Ask why the Fox big-shows are ignoring the details of the Biden story instead of sending out investigators to get more details. Hannity likes to repeat the "son-of-a-bitch" statement from Biden, but he isn't delving deeper aside from having some guests present deeper things without panels to discuss them thoroughly, as he once did when on the Mueller probe'. But here's a Fox show presenting the Biden scandal beautifully, with things we generally have not heard from Fox as yet:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nkKP0w0MD8w

In all the times I've watched Hannity repeat his Biden story, I didn't know that the $1B of Ukraine aid from the Obama administration was specifically to Ukraine's gas industry. That's a big deal for making Joe Biden look guilty of abusing tax money for lining his own pockets and that of his friends. The video stresses that Biden was against gasoline until he was made the Obama point-man in Ukraine, at which time Biden had the $1B gift. Why hasn't Hannity stressed this thing? Is it new news this week? Did Hannity not know, as the video shows, that Devon Archer visited Joe Biden at the White House on April 16, 2014, and that Hunter joined Burisma on April 16? Just a minor detail? Then as the Fox man puts it, Biden promised Ukraine the $1 billion package to the Ukraine gas industry on April 21! It can't look worse for Biden, but I didn't see any of this until now.

I can't repeat everything here. Those of you who know that my visit one day to McKeller (region of Parry Sound) with Joel and his white Volkswagen Rabbit had several pointers to Rudy Giuliani's Ukraine stories in which he investigated the Bidens. But before Joel and I went to McKeller, I told a few times about my finding red BUTTONs in a trailer that I was dismantling piece by piece for the scrap yard. A previous owner put those button in the kitchen cupboards, but I had not seen them there before that day, because they were on the bottom shelf behind the bottom piece of frame (about 1" x 2") to which the shelf was attached. When one opens the door, one cannot see small items behind the frame.

I told the story a few times because I felt sure it had to do with the Button/BIDEN surname, though this was well before the Biden-Ukraine stories broke. I think I can now decipher why they were RED buttons, the color of Russia. The two red buttons were still in their original, unopened BAG. They were clearly buttons that had come with a shirt, having an extra button for the open front of the shirt, as well as a smaller button for the collar.

It just so happens that the beginning of my SLEEPing BAG dream was a pointer to John Solomon, who is exposing Ukraine scandals as we speak. So, the buttons in a BAG looks orchestrated y God to link the trailer event to the sleeping-bag dream. As I said not many months ago, I happened to purchase the trailer from an RV camp site not more than a few miles south of McKeller (same road, #124), though roughly eight years before Joel and I visited McKeller. It's another good reason to prove that our visit was indeed about the Biden scandals now in the news.

The Sleep surname (Shropshire, same as Hunters) was shown, to me, to be from the SELEPitanoi Illyrians smack in the area of BUDva (ancient Butua), where the Button surname and/or it variants should trace. I'm not sure who coined the phrases, "sleepy Biden / Sleepy Joe / Sleepy Joe Biden," but I hear it repeatedly from Trump. This is the first time that evidence has popped up to make me see the sleeping bag as touching on Biden. Open the Sleep tab above to load / view other surnames.

However, on the day after the sleeping-bag dream, I claimed that the sleeping bag was itself a pointer to the murder of judge Scalia (by someone in the Clinton / Obama camp, I assume). He was murdered (February 12/13, 2016) while HUNTing in a ranch in Texas (when 30 or more members of the HUNTER's group, International Order of Saint Hubertus, also hunted). As per DEVON Archer being the partner of HUNTER Biden, it's interesting that the Devon surname has ducks (what hunters hunt), and a horizontally-split Shield in the colors of the vertically-split Shield of Hunts/Hunters. The latter were first found in Shropshire with the Alans who became the Stewarts/Stuarts, and while English Stewarts were first found in DEVON, French Alans once showed ducks.

The Buttons/Bidens have been resolved with the fesse of Bute's/Butts/Boets, and the latter's gold fish upon their red fesse is in the colors of the PIKE fish heads of the Geddes'. It just so happens that the Geddes motto term, "capta," is like the "captivus" motto term of Devons as though God arranged these heraldic links centuries ago to tell an end-time story. The only think I did with the sleeping bag, in the dream, was PICK it up. Scottish Picks/PIKE's, can you believe it, share the Solomon stars, while English Pike's were first found in DEVON. It's as though God named Hunter Biden's first name to nab Hunter Biden, and also named Devon Archer's first name to nab him, by these heraldic links. Burisma-like Buris'/Burys were first found in Devon, how about that. Keep on going, exposers, there's got to be more to come.

It can be established that the Salome variation of Solomons is from Salome BOETHus, a Herod of Israel, which does not speak to any particular evil of John Solomon, of course.

BE AMAZED, because the Geddes motto, "CAPTa MAJORa," can be gleaned for a branch of CABOTs because the latter use fish in colors reversed from the Geddes / Bute/Butt/Boet fish, and because Cabots were first found in the Channel Islands with Majors/MAGors. A branch of the Magors may be in the "mago" motto term of JOSEPHS, first found in Hampshire with Buttons/Bidens. Joseph Biden. The main point is, Cabots were first found in Jersey with Poindexters while Scalia was killed at a ranch owned by John B. Poindexter. The latter admitted in his own words that he sat beside Scalia at his last dinner, when he got up to go to bed early because he was tired...or not feeling well due to being sedated / poisoned? Looks like. Scalia died that night. It was near the time that Devon Archer joined Burisma, "biggest Ukraine GAS company." The Gas/Garcon surname uses, I think, a duck because it shares the Chief of the French Alans once showing ducks. English Gas' were first found in Yorkshire with English Garcons.

There can be no doubt that God is pointing both to the Bidens and to Scalia's murder. What more will God get revealed?

How can it be a further coincidence that the Hunter saltire (its both Kilpatrick saltires) can be gleaned with the saltire of Supers, for the latter's Spurr branch can be traced to Closeburn, location of Kilpatrick castle on the Nith river of the proto-Geddes Geds ("DuRAT"). The Supers and Spurrs were both first found in DEVON, along with the Hoods of RATtery, and Ratterys (Perthshire, same as DURe's), first found beside Geddes' and Rats, have a "Super" motto code and moreover share the three fitchee crosses of Picks/Pix's and Woods. I PICKed up the sleeping bag in the WOODs.

Now watch how I can bring the topic to Scalia's death using "BURISma." The Buris'/Burys can be gleaned with a Masci-version of the Leslie Coat because Irish Buris'/Burys (Pollock colors) have a SPEAR through their boar head (probably the gold boar head of Massey-related Vere's/Weirs). The Leslie's became earls of Rothes by marriage to the family line of Peter Pollock, builder if Rothes castle on the SPEY river. Spears are also SPEYers, we get it (a Spear branch named the Spey river). The mouth of the Spey has a Buckie location, explaining the Leslie buckles. The Speers/Speyers share crossed spears with PASi's/PASE' because Peter Pollock lived at the PAISley area while Paisleys/PASleys were first found in Renfrewshire with Spears/Speyers and Pollocks. El PASO is where the killers of Scalia sent his corpse to complete the "perfect crime." The Rollo's, with a "passe" motto term, and boar heads in colors reversed from the Spear/Spyer boar heads, share the blue boar with the Massey-related Vere's.

I trace Leslie's to a Lesce location on the Sava river, right beside Bled, and Bled's happen to use a "tous" motto term while Tous' are said to have a "man" wearing a red shirt "with buttons" i.e. red buttons assumed. When Joel and I went to McKeller, we went to a road called, Sekulow-like Shakell, and then Shakells use "buckle lozenges." The Buris/Bury spear (one tip) can therefore be gleaned with the double-tipped SHAKEspeare spear because the latter is shared by Fulke's/VOLKs while Joel and I visited Shakell road in his VOLKswagen. It just so happens that the Shakespeare bend is shared by Sarah's (see Sara Carter discussion below).

As the video presented above says, Joe Biden's son got a job on the Burisma board just as his father was about to participate in a giant grant of funds to Ukraine gas companies. That's how conflict of interest works, to funnel tax money into your own pocket, one easy-or-complicated way or another. Yet Barr has yet to arrest Biden?????

Well it just so happens that Barrs/Bars can be traced exceptionally well, thanks in large part to English Bute's/Butts (Button/Biden branch), to a Bar location off the Illyrian coast of lake Scodra, smack where the Sleep-liner Selepitanoi lived! Zinger. What is this telling us, that Bill Barr is about to arrest the Bidens? But why do I not feel it in my bones? Why do I half-expect Barr to disappoint?

The video tells that four U.S. senators wrote to Obama to request more tax money to Ukraine's energy industries. It sounds to me as though they felt confident that Obama would oblige them i.e. Obama knew, at the least, of the conflict-of-interest schemes. It sounds very logical in light of Biden's self-incriminating son-of-a-bitch admission. The senators disguised their request as something good and vital for the fledgling new Ukraine.

I get it. The leaders of the United States target a poor country, or make it poor, then help them with aid that somehow gets back to the pockets of the particular donors. So long as money is flowing into other countries, it's easy to pocket some of it. That's why Americans are in so much tax debt, due to congressional leaders sending so much money around the world, where it's harder to catch the congressional crooks by checking to see whether the financial books balance. Americans should be seeing red.

One of the four senators above is Ed Markey, and the Markeys/Margys/Mackeys are expected as a branch of Margesons/Mackeys who in-turn love the Loyals/Lolita's in their motto, suggesting a possible Ed-Markey connection to the Lolita Express, the airplane of Jeffrey Epstein.

God showed me in another dream which began with a SHARK, that a SLEEPIng woman was to be traced to Rhizon, right beside Kotor and Budva/Butua. It plays again to the Button/Biden line, but the next point here is that Kotor was the home of Shark-like Saraca's. Saraca's were from the Saracens of southern Italy, which should explain why the Rollo Coat is in the colors of the Arms-of-Saraca fesse, for the Guiscards, known to be from the house of Rollo, had allied themselves with some Saracens while fighting Saracens. The latter's fesse has the Ged fish, I assume, and Kotor-like Cutters have the Chief-Shield colors of Markeys/Margys/Mackeys. The Markey variation may indicate the Marici, co-founders of Pavia with the Laevi Gauls, and then the Passe's/Pascals in the Rollo motto share the Levi lion. The Bute's/Butts/Boets, sharing a fish on a fesse with the Arms of Saraca, have a Coat version of the Pierro's/Pero's, first found in Pavia, and moreover Salome Boethus was from the Boethus house of Sadducees, LEVItes, that's right.

What are the chances that both the Cutter and Archer Crests have a dragon head in a red mural crown? That's astoundingly correct, just as though heraldry had eyes to see the Ukraine-scandal future. Mural crowns are probably code for Muriels, from Muriel Pollock of Rothes castle. The ducks of Devons can be for a Muriel-line merger with Ducks in creating the Murduck variation of Murdochs. One Duck Coat shares the stars of Picks/Pike's while the latter were first found in Ayrshire with Markeys/Margys/MACKEYs and Murdochs. Mackeys and Mackays are from king Maccus of the Isle of Man, where Christine's were first found whom God pointed to with Christine Peare, a Pero liner.

Wow, I almost missed it. Let's repeat that Cutters and Archers share essentially the same Crest so as to seem as though Button/Biden kin out of Kotor are pointing to Devon Archer and Hunter Biden. In fact, the greyHOUND in the Cutt/Cute Crest plays to the HUNT/Hunter bloodline. Watch and see. Well, as I said, the red buttons in the trailer were first seen in the kitchen SINK, having fallen there after I demolished the kitchen cupboards. The Sinks, I kid you not, first found in Cambridge with the Cuter-like Cutts/Cute's, share nearly the same Coat as Cutts/Cute's...and Dents, and then there was a dream I had (a few years ago, near the time of demolishing the trailer), repeated to readers many times, of my DENTist laughing at my red buttons. I absolutely kid you not. It appears that God arranged the red buttons to fall into the Sink because Sinks can point to Kotor liners via Cutts/Cute's, who by the way have a version of the Penn/PENCE Coat.

Well, to verify that God gave the dentist dream, he apparently arranged the Dents to share the white-on-black lozenges of Hounds. Is that not incredible? Hounds were first found in Cambridgeshire with greyHOUND Cutts/Cute's and Sinks. Plus, the same lozenges are used by the Giffords sharing the motto of Ryans. What could that be about? Just read and see. Hounds and Hunts can be the Bleda-line Huns who named Bled, for we saw the red shirt and buttons of the Tous' in the Bled motto. Bleda was Attila's brother.

A red-lozenge version of the three Hound lozenges is used by MontaCUTE's. Why do MontaCUTE's share the lozenges of Ryan-like Reno's/Ryne's/Reins? Does nasty Paul Ryan have anything to do with this? The Montacute border is in colors reversed from the Hound border, helping to make the link, all in Hunt/hunter colors, and then the Montacute's share a black border with Sedans ("sed" motto term), the latter once said to be first found in Yorkshire, the location of SEDbergh, where Dents are said to have been first found. Unbelievably, the Sedan cinquefoils are colors reversed from those of Sarah's, and, moreover, the dentist laughed at my red button when I was in the back SEAT of his CAR. The Car surname share's "sed" with Sedans, and Seats/Cedes look feasibly like a branch of Sedan-branch Seatons. Sarah variations strike me as branch's of Sava-river Sauers, and Bled is on the Sava river.

Just a couple of days ago, I saw "Saraca" is "SARA CArter", hmm. I'm not sure what to make of that. Here's a fairly-recent article (March, 2019, Washington Examiner) that I haven't known about until today, as I write here:

Fox News host Sean Hannity has ignored calls from network execs that he stop promoting frequent guest Sara Carter as an “investigate reporter.”

Network executives have made the request in response to her reporting not being vetted or meeting the network’s editorial guidelines, according to Mediaite.

Hannity features Carter on the show almost nightly to discuss the “deep state” and other stories on her eponymous website. She is barred from appearing on the network’s news programs. Fox News has also banned former Trump official Seb Gorka from the network’s non-opinion shows.

Despite the ask, Hannity has shown defiance and continues to refer to Carter as an investigative reporter.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/Hannity-defiant-after-fox-news-execs-ask-him-to-stop-calling-sara-carter-investigative-reporter

Wow, Fox's executives don't want this unraveling of the deep state. It seems they've been gagging Hannity and others. I smell the dying bones of Paul Ryan now suddenly at Fox's executive levels. The MARKeys/Margys/Mackeys share the raven hanging on an arrow with Murdochs (share checks on a fesse with MARKs). Rupert Murdoch own Fox news. Faucets of FOXside (share the Side lion) were first found in East Lothian with Side-branch Seatons, which strikes me as God connecting the red buttons of the dentist to something foul / rotten at Fox news. Keep watch for the shark's teeth, for dentists are all about teeth.

If Sara Carter is a second fulfillment of the shark in the dream, then she's going to get a bulldog into her mouth for dinner. Who might that dog represent? It's interesting that while Saraca's were at Kotor, Cutters/Cuters were first found in Dorset with Pools. The shark was in a swimming pool.

The sleeping woman in the shark dream was resolved with Charlotte RENA Hicks, a pointer, I have assumed, to Charlotte Hope Hicks, who joined Fox's executive levels about the time that Paul RYAN joined. Why is "Ryan" like "Rena."Repeat: "Why do MontaCUTE's share the Reno/Ryne/Rein lozenges?"

