their lab samples don't have the rainbow? Are they tricking themselves with spectral-line science? How do they know exactly how to locate their lab result, when they superimpose it onto a star-produced spectrum, if they don't have the rainbow on their lab result? Have they provided themselves with some latitude to monkey around with the location, as they see fit?

Lo and behold, there may be no such thing as spectral shift except by their making it happen erroneously. Wikipedia's article on spectral lines doesn't even offer one photo of a stellar spectral-line sample so that we may compare it to the hydrogen sample given. My bet: stellar samples showing the hydrogen lines DO NOT even have line spacing exactly that of the laboratory sample. How can one show shift amounts if the lines don't match in the first place? When we are shown pictures of red-shift for our indoctrination, where there's a stellar-line sample beside a lab-line sample, both samples are always shown with exactly the same line spacing. The only difference is the stellar-line sample has the lines shifted over slightly. But is it really the case that stellar light passed through a prism will produce exactly the lines seen in the test-tube sample of hydrogen? I'm seeing monkeys everywhere.

A stellar sample comes with a great multitude of lines because there are many elements in a star. The goon can therefore -- perhaps, or at times, or at most times -- pick-and-choose whichever lines he wishes to act as the hydrogen lines, and if the pick-and-choosing still doesn't quite match his lab lines, we're not going to be told.

Bottom line as I see it: if the lab results have no rainbow, one cannot superimpose it upon the stellar sample's rainbow in order to show how much the stellar sample is shifted by comparison to the lab sample. Worse yet, the stellar rainbows are all going to be different from one another, some wider than others, some having more red than others, or less green than others...what a mess. Red-light is starting to look like a "science" on par with erroneous rock-dating methods. However, I know nothing on how they do the superimposing; perhaps they have a correct way of doing it. If so, where is shown online? If you can't find it, expect a big-trick indoctrination program.

Lookie: "An absorption line occurs when electrons move to a higher orbit by absorbing energy. Each atom has a unique spacing of orbits and can emit or absorb only certain energies or wavelengths. This is why the location and spacing of spectral lines is unique for each atom." ELECTRONS DO NOT ORBIT!!! We need another explanation for spectral lines.

The scientists electrically eject electrons into a hydrogen gas (in a tube) to get the blue light that they route through a prism. The colliding of electrons against each hydrogen atom excites (jostles) all, and likely frees some, of the captured electrons covering the hydrogen proton. That's what's happening in the tube along with freed electrons taking up equa-distant positions throughout the tube.

So, in my atomic model, the four different kinds of light waves (i.e. the four spectral lines) exhibited by the hydrogen spectrum include various types of electron emission from the atom. None of the four may be from the mere jostling of captured electrons, which expectedly produces the weakest light waves, but I can't know that one way or the other at this time.

It's possible that one of the four is due to the electrically-ejected electrons, from the "gun," into the electron ether that exists in the tube as heat particles even before the experiment begins. If the gun shots do produce their own, distinct wave, it's going to strike hydrogen atoms to produce it's own "damage" to them apart from the physical bombardments of the electron bullets. I suggest that the weak, red spectral line of hydrogen is from the gun-shot wave that strikes the atoms while the most-violet side spectral line is from the gun-shot wave going directly into the prism. That leaves two blue spectral-line waves to explain.

And here's the backdrop to my explanation: each electrically emitted electron (the bullets) bounces off of a hydrogen atom before coming to rest, and each successive strike is weaker than the one before it because it slows as it strikes. The faster it's going, the greater the "damage" to captured electrons...that temporarily fly off of the hydrogen atom. While some come back to the atom, others are being knocked off for as long as the bombardment of electrically-ejected electrons takes place.

Now, if we imagine that each bullet flies deep into an atmosphere (gets fully absorbed in the atmosphere) of one hydrogen atom, it can be expected to produce one wave that registers on the blue side of the spectrum. But if the bullet doesn't get absorbed into the first atom it hits, but deflects off and strikes a second atom at a slower speed, then it can produce the weaker-blue spectral line, for example, or perhaps the red line. That's the gist. As helium exhibits more lines than hydrogen, we might assume that the bullets bounce off of more helium atoms than hydrogen atoms before coming to "rest" (not quite, but close) in a helium atom.

Carbon, nitrogen and oxygen spectral lines are far more numerous than hydrogen, suggesting that the three atoms have much-harder "skins" to penetrate than hydrogen. Although I don't understand the reason, Einstein proved, if I remember correctly, that certain bombardment of atoms, by strong light, emitted only one wave force repeatedly. I don't recall the details. In other words, instead of the light bombardment producing my expected myriads of waves all in random- / different-force levels, one bombardment by an ultra-violet wave produced one ultra-violet wave of equal force out of the bombarded material. I think I have that said correctly.

When we throw a rock into water, we get many splashes of various forces. We don't get just one splash. But it seems that when one bullet enters an atom, only one splash results. In that case, when common white light strikes the atom as an ordinary wave (it's really more than one wave), all of the different-sized "splashes" (electron jostling) are perfectly reflective of the many incoming waves of different forces that make up white light. I didn't say that white light doesn't have many waves each of different force levels, but I did mean to say that the prism might not be exhibiting them accurately because the glass itself can form its own rainbow effect. In other words, we don't really know the different colors of white light if the prism contributes some or most of the coloration.

If you go back to the bottom of the Spectral Line article from Wikipedia, the samples from the different elements come with the rainbow, yet we saw that the gun-method of producing spectral lines has no rainbow. Apparently, the rainbows should not be a part of those images, but were added in, yet the article doesn't say so. The rainbow makes it hard to see some of the dimmer lines.

I'll probably continue on spectral lines in the next update.

Ukraine News

Kevin McCarthy, the second-in-command of the House, has been caught (a good thing) sending a letter to ABC demanding that the news network give up the news show on Epstein that ABC refused to air publicly. McCarthy is asking that ABC give up the show to congress. Did Wray or Barr ask for this show? If not, why not? Is Barr serious about getting to the bottom of Epstein? If not, why not?

Is Barr behind this:

Two correctional officers responsible for guarding Jeffrey Epstein when he took his own life are expected to face criminal charges this week for falsifying prison records, two people familiar with the matter told The Associated Press.

The federal charges could come as soon as Tuesday...

It sounds like the FBI has pressed charges, and I don't think Wray would concur if not forced to by Barr's office. It's another good sign, but wait. Why are the guards being arrested if they were forced by the jailhouse to turn a blind eye to Epstein's murder? The jailhouse boss is to be arrested here, or at least the one who turned off the cameras and put Epstein in a cell with the killer. Hopefully, the guards are being pressured by these arrests to tell who the jailhouse conspirators are. " Federal prosecutors offered the guards a plea bargain, but the AP reported Friday that the officers declined the deal." Perhaps the guards were in on the murder willingly. Perhaps they took money for their roles.

Obama just came out to make a reasonable statement, even attacking his own party candidates seeking a wholesale breakdown and rebuild of society. In short, I think Obama has come out to sound normal and law-abiding because he knows he's about to become a target when the Horowitz and Durham reports come out. Horowitz will be before the Senate on December 11 to answer questions on his FISA investigation, meaning his report will be out before that date. The FISA crimes had Obama as a conspirator, or a supporter / governor of the conspirators.

Virtually all of the big, leftist media are spreading the rumor, early this week, that Trump is angry / unhappy with Pompeo for choosing William Taylor to replace Marie Yovanovitch. Perhaps as a tactic to get on Trump's better side, Pompeo just announced that he's for allowing Israel to build in the West Bank, a policy which the big Western nations have opposed at least since Bush. As of late Monday night, Trump has no tweet with "Pompeo." As of that time, I can find no article on the Trump-angry-with-Pompeo story from pro-Trumpers, yet neither has Trump denied it...and I think he would deny it immediately in a tweet if it were not true. I have the sense that Trump needs to shed Pompeo for a player he knows will be loyal to the direction the base is now on in cleansing swamp. He's learned the hard way that establishment people are dangerous to him.

Perhaps as few as three of the first ten impeachment witnesses were on the call. But wait. This impeachment "trial" started with the claim that anonymous people on the call got word to a CIA whistle-blower that Trump was committing a crime. The whistle-blower, if I recall correctly, initially said that he knew the people on the call, though he may later have distanced himself from that claim because his team wanted to protect them. And that protection explains why they are not being called as witnesses...because they acted as false witnesses to begin with. My question, since Pompeo has admitted to being on the call: was Pompeo the one who spilled the beans against Trump to the whistle-blower? It's possible.

It could be that the best impeachment witnesses (or best liars) will be timed for the week of the Horowitz report in an effort to drown the latter out from the news.

Impeachment Day Three

Vindman: "It is improper for the president of the United States to demand a foreign government investigate a U.S. citizen and political opponent." It's not improper if the American committed a crime(s) in the foreign nation that has evidence of the crime(s). It then becomes a natural request. It is improper for an American diplomat to a foreign nation to protect an American committing a crime(s) in that nation by forbidding his own president to call the shots on whether that crime should be exposed by the foreign nation. It makes the diplomat look like he's seeking to cover the crime(s) because he's a political animal supporting the guilty politician.

Jennifer Williams, who's with Mike Pence, was on the Trump phone call listening in. Might Pence be the one who leaked to the CIA whistle-blower? He certainly has an obvious motive. Does Pence have a Charlie horse in this race? Williams is one of the witnesses this week, telling Jordan that she didn't tell anyone about the call. Williams said that her supervisor (Keith Kellogg, military man, Pence's Security advisor) was on the call too. As she says she told no one about the call, including Kellogg, it seems she wasn't very alarmed about it's details. She looks honest; one would think that she allowed Kellogg to deal with the call as per talking to Pence about it. That sounds fair. Why isn't Kellogg there today?