In the dream, the shark's sharp teeth were nastily around the belly of the bulldog when it was half down the shark's throat. This scene has been proven, to my great satisfaction, to be Trump in the throat of his deep-state enemies. The Ryan Crest shares the red Tooth griffin as though God is snitching on him through His heraldic arrangements. The white-on-red griffin is even shared by Tooths and Ryans in their Shields. You see, as we could expect, God, seemingly, is verifying that Paul Ryan is of the deep-state RINO's, yet wasn't Fox's owner, Rupert Murdoch, the one who ultimately hired Ryan? Why? To fight the exposure on the deep state? Why would Murdoch want to do that? Will they succeed in totally shutting the mouths of the deep-state exposers?

The teeth-like Teets/Tate's (compare with Tweeds) were first found in Berwickshire with the Lauders/Letters (near the Tweets) who share the Tooth griffin, and the other Tate's share the raven with Markeys/Margys/Mackeys and Murdochs/Murducks (and with the Arms of the Isle of Man). Now look, for Berwickshire is where Arthurs/ARTERs were first found, and while Saraca's lived in the land of proto-Arthur Ardiaei, it seems that God is proving Sara Carter to be an alternative view of the shark, for we can see "Arter" at the end of "Saraca" in "Sara CARTER." The Tyne river of the Lauder area is probably in the Tooth motto as verification that Tooths are in fact kin of Lauders/Letters.

Let there be a massive revolt against Murdock and Ryan until everything is exposed on behalf of America's law-abiding citizens. Better yet, on behalf of Jesus.

As I've said many, many times, the bulldog was the short, stout kind, exactly a British bulldog. I was able to prove in a double-whammy way that it was indeed British bulldog, but, unless the British surname shares chaplets with the Hicks', I have never been able to understand what the British surname had to do with the rest of the dream...until now: the British surname has a red FOX, believe it or not. I've never had reason to link the shark-and-bulldog to Fox news until coming to this Sara-Carter discussion.

I've read that Hicks' have a chaplet, but I can't remember whether the British's have chaplets or wreaths, and I think I tried to find the answer but failed in the first update of last August, when God pointed to Conrad Black, a Montacute liner. If Hicks and British's both share chaplets, since both share gold stag heads while the Hicks chaplet is around the stag head, then it seems a certainty that God is pointing to Fox's Hope Hicks. She left Trump's administration just as Paul Ryan was getting the Fox job, and then she landed a Fox job too, a leader in its communications department. We never hear of her anymore. Why isn't anyone investigating her? Why isn't anyone leaking Ryan's doings at Fox? Are they in a mortal war or not? Is this the time to waste opportunities, while the deep-state is hard at work in attacking? Is it dandy to let the deep state go unscathed as long as Trump get's re-elected? Fox executives have removed / silenced everyone wanting jail terms. There's no /little talk of that anymore just when it's needed most to help assure that Barr doesn't drop the ball.

The British surname is listed with BradDOCKs as though God were seeking a link to "MurDOCH/MurDOCK," and then Bradds happen to have a giant lion head in the colors of the giant Pool lion while the bulldog JUMPed into the pool that had the shark. The Jumps share the Trump stag head as well as the Belly roses while the shark's teeth circled the bulldog's BELLY, that's right, I'm not kidding or making this up. Murdocks share the red lion with the Bradd Crest.

God pointed us to RHIZON and Kotor when he told me, in the shark dream, to wake up Miss Hicks. As soon as she was awake, we were RISING together while emBRACED, and I was able to resolve that the embrace was a pointer to BRACEbridge's, themselves suspect with Bridge's and Brights. British-like Brights are also Brode's while British's/Braddocks had an old BrodHOK variation that may feasibly have come from a Bright-Hicks merger. It seems that God provided the Bright/Brode Crest with the SCOTT griffin to track Bright liners to lake SCODra, the general area of Rhizon and the Sleep-liner Selepitanoi.

Now, a new thing: there is a white lion head in the Crest of Carters! I had noted repeatedly for months that Carters show no link to Sara Carter, but, suddenly, if she's a secondary version of the shark, then let's repeat that Bradds can be using the Pool lion. That's how the Bradd lion head can be the Carter lion head. So, carters would be an indirect British/Braddock link to Pools, not at all bad for this discussion.

Bradds are also Breads expected with the CAKE's/CakeBREADs, from Sitric CAECH, king Maccus' grandfather. Braddocks/British's are colors reversed from Herods/HARALDs, highly suspect from the line of Harald, Sitric's son and Maccus' father. Isle-of-Man liners should include the Mens'/Mengzes', first found in Midlothian with Bradds. The line of George (father of Drummonds), husband of a woman of PodeBRADY, is to English George's, first found in Dorset with Pools/Pole's (and Poole). Those are near-excellent ways to verify that Sara Carter is to link to the shark in the pool, if Carters have the Brad lion, and French Pole's even share the Bradd lion (both colors). In fact, the double carter lions are in the colors of the Sforza lion, and Sforza's were first found in Rome with the Rita's who use the Pool lion.

BEHOLD. RITA's and Pools were from empress, Vespasia POLLa of RIETI, on the SALTo river, and Sale's/Salletts share the CakeBREAD fleur-de-lys. This is the fleur-de-lys of June's (Cambridge, same as Cakebreads and CAPONE's), from Junia CAEPIONis, daughter of QUINTus Caepio, the proto-Quince/Quincy surname. The Sforza lion happens to hold a "quince" flower while SAER (like SARA!!!) de Quincy ruled Winchester, and Winchesters (share the gold QUINT fitchee) were first found in Hampshire with Carters!!!! Bingo, tending to prove that Carters married the kin of Sforza's, or even Sforza's themselves, thus making Carters linkable to the Pool / Rita lion!!! Wow, I didn't expect this. Sara Carter in the pool as the shark! Zinger. (Note the Saer-like motto terms of Carter-like Cars)

Winchesters and Quince's/Quincy's share mascles, code for the Mussels/Muscels who named Musselburgh, just a few miles from the Foxside castle of Faucets (share the George lion), said to be built by Saer de Quincy. I kid you not, Musselburgh is right-near Midlothian, where Bradds were first found! This is not surprising because the line of king Maccus, and therefore that of Cakebreads, is from the Masseys/Maceys, and Mussels/Muscels with their Meschin/Masculine branch were themselves a Massey branch. The Keiths of the Musselburgh area happen to come up if you load the Mascal surname.

There's a Grame surname in the Faucet write-up, a variation of the Grahams (Midlothian) who were obvious kin of Varns, and the latter's Coat happens to be a variation of the Sarah Coat! Can we believe it?

If God is suggesting that Sara Carter is an alternative way to view the shark, I'd suggest that she's a counter-interpretation / anti-interpretation in which she swallows the deep state alive i.e. a victory for the Trump side. In other words, she's predicted to be uniquely influential in the going-forward.

If Rupert Murdoch is persecuting Sara Carter, note that while Murdochs had obviously linked (by marriage) to a line of/from Margesons/Mackesys, the latter's "Loyalite" motto term is almost the "loyaulte" of the Pollets in the Pool motto. The Pollet Coat is even a black-Shielded version of the Aude Coat, and while Aude's (in the POLLock motto) can be of the Ault's expected in "loyAULTE," Scottish Aults/Alda's (share Chief-Shield of Mens'/Mengzes'), wow, first found in Ayrshire with Markeys/Margys/Mackeys and Murdocks (surprise!), share the Ryan / Tooth griffins!!! Bingo. It can't be coincidental.

I didn't know until this point in the discussion that the other English Carters share the green chevron with British's/Braddocks! There is even a white greyhound in the Crest of this other Carter Coat, the colors of the Cutt/cute greyhound head. It recalls the white greyhound in the Crest of TOOT-branch Tattons (Toot/Tute crescent and Tute/Tuit quadrants), and Toots/Tute's can be a TOOTH branch to thereby link this discussion to the shark's teeth. Tattons can be a branch of Taddei's (Florence, same as Italian Alda's/AUDa's) who in turn have a Chief like that of the Ayrshire Aults/Alda's.

Toots/Tute's and Tute's/Tuits are expected from the Ardiaei queen, Teuta, or the other Ardiaei queen, Etuta. Sara CARTER. If I recall correctly Etuta was a Dardanian princess married to an Ardiaei king, and the Dardanians, centralized not far from Rhizon / Kotor, are definitely in the Dart/Dart surname having one of the two ermined fesses of Sleeps. The one of Darts/Dards is in the colors of the one of Italian Alda's/Auda's. The canton square of Darts/Dards has got to be the one of Toots/Tute's.

Lookie at this excellent way to link Pools to the Saraca shark in the swimming pool. The Pool-branch Pollets (version of Aude Coat) have swords in the colors of the Baliol swords, and while king Balliol's brother is in the write-up of Scodra-line Scotts, Balliols are a branch of belly-like Bailys!! The shark's teeth were around the belly of the bulldog, and Bailys share the Moray stars while Bellys were first found in Moray (location of Peter Pollocks Rothes castle).

The split Shield of Alda's/Auda's is in the red-blue colors of Moons (Devon, same as Darts/Dards and Pinnes-line Pine's), who are from king MONunius of the Dardanians, father of Etuta above, explaining why Moons share the Toot/Tute / Tatton crescent (it's also that of Rothes-related Spears/Speyers and Spree's). One of the Moon crescents is with Nons/Nevins, explaining the "non" motto term of Monunius-like Monans. Half of the Alda/Auda fesse is that of Nons/Nevins, the latter first found in Ayrshire with Aults/Alda's, perfect.

A piece of possible good news for Trump lovers is where (if) Trump coined the phrase, "Sleepy Joe." If he coined it, I suggest that God breathed that through him as verification that Miss Hicks asleep in the shark dream concerns the Biden line out of Butua...which is to say a pointer to the Biden scandals now in the thick of the war. We've yet to discover whether Hope Hicks is Trump's foe or friend over at Fox. Trump brought Hope Hicks into his administration because he wanted her, and because they had known each other in real-estate. If he was committing adultery with her, or even if he plotted for it by having her office near/beside his, expect his just-rewards from God.

Again, Sleep-liner Selepitanoi were at where modern Bar is today, and Buttons/Bidens are expected from nearby Butua. So, let's add that while Scottish Bars/Barrs were first found in Ayrshire too, they share the Este eagle while English Este's once showed the black horse head (same design) of English Butts/Bute's (ESToiles), a sure way to trace the latter to Butua. German Bars/Barrs are in RISING colors while Reesors/REASONs can be linked to Taddei's via Florence-liner Ferrands. Bars of Este are known to have been in BRUNswick while Bruno's, in Butt/Bute and Bron/Brown colors, were first found in Florence. Then, from the Bute/Butt write-up: "Saint Buite (d. 521), was the son of BRONach, and was descended from TADhg..." It looks like the Bruno and Taddei bloodlines. Bruno's are said to have had a branch in Este-like Asti, and Asteys are in Bar/Barr / Rhizon colors. Brons/Browns have a "majESTAs" motto term, we get it.

For the record, since I'm not familiar with BRONACH, I'm jotting down that BRONKs are listed with the BRANCH's suspect with Hugh Lupus D'AVRANCHes, he suspect from the Welf branch of Este. Bruno liners are expected from Bernicians of Berwickshire, explaining why German Brons (version of RODham Coat) share the bear with Berwickshire and Berwicks. But Bernicians are suspect from Berenice Agrippa, and to this we can add that Bernice's and the related Burns were first found in Cumberland with Brons/Browns. The "FLOReat" motto term of Brons/Browns suggests a Florence merger with Rieti-line Reeds/Reats, very-probably from Vespasia Polla of Rieti, the proto-Pools (Pools share the Rita lion). Reats/Rats love the Spears/Speyers, kin of VesPASia-suspect Pasi's. Reats/Rats share the white anchor with Hoods of Rattery and with Hiedlers/Hitlers, and German Hoods (another anchor) are also HOPE's.

Miss Hicks started at the hood of a car before she fell asleep in the Rhizon-pointing scene, and when we were rising embraced into the sky, it was a pointer to Bracebridge's sharing the crozier with Hood-like Odins/HOODys (share white horse with Este's), suspect with the Aude's/Odo's in the motto of Polla-line Pollocks. For these reasons, the Crozier's are expected with the gold Rising cross and the Bron/Brown fleur-de-lys (the Rising cross is in both colors of the similar Pollock saltire). The Bracebridge and Odins/Hoddy croziers both point to the sinister (left) side of the Shield.

Excellent new discovery. One Crozier Coat is the Arms of Chalons-en-CHAMPAGNE, where Mummolin ruled whose wife. Berthe, was traced to Berta's. I've just found the Berta griffin (Este colors) with Estys. The latter were looked up as per the Asty variation of Asteys. Bruno's were at Asti, beside Bra, and it just so happens that Bracebridge's (crozier), sharing the Shield of Scottish Champagne's, are also BRASbridge's. Perfect.

The Bridge's and Bride's/Brights can thus be expected to/from the namers of Berthe, and to this I will repeat that the shark dream, way back in 1979, made me believe (immediately) that the woman with which I was embraced and rising into the sky would one day become my BRIDE. I had a good reason for believing this when I found a medallion on the HOOD of my truck in the town of BRACEbridge a few years ago. That day, I had left the updates topic off at the dream -- where she was at the hood of a car. Two or three hours later, I found that someone left a MEDALlion on the hood, and MEDALs were discovered, upon coming home, to share a version of the Baud Coat while Scottish Bauds share the Hood / Saracen crescents. God is totally amazing. I have enjoyed countless moments in this long and arduous job. Reesors/Reasons (BROWN wolf head) even share the patee cross of Scottish Bride's, and the latter's black griffin head can related to the demi-black griffin of Scodra-line Scotts (Kent, same as Estys).

But look: French Bauds were first found in Auvergne with French Croziers, and the medalLION can now be gleaned with the Lyons and with "MauriLION," father of Berthe! Amazing. Mummolin was descended from Rusticus of LYON, whose daughter (Artemia) married Florentinus, and Lyons happen to share the giant Astey lion. Rusticus' ancestry was from Tullia of Lyon, who married a noble of Clermont-FERRANDE (in Auvergne), that entity from Firenze = Florence. That's why the Yorkshire Ferrands have a version of the Taddei Coat, why Italian Ferrands share the checkered Shield of Tulls/Toole's (from "Tullia" of Lyon), and why Taddei's share the flory cross of Bouillons (Auvergne).

MAURILion is the line to both Maurel surnames, one having a Coat version of the Este-related Butts/Bute's, and the other Maurels ("NeSCIT") having the giant fleur of Brocks ("VireSCIT") and perhaps the Este horse as a unicorn. Brights (share the Bride stars) are expected from Brigantium with Brechs/BREAKs/Britch's, and while the latter have a BROWN and lodged antelope, the Esty Crest is a brown, lodged stag. Then, the Bra-suspect Brae's/Brays have a "flax BREAKer" and were first found in Northamptonshire with Spinks, the latter suspect in the sphinx of Brock-branch Brocuffs (share SKIT potent cross). Brocks (dart) and Brocuffs both share the Chief-shield color combination of Estys (the ones with Berta griffin), perfect, especially as Brocks share the Brown fleur-de-lys. Also, BRASwells (Esty colors) use a girdle while Girtle's share the Bridge / Bride/Bright stars.