Vindman and his boss, Morrison, were also on the call. Yes, they heard right, that Trump wanted his political opponents unveiled for what appear to be crimes, but what possibly could these witnesses gripe about since the Ukraine leader was himself giddy about giving Trump that request? Where is the pitfall that's so grievous as to deserve their negatives spins, before congress, on that request? Why is there no understanding / sympathy in their hearts for the president's needs? Vindman went right away to snitch to a lawyer. Why was Trump doing impeachable wrong for requesting the fulfillment of his political needs from ANYONE IN THE WHOLE WORLD? Whoever he asks has the ability to say, no thanks. Zelensky did not say that. What's the problem? Without the quid pro quo in the call, what real right did Vindman have to report Trump?

If you watch below after the 4th minute of Jordan's questioning of Vindman, you can see some pretty good evidence that Vindman spoke to the whistle-blower immediately after the Trump phone call. It amounts to a military man ratting Trump out to the CIA. The CIA has been directed by one of Trump's appointees throughout the whistle-blower scandal; this president may never learn not to appoint his own enemies. We could have been far in cleansing swamp by now; instead, Trump is nearly drowning in it by his own doings.

Jordan gave up on his line of questioning after Schiff complained that he was involving the whistle-blower when asking Vindman to reveal the last person whom he would not reveal. It tends to mean that, after the whistle-blower came out to give a false report of the now-famous phone call, Vindman did not come out to correct him, which is a really big deal. It seems that the whistle-blower got his information from Vindman, for one, but not from him only. It was Vindbag's duty to correct the blowhard because Vindbag was on the call and heard first-hand. It was Vindbag's duty to alert the public, and Trump too, that the whistle-blower was a fake witness. The same could be said of Kellogg and Williams. Why did they not come out to support the president?

Neither Vindman nor Williams were willing to testify that the phone call was anything like what the whistle-blower claimed it was. Vindman even said that the call was accurately portrayed by the transcript released by Trump. No one has dared to take the whistle-blower's side, and Nunes wants him revealed.

When Vindman was being questioned by Counsel for the Republican side, Vindman started to sound a little like George Papadopoulos. It made me wonder whether the similar nuances of these men, when they both start answers with, "So," or, "Yeah so," suggest that they were involved together. Just for the record.

When Nunes asked Vindman questions, he denied knowing anything about Biden-Burisma, yet he claimed to be the expert in Ukraine. It would torpedo his own testimony against Trump if he were to admit prior knowledge on Biden-Burisma, and so I'm not sure that Vindman is telling the truth. At times, the manner in which he answers questions seems evasive, especially at the 8-minute mark of the video below. I feel sure that he perjured himself at 8:45. When Nunes asked Vindman whom he had spoken to about the phone call, outside the White House (see 9-10th minute), he admitted talking to George Kent (Pompeo's state department) as well as to "an individual from the Intelligence community." As you can see, with the Intelligence admission, Nunes zeroes right in to ask what agency in particular, but Schiff interjects before Vindman answers, and says, sorry, Nunes, but we've got to protect the whistle-blower. Yeah, so, I suppose, that says it all, thank you Mr. Schiff.

It's clear at this point that Vindman knows the whistle-blower, and spoke to him. And it's clear also that Schiff knows that Vindman knows the whistle-blower. It seems that this particular impeachment drive started with Vindman's snitching to the CIA, but including some other events that dove-tailed with that snitching. Plus, now that we know that Vindman snitched to Pompeo's department, can we ask whether Pompeo revealed Vindman's snitch job to Trump, if Pompeo cares at all about Trump's deep-state woes? How did Vindman feel fearless about snitching to Pompeo's department, as though confident that Kent or Pompeo would not fault / punish him, even while simultaneously snitching to the CIA's fake whistle-blower?? Pompeo was the head of the CIA last year, and the fake whistle-blower is highly-likely the CIA operative, Mr. Ciaramella.

When Vindman was telling Nunes that he spoke to someone in an Intelligence agency, he first said, "a individual from the office of th[e], uh...," and then stopped in mid-sentence, but adding, "uh, individual in um, Intellig..Intelligence community." It seems he may have changed his mind from being too specific to being more vague. Vindman then hides behind his lawyer's advice not to answer Nunes' question on which Intelligence agency he was referring to. He reiterates here that he does not know who the whistle-blower is (seems like perjury once again)t. He is clearly siding with the anti-Trump side, and even with the criminal whistle-blower. Yes, the whistle-blower is guilty of advancing a false narrative towards a coup attempt of the U.S. president, no small thing, and Schiff is right at the center of it, seemingly without fear. Who will hand these brazen goons the proper fear they ought to have?

Schiff then speaks again (about 13:00) very strangely, as if to confess that Vindman's snitching was to the whistle-blower. Why would Schiff make such an admission twice when it really wasn't necessary? Tell you what:leave them in God's hands, He'll know what to do about this.

Also testifying on Day Three is Kurt Volker. He starts off with a bad-Russia scenario to play to Trump's alleged quid pro quo, which was portrayed by Volker's friends as dangerous to Ukraine. Volker then claims that he recommended Bill Taylor to Pompeo, whatever that could mean in the blame department, for ambassador Taylor turned out to be anti-Trump too. Should Pompeo have run Taylor through a filter to find what sort of toxicity he might come with for Trump? Yes, absolutely, for Trump just removed toxic Yovanovitch (Ukraine ambassador), and Volker was asking Pompeo to replace her with Taylor. Pompeo therefore had the responsibility of running Volker through a filter just in case he came with the same stripes as Yovanovitch.

Volker paints a picture in which he's been highly protective of an American take-over of Ukraine, and that Trump was a threat for being pro-Russian (it's implied in Volker's presentation). Volker then misportrays Giuliani's mission, and even slaps his face (figuratively speaking) by saying that he was meddling as a non-government Trump sponsor. Achem, Trump is the leader of the Ukraine mission now, and if Trump sponsors Giuliani's work in Ukraine, it trumps all of the diplomats who think they own the Ukraine mission.

Giuliani wasn't there to perform government business, anyway, but to catch anti-Trump characters in their crimes. If Volker has a problem with this, then Volker must have been involved in some corruption that Giuliani was attempting to uncover. Or, at best, Volker has been seeking to protect corrupt players that Giuliani may have uncovered had he been permitted to snoop in Ukraine around a little longer. It's a lawyer's job to snoop and find, Mr. Volker. You're just afraid of what he may find. But why, Mr. Volker? Did you put in your lot in for some Ukraine-gas scheme? Was Giuliani moving into your Ukraine-gas turf? Is Hunter Biden only the tip of the Ukraine-gas viceberg?

Volker admitted today that he admires Biden, which is all we need to hear to be informed, once again, that these diplomat witnesses, who claim to have the holy ground in Ukraine, are steeped in Ukraine corruption, and profiting from it one way or another, either financially or occupationally. It's turning out that there is a gang in Eurasian foreign missions. However, Volker today distanced himself from Joe Biden's indirect involvement with Burisma, claiming ignorance previously. I don't easily buy his stated ignorance previously. I think that these witnesses are suddenly decided, this week, that to continue forward by denying Biden corruption is going to pay hell to their occupational prospects. I think Volker is speaking to his own self-protection at this time, by admitting that the Biden he loves should not have been involved with a conflict-of-interest scheme(s). And that's the kicker: Volker refuses to show disdain for Biden even though he confessed his own crime, one far worse than the thing Volker and his friends would accuse Trump of.

I can't find any questioning of Volker.

John Ratcliffe probably had the best presentation of all on this day.

Sondland useless on Day Four, looks like he lied when asked if anyone told him regarding aid to Ukraine (i.e. he lied to protect the person(s) who talked to him about it):

Sondland has changed his testimony like a back-stabber, and so it seems he's permitted himself to be such a stabber from a crisis situation in which Trump's enemies twisted his arm harshly, for as the impeachment hearings are becoming a joke, the enemies need something like Sondland saying that Trump did in fact conduct a quid pro quo. The only alternative is that Sondland has come to be sincerely sure of a quid pro quo by the testimonies of some or even some behind-the-scenes happenings we don't yet know, yet he has not indicated what such things might be...and so I'll assume he's just opposed to Trump, on the side that most diplomats are on; he may feel its better this way for his occupation (as ambassador to EU) if he takes that side.

Giuliani speaks out: "'Republican lawyer doesn’t do his own research and preparation, and is instead picking up Democrat lies, shame. Allow me to inform him: I have NO financial interests in Ukraine, NONE! I would appreciate his apology,' he tweeted, referring to Steve Castor." That's good to hear, because everyone was wondering whether Giuliani was over to Ukraine on money-related business as well as looking after Trump. I doubt Giuliani would lie about this under the hot-spotlight circumstances. Same article:

Giuliani also responded to Sondland’s testimony that the former mayor worked to make sure Ukraine launched probes that would benefit President Trump politically in exchange for a White house meeting by pointing the finger at another witness.

“I came into this at Volker’s request,” Giuliani said in a tweet, referring to former Ukraine envoy Kurt Volker, who had testified the day before.

“Sondland is speculating based on VERY little contact. I never met him and had very few calls with him, mostly with Volker. Volker testified I answered their questions and described them as my opinions, NOT demands. I.E., no quid pro quo!“ he continued in a tweet that he soon deleted and later reposted.