It's worth reminding that Wikipedia's article on Donna Brazile says that her surname stems from Braswells. This nasty / pathetic / evil Donna came to topic as per the Brazilian sportswriter that Joel mentioned to me in our drive to Shakell road, the drive (in a white RABBIT) that turned out to be about the Ukraine scandals, and which touched upon the white rabbit of Conys and Conns, surnames from Cuneo, where Bra is located. The coney rabbit of Conys holds a PANSY while Penns/PENCE's were first found in Northamptonshire with Brae's/Brays, and there is a photo online of Mrs. Mike Pence holding their pet white rabbit. This has made Mike Pence suspicious in my eyes. In Trump's phone call to Zelensky, he asked Ukraine to look into possible crimes from CrowdStrike, and this is the very issue that touches upon Donna Brazile.

But there's more here, for Joel said, on that drive, that he was going to Poland with the Brazilian sports writer, because he was covering the European volleyball games there. It reminds me that a former Polish president was/is a board member of Burisma.

Brocuffs are also Procks/PROCOPs while Procopia was the wife of Michael I Rangabe. The latter's Wikipedia article has/had the Arms of Rangabe, a giant and white flory cross, symbol also of Bouillons / Taddei's. Brocuffs probably have the Dart/Dard fesse on their flag because the Brock Crest has a lion said to be holding a dart. As the Dardanian princess, ETUTA, married the Ardiaei to Arthurs of Berwickshire, note that the red griffin holding the Brocuff flag is the red griffin of TOOTHs, kin in turn of Lauders/Letters of Berwickshire. The giant and white Tooth-Shield and Lauder/Letter griffins have thus got to be the giant white one of Berta's / Estys. Berta's were first found in Este-related Ferrara, and Lauders/Letters were kin of Rodhams and Rutherfords. The latter were first found in Roxburghshire with the Maxwells who were in turn from Rijeka, near Este (and near Bled too), explaining why Estys share the lodged stag with Maxwells. The Lodge's have a version of the Lauder/Letter Coat.

The deep-state invisibles don't care that Democrat fortunes are being ruined for 2020 by the impeachment push. They are demanding from Nadler more of the same because getting rid of Trump and Barr / Durham before the election (as soon as possible) is the first need, for they don't know what the Durham team may have on them. Or, they've spied out what he has, and it's real bad. So, expect leftist media people who care more for 2020 to rebel against the deep-state move to impeach. That should be fun, self-inflicted implosion, with media anchors and their assistants at war with media bosses, puppets of would-be dictators. It's time to slay would-be dictators with their eyes on what little money we have left. They would cut to size the money we spend unless the money goes to their schemes, such as energy taxes, etc.

On the flip side of the political coin, judge Jeanine joked with Bongino this weekend saying that she can't hold the fire to the feet of do-nothing congress-people because, she laughed, "they won't come on this show anymore." It's not so funny. If news people can't roast the guilty for fear of losing their news juice, it's game over for depending on conservative media to save the day. Best move: sacrifice the do-nothings and fry them to their political deaths. Move forward with choice congress-people who feel the same about do-nothing, closet mobsters or puppets thereof. There's been way-too much talk talk talk about the same old rather than moving forward.

American Oversight Wins a Package for the Trump Side

If you're an American, you should be very angry at the Trump state department for not being transparent in all of the scandals floated through the news. The good news is that a liberal judge awarded a liberal organization, American Oversight, the right to state department documents in relation of Giuliani's Ukraine dealings, as well as those of Rick Perry. The good news is that the state department must / will now release information helpful to Trump i.e. damning to the Obama team, otherwise the release will be lob-sided on behalf of liberal spin. In other words, all the power to liberal groups to secure the documents, if they are to be publicized, that is, because Trump's state department has been a nasty piece of elitism towards conservative groups.

The information in these documents, which are online already (unless some have been withheld by AO), will be a news-juice topic of the next impeachment hearings. The "trove" is being portrayed as evidence that Giuliani was trying to smear the Ukraine ambassador (Yovanovitch) with the help of the White House and the state department. But wait; what they call smear is what we call justice. So, release the papers, by all means.

I'm going over the release, almost asleep. We find that Giuliani set up a phone call with Pompeo on March 29, 2019. About a week later, John Herbst, a representative of Atlantic Council, along with a few other previous Ukraine ambassadors, all signed a letter to the state department's David Hale, complaining about what they characterize as the abuse on Yovanovitch. A letter then finds its way to Pompeo's office on April 12, from the House, and the response (June 1) is rather uncaring, saying simply that Yovanovicth's time in Ukraine was about up, anyway, by the time she was released from her job on May 20. As we now know, the House decided to make a federal case of this issue over past weeks, to no avail thus far, except to make Obama-team corruption in Ukraine more of a topic than it was.

Apparently, though I don't know for sure, Giuliani called Pompeo on March 29 to tell what he'd learned as per Ukraine scandals. Part of this release to American Oversight has a record telling of a telephone conference call, a couple of months earlier, on January 23, in which Giuliani, Parnas and Fruman were hearing from Viktor Shokin. The latter complained to Giuliani that Biden had him fired. As Parnas and Fruman were a part of this movement, it explains why the FBI has persecuted the two, hoping to nab Giuliani in some way too. But wait. This is trump's FBI. Does that make any sense?

Thanks to American Oversight, we now know what was said on this call by Shokin: the owner of Burisma Holdings. Mr. Zlochevsky, when he was the minister of Natural Resources in Ukraine, granted himself rights to drill for Ukraine gas...how absolutely wonderful to be a politician in Ukraine. So, Shokin, as the chief law man in Ukraine, went after Zlochevsky's corruption...no kidding. And Shokin lists other crimes for which he was after this man. And Biden had Shokin fired without a doubt, for he admitted it in broad daylight, har-har.

Shokin, in the same call, tells Giuliani that along with Hunter Biden, Joseph Blade was made a Burisma board member in 2014, a former CIA man. Oops, that's pretty bad. It kinda gives the impression that the CIA works foreign countries seeks big-dollar opportunities, criminal enterprises involved or otherwise. Shokin also tells Giuliani that John Kerry's son-in-law was an associate of yet another Burisma board member in 2014, but the Democrats are trying to make everyone believe that there's nothing to Shokin and Giuliani.

My question: why didn't Trump have this material released instead of the Democrats forcing it out?

Shokin says that an ambassador (Geoffrey Pyatt) under the Obama administration told him to stop hounding Burisma. Shokin claims that the Ukrainian president (Poroshenko) asked him to stop investigating Burisma on behalf of the Bidens, suggesting that Poroshenko was happy with Obama's gifts to Ukraine (and didn't want to see that changed), even if for the time being they were blankets (sleeping bags?) instead of missiles.

Two days after this January-23 conference call, Mr. Lutsenko, who took over Shokin's job, Shokin was in New York to see Giuliani. On that day, Lutsenko complained about the nasty-to-him Ukraine deep state which included the anti-corruption organizations, SAP and NABU. He demonstrated that he was on Shokin's side of the Ukraine rift. Lutsenko said he had verified some of Shokin's findings. This was way back in January, a half year before Trump's phone call to Zelensky.

So, you see, thanks to Democrats wanting documents, they got them, and it's not good for Biden. MSNBC has contributed to traffic to this page I'm at, which informs Democrats that Biden was indeed corrupt. It's all good, right? So why doesn't Trump release similar things? What's his problem. John Solomon suggested, this week, 12 sets of things that Trump could release for the betterment of the country. WILL TRUMP EVER HEARKEN?

The same page adds that George Kent, and probably the same American host that went against Trump in the impeachment hearings, were on the side of SAP and NABU. Place your bets on whether those anti-corruption organizations were Americo-Ukraine, deep-state set-ups for to wipe out the corrupt competition so that some corrupt Americans could get more of the loose Ukraine money-bags.

Lutsenko met the next day in New York to tell more. Some 500 companies were set up to take money (taxes, I assume) out of Ukraine for to have it laundered, then brought back to Ukraine i.e. into the pockets of the schemers. I wonder where it went when out of the country, and whether some of it stayed in pockets there? But of course. American pockets?

Do Democrat hardheads, hard of hearing, think that Lutsenko would go to New York to report these things as fantasies? Clearly, he was asking Trump to come help him out. But Lutsenko was replaced when Zelensky became the new president, and, lucky for Trump, Zelensky seems favorable to him too. The beat goes on. Is there anything Trump can do to help? Just looks at what Pompeo was forced to release. Why didn't Trump just order Pompeo to release it? I don't think that neither Shokin or Lutsenko would have minded. Why is Trump acting like he cares to have American corruption punished? Has he been part of similar corruption himself?

Lutsenko admits that Yovanovitch (pro-NABU) was guilty of obstruction of justice. On April 15, 2015, Joe Biden praised the new leader of NABU, yet, ironically, a little more than a year later, in June of 2016 -- a month or two after Joe Biden finally succeeded in getting rid of Shokin -- NABU finds Burisma involved in fraud (just the beginning). NABU at this time was under Lutsenko, har-har. Biden got the thorn in his side removed only to get an entire prickly-pear cactus up his arse. On the same day that NABU makes the announcement, Biden, Victoria Nuland, and a Soros man met in Washington.

Back to May of 2015: Joe was meeting with the state department's Tony Blinken to see if John Kerry could be of help with Hunter Biden's woes in Burisma. Yip, that's right: the full weight of the Obama's government came down on Shokin. Late that year, still worried, Biden demanded from the Ukraine president (Poroshenko) that he fire Shokin. The president stalls, Biden bites his nails. In March of the following year, Victoria Nuland calls out for Shokin's ouster (all found in the release by State), and finally Biden gets the job done, with Obama's help, in April or May. But praise God, things didn't get better for them, and this scandal is fire-hot as we speak.

I've noticed that this state-department release to American Oversight has many repeated pages, which might just be American' Oversight's method of hiding the worst of the release, for its size, almost 100 pages, has already been announced. That is, AO needs to provide almost 100 pages, and may duplicating pages in arriving to that number instead of publishing all of it.

Here's what I think happened. The deep state realized that the Ukraine scandal was going to flare up, due to the efforts of the Ukraine government going forward with investigations, and so the deep state took some offensive measures to get ahead of the game, first by accusing Trump of quid pro quo, which happened to require the throwing of the Bidens under the bus. And here we are, during its failure-thus-far in that offensive strategy.

Atlantic Council ("think tank," doesn't think for free) was mentioned above as part of the protectors of Yovanovitch, and so see the first couple of minutes of this Fox video of this week on that organization having a couple of Schiff's buddies and meanwhile funded by Burisma:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9SsZVwonUHw

Newamerican.com claims: "A second staffer for Representative Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, has been discovered to have ties to the Atlantic Council, a think tank that receives funding from and works in partnership with Burisma Holdings, the Ukrainian natural gas company whose relationship with Hunter and Joe Biden forms the basis of the current impeachment probe into President Trump." That explains why John Herbst, a member of Atlantic, and also the director of Eurasia Center, wrote Pompeo's department to support the fallen Yovanovitch. It's a little interesting that the Herbst Coat looks linkable to the FISC/Fisk Coat.

The [Schiff] staffer, Sean Misko, reportedly joined Schiff’s staff at the House Intelligence Committee in August — the same month that the whistleblower’s complaint was filed after first reportedly interfacing with a Schiff staffer.

Misko has been described as being “close friends” with Eric Ciaramella, the CIA operative believed to be the whistleblower.

In 2015, Misko was a yearlong “Millenium Fellow” at the Burisma-financed Atlantic Council, making him the second Schiff staffer who has worked or currently works for the think tank.

...In 2017, Burisma signed a “cooperative agreement” with the Council specifically to sponsor the Eurasia Center where Eager is a fellow.

https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/item/34168-another-schiff-staffer-found-with-ties-to-burisma-funded-think-tank

There you have Herbst's Eurasia Center. " Founded in 1961, the Washington, D.C.-based Atlantic Council is similar to the globalist Council on Foreign Relations — a mechanism by which the globalist establishment staffs key positions in government and influences decision-makers. The Council was founded with the goal of fostering greater integration between North America and Europe. Burisma is far from the only eyebrow-raising source of funding for the Atlantic Council. Other financing groups from the world of the globalist elite include the Rockefeller Foundation, Google, and George Soros’ Open Society Foundations. Another donor: Perkins Coie, the law firm that represented both the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and that reportedly helped enlist the help of the firm CrowdStrike with the DNC’s server, which was allegedly hacked." Let's call them, scheme tanks, for that is what they are.

Shokin began his investigation of Burisma in August of 2014, and that company's owner fled the country before January, in which month Shokin announced that he had fled. Hunter Biden would have known this, yet he with Devon Archer remained on the Burisma board. Joe Biden didn't recommend, so far as he's stated things, that Hunter should quit. Instead of quitting Burisma. Hunter Biden appeals to Kerry's Tony Blinken a few months later in May of 2015, asking Kerry to get the Shokin hounds off of Burisma. Joe Biden claims that Shokin, not the Burisma owners, were corrupt. Isn't this a controversy that Bill Barr needs to investigate, since it concerns a vice-president of the United States? Of course. As was said, Joe Biden did everything he could to get Shokin fired, and succeeded i.e. he is guilty of obstruction in a world court. Nothing I've heard from the pro-Democrat side of the impeachment witnesses described how Shokin was guilty of corruption, a thing Joe Biden accuses Shokin of to this day. Lutsenko, though he took Shokin's job over, has not accused Shokin of corruption, so far as I know, and so far as what's known would suggest.

The Hill media revealed information directly from Lutsenko that Ukraine's FBI, so to speak, leaked to the American media things concerning Paul Manafort's personal affairs, which did the trick in getting Manafort to quit as a lead strategist for Trump's election campaign. John Solomon of The Hill goes further by claiming that the quitting of Manafort "gave rise" to Mueller's Russia-collusion probe.

Lutsenko's investigation came about after a member of Ukraine's parliament found and shared a tape recording in which the Jim Comey of Ukraine was discovered leaking the Manafort dirt specifically in order to boost the Hillary campaign. If true, it amounts to the best-ever example of deep-state projection upon Trump, flipping the entire Russia-collusion affair on its head. There is no way, therefore that Barr cannot include this part of the story in his investigations to get to the bottom of what started the Mueller probe. It's what Barr may not want to do, we shall need to wait and see whether he speaks to this issue at all. I am not confident that Barr will find the Mueller probe guilty of anything criminal, wherefore John Solomon's work may prove useful in revealing Barr's corruption.

My wonder is why Lutsenko hasn't revealed the purported tape recording against the guilty parties so as to spoil the accusations flying around, even from within the United States, that he's a corrupt law enforcer. Why are we being kept on the edges of our seats waiting to see whether the tape recording and/or other damning evidence did in fact exist? Lutsenko was replaced as the Bill Barr of Ukraine only at the end of this past August. He was replaced by Ruslan Ryaboshapka, who showed signs last week (see my quote from Daily Beast in the last update) of being on the side of the American Democrats. That is, after a couple of parliamentarians came out to state evidence against Hunter Biden's crimes, Ryaboshapka came forward to deny what the parliamentarians claimed. It seems that the latter were unhappy with Ryaboshapka's keeping the secrets that condemn the Bidens.