Is Giuliani saying that he entered the Ukraine stage altogether by VOLKer's request, not by Trump's? Did you read my event (not many updates ago in mid October) on the Giuliani seaGULL dancing to the BLINKers of a VOLKswagen in PARRY SONDland, so to speak? The Volkswagen I was in was in the township of PARRY SOUND, that is, which seems to be pointing to Sondland as well as to Rick PERRY, for the latter became a fundamental part of Zelensky's Ukraine. When I saw the gull dancing to the blinkers, a pointer to Tonk Blinken, I assume, the driver of the Volkswagen was checking a map for directions to a SHAKELL road, which I assumed was a pointer to Jay SEKULow, for he and Giuliani are two of Trump's private lawyers. Blinken enters the picture with the Biden-Burisma affair.

I will continue to entertain Giuliani as a mole in Trump's affairs, having the purpose of sabotaging Trump one way or another in concert with other conspirators. For example, if Sondland's testimony is true, then it appears that Giuliani was setting Trump up for a quid pro quo. Sondland said: "Mr. Giuliani’s requests were a quid pro quo for arranging a White House visit for President Zelensky. Mr. Giuliani demanded that Ukraine make a public statement announcing investigations of the 2016 election/DNC server and Burisma. Mr. Giuliani was expressing the desires of the President of the United States, and we knew that these investigations were important to the President."

So, maybe, Giuliani wanted a public display of the fulfillment Trump's request to Zelensky so that it serves as evidence against Trump, and Giuliani's partners in crime (such as Volker) would then do the rest by making the Ukraine-aid freeze look like the other half of the quid pro quo (something for something).

The Horowitz report was finished in August, and now they want to put it to the public just before Christmas? What was the hold-up? Is Barr playing games with the public? I predict that the Horowitz report will water down FBI guilt, pointing to poor FBI process, mistakes of judgment, or even poor equipment rather than to mobster-like human corruption. John Solomon tipped me off for this prediction on Wednesday night. If he doesn't state that the FBI was involved in a coup attempt, I suggest you take Horowitz for a sham.

Lindsey Graham, under pressure to do something, announced on Hannity's Wednesday TV show, that he's sent a letter to Pompeo requesting whether Joe Biden made any communications, in a February of some year, concerning Burisma's troubles of that month. Achem, this looks like Graham's dirty politics to make self look like he's concerned when he's obviously not. The thing to do is, not to ask Pompeo a specific thing only, but to have the Bidens show up before a senate committee for many questions. Graham is a do-nothing, and the same goes with Pompeo.

The Bidens are guilty of obstruction of Ukraine justice, and therefore as accomplices of Burisma corruption. It's understood that Hunter Biden was paid off by Burisma to keep the law hounds at bay through the usefulness of Hunter's father and Obama. On the American side, Joe Biden and Obama are guilty of using tax dollars as bribery and blackmail to protect a company that employed Hunter Biden. Usually, a bribe is the money purchase of an unlawful act in one's own favor, but it can apply to the withholding of promised money too, because that money is then paid upon the commission of the unlawful act. Blackmail is usually a threat of punishment for seeking the continuation of some illegal / wrong thing by the one making the threat. Joe Biden threatened Ukraine: if you don't protect my family's wrongdoing in Burisma, you'll be punished by Obama.

This week, the Ukraine announced the indictment of Burisma's chief. The indictment claims that Hunter Biden was receiving criminal, laundered money as his pay for being Burisma's board member. This laundered money was allegedly stolen from Ukrainian taxes. It's not surprising, actually, and we should ask how many other Obamaites, including any of the impeachment witnesses, were in on similar things. BCP [Black Conservative Patriot] has this story on Thursday, he sharing it from OAN. I smell Soros and the Clintons wherever I smell laundry soap and fleecing fabric softener. Here we go with the OAN story:

That is heavy-duty, and timed just right for Trump's quid pro quo. But NBC and Daily Beast are immediately saying that this is a fake story, that Ukraine's prosecutor has denied it. Well, maybe the story is true and was leaked against the prosecutor's will. Maybe the story is true and the prosecutor was threatened by a guilty party. The Daily Beast:

The story began when two members of Ukraine’s parliament declared at a press conference on Wednesday that “investigations” have been opened into Burisma, Hunter Biden and Burisma’s founder, billionaire and former minister of natural resources Nikolay Zlochevsky.

Alexander Dubinsky, a Ukrainian MP from Zelensky’s ruling Servant of the People party, claimed that Hunter Biden...

...Another member of Ukraine’s parliament, Andriy Derkach, said at the Wednesday press conference that new information has been found by “investigative journalists” about international money laundering schemes involving Zlochevsky and ex-President Victor Yanukovych’s family, “in particular, with regard to laundering of criminally obtained income."

...Only a couple of hours after the MPs ended their presentation in Kyiv, Prosecutor General Ruslan Ryaboshapka spoke at his own press conference about the review of all cases mentioning “Biden” and “Burisma.” And the most important message for Washington was loud and clear: “The Burisma probe does not exist,” said Ryaboshapka. He added that there were 13 cases mentioning Zlochevsky, who is wanted in Ukraine but has not been apprehended.