It begs whether Zelensky, the Ukraine president, has worked with Ryaboshapka to cover for the Bidens, an idea that flies in the face of Zelensky's promise to Trump to unveil the Biden crimes, etc. It is possible that Zelensky has chosen to believe that Trump will be impeached so that he, Zelensky, might rather cozy up to Democrats, for the Ukraine's priority is to keep American money flowing i.e. it would be good to be in good standing with Democrats in case they win the White House in 2020.

Yes, wasted money, numerous countries after countries, the American deep state squanders it all over while Americans grow deeper in debt to this corruption that no other country can top. Where is the military at this Trump time for to expose the Bidens, and even Obama himself? Who but the military knows more about Ukraine's secrets? Only the CIA. Who did Trump install at the top of the CIA? A war hawk, lover of the military wastefulness in the Middle East, the drivers fomenting war against the Russia-China axis. All of the witnesses at the impeachment are for this very thing. So, Trump, the enigma, always installs his own enemies at the top spots of government organizations that the deep state seeks control over with insidious intrusions and infiltrations, by hook or by crook. How can we explain this enigma?

I think, if you're at least middle aged, you'll like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLTu1xv2-Us

Who says Canada does have talent:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpxsJ-_vdPU

If I could make that performance better, I would have given it a burst of sudden power just before the end. It sounded like they were going to lift off to it, but it never came.

Star Science You Can Grasp, Continued

I've been learning about spectral lines over the last update or two in an effort to understand where big-bang science abuses them in a trick(s), but also to understand how physicists don't properly understand them due to having an erroneous atomic model with impossible orbiting electrons and impossible photons. Of the two kinds of spectral lines, emission lines are formed as normal light rays by firing electron bullets into a gas in a glass tube. The bullets cause the gas atoms to emit light, though every different type of gas (including gases of heated solids) emits only certain waves, not all waves, so that when the light from the gas (in the tube) as a whole is passed through a glass prism, the entire rainbow of light does NOT appear, but rather only the specific light waves that the gas emits. That's very simple. The trick is to understand why the various gases produce their fingerprint light colors but no others.

However, before going on, I've found this: "A hot, opaque object, like the filament in an incandescent light bulb, emits a continuous spectrum [all colors, same as sunlight], having light of all wavelengths. A hot, dense gas is another example of an object that emits a continuous spectrum." Ahh, what's that? It doesn't say SOME gases, but implies that all gases, when dense enough, emit all colors. If that's true, then it ought to be included in every educational discussion on the emission of spectral lines because it can help to understand what's going in the tube. It can also become important in revealing a trick that big-bangers are using.

The only other type of spectral lines are absorption lines. This time, they are all black because its certain colors that don't get emitted. When sunlight passes through the solar atmosphere, they say, certain colors of light get absorbed by it, explaining (they say) why a sample of sunlight passed through a prism shows many black lines. Take a look at the sun's spectral lines near the top of this article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraunhofer_lines

We are told that the sun contains every element, and that the absorption lines (fingerprints) of every element are exhibited in the sun's spectral light. But from what I see in the photo at the link above, there are not anywhere near enough black lines to show the fingerprints of all elements. I count about 32 lines only. The caption says: "Solar spectrum with Fraunhofer lines as it appears visually." Yet, "Modern observations of sunlight can detect many thousands of lines." Hmm, what are they seeing, really? Only 30-odd visible lines, and thousands of invisible ones? Are they seeing things? Are they absorption lines at all, or just light colors not emitted by the sun in the first place, or just a quirk of the prism?

With so many lines, couldn't they be imagining that they are seeing the four emission lines of hydrogen? Surely, out of thousands of lines, there's going to be four that nearly match the positioning of the four of hydrogen (three in the blue end, one in the red end), only three of which are visible at the bottom of the page below. I can't find the set of helium lines in the solar spectrum above. There's a lot of oxygen lines missing too. Can we be sure they're not pulling a trick, and forcing their underlings to parrot their tricks upon us?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectral_line

It could even be that some have picked out a lot more than four for hydrogen, but that the tricksters prefer to announce only four basic ones to make it easier to claim that the absorption lines of all stars show the four of hydrogen. They might badly need to pass off a false science here on behalf of their red-shift science, for the latter claims to find the hydrogen lines of stars shifted toward the red end. My last update (link at top of this page) told why I see it to be impossible to know how much the stellar lines are shifted, or if they are shifted at all. Thus far, I haven't found an article explaining how astronomers resolve the shift or degree of shift. All we get to read is that shift happens. Maybe it's just crap happening.

As was said, the emission of hydrogen's lines comes without the rest of the rainbow. But the absorption lines from the sun and stars come with the full rainbow. So, let's assume that they do in fact pick out the four, black hydrogen lines from the many within a star's spectral light. Okay, how do we now superimpose the colored emission lines of hydrogen (from the tube light) upon the spectral image of any star's light? That is, where exactly do we plant the four colored ones in order to discover how shifted they may or may not be from the four black lines? Are they playing tricks with shades of color?

Do they need to decide, judging by the hue of the colored lines, where exactly upon the star's rainbow they should locate the colored lines? I don't know for sure, and may never know because an article telling about it may be hard to find, but what I'm thinking they do is to find the hues in the stellar spectrum that best matches the hue of the four colored lines, and that's where they're going to superimpose the colored lines upon the stellar spectrum. What if all four lines don't match the hues of the stellar image? Oops. If every scientist sees color shades slightly differently, oops. Or, if they think a star needs to be further away, they can play with where they end up locating the colored lines (more toward the red than is justified by the hues). Besides, how does anyone know that matching the hues is acceptable in the first place? Various stars are not going to form the same rainbow exactly. If all they do is the best they can with what they've got, it looks like a fool's game that may not apply to what they think or claim it applies to.

Here's a page showing several solar spectra, where the background rainbow colors are not the same from one sample to the other:

I'm not at all happy when comparing the emission lines of hydrogen from the one article to the stated hydrogen absorption lines in the box of the article directly above. This doesn't look like reliable science to me, but more like wizardry. I'm seeing a few marbles missing. It looks like foolery. Look at how many black sodium lines are missing from the sun's visible spectrum. We are to trust that all of those sodium lines are in fact there, but invisible, in the solar spectrum, and that they are perfectly positioned in alignment with the black lines.

Look at how many nitrogen or copper lines are visible in the Spectral Line article, then add the invisible ones. Then, take a sample from a star spectrum and add in the invisible lines there. There's bound to be a good match for some of the nitrogen / copper lines, but I do not think for a second that all lines will match. I'm rejecting this "science" right now as a liar's dream come true. It has the stuff of working deception. Any one of the thick lines can be deemed to be as many as 100 thin lines, whoopie, let's party. You can identify one of the 100 conjured ones as a match for whatever you please or need.

In this sample below, the top image of "Unshifted spectrum" must be nothing more that the claim of a star's spectrum that perfectly matches the emission lines of some material not identified. The "Redshifted spectrum," beneath the image above, shows the same lines but shifted to our right (it's supposedly from another star). Big deal. I can shift the lines over too. The question is, what justifies showing them shifted? How does one determine why this second stellar spectrum is shifted, and why the lines are shifted as much as is shown?? No star spectrum happens to come with a second, unshifted spectrum in order for us to make a comparison. The only way to make the comparison is by some method of testing the color hues, but if all nine lines don't exhibit the same amount of color shift, then there's a question on whether those stellar lines are in fact from the material claimed for the nine lines.

In this offering, the light from a galactic system is shown to be a near-match with the sun's spectrum, except that they have the galactic spectrum shifted toward the red. However, note that the rainbow colors are identical for both images, which looks to me like a drawing, not the reality. I hardly think that a telescope pointed to the galaxy cluster is going to produce the same shades as when the same telescope, or other method, is pointed to the sun for its spectral photo. We should not accept their drawings as factual. Show us the untainted images instead.

I assume that they have telescopes set up with peep hole, prism and light-capture equipment so that they can point the same telescope at any star body to make a comparison of their lines. In such a case, I can see it as feasible to make shift comparisons between star bodies, so long as there's nothing in the method to alter the light that ends up on record. What they see versus what they record could be a lot like what Schiff sees, as the deep-state reality: everything that serves his needs.

Cannon Balls Between the Eyes and Other Blinders

In the video below, you can hear that the original big-bang theory had the explosion making only photons, protons and electrons (neutrons too, but they don't exist; they were invented because the erroneous atomic model didn't work without the extra weight granted by neutrons, and they made this particle without electrical charge so that it's essentially a weight phantom, to be used only when needed). The explanation for a photon is the simpleton idea of a proton attached to an electron, which tells you exactly why they made the charge of weeny-little electron identical with the charge of the huge proton. That is, they're nuts. In reality, electrons are far weaker in electric (repulsion) force so that one proton attracts many electrons, defined as the true atom. If one electron orbits one proton, they call it a hydrogen atom...because, they're nuts. Bank on it, and stick with me; be science-sane. How do protons attract a neutrally-charged neutron? Don't worry, they'll dream up a way that you can't disprove.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DkH0YprMKnY

You heard right, they claim that neutrons were able to "decay" (by losing stuff) back into protons, and so they can create any atom they wish in this way -- from any other atom -- because they define atoms only by the specific number of protons glued in the atomic core. Therefore, their decay science is garbage. It's what they use to date rocks; don't be their stupid.

Sooo, by claiming that individual big-bang protons got stuck together in clumps, even though they repel one another, they thus invented their erroneous atomic model for all 100-plus different types of atoms. The video talks about the problem to their big-bang theory, that while they think helium is four hydrogen atoms fused together, nothing can be stuck to helium (a noble gas that doesn't undergo a chemical reaction) to make a bigger atom. And unless they can figure out how helium was grown larger, they can't make all the rest of the atoms that they view as more than four hydrogen atoms fused together. But wait, they always think of something eventually, as one bigger nut-cracker than before comes along to make the discovery.

In this case, voila, the interior of stars causes fusion of protons. No one can see this taking place, and so, you can't prove or disprove it. And they stick their tongue out at you if you try to disprove them. That's why bigger-than-ever nutbars are still trying to prove that fusion can take place in a laboratory. If all else fails, they'll play a trick and lie to us, saying that someone was able to achieve it. It's like when the Schiffites are out of luck, they bring in another false witness with a pre-planned strategy all ready to go. Ditto for evolutionists.

You heard it for yourself, that all of the materials known to man were made inside the stars by fusion. The great gravity of stars fused protons together in stellar cores, and in the meantime the glue, the "strong nuclear force," as they call it, was invented to explain how the protons remained stuck.

So, now you know why they opted to view every atom as a denomination of one hydrogen atom: they wanted the big bang to be able to create all things. They chose an erroneous atomic model -- whatever it took, no matter how impossible, not matter how nutty -- so long as their big-bang theory could survive. Is that science? You decide.

Stars then explode or expand more gently, imagine it any way you want to, releasing their many atoms into clouds that form the planets. Your imagination can easily accomplish this, but the laws of physics and probabilities, or even just plain logic / intuition, aren't so kind. Nobody has ever turned one type of atom into another because the reality is: God made 100-plus different kinds of protons, each having a different electrical charge consequently attracting a different number of electrons. Different types of atoms are all in different sizes. I happen to know which the largest atom is, but it's not on-topic here to explain it.

At the 214-minute mark, the narrator, seemingly so foolish for pretending to know what happened at exactly when it happened, has the photo of what they think is a quasar, yet we can see many stellar bodies yet further away. That quasar is not an extremely-distant object, is it? The evolutionists are wrong about that, aren't they? The two optional solutions to the problem posed in the 15th minute neglects a third option: the quasar is not really distant, not really to be classed as any different than other galaxies; they only think the quasar is an extremely-distant / extremely-old galaxy because they have their red-shift science all wrong. Guaranteed, this third one is the correct option, but red-shift is so important to big bangers, because they have no other way to prove an expanding universe, that they are loath to alter their doppler-definition of red-shift. Poor suckers, to be humiliated in the end.

In the 18th minute, this lunatic narrator, and all of his fellows, claim that they knew how much matter the initial big bang produced, but that there's supposed to be more of it that seems to be in hiding. How can anyone get to ridiculous with a straight face? How possibly could anyone know what the initial volume of matter was if it's simultaneously believed that some is missing while they don't know how much is missing? It stands to reason that if you try to figure out impossibilities, you end up twisting you head into the shape of a make-a-monkey-of-yourself.

Well, lo and behold, they found the missing matter as dust. Heh-heh, how idiotic. Well of course they found it, because they badly wanted it there. So, a little playing around like a monkey does the trick. It's called fooling yourself out of desperation before those nasty Creationists win the day. Look it, stupids, there is a Creator, buffoons. End of story. As you can witness with your own ears, the missing matter was an oxygen atom with eight protons and only one orbiting electron for the entire atom! I'd normally laugh, but they do so many laughable things that I've gotten used to it.

All of a sudden, in desperation, they find this exciting phenomenon: an oxygen atom with just one electron, my-my, I wonder how anyone proved that to be the case? Red-shift? How does one count the number of electrons in cosmic dust? Can they really do that?

The narrator doesn't even attempt to offer proof of this special oxygen atom. Achem, how did eight protons come together as a bunch if they repel one another? What possibly does the strong nuclear force look like? You're not permitted to simply invent a force without proof of existence, and neither can you argue that since protons are clustered, there must be a strong force keeping them together, for this is circular reasoning until it's proven that atoms have protonic clusters. No, it has not been proven; it's been a theory for so long that evolutionists got tired of speaking it out as a theory; they just turned it into a fact eventually, and ran with it.

Ahh, the narrator says, "These developments had been anticipated by George Garnow back in 1960. He assumed the right nucleus would eventually be found." Yes, whatever need is "anticipated" (theorized) is found as fact sooner or later, because every problem must be given a solution lest the Creationists win the day. But they didn't tell the students in their textbooks that they had so many problems with the theory. The more that Creationists make head-way to victory, the more the evolutionists "discover" solutions to their problems, and the more a normal person sees how nastily far-reaching they are in cooking up solutions.

The warlocks have testified against themselves, and all we need to do is to repeat how utterly childish, silly, and non-scientific they have been. The more they abuse us as being non-scientific just because we have a Creator in the Creation picture, the more like narrow-minded bigots they portray themselves. Their only followers will be the wicked destined to Hell, which is roughly the way it is right now, and, to boot, governments must be led by the wicked in the end times so that governments will choose evolution. That's how it is. And the worst of it: Christians, like the narrator in the video, believe in, and advance, the big bang. Do these types wish for us to believe that Genesis is referring to the big bang? Yes. They are married to evolutionists.

In their spectral images of stars and star dust, they claim to have found a universe consisting of 99 percent hydrogen and helium, and one percent for all the other elements combined. So, they have need to explain how the heavier substances were formed. Helium is the second-lightest GAS, and hydrogen is the lightest GAS. Uranium is one of the heaviest SOLIDs, but, I assume, it;s also one of the heaviest GAS. First of all, in the race to discover how the big bang created the "heavier" elements, there's no such thing as heavier elements. I'm going to challenge you here.

How can it be the case that a 50-pound cannon ball, a 25-pound cannon ball, and a 100-pound ice-cream cone all fall to gravity at the same speed. If we split the cone from the ice cream, they still both fall at the same speed. Everyone knows this as a fact, but I've never heard the explanation. There's only one explanation, and I'm willing to accept it because I don't belong to modern science. Otherwise, I'd be a fool as they are.