Well, how possibly could the first two have come into the open with such heavy-duty stories if there was no truth to them? Makes no sense. "Ryaboshapka also pointed out that he had not discussed the Biden case with any foreign governments: 'I haven’t been asked any questions, haven’t been pressured or given any requests.'" That's exactly what I figure he'd say it someone like a Soros goon told him to say it, or else. The Daily Beast has no worthy right to guess of hype as it has that the first two men were playing games.

Day Five

Fiona Hill testified Thursday that Sondland told her that he was now in charge of Ukraine matters, suggesting that trump no longer trusted Ukraine diplomats and their staff / tentacles. Hill is trying to make Trump look nefarious for this sentiment, once again ignoring the Ukraine corruption that Trump was aware of and concerned with. One would think that, by now, Hill would dress herself with this proper perspective and understanding since it's so easily arrived to in light of all that's been said thus far in the hearings. She was a Yovanovitch supporter.

The other witness on Day Five is Mr. Holmes, who claimed to Nunes that he supported the black ledger used against Trump in relation to the Steele dossier. It's pretty incredible that the Holmes surname shares in its Crest the red lion head in the Crest of the Steele surname, and moreover the Holmes lion head has the chapeau cap seen in the Coat of the Biden/Button though God arranged this heraldry to point to Holmes as one of the bad guys.

There's a big difference in the Hillary campaign using Ukrainians (and Russians) to interfere in Trump's campaign, versus Trump's much-later decision to interfere with that very thing: Trump wasn't guilty of anything in his interference, and the Hillary campaign was. Why can't these witnesses see this? Trump's interference is for the sake of catching those who illegally interfered with him. Big difference, like night and day. In fact, Trump has not been interfering at all if that term comes with malicious connotations. The proper word to use is, discovery. Trump is seeking discovery of the Hillary and Biden crimes. If these witnesses don't give Trump high fives for his part in seeking discovery, they are shameless shameful.

Fiona Hill saw the Steele dossier at its early stages before it became public, and while she thought it was a "rabbit hole," she didn't raise red flags about that with the whole gang now rising against Trump. I wonder how she came to see the dossier. Was someone hoping that she would support it? She says hat the dossier was given to her by Strob Talbot, president of the Brookings Institution. He was Bill Clinton's deputy secretary of state for almost seven years. Nobody of that stripe would send Ms. Hill the dossier unless Hill was a Clintonite for the 2016 election. Hill's trying to make Trump look like a reckless bulldozer upsetting the Obama-team's mission in Ukraine. I sense that Hill was involved with the anti-Trump crusade, which may explain why she at one point (on day five) gave Trump some sympathy for how the Western world slandered him in tweets when he was still a candidate. She could be trying to hide her own involvement with the dossier movement. She denied knowing about the real owner of the dossier, Hillary Clinton, when she received the package from Talbot.

On behalf of Hillary, the dossier was owned by her legal team at Perkins COIE. Note the "cui" motto term of the Holmes surname. My sleeping bag dream, with an important HILL, was about Hillary's crimes that included the one through Perkins Coie. I regret that houseofnames doesn't list a Vindman surname listed with Windmans who happen to have three lion heads in the colors of the three lions of Fiona-like Fions/Fiens/Phone's.

As I've said a few times, I PICKed the sleeping bag up on a hill in the WOODs because God is the author of the dream, and He wanted to point to the Woods sharing the three fitchees of Picks/Pix's (share a tree with the Woods). A Windman branch is said to have been at Dinton, assumed to be named after the Dinton/Denton sharing the cinquefoils of Rodhams (Northumberland, same as Dintons/Dentons). It was shown that God was pointing also to John Solomon of The Hill news because Solomons share the stars of Scottish Picks/Pike's. I would suggest that Solomon should look into Fiona Hill for some nuggets of discovery. Dintons/Dentons have three cinquefoils in their Chief, as do Bags. The sleeping bag.

Watch how Ms. Hill fights Nunes on a very good question, asking whether she or Holmes sent word to the Trump team on the Biden scandal or Trump-meddling. Hill says it wasn't her job description, spit! Excuse-excuse. Note that she's jumping in looking like she's trying to save Holmes from having to answer the question.

Holmes is the one who claims to have overheard a call between Sondland and Trump, and the things Holmes stuck in Sondland's mouth made the fledgling Trump-Zelensky relationship look defiled. It comes off on the sinister side, as could be expected from those wanting Trump's downfall, and as Trump denied that Holmes overheard Sondland, I'd take Trump's word on this one over Holmes', in which case Sondland is allowing himself to be used in what could be a wholly fabricated call that didn't happen. I didn't watch the entire hearing, when Sondland was up, to know whether anyone asked him whether the Holmes report about his phone call is true and accurate. Note that the Schiffites had Holmes do a sit-down the day after Sondland appeared.

The do-not-prosecute list, the existence of which is denied by Fiona Hill, is thought to be related to a letter from her fellow rat, George Kent, obtained by John Solomon, and shown on Friday's Dan Bongino show, at the 30th minute, just after we learn that Ms. Hill is a passionate Soros supporter:

Kent's letter discloses that the United States gifted the prosecutor's office (the Ukrainian Bill Barr) in Kiev with money, and so we can guess that this is secretly bribery money to force Ukraine to do certain things if and when needed, otherwise money will be cut off in the future. We can guess that the United States makes these sorts of control-measure payments all over the world, which is fine if the money is truly given for good purposes, not corrupt. Imagine if corrupt politicians in the U.S. use the peoples' money to safeguard their overseas corruption, or worse, the corruption of non-governmental, invisible fat cats who control politicians. In the letter, Kent is upset with the Ukraine prosecutor's office for doing an investigation on a possible crime involving the money gift I mentioned above, and Kent demands that this investigation ceases. Suspicious, is it not? Watch the Bongino show on this to see how Soros is likely at the center.

Bongino's segment on Soros features a few articles from Solomon, which really reminds me of the sleeping bag found on a HILL, which had to do with John Solomon. Again, I'm starting to think that Solomon's investigations in Ukraine ought to focus on what Hill knows.

What this world needs is prosecutors who will stand up to these threatening rats, who take the risk and destroy them by exposing them. Unfortunately, Bill Barr's not that type of hero. The beginning of Bongino's video above discusses two disappointing stories that came out late this week, one revealing that Bill Barr is a compromised slob (proper and accurate word) who doesn't mind lying to us about Epstein's fate, and another story revealing that Horowitz has decided that the FBI had a legal right to spy on Carter Page. Horowitz has apparently denied Mr. Page a law suit against the FBI. Sara Carter said that Carter Page wasn't even interviewed by Horowitz (it's horrendous of Horowitz), which causes me to recall that the Horwitz surname shares the checkered Shield of Fiscs while the FISA Court is called the FISC. The FBI spied on Carter Page using the FISC. It tends to make me think that God arranged the heraldry to nab Horowitz as a protector of the FBI as far as he can swing it.

If that's not the correct interpretation, then perhaps God is trying to show you that He's behind the Horowitz - FISA disclosures. The sleeping bag dream points to Bags who share the Grimaldi Shield, both of which are a lozenge version of the Horowitz / Fisk Shields, and Fiscs can be gleaned as a branch of Feschs and the Fieschi of Genova, the latter being home of Grimaldi's whom Wikipedia claims to have been in cahoots with the Fieschi. I picked up the sleeping bag, and my mother's maiden name is, Grimaldi.

The new story out late this week is that Horowitz caught Kevin CLINEsmith, an FBI lawyer, altering a document intended for the FISC in an effort to subvert the Trump campaign. Don't automatically give Horowitz the credit for this, for he may have been forced to out this story, or he may be trying to jail lower-level officials ONLY, to make himself look like he's done something, yet allowing FBI leaders to go unharmed. Scottish Cline's are also Clinton-like Clynde's while Irish Cline's/Cluns share the Chief-and-Shield colors of Clintons. The sleeping bag dream was all about the Clinton crime ring in various events. Clinesmith was under James Baker, head FBI lawyer when the FISC (guilty party) allowed itself, blind-eyed, to be defrauded by Comey's FBI.

A slob is otherwise someone who sullies himself. I can't think of anything more dirty than protecting Epstein's partners who've decided to murder him in prison under the nose of an acting stooge of the deep state named, Bill Barr.

If Horowitz is protecting FBI leaders and the FISC judges from punishment, then those Republicans promising a bombshell from him seem to be deep-state players having the purpose of making Trump voters content with next-to-nothing for changing the nation's corruption problem. Americans don't want to abide under this tyranny, but I'm starting to see that Barr is a part of this problem. I'll even go so far as to suggest that Barr asked Horowitz to go light on Comey, Mueller, and other upper level criminals. I hope I'm wrong.

There's a good chance that Barr came out with his Epstein news this week to send any would-be murderer or trouble-maker the message that he isn't going to pursue Epstein's killer(s). I can't at this moment see any other motive. He knows it'll disappoint Trump voters and bring their insults upon his head.

On the 22nd: "An associate of President Trump's personal attorney Rudy Giuliani is reportedly willing to tell Congress that Republican Rep. Devin Nunes met with a former Ukrainian prosecutor in an effort to dig up [evidence of a crime(s)] on 2020 Democrat Joe Biden." Great for Nunes, a champion thus far. Do it again soon. He was doing his job. He is no do-nothing.

Parnas is being forced to snitch by the FBI, shame on Barr for letting this happen. Who leaked this story, and why? It was leaked by Parnas' lawyer, assumed to be with Parnas' permission. "Parnas, who was arrested with Giuliani associate Igor Fruman on campaign finance-related charges last month, has signaled that he is ready to cooperate with the impeachment proceedings into the president. The pair also reportedly pressured the previous president of Ukraine to investigate Biden."