Go ahead, try to explain why cannon balls of different weights all fall to gravity at the same power level? That's right, everything on the earth is pulled by gravity by the same force, though things high in the air, or things underground, are pulled by lower or greater forces respectively. How can we start to answer this question? Well, the fools did apply themselves in seeking an answer, and they did find it, but they rejected it, and they covered it up. Aren't you glad I'm here to reveal it?

The closer a thing is to gravity, the heavier it is. Gravity attracts atoms individually, wherefore an atom is heavier when closer to gravity. That's right. And weight is defined exactly as: the force of gravity upon an atom or bunch of atoms. Okay, so gravity attracts the atoms of a cannon ball by x amount of force. We know that when a magnet or other electromagnetic force attracts a thing by greater force, it is swept in at a faster speed. That's right, the closer a thing is to an attractive force, the faster it is attracted. Bottom line: the specific force of gravity determines the speed of attraction.

Okay, so what do we learn when we see that a 25-pound cannon ball falling at the same speed as a 50-pound cannon ball? That's easy. We learn that gravity is attracting every atom in both cannon balls by the same amount of force. Is that easy, or what? How could this escape the evolutionist goon? It didn't escape him. He's known for a long time that gravity pulls ice-cream atoms at the same force as it pulls cannon atoms, and he's known that the specific attraction force upon an atom is exactly the weight of the atom. Therefore, ice-cream atoms weigh exactly as much as cannon atoms (no trick here), but he's been hiding this from us. ALL ATOMS WEIGH THE SAME when at the same distance from a gravity source. That's the law...proven by experiments. Throw the bums in jail for violation of the law.

How could they have gotten things so wrong? Easy, by first guessing that a theory was true, and then factualizing it over time. They gambled and made an erroneous fact where they claim that there are the same number of atoms in every gas. So, because they know that oxygen gas weighs 16 times more than hydrogen gas, they guessed that oxygen atoms weighed 16 times more. When they got hit between the eyes with a falling cannon ball, they didn't admit error, but went straight ahead Hell-bound as liars, because they badly needed their erroneous atomic model for the big bang.

As all other gases weigh much more than hydrogen or helium gases, they were bound to wrongly claim that different species of atoms have heavier weights accordingly. But as all atoms weigh the same, then their theory that atomic weight is defined as the varied number of protons and neutrons per atomic core is wrong. These men walk around with egg on their faces in broad daylight, smug for their many scientific "achievements."

Now, as there's no such thing as protonic clusters, and as the falling cannon balls make that plain as day by proving that all atoms weigh the same, then they can no longer uphold their proton-cluster formation of the universe. That's what I'm talking about.

Hang in there, because I too thought it very unlikely that all atoms should weigh the same. At that time, I had already discovered that all proton types, one per element, are different, with their own peculiarities, though the only different peculiarity I could be sure of was the different sizes that they all came in. In short, I imagine that every one of the roughly 114 elements has a unique proton of unique attraction-force level; the greater the force, the larger the atom's "jacket" of captured electrons.

When the falling cannon ball hit me between the eyes, I didn't ignore it. I asked by what gigantic coincidence every one of the 100-plus atoms could weigh the same, and lo and behold, the answer was found upon my first attempt at solving the mystery...only because the answer is easy to arrive to when one has the proper view of both atoms and gravity force. By that time, I had proven that gravity was from the negative energy of planetary / stellar electrons otherwise known as internal heat. It was just a matter of figuring out whether gravity did something to atoms to make them all weigh the same, because gravity's effects on atoms id the only thing that makes sense to make all atoms attract to gravity by the same force.

It was easy: gravity repels all electrons from all atoms held on by less than gravity force by protonic "gravity" (it's acceptable to call it that). That's right, the protonic gravity holding its captured electrons with a force greater than the earth-gravity force against those same electrons assures that earth gravity can't blow those electrons away, but earth gravity does blow all other electrons away, those on the outer edges of atoms, for those are the ones held to protonic gravity with the least force precisely because things are held to gravity with less force per greater distance from the gravity source. Writing out this explanation is more difficult that when I figured it all out, in a literal minute of time. It was one, two, three, eureka.

So, gravity blows away electrons, turning every atom to a net-positive force that gravity then attracts to itself: every atom is bound by gravity thereby. And as the perimeter (the bottom side, anyway) of every atom has electrons held on by the proton by the same level of attraction, all equal roughly to the attraction of gravity upon the same electrons, it stands to reason that any atom is attracted by earth gravity by a specific force equal to earth gravity on every other atom.

Again, if a cannon ball weighing much more than a smaller cannon ball falls at the same speed as the smaller one, there's only one explanation: gravity is attracting each atom separately. All the atoms, no matter how many happen to be bonded together in the solid, are falling at the same speed because they are all attracted by the same force. It doesn't matter whether there are two atoms falling, or 200, all fall at the same speed.

We have no problem whatsoever with this explanation if we are comparing two cannon balls, but as every other material falls at the same speed, we've got no choice but to admit that all atoms weigh the same. We must also admit that the science profession attracts the most-stupid people in the world. Only idiots would allow themselves to be indoctrinated by people who claim orbiting electrons and photons at 186,000 mps. These idiots are easily turned into puppets for the devil's cause. They considered themselves super-intelligent because they are in true fact stupid. They learn the science while being blind. They are "intelligent" with fantasies...because God will not be mocked by them. There are many "mysteries" still needing a solution only due to the great number of errors made over the past century, with error upon error to fix errors with errors. It's a mess. Time to toss the entirety in the trash, and start over with much better people than evolutionists. Alas, Creationists are just as blind. They respect the erroneous science not realizing that they too are stupid for it.

Once you realize that all atoms weigh the same, you have extra evidence that gravity is a negative force from electrons in the earth (there is no problem with this view). You then come face to face with the problem: why do hydrogen atoms rise higher than all other atoms, if they all weigh the same? Why do the various gases, if they are all released into the same room, layer themselves according to their weights? The truth is, they do not layer themselves according to weights. It is not true that one gas is heavier than the other unless the gases, at roughly the same temperature, are in the same-size container. There are fewer hydrogen atoms in a gallon container than oxygen atoms in a gallon container, but both type of atoms weigh the same.

The only explanation I can think of to explain why different gas atoms rise higher or lower than others is that they all get different levels of lift force from atmospheric electrons, for the latter are continuously repelled by gravity. What this means is: God will not be mocked. The stupids have the hydrogen atom pegged as the smallest when in reality it's the largest. My law: the larger the perimeter of an atom, the more lift it will get. That law is reliable because of this other law: all atoms weigh the same (at the same distance from gravity). They made the mistake of making the hydrogen atom the lightest, and consequently they assumed it to be the smallest. They were stupid because they gambled on their false law: every identical volume of gas at the same temperature and pressure has the same number of atoms. STUPID!

The reader may not appreciate my language for the science gods. So let me say it another way. If gravity pulls all atoms by the same force, and it's indisputable, then where we have atom A with greater mass than atom B, they are pulled by the same force down upon a weight scale, regardless of the atom's specific mass. Doesn't that strike you at all problematic? The specific pull of gravity on an atom onto a weight scale is the very definition of specific weight. How can atoms of different mass all weigh the same? Modern science has no answer.

The STUPIDS haven't solved the problem, nor would they pose the question as I just have lest someone realize that the discussion violates their own specific-mass numbers. They have got those numbers wrong, first of all, and they don't want to deal with it or alter their mass numbers. A hydrogen atom, they wish to believe, has 16 times less mass than an oxygen atom, and then they turn around and say that gravity attracts mass: the more mass, the more weight proportionately! That's can't be right; the cannon ball between their eyes told them it can't be right. Did they look for a solution? No, because to Hell they will go with their big bang hoping to string you along.

Weight has not to do with amount of mass, but with the earth's attraction force upon an atom in spite of mass levels per atom, and earth gravity is not from earth's atomic mass, as they believe. Gravity is not atom attracting atom, but this is what they've wanted for their big-bang viability. That's all. That's the full explanation of their stupidity: scrap reality, save the big bang.

If true that a hydrogen atom upon a weight scale weighs 16 times less than an oxygen atom, then hydrogen atoms are pulled 16 times more weakly than oxygen atoms, meaning that oxygen atoms would fly toward gravity at a much-faster, more-forceful speed. It happens with magnetic experiments: the bigger, more-powerful the magnet, the faster it attracts a ball bearing. That's the law of attraction, yet they can't bring themselves to admitting that gravity attracts all atoms by the same force = all atoms weigh the same. So they insist that gravity can't be a (electro)magnetic force because magnets can attract objects at various speeds while gravity always attracts everything at the same speed. That's because gravity is ONE. It's one "magnet," stupids. That's why it attracts everything at the same speed. But if we get another gravity source, such as the sun, then it attracts at a different speed than earth gravity does.

They are not stupid in the sense of intelligent levels, but stupid in the sense of making stupid decisions based on sinfulness. And when they try to pass off their erroneous ideas, that's one of the stupidest thing they do, for they do it with an air superiority as though knowing what they are talking about. If they admitted to their questionable ideas and their own many doubts, their theories wouldn't be allowed in the schools. Therefore, for the sake of indoctrinating the children, which happens to be toward Hell, they carry the banner of self-confidence and even the moral high ground. All they do is parrot what they've been taught from a tightly held dogma of the fools controlling fools.

There can be no proof that earth gravity is not electromagnetic. Gravity attracts by the inverse-square law as do magnets and electromagnetic charges: four times more attraction force per half the distance between the magnet and the attracted object. Guaranteed: there is no difference between gravitational attraction and electromagnetic attraction. There is nothing anyone can do to understand gravity but to check out how it attracts and repels. And that's the kicker: there is evidence that gravity repels electrons. They will never admit to it for as long as they maintain the big bang as though their lives depended upon it. Why are they so adamant for the big bang? Because demons control them. Their mission: destroy Genesis and Christianity.

Ask someone whether gravity can repel electrons, and they will give a knee-jerk answer: no, that's wrong because electrons have been proven to have mass. And that's how the people have been programmed to think, that mass is equivalent to gravity attraction. No one believing that electrons are repelled by gravity will get anywhere in the establishment of fools. Where are the braver scientists, still possessing some normalcy, willing to stand up to them? Throw the bums in jail for running an indoctrination cult.

Am atom changes in mass as it's brought further or nearer to the gravity source. An airplane gains electrons (builds in mass) in every atom as it rises to 30,000 feet. The same plane loses atoms in every atom as it comes back down to earth. That's the real reason that comets (not made of ice) have bright tails as they fall toward the sun. Solar gravity is repelling electrons from ALL rock atoms, and these electrons are heat particles when freed from atoms, turning the rock to glowing. They lie when they say that comets are made of ice, because they can't explain how the tails are formed if they admit that comets are made of rock.

The old-school would tell us that if the proton were the size of a pea, its electron would be orbiting around it something like 200 feet away. Honestly, a man cannot become much more deluded than this. The further away an orbiting body, the slower it must go in order to stay in orbit, yet they see the electron approaching the speed of light while in orbit around this bitty-little pea???? Whackos. Modern science claims to have "photographed" single atoms. You can see them at youtube if you trust them. Most or all of the images I've seen have atoms about one diameter or less apart in a solid material. But the old-school dopes were telling us that a solid is mainly space due to the great distance of electrons from protons. Their view forced atoms to be thousands of diameters apart even in a solid, imagine how far apart they would need to be in a gas. UTTER STUPIDS!

Where is the apology from science departments for their colossal stupidity of the past? For a century they indoctrinated, and now, seeing they have been wrong, they still don't come out to fix their orbiting-electron model. Fiends, fools, to be despised. One error after the other will need correction, but the same species of diabolical fiends will insist on leading science departments even as they add error to error. They are moving extra-fast with the craziest nonsense as we speak, with countless of their stooges on youtube sharing their insanities (and making money on it). Reality is too boring for them; they have moved into the realm of cartoons...because children they are who don't think for themselves, but rather parrot what they've been taught by the wizards of error.

Why aren't they providing the photos of every gas atom??? C'mon, let's see them. It's hard to find pictures of atoms at google, as though they don't want us to see them. Let's see if they have multi-protonic cores. If they take a photo that they don't want us to see, they won't be inclined to publicize it. But if it can look like it has an orbiting electron, pow-wow, it's given out to the public. "What you’re looking at is the first direct observation of an atom’s electron orbital..." Yeah, sure, and all of the previous "photos" that didn't quite have this look were not offered to us. They cherry-pick or worse: they create fake images. Besides, I don't see an orbiting electron. I see a spherical cloud surrounding a central body.

The people who put the photo out may have given the background the same color as the dark ring to give the false impression that the ring is space. Take a look at this other image of a hydrogen atom. The dark ring is not so solid-looking in this one, as though they altered the earlier one to look like it has a lot of space between the proton and the orbital region. Dishonesty. It doesn't look like a central pea at center field with the electron as far away as the upper bleachers of a football stadium.

Are you stupid enough to try to imagine electrons orbiting in a liquid? Try a moving liquid. You only need to try imagining it one time to know that electrons don't orbit. But the demons who run physics don't care if they mess with our minds and our store of knowledge. They consider us cheap, to be controlled, to be made into God haters. That's the end-time reality. Stay away from their dazzle, for wizards have a special place in hell.

The not-good-enough-to-admit-their-errors establishment is, apparently, rebuking the world now for believing in orbiting electrons, even though the establishment was responsible for that theory. Now google is advertising; "The circles are NOT orbits. The electrons are NOT moving around the nucleus along the circles. Instead, the circles represent energy levels. ... As you will find when you learn more about the arrangement of electrons, the eight electrons in the second energy level don't all have exactly the same energy." What? The orbits are now "energy levels"? But where's the electrons, fools? What nutty thing are they advancing with "energy levels" in place of electrons? I don't want to know. If they're not good enough to admit a 100 years of brain-washing and utterly-ridiculous error, I definitely don't want to know how they put a band-aid on what is a mortal, fatal wound.

Lookie now: "Electrons are not little balls...Rather, electrons are quantized wavefunctions that spread out in space and can sometimes act like particles in limited ways. An electron in an atom spreads out according to its energy." I told you, I don't want to know...the impossible-to-grasp. They are no longer particles, but wave-thingies that grow. They are hoping to set themselves up for another century of carrot-on-a-stick foolery, and you are the fool they want to string along. They're new claim that electrons don't orbit is they're way of quietly moving on from a century of physics insanity, but it's also a rebuke against anyone who informs the new generation that the orbital electron was king of atomic-science establishment. There are plenty of establishment goons still teaching the orbiting electron ball. The new generation is advertising the new electron, the quantum-physics electron, as absolutely beautiful and viable, works like a charm. There's the carrot-on-a-stick. Don't be their dumb mule.

In order for atoms to bond, they old school realized that there needed to be space between a protonic core and the electrons captured within the proton's positive charge (this charge has not yet been explained, but it exists). So, a Mr. Rutherford fellow devised the orbiting electron model just about as soon as the electron was discovered and assumed / proven to possess a negative charge. But there's another way to allow atoms to bond. There's another way to create space between the proton and the electrons wherein electrons hover over the proton. It's absolutely logical to have hovering electrons. If you can't figure out why they MUST hover, you have no business being a physicist.

When atoms make are forced to make contact, each having hovering electrons, the protons of one atom attracts the electrons of the other atom, and vice-versa. Voila, atomic bonding. The atoms not only make initial contact, but they merge, with one atom's electron atmosphere becoming partially buried into the electron atmosphere of the other atom, and vice-versa. As I can see no other way for atoms to have space between proton and electrons, I must be sharing with you the true atomic model, at least the gist. Probably, God added features to atoms that we haven't been able to realize or conceive.

Can you think of another way for electrons to be both captured by a positive core while allowing space between themselves and the proton? It is imperative that the electrons on the outer edges of the atomic atmosphere do not form a solid wall (i.e. they can't be in contact with each other), for in that case atoms cannot merge. That's why it's so very easy to realize this FACT: electrons hover on the outer perimeter of all atoms. Why do you think that the science establishment has been hiding this atomic model from the masses? Because, it's so very logical, and 186,000 times better than the orbiting-electron model. No great speed of the electron needed. No fear of crashings of orbiting electrons into neighboring atoms. No fear of having to swallow the wave-thingie that does tricks to make a fool of you. Be free, be smart: adopt the electron atmosphere model of the atom today. You'll be glad you did.

If you want to draw it on paper, make a circle for the proton, and stick little dots all around it, thicker near the proton, maybe even a few layers in contact with each other upon the protonic surface, but gradually less dense outwards to the atomic perimeter. That's it, you're done. It should be envisioned like the atmosphere of the earth, with more-dense air atoms near the ground. There you have your evidence, in the air, that "my" atom -- our true atom -- can exist.

If the wave-thingies don't orbit, how do they stay captured to the proton? FOOLS! If the wave-thingies don't have a negative charge, they can't remain above the proton. Electrons were placed in orbit in the first place to explain how they remain captured. The positive force of one proton was said to be equal to the negative force of one electron, and, fools, they envisioned true orbits. Nobody was good enough to topple those lunatics for a century, and now the same establishment wants to tell us that the electron was a non-orbiting wave all along??? What in tarnation is a wave that circles a proton? If it doesn't orbit, how does it circle? Are they going to tell us soon that it doesn't circle at all?

Nobody went to jail for teaching the orbital electron to my kids? Outrageous. I with my children have been sorely abused, and they teach much more error than this outrageous thing alone. They owe me, they owe you. They screwed with our minds, and screw with us even more today. Where is our recompense? How many tax dollars did they waste for the countless theories and systems they devised on mere crock? If only there was just one mountain of crock, but they're countless, each begetting five more in no time at all.

How do wave-thingies circle atoms of liquids and solids without crashing? Do the wave-thingies go right through protons when they get in the way? Must we now envision protons as ghostly phantoms / wave-thingies too? What happens to a circling wave-thingie when it strikes a proton or another wave-thingie? I'm sure the goons will think of something, so long as my atomic model (the only viable alternative) isn't adopted because it will ruin their big bang. this model has no circling electrons. It has logical electrons that can be wholly motionless and still hover over the proton. It's perfect. If the electrons are forced to move, and if they do circle, they don't crash hard into neighboring atoms. They may become released merely as heat particles. There's no particle-to-particle violence here. There's no need to worry about how the electron can remain in orbit, or to invent crock upon crock to explain the ways in which orbits are maintained, or re-created from free electrons.

My atom doesn't require the photon to maintain the electron's orbit. No photons, no big bang. My atom needs only one proton at the core. If atoms are not multiple protons, no big bang. They chose one electron per proton because they realized how silly was the theory for crashing into protons. The more electrons in orbit, the greater the violence, the more foolish they would look when finally their successors admitted that electrons cannot orbit. The goons maintained this textbook cartoon for a century, think of it.

My atom demands that heat is defined as the release of captured electrons. My electrons move slowly or not at all. No atomic speed, no big bang. No atomic speed, no kinetic definition of heat. They don't want my atom, do they? People in their establishment brought forth "my" atom, but it was rejected, swept quietly under the rug, wasn't it? My atom is so easy to realize; hovering electrons, why of course. Shame on you, Mr. Einstein. By accepting the orbiting electron and the photon, you turned out to be a space-time-gravity nut.

By claiming that atoms are racing around at all times, and therefore colliding regularly non-stop, it threatens the orbiting electron all the more. Imagine the crashings, constantly in various, chaotic directions, several times per second, how that would put the dizzy electron out of orbit in no time at all. But this far-reaching picture is what their big bang demanded. They are GUILTY. They lied knowingly to the human race. They expected you to believe that because an atom was 99.99999-percent space, a solid is likewise 99.9999-percent space. And did you actually swallow that? Our government protectors are guilty. They conspired with evolutionists against us with nonsense, to take us away from Jesus by an infestation of nonsense-knowledge at young ages, before we knew better. They distorted our young minds before we were able to offer a rebuttal against them. Most of us grew up trained in their lies, and some advance them further. I was lucky. Jesus saved me from them. How our secular governments hate to hear words like that.

There's no reason whatsoever that one proton cannot attract 1,000 electrons or more. It depends only on the smallness of the electrons combined with the smallness of their repulsion levels. Who says that the electron has a negative charge identical in force with the positive charge of the proton? No one can prove that, because it cannot be true.

It's impossible for a hydrogen atom to have only one electron. Two hydrogen atoms merged as a liquid can stay merged for only as long as one hydrogen proton attracts the electrons of the other proton, but if there's just one electron in orbit, then its attraction by another proton will pull it out of orbit, for orbits are a delicate balance. If the electron is in perfect orbital balance when the hydrogen atom is not merged, then having fully one other hydrogen atom yanking on the same electron will pull it out of orbit. If there was a second sun at the same distance of the first sun, the earth is not going to remain in orbit. If there are two hydrogen atoms at the same distance from an orbiting electron, ditto orbital ruin. The problems are several and severe-to-fatal.

The thing that orbiting electrons cannot survive is their crashes into gigantic protons, and there's no way to avoid such crashes in a liquid state. A liquid is not 99.99-percent space, don't be an idiot. Don't let your mind conceive of such a thing. Don't be a laughing stock of those who deceive you. You should know enough to realize that atoms cannot be almost all space just because a few electrons are in orbit around a tiny core. There's nothing in a few electrons to keep one from squashing atoms together if they had so much space between them. The electrons can't be everywhere at the same time, like a solid shell resisting pressure from your sledge hammer. Don't allow the fast-speed picture of the electron to make you think that atoms are tough shells. If the tiny pull of gravity can bring two water-vapor atoms into a merger as a dew droplet, surely we could compress an inch of liquid water to a hair's thickness with 1,000 pounds of pressure if the atom (and the water) were 99.99-percent space. Yet water cannot be compressed. Those atoms are tough little bitties in the liquid state; they refuse to merge much more than they already are, attesting to how close they really are to one another when merged.

I have had my electron-atmosphere model for at least 24 years. To this day, I have not realized a problem with its ability to explain anything. It merges and unmerges without a hitch; it creates heat and absorbs it in unmergers and mergers. It explains atomic weight by protonic attraction to a planetary mass of heat. It permits light-wave reflection by the looseness by which the outer electrons are held to the proton (the electrons can jiggle when excited by light).

When two atoms are merged, the molecule looks like an 8. All around the 8 there are heat particles forcing their way into the middle of the 8 as best as the going temperature will allow. The atoms (the top and bottom part of the 8) will move apart progressively more with increasing temperature because the latter is defined as a higher density of heat particles, and being closer together, the heat particles will move more forcefully between the two atoms...until finally the two dislodge (unmerge) altogether and revert to gas atoms. It's that simple. Gas atoms are formed by heat squeeze, though there is some additional help from upward-moving heat particles in a liquid that helps to dislodge liquid molecules into the air.

This atomic model can even explain critical temperature, defined as the inability of a compressed liquid to remain a liquid, after the compression is released, due to the liquid being above its so-called critical temperature. To put it another way, a body of liquid atoms will remain bonded for a long time at the boiling temperature, with molecules evaporating slowly away one by one, but when the liquid's surroundings are brought to a certain, higher temperature, all the liquid disintegrates at once into a gas. The atoms cannot remain bonded because the forces that bond them have been overcome by...you guessed it.

The three combined forces holding an 8 together, as two atoms, are fully overcome at the critical temperature by the heat-squeeze force. That's right. Heat squeeze separates atoms, my discovery, hope you appreciate it. Critical temperature is when the heat-squeeze force is roughly equal to the combined forces of: 1) gravity (pulling atoms down); 2) air pressure (upon the liquid surface); 3) the atomic bond (from protons sharing electrons). All three contribute to keeping liquid atoms from evaporating into gas atoms.

Materials above their critical temperatures are considered plasma "soups" if gravity holds them down, as is the case in stars. Plasma is a liquid of sorts in which the atoms are incapable of bonding even if forced to come together as a liquid by gravity or by mechanical compression. It is not correct to define a plasma as a gas. If a gas exists above its critical temperature, it's still just a gas whether gravity keeps it down to a surface or not. Big bangers would have us believe that the proto-universe was a plasma gas. In fact, gas atoms above their critical temperatures have more force of inter-repulsion (they spread out more forcefully) than at cooler temperatures, yet big bangers need gravity to pull gas atoms into a liquid soup, to form the proto star, before gravity is formed.

I should clarify here, in case anyone wants to delve deep into this atomic model, that the compression of heat particles around the two atoms of the 8 adds as many, or more, electrons to atomic spheres as gravity had repelled away. Heat is always defined as the invasion of compressing heat particles around atoms. It's not just an easy-going wrap of heat particles, but COMPRESSION in on, and all around, the electrons atmospheres. So, it seems to me that electrons atmospheres are forced to grow in electron density, having the effect of altering the atoms electric charge yet not affecting the atoms weight. This is a mystery to me that I would like to solve, but I don't have enough information as clues to what goes on.

As I have no idea how many electrons gravity repels away, I can't easily say whether atoms repel one another due to being net-positive toward one another, or net-negative when sufficient heat particles are forced around atoms. Guaranteed, the effects of gravity, in the absence of heat, turn all atoms net-positive, but whether liquids at the low temperatures of the boiling points of hydrogen, nitrogen and oxygen have already become net-negative due to heat particles in their midst, I don't think I can yet say. I have read that liquid helium, at near-absolute zero, climb the walls of a glass container into which it is placed, suggesting that the helium atoms are yet net-positive, repelling one another up the glass. At higher temperatures, I predict atoms to become less net-positive i.e. toward neutrality, but, at some point, with additional heat in their surrounding, the atoms are predicted to become net-negative, and progressively more net-negative with progressively higher temperatures. At room temperature, I have opted to view gas atoms in a net-negative condition.

So, along with the physical squeeze due to compressing heat particles, the 8 molecule (or all other molecules, liquid or gas) is torn apart also by the net-negative charges adopted by atoms from heat. The specific evaporation points (= complete separation of the 8) of materials may not keep to any proportional pattern because of these two forces working in combination. Every type of atom probably has a different temperature point at which they become neutral, and afterward net-negative.

So, if we think that atoms with a weaker merger bond will have a lower evaporation point than atoms with a stronger merger bond, there's the complication that, maybe, they do not possess the same level of net-negative charge at their temperature points of evaporation. Plus, the point at which they boil depends partially on how much lift they get i.e. how large the atoms are in bulk. Metals tend to be the smallest of atoms, an idea that I've discovered, because they have high boiling points i.e. metal atoms, having the smallest cross sections, get the least lift from heat particles. I tend to think that, the smaller the atom, the smaller their electron atmospheres, and thus the weaker their merger bond (because they can't merge as deeply). Yet liquid metals generally have high temperature points at which they separate into gas atoms. Uranium is predicted to be of the smallest of atoms, and it's got the easiest proton to destroy for obtaining nuclear power probably because it has the smallest coat of captured electrons i.e. destructive particles fired at uranium atoms can get to the proton more readily. Uranium 235 is a smaller atom than uranium 232, and thus the smaller one has even fewer electrons. So far as I can gather, the higher the atomic number assigned by physicists to an atom, the smaller it is, though they think the larger it is.

Mercury has an atomic weight of 200, close to uranium's 232, suggesting that mercury is a very small atom. Yet it has a very low boiling point, suggesting that heat easily separates mercury atoms. But why? The three factors separating liquid atoms are: 1) the heat-particle squeeze; 2) the level of inter-repulsion between atoms; 3) the lift from rising heat particles. In my head, the smaller the atom, the faster heat-particle squeeze can separate them, yet most metal atoms don't have low evaporation or boiling points. Moreover, the lower the boiling point, the less net-negative repulsion between atoms i.e. mercury doesn't have a high repulsion effect for separating its atoms. But having thus eliminated 1) and 2) as the possible reason to explain the mystery low-boiling point, 3) doesn't help either because the high atomic weight suggests that mercury is a very small atom. I've gone over this before, years ago, and never did arrive to a solution aside from the possibility that the mercury atom is not an atom, but a molecule of two or more mercury atoms.

There are two options for explaining why mercury liquid poured on a table is unique in creating small spheres rather than spreading out over the table surface evenly, as water and other liquids do. Option 1): the mercury atoms are strongly bonded to one another. Option 2): the mercury atoms resist merging with other materials i.e. the table's atoms because they have a weak bonding force, or an aversion to bonding for some other reason. The latter option can suggest that they have an aversion to bonding even to themselves, a great explanation for the low boiling temperature. If the distance between hovering, captured electrons at the perimeter of mercury atoms is small, it can predict a shallow-merger potential versus deep-merger potential. That factor complicates matters even more. On top of the already-complicated considerations, the SHAPE of atoms might play to how easy or difficult it is to unbond liquid atoms.

Put it this way. When water is poured on a surface that either attracts water molecules or has a good affinity for merging with them, the water molecules, wishing to remain bonded if they had their way, are pulled apart by the atoms in the surface. The opposite is true of mercury atoms. But why? Now the affinity level of bonding is another factor for consideration. For example, if the spacing between the outer (or upper) captured electrons in one type of atom is such that the electrons don't fit well between the spaces of the outer layers of another type of atom, the merger potential (or affinity to bond) is smaller. If the outer electrons of two atoms are walking all over each other (or striking each other dead-on) when making contact, there's not going to be a deep merger.

It seems a no-brainer that, when God created the different atoms, He decided how well or not-so-well they could merge. He didn't make the merger of water molecules too deep as to make the boiling point of water too hot for cooking foods. He didn't let oxygen and nitrogen atoms merge deep at all lest their liquid forms would occur in polar regions. Even though oxygen with oxygen atoms, or hydrogen with hydrogen atoms, don't bond deeply, water molecules do by comparison, suggesting that the "pins" (the pattern of electron spacing) in the outer layers of hydrogen atoms fit fairly well together with the pins of oxygen atoms for a good depth of merger.

It takes a super-high temperature to unmerge the oxygen atoms from the hydrogen atom in a water molecule, yet it takes far less to unmerge water molecules from one another. What does that tell you about depth of merger? It tells me that God has forbidden mankind from making cheap hydrogen fuel from water. I wonder why? Protection from hydrogen explosions in high-heat situations such as metal-making? I'm reading that water molecules revert back to single hydrogen and oxygen atoms at about 3000 C. Why should it be so difficult to unmerge those atoms? The accepted atomic model gives me no answer if the only thing to overcome the inter-attraction is the one electron per hydrogen atom. Nonsense.