Trump is in danger of slipping down the shark's throat, if Giuliani and friends have been moles in his camp. A few weeks ago, I changed my mind and assuming that Giuliani has not been a mole, but his being silenced suddenly by the arrest of the two men above, and now their appearing to testify, is begging me to change my mind back to the mole theory.

The current strategy seems to be to create as much national chaos so that Trump's Republican enemies in the Senate (and elsewhere) will pressure him to resign, under the guise of it being good of the country. I will predict, from inside information I have from God, that this will end up very bad for James Clapper and others who have supported Jeffrey Epstein. These supporters constitute the nasty shark seeking to eat Trump alive.

"'Mr. Parnas learned from former Ukrainian Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin that Nunes had met with Shokin in Vienna last December,' the lawyer said..." How did Parnas get Shokin's ear? Through Giuliani? Why do we get the impression that Parnas is trying to portray Nunes as sinister merely for meeting with Shokin? He's the one Biden had fired, though the Ukrainians may have called Obama to verify that Biden's threat was good.

The attorney added that Parnas put Nunes in contact with Ukrainians who could help him get dirt on Biden and other Democrats. According to Parnas, Nunes "had told Shokin of the urgent need to launch investigations into Burisma, Joe and Hunter Biden, and any purported Ukrainian interference in the 2016 election" (article above).

It could look like Parnas and company was/is trying to make Nunes look as bad as Trump for asking foreigners to assist in Trump's 2020 bid. Did Parnas try to frame Nunes for this when putting him in contact with Shokin? Nunes has nothing to be ashamed of for seeking to expose corruption in the Obama camp. I am very sure that he was seeking Hillary-camp corruption too. Nunes = servant of the better half of his nation.

As none of the impeachment witnesses were able to frame Trump successfully with the quid pro quo involving military aid, lookie at Parnas now making that same accusation, as though he were being arm-twisted into making it (for fear of being imprisoned), or perhaps as part of the original plan during which time he masqueraded as a pro-Trump actor: "Parnas' lawyer confirmed to Fox News that [Parnas] told Ukrainian officials that...the United States would freeze aid to the Eastern European nation if the demands were not met."

The same Fox article: "Giuliani also denied a recent Wall Street Journal report stating that he would personally profit from a natural gas pipeline in Ukraine was false and that he was 'not going to financially profit from anything that {he} knows of in the Ukraine.'" I believe him. He's just put the onus on Lindsey Graham to invite four Ukrainians to a senate hearing (see minute 1):

It's nice to see that Giuliani isn't backing down, though we thought he may have been. For his part, Biden was on television with what could be construed as a veiled threat against Graham "for the rest of his life." The video above, with Fox's Ed Henry on the 23rd, may likely disappear, for it seems that youtube is making key Fox videos disappear the day after they appear. Rick Perry's Ukraine story is at 28 minutes.

The leaks from the Washington Post and New York Times this week predicting Horowitz's lame report may be typical falsifications to keep the impeachment spirits up for next week. I welcome more impeachment witnesses, because the world can learn what's really going on. Barr has yet to arrest McCabe, even though Horowitz suggested his arrest many months ago. I'd say that Trump's going to be responsible for getting rid of Bill Barr as soon as possible, because Barr looks like he's not thinking of cleansing the nation from the deep-state status quo. He's given more than enough clues to how he acts.

I dearly want to see the deep state wiped out with dozens of jail terms of the highest players. If you think it's an exaggeration to claim world-class liars for global-corruption reasons, just look at the climate-change heist. Bongino has the best way to highlight this criminal enterprise, by showing how people are still buying low-lying ocean-front properties while the criminals claim that low-lying ocean fronts are going to be submerged in 10, 15 or 20 years. We have not read that such ocean-front properties have gone down in price, have we? Entire countries have conspired to rob us based on climate-change tricks, but they are steeling our money in so many other ways that we must not allow the deep state to live another year, because each passing year allows them to gain stricter powers. If Trump fails us because he fails to do the right things, he is to be despised above all others. If he does the right things yet fails, I'd consider him a hero. Do the right things and go to your own graves with God pleased for your sacrifices. That's all that matters.

If Trump were properly concerned, he'd be talking to Barr to discover how things are going, and if Barr's not doing / planning the right things enough, Trump should correct him, or ask him to resign. Do the right things and allow God to control the fall-out? God always notices things done in self-sacrifice on behalf of things pleasing to Him.

On BCP's Sunday-night show, news came out of Giuliani's claim that Glenn Simpson was in Kiev for a significant time span while he with Ukraine elements went against Trump's presidential bid in 2016. This looks like a big deal, and explains why the deep state would want to shut his mouth fast:

A disgusting bombshell of an exposure against criminal abortionists; this should make you cry, but this world has lost its feelings/senses; selling baby parts, caught in the act. Hell burneth:


For Some Prophetic Proof for Jesus as the Predicted Son of God. Also, you might like this related video:

Table of Contents

Web Analytics