Chemical reactions are defined as the bonding and/or unbonding of atoms / molecules. Chemical reactions always produce and/or absorb heat i.e. always involves heat particles. You can't bang away with a hammer at a piece of iron to unbond atoms; you need heat.

I've explained to you the reasons that heat unbonds atoms, and in these clues one might be able to peg all of the reasons / factors that contribute to the varied boiling points of materials. I gave up trying because I thought it could take a lifetime. I realized that, if I could succeed, I could prove, by indisputable evidence, my atomic model to be correct. Go for it, anyone, risk throwing your life away. I think that metals generally have the weakest atomic bonds, and that metals are not hard, or hard-to-bend, materials due to strong bonds, but do to having the most atoms per unit volume, especially as I see metal having a greater percentage of protons versus electrons than the large-to-giant atoms. I see the size of atoms due largely to the sizes of electron spheres, yet metal atoms have the smallest electron spheres just because their protons are the weakest in positive force. That's how I generally see it. Small electron spheres put a limit to the depth-of-bonding potential.

Therefore, metals with their high evaporation and boiling points suggest that the greatest factor in setting boiling points for all atoms is the lift factor. That is, metals should boil at low temperatures due to their weak bonds, yet they boil at high temperatures because the lift factor, which they have little of, dominates in creating the boiling point (defined as the point when heat transfer through the liquid has overcome all upward resistance, when as much heat exits the liquid as enters it). Large atoms have low boiling points.

And for your information, the true definition of melting point includes: when gravity gets the upper hand over the crystallized atomic bond. The full, true definition: heat goes in and weakens the atomic bond, allowing gravity to pull atoms fully apart...which it cannot do prior to melting point. At melting point, gravity causes a material to drip downward i.e. toward gravity. The true definition of a liquid: when the atomic bond is weaker than the power of gravity on the atom. Another definition of melting point: when the atomic-bond strength roughly equals the power of gravity on the atom. Therefore, atoms with the lower melting points are always the atoms with the weaker bonds. Or, atomic-bond strength is proportional to the melting temperatures of substances. Two materials with similar melting points don't necessarily have similar boiling points. Why not? Because the process toward boiling point involves the lift of water molecules by rising heat particles in the liquid.

Put it this way: every different elemental liquid has a different atom to lift, and each type of atom has a unique bond strength amounting to a different level of resistance to heat passage in the liquid. The key is: when the lift of heat bubbles becomes speedy enough to carry away as much heat as is entering the liquid, that defines the boiling point. You can turn up the heat all you want at that point, but it will escape just as quickly and will NOT, therefore accumulate any further in the liquid, for if it did accumulate further, the liquid temperature would go up. But it never goes up at boiling point because the heat passing and leaving the liquid has achieved zero resistance in passing through the liquid, It has exactly overcome all the combined forces that restrict passage through the liquid.

The speed of the bubbles in the upward direction depends not only on how strong or weak the liquid's atomic bond is, but in how fast the heat particles and bubbles together can give those atoms lift. Metal atoms are small and get little lift. In short, metal weighs more because every atom weighs the same while metal atoms are denser. So, there's more weight to lift, and heat bubbles don't form as easily or as large, nor travel as fast, in heavy, dense material.

So, let's imagine an element with a melting point of 200 C, and let's compare it with water with its melting point at 0 C. At melting, both substances have exactly the same atomic-bond strength (no small discovery, hope you appreciate it), both equal to gravity force upon the atom. Water will boil at 100 C after the heat-particle lift overcomes the atomic-bond strength, the air pressure upon the liquid surface, and the pull of gravity upon the liquid atoms. As the pull of gravity and air pressure in both liquids is identical, you have just learned that the resistance to upward flow of heat in all materials is essentially equal at their respective melting points. If the substance that melts at 200 C has a boiling point well above 300 C, then it suggests that water allows heat passage easier than the other substance, for water boils 100 degrees above it's melting temperature. If the other substance had a boiling point at 300 C, then I would say that resistance to heat-particle flow for both liquids is roughly identical. If the other substance has a boiling point at 800 C, then I would say that, definitely, it's due to a smaller atom receiving less lift. Therefore, it's a good bet that the difference between the melting and boiling points of liquids reflects the relative sizes of atoms. If this doesn't prove to be quite true, or not even close, then there is some other factor(s), which probably includes the shape of atoms. We can imagine that some shapes will offer resistance to liquid passage more than other shapes.

The 100-degree difference between water's melting and boiling is on the very low side. Not many substance have that low a difference figure, and this checks out because I can glean that water molecules are on the large side. Substances with a large difference between melting and boiling are the smaller atoms. Water involves the largest atom, hydrogen, and some large-side oxygen atoms. However, a water molecule weighs nine times more than a hydrogen atom, which is why there's as much as 100 degrees between melting and boiling (lift is harder with more atomic weight). The difference between the melting and boiling points of hydrogen (6 degrees), nitrogen (14 degrees) and oxygen (35 degrees) are very small, much less than 100 degrees. There's only a 3-degree difference for argon, suggesting to me that the argon atom is very round = the least-restrictive shape for passing through, and that hydrogen may not be overly round. To what I've said here, bromine and beryllium are even more problematic than mercury, but the problem may not be mine, but theirs for assigned the wrong atomic weights for those elements. I don't know how they get their atomic-weight numbers. Here's a list of melting and boiling points, if you wish to check things out:
http://www.porklips.org/~mason/materials/imeltelem.html

Here's a list of the claimed "atomic weights," which numbers should reflect the relative weights of gases at STP, though the atomic-weight numbers may not have been obtained by weighing gases (in that case, beware of tricks or errors that they need). In short, my prediction is that the relative sizes of atoms are fairly proportionate to the relative weights of gases at STP.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_atomic_weight

If you really want to know what the STP situation means, you've got to find why, for example, an oxygen gas at STP creates the same gas pressure as an equal volume of hydrogen at STP while the oxygen gas has 16 times as many atoms. Clearly, the first take-away is that each oxygen atom has much-less repulsion charge than one hydrogen atom, and my interpretation has been that hydrogen has a much larger atom. It seems that the combined repulsion force of 32 oxygen atoms produces as much pressure as two hydrogen atoms. Why do you think that is? I suppose it's true that each oxygen atom has 1/16th the repulsion force of one hydrogen atom, but does this necessary mean that oxygen atoms are 16 times smaller? I don't know. I've never been able to answer that question. It's beyond my ability until I get a good clue somehow. It depends on what causes the repulsion force in the first place, or how the electron arrangement of each atom determines the specific force.

If you wish to take their position that each gas volume has the same number of atoms, then you've got to conclude that two oxygen atoms apply the same pressure as two hydrogen atoms, or that 2 million oxygen atoms apply the same pressure as 2 million hydrogen atoms. Doesn't that seem to you to be poppycock? The stupids then "discover" the relative speeds of oxygen atoms because they think that atomic speeds defines gas pressure. BUT STUPIDS, the atoms are not racing around in the gas. They are repelling one another.

Don't give up on me just because I say that hydrogen has the largest atom. Lookie here. If you can accept it, because you agree with me, and with the tower-of-Pisa experiment, that all atoms weigh the same, then you must agree with me that a water molecule is NOT two hydrogen atoms bonded with one oxygen atom. My atomic model is revolutionary, requiring the complete dismantling of the going theories. H2O is a figment of their imagination, so beware of their experimental proofs for its correctness. "H2O" is a theory derived from their erroneous belief that every gas at STP has the same number of atoms. Therefore, because it's an experimental fact that two volumes of hydrogen gas merges with one equal volume of oxygen gas to produce two volumes of water gas, they assumed that two hydrogen atoms bond with one oxygen atom. Flush that theory down the toilet because there's nothing but a fantasy available for to predict that all gases of equal volumes have an equal number of atoms. There is no logic in this outcome of nature. By what natural effect or law of physics could that colossal coincidence be?

As I showed, the fact is this: there are 16 times as many oxygen atoms per volume as there are hydrogen atoms, wherefore, since two hydrogen volumes combines with one oxygen volume to produce two volumes of water vapor, a water molecule as eight oxygen atoms bonded to one hydrogen atom: O8H. Like I said, revolutionary. To determine relative sizes of the O versus the H atoms, we might ask: why does the one H atom only get eight O atoms instead of nine or ten? It could be as easy to answer as: nine don't fit over the surface of the H atom. That makes sense.

To explain why a super-temperature is needed to unmerge the O8H, I see the eight O atoms merged almost half-way into one hydrogen atom. In that picture, the 8-shape between bonded atoms no longer applies to an make easy work for the dislodging of atoms by heat-squeeze. As you can see, the 8-shape has a "waist" into which heat particles can invade to separate the top half from the bottom half. But if a small atom is almost half submerged into a large atom, the waist disappears. The oxygen atoms would be blip-like above the hydrogen's surface, and heat surrounding the molecule needs first to squeeze the hydrogen atom smaller from all around in order to form significant waists between it and the eight O atoms.

In fact, with the O atoms deeply merged into a huge atom, added heat all around the water molecule can, in the lower temperature ranges, force O atoms even deeper. Added heat usually expands substances, but no so for water near its freezing point. One can assume that, when increased heat forces atoms apart, it shows as the expansion of substances, but if O atoms are sent deeper, then the liquid should show signs of contracting with added heat. Water does just that: contracts with added heat from its ice state up until a couple of degrees above the freezing point. Only after that does water expand with increased temperature.

Now they have a major problem. To make this easier for you to understand, just view two two hydrogen volumes as containing one hydrogen atom each, and view the oxygen volume as containing on oxygen atom. The three atoms won't bond at room temperature. The hydrogen needs to be ignited in the presence of oxygen in order to produce water as the literal exhaust. It seems clear that heat (even as little heat as the very beginning of a small spark) is the first entity added, which does something to a few hydrogen and/or oxygen atoms to cause inter-attraction between the two. Then, when they merge, they release some captured electrons in the shared merger region, and this release constitutes heat (particles) to form a chain reaction i.e. the heat causes more hydrogen atoms to merge with oxygen atoms to release more heat, etc. An explosion occurs.

But how possibly does their atomic model explain this combustion attraction in a plausible (not fantasial) way? I have no idea. What possibly could a spark do to the few, whizzing electrons of either hydrogen or oxygen atoms to create attraction between the two atoms? It can't send the only electron of a hydrogen atom away to give the latter a positive charge. What can a spark or flame do to their oxygen atom to explain the attraction of combusting atoms? I have no idea. They don't view a spark or a flame as releasing heat particles. They have no squeezing, and do not speak of heat adding negative charge to atoms. They're kaput, good only for spitting upon.

So, hydrogen and oxygen don't attract at room temperature. It means that they have the same charge, either net-positive or net-negative. But add a little heat, and, possibly, only one of the atoms changes charge so that attraction occurs. If correct, it tends to prove that the administration of heat particles around atoms can make them grow more net-negative. As oxygen is always needed to combust any material, I'd say that oxygen is the unique element that's near-neutral at room temperature, but, with a little heat added, it becomes net-negative. In this picture, hydrogen and all hydrocarbon fuels are net-positive at room temperature, and do not become net-negative when in the presence of a spark or small flame. But oxygen, which is much smaller than the hydrogen atom, does become net-negative.

I suggest that hydrogen, because it's has the largest atomic diameter, gets the greatest numbers of electron layers blown away by gravity. It explains why hydrogen atoms need higher temperatures to attain a neutral charge i.e. to regain all the electrons blown away by gravity. Only after that point, with additional heat, can hydrogen become net-negative.

Where can the gravity come from, as the evolutionist defines it (just pure mass of material), if hot big-bang gases refuse by their inter-repulsion to be pulled into a core-point by gravity? Where does the egg come from if the chicken hasn't laid it yet? Perhaps I've confused you. The big banger claims that a hot gas first formed even though an explosion does not create a gas...unless you think that something like air atoms moving away from the earth in all directions at greater than light speeds constitutes a gas. So what these deplorables do is to draw a cosmic gas in their drawings that has significant mass already at a core-point that becomes a gravity source that then pulls in atomic material in spite of the latter wanting to spread out. And you will tend to believe that they know what they're talking about because they are counting on it, coaxing and training you to think so.

But if gravity is not defined as a mass of atomic material, but is, as I say, a body of freed electrons, then they need to explain how electrons all came together at a core point. Shudder, they definitely don't want gravity to be from electrons, do they, because they definitely don't attract one another no matter how hot or cool the cosmic conditions.

The grave problem is that, when electrons spread out, they push all atoms in their way, for electrons are the smaller of the two, and much closer together than atoms. Even in the very-cold temperatures of the earth's atmosphere, heat particles give lift to hydrogen atoms. Imagine how strongly the electrons of a big-bang plasma scenario would force protons, other electrons, or hydrogen atoms, to spread out. Not only do gas atoms inter-repel, but electron heat particles in their midst contribute to the spread of gas atoms. Ask the heated air above the flames (= electron emitters) of your wood fire. The air (and smoke gases) goes where the heat drives it to go.

There can be no star formation from a big-bang explosion of sub-atomic particles. And modern physics is all about catering fake science to the viability prospects of the big bang. I hope you appreciate my work in informing you of this, because no other Creationist has done so. Most of them hold to fake physics lest they be viewed as nuts. Let's make it time to break out of that self-defeating mold. Some of our best ammunition against the evolutionist is his holding to false and contrived / rigged physics. Remember, he wants to kill your Savior; do not respect him. Rebuke him.

Here's a video claiming that the early scientists couldn't figure out how electrons were formed around the protonic core. What? Ridiculous. Electrons would come at the proton like iron filings to a magnet, so simple, yet this video won't even begin to show that possibility, but rather, right away, claims falsely: it was known that electrons were relatively distant from the nucleus. Poppycock. This idea is given credence where it says that scientists of the time KNEW FOR A FACT that one hydrogen atom had one electron. Well, of course, if it has just one electron, it can't be on the protonic surface, for it couldn't explain how atoms bond. SO, the stupids were wrong about one proton per one electron. Why were they this stupid? Because they were atheist stupids. No other explanation needed. Right away, they went into error, and God watched the fools begin to make fools of themselves, never exposing to them their error. But He will expose them eventually.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kYkD-dcupAU

The video is deceptive where it says that an orbit cannot be maintained due to the electron losing energy, and therefore spiralling into the proton. Well, that's not true of a true orbit, which can continue forever if it's a perfect-enough orbit. The reason that they say the electrons will crash is because they want to create a reason, for themselves, to introduce the idea of photons to the rescue. Photons, they say, come to electrons and share their energy, like momma bird to baby bird, and thus photons bump them up in orbits, ha-ha, how stupid can they get? Really, how non-sensible. A photon coming in to collide with an electron will only make them it go out of orbit. IDIOTS.

So, the fix for the atomic model is to trash the one-electron-per-proton theory, and to dress the proton with a full robe of electrons. No added energy needed to keep them in orbit. They remain healthy atoms forever even if zero energy comes in. When light energy does arrive, as a normal wave, the electrons jostle and jolt outward to deflect / reflect the energy out. Stick to the facts: trash the one-electron-per-proton model today.

In the next video on the beginnings of the quantum-mechanics atomic model, the first words are that "many brilliant minds..." Oops, problem there. As you can see, the brilliant minds are abandoning the true orbit of the electron, and making up another hoax in the meantime. After all, what else do brilliant minds do better? It is the job of the most-brilliant minds to create a false story that will be believed. But don't you be a dope.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewtgUFSMsnY

As you can see, the idiots are now proposing that there is still one electron per proton, but the electron now moves randomly within a SPHERE around the proton, like it had wings and trapped in a spherical bird cage. It now moves in all directions rather than circular, and in this way this models is akin to mine in that the electron sort-of jostles and jolts. But until they add many such electrons, they are out to lunch. Until they abandon their view of the hydrogen atom, they will never get it right. All of their math is vanity when used to prove whatever they seek to prove, if the model is just plain wrong to begin with.

If they can't figure out that a massive proton would attract a massive number of electrons, they are certainly not brilliant minds. The fact is, they can realize that thing, but reject it out of hand, and don't dare even show you a picture of it, lest you fall in love with it. They absolutely do not want to tell you the truth. So, instead, they try to convince you, as this video does, that the one electron of the hydrogen atom is everywhere in the atomic sphere, EVENTUALLY, and it zig-zags so fast that it is virtually EVERYWHERE in the sphere ALL OF THE TIME.

STUPIDS. Just add a large number of electrons to do what this one razzle-dazzle electron does in your fantasies. Guaranteed, if you watch past 3 minutes, you will be brainwashed into believing that the brilliant minds actually know what they are talking about, and you, low-life dummy, can't keep up with them. This is their trick, to make you think the scientific establishment is way ahead of you, and that you are hopeless to disagree with it. Worship at their feet, in other words. Stay away from their videos. Their quantum mechanics is lunacy. You've been warned.

It is impossible for one electron to move in all directions within a protonic sphere. You can't be so dim as to believe that, just because you saw it in the video above. It was an animation, man, not reality. The proton attracts the electron, and doesn't allow it to fly around in all directions. That's why the orbit was invented, so that it can remain off the proton. It needs to remain off the proton in order to allow atomic bonding, but it can't change directions over the proton as though it were a bumble bee. If there's nothing to cause it to change directions, it won't, it can't.

But if the proton is surrounded by many electrons, they all cause the jostling of the whole. They all inter-repel so that when light waves come in, or when the waves from the shot of a hammer comes in, they jostle. No wings needed to make them jostle in all directions randomly. The outer atmosphere of the electron body, when bombarded by light waves, probably resembles the surface of water when shot with many bullets continuously.

We are beginning to see videos where electrons orbit on elliptical paths now, though not repeatedly on the same plane. Suddenly, they are more like comet orbits, but this does not help the viability of the model one iota. The trick is to trick you, because the brilliant minds don't need to be brilliant to know it's not a sustainable system. They lie, and they know they lie. They will tell us that atoms are generally neutral in charge, which is the reason that they assign one electron per proton, both having equal but opposite charges. But, STUPID, if there's just one electron in that situation, neutrality of charge can only be in one direction at a time. Neutrality can only be outward in a line from the center of the proton through the electron: all of the other millions of outward directions not having an electron cannot be anything but a net-positive charge, and every direction will have a different level of net-positive charge. Of course they knew that, but they badly wanted their hydrogen atom for the big-bang's sake, and so they violated the reality for its behalf.

It's a simple no-brainer that the electron doesn't have a charge level equal to the protonic charge level. They know that a hydrogen atom is almost purely a strong positive force in all directions if it possesses just one electron, but this was the best they could muster because they were compelled, even against their will, to conform to big-bang needs.

In my model, the only viable true model, the proton is surrounded by a coat of electrons so that, in every direction outward from the center of the proton, there is a row of multiple-to-many electrons. Each electron has a tiny-to-small fragment of charge as compared to the charge level (quantity) of the proton. So, in every direction, the situation arranges itself naturally -- without need of outside assistance -- wherein a row of electrons out from the protonic core emits a total and combined negative charge nearly equal to the emission of positive charge. There is therefore a near-neutral charge in all directions. It is imperative that there is a net-positive charge in all directions so that gravity can pull every atom. Gravity arranges this net-positive charge by "permanently" repelling some of the outer electrons. None can come back unless the atom moves further away from the gravity source.

I ask you: why have you never seen the drawing of an atomic model with an atom possessing a coat of electrons? Why has no one even postulated it? Because, scientists are afraid to go counter the erroneous hydrogen atom. All other atoms must conform to it, and you will be deemed a lunatic if you dare oppose it. The hydrogen atom is the god of big-banger atheists. Profane a big-banger today by proclaiming that their hydrogen atom is a piece-of-garbage trick.

Have you ever noticed that when they show you the atom, with neutrons, they don't show the graviton particle claimed as the gravity particle? Hee-hee, what nuts. Where will they put the graviton? How much weight will they assign it? Will it orbit or fly like a bee too, or get glued to the protonic cluster? What will they call that glue, since the graviton can neither attract nor repel the proton? The graviton has a special attraction force unable to attract electrons. It attracts only other gravitons. Hee-hee, now you know why they don't want to show it, for if gravitons attract gravitons, why are there not clusters of them on/in every atom, some with more, some with less, than other atoms??

But in my model, God's model, gravity is just an electron source, so unproblematic, and so explicative of a logical situation: gravity repels some atomic electrons and in the process attracts an atom. Wow, so simple to swallow so fast, like a fast-food theory ready to go. What's the problem? Ahh, the big-bang dies with negatively-charged gravity. Therefore, they will force you to swallow lie after lie so that the god-lie can survive. You become what you eat.

Here's a good video, to the 3rd minute, on the discovery of the tiny electron by JJ Thomson: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBgIMRV895w From the third minute to the 4th, we come to Rutherford, one of the lunatics who got things very wrong, whom the establishment ultimately decided to glorify. He started to play with positively-charged "alpha" particles emitted from uranium, which he claimed to be heavier than electrons because they bent less than electrons through the magnetic field of Thompson's cathode tube. The alpha particles, he realized, went right through the gold foil, which is what light waves can do too, and light waves are formed from emitted particles, after all. Yes, strong light waves can penetrate a thin foil of gold, but shouldn't we ask why he used gold foil? Didn't the experiment have the same results with different metallic foils?

Rutherford decided that the atom was mainly space through which the alpha particles could zip through, and here's where the proton was likened to a pea in the middle of the football field while the electron was as far from it as the spectators in their seats. He had the atoms pegged to the complete opposite of what it really looked like: with electrons dressed so closely to the proton that they act as its coat.

Is there no other explanation for the few particles that bounced back toward him? He thought that alpha particles were striking gold protons, and therefore bouncing back toward him. But I suggest that all the alpha particles were bouncing off the gold and bouncing back toward him, but only a few bounced back as far as the sensitive material he had set up to capture their location of bounce. The others just dropped straight down, or nearly so, on contact with the gold. The only thing going through were longitudinal light waves.

Now, if the alpha particle is positively charged, isn't it a uranium proton? Can it be a bare uranium proton? Is the active uranium spitting out protons so hard that their coats of electrons are left behind (as heat particles)? That sounds logical to me. Active uranium must have some sort of hammers that send atoms flying without their electrons, or at least with some of them missing. It's hard to decide what was going on in Rutherford's alpha investigations if all we have is the little reported to us, expected to be cherry-picked information for making the case they evolutionists would like to make.

The video then becomes more deceptive, with claims based on matters left unexplained. It says that neutrons were discovered because scientists could weigh the proton, but no evidence for that claim is shared. You are to trust. When explanations move that fast, consider it wizardry to deceive. They could weigh protons, but they discovered that atomic nuclei had twice the weight of what they weighed, and, voila: neutrons to the rescue to explain the missing weight. Yeah, sure.

"When protons and neutrons bind together in a nucleus, some of their mass is converted to the energy necessary to hold them together." Ah, how convenient: when they bind together, they create the glue to keep them together. But wait. How do they bind together in the first place, before making the glue? There's no reason for a neutral particle to draw near to, or bond with, a positive one. Sorry, I'm not biting. Neutrons will be sent by the big bang just'a flying through space, no special love for a proton whatsoever. What draws them together, ninny? Okay, so one happens to bump into a proton, and, magically, they produce the glue to keep them together? A likely story. Where did the glue come from? Oh, yes, the big bang made it, because it's like this big bang has a mind to know what atoms need in order to form. Whatever the evolutionists need to create their atomic model, that's what the big bang made. They are playing me-monkey with themselves.

They have got their atomic weights so screwed-up that they defined an alpha particle as a helium atom: two protons and two neutrons. Ha-ha, they have helium atoms coming out of Rutherfords uranium, ha-ha, what absolute idiots. I hate to sound like a child repeatedly, but they are the children, how can I help speaking this way? IDIOTS! Mere monkey brains posing as special intellect. To explain the positive charge of the alpha particle, they say the helium atoms comes without its electrons. No, stupid, it's a uranium proton without all of its electrons. Think. If it comes from uranium, it probably is uranium.

As I said, all atoms weigh the same, and hydrogen atoms are the largest because they get the biggest lift from rising electrons. This is easy to understand: if gravity pulls all atoms by the same force, then the one with the largest cross section gets the most lift. Like, placing a pea under an upward flow of air (from a blow gun) isn't going to get the pea as much lift as when we place a walnut under the same flow of air. So, uranium atoms are thus discovered as the smallest atoms, and Hydrogen atoms as the largest, the very opposite of how the idiots got it...because God will not be mocked. When they roast in Hell, they'll have time to reflect upon their mistakes, especially the mistake of warring against Jesus. Monkey brains.

If alpha particles were helium atoms without their electrons, then one needs but to wait for them to reload with electrons and, voila, a container of helium could be produced from the "decay" of uranium. Guaranteed, they have not created any such container of helium.

When the video above gets to the beryllium experiment, it finds particles knocked out of beryllium that are neutral in charge (not bent either way by a magnetic field), meaning that they are beryllium atoms with sufficient number of electrons to remain neutral, and/or too heavy and speedy to be bent by the magnetic field. But the dopes decided they needed neutrons in every atom, and so they devised this experiment to "prove" that neutrons exist. Little demonic magicians at work.

When the video gets to the electrons held in orbit at 75-percent the speed of light, note how logical it seems to the viewer, who doesn't question it, because the video is a trick to make believers. But the real scientist knows that nothing can orbit at that speed. Note how slow the electrons are shown in orbit. If they sped them up to a whizzing speed, the viewer would start to ask: shouldn't it spiral out of orbit? But of course.

Then, when it says that atomic forces are 10 to the power of 33 times stronger than gravity force, they expect you to believe that scientists have discovered it as a fact somehow, when in reality it's just from the mathematics used for finding how much more powerful the atom's nucleus needs to be in order to hold electrons in orbit at 75-percent the speed of light i.e. the math may be accurate, but the atomic situation they imagine doesn't exist, wherefore the math is useless...except to deceive you. In short, they wanted the electron to have super-speed so that it could interact with their non-existent speedy photon, and so they also had to invent a super-strong protonic force to keep the speedy electron in orbit, and that's what they did: INVENTED the atom to their image. We can disagree with them all we want, but they get to paste their lies into the school textbooks, distorting the minds of the children. And the parents pay for it.

So, the guy says, "that's 1 with 33 zeroes," and in the background the electrons orbit. You are deceived into thinking, yeah, I can see it, the protons are so strong that the electrons can remain in orbit at super-fast speeds. BUT WAIT: they didn't prove that the proton was that strong; they used circular argumentation. They just figured out how strong the proton needs to be AFTER factualizing the super speed of the electron. They didn't prove anything.

You can see in the comment sections how deceived the vulnerable viewers are. One comment says, "The electric force is the 'glue' that binds electrons to their alleged orbits but what is it that keeps the electrons from falling into the atom? There must be a counter repulsive force." He's inadvertently implying my atomic model, because its deep-seated electrons repel higher electrons outward, causing the outer ones to hover. However, the person making the comment is totally oblivious to the problem, for he's worried about what it is that keeps the electron from spiralling into the proton, oblivious to the reality that the great orbital speed would make it spiral away from the proton. It proves my point, that the video deceived with that strong-protonic argument. The viewers swallowed it whole. The idea that the atom is threatened by a collision with the proton could be the wizards' old and useful trick to keep people from realizing the obvious fault of this model. A magician makes the person look here while he plays the trick there.

Someone in the comments asks two great questions, the second of which didn't occur to me: "How do neutrons stick with protons if it doesn't have a charge? How come only neutrons came out when alpha particles hit the nucleus and not protons?" Yes, when alpha particles were shot at beryllium, why didn't protons come out too since they and neutrons are said to be packed together and of the same weight? I'm sure that the wizards have formed their canned answer. Got a good question? Why we've already canned your answer. Here, swallow this poofpa diagram smothered in mathematics sauce.

The End

As Trump is for a mighty military, which needs a well-oiled spy system, isn't that the very definition of the world police with a big club? We might say that, if a Russia-China alliance were used to attack and defeat the Unites States, that's why Americans are willing to pay for a big military. Fine, I accept that argument. But the reality is that the big military is in Russia's face provoking a Russia-China military alliance. How can that be good? There's absolutely nothing wrong with a pro-Russia Ukraine leader so long as he's a honest man, but the American war hawks absolutely say no to that idea. Why doesn't Russia have the comfort of knowing that a neighboring country is a friend rather than a foe? If Russia were still the murderous Stalin cloud over Ukraine, then I would condemn Russia too, but that was not the case with recent, post-Soviet Russian leaders.

Here's the FBI pretending to be the angel when in fact it is the national demon:

Some models of smart TVs include built-in cameras. They can be used for video chatting with friends and family, and some can let the TV recognize who is watching and suggest programming based on their past preferences.

But hackers may be able to access those TVs through the internet, allowing them to spy through the camera and microphone, or change channels, adjust the volume and play “inappropriate videos,” the FBI warned.

Hackers could even potentially use an unsecured TV as a backdoor to a router, potentially allowing them to access a computer or other device connected to the Wi-Fi, according to the FBI

https://www.fox5ny.com/news/black-friday-smart-tv-buyers-should-take-this-fbi-cybersecurity-advice

This means two things? Wray's FBI is trying to convince the nation that the FBI is the good guy, opposed to spying on people. And, the FBI has been spying on people long before the television camera and mic, from the cameras and mics in all our computers. While the advice given in the article seems good, look here: "Because each smart TV is different, owners should search for the exact model number online..." It looks like a way for the spies to discover exactly what model you're using, because it's easier for them to spy if they know beforehand which of their spyware works best for your model-for-this, model-for-that, your computer model, your type of web browser, or your brand of anti-spyware.

I don't think the FBI is watching you every day hoping you'll check your model numbers for items in your home. But a system can be set up wherein every computer checking for a model number for various brands of computers, televisions, etc., are automatically recorded in some file accessible by somebody. This probably explains why they are forcing people to register their wi-fi systems, and other products, online, so that there can be government record of everything you're using. In the name of fighting crime, we are being made vulnerable to a corrupt police state with the priority of fighting political, corporate and ideological enemies. There's no evidence whatsoever that Trump's FBI has cleansed itself of the desire to spy on his people. There have got to be some underground spy systems not located in any FBI buildings. Trump will NOT be the savior needed at this time. The spies are still hard at work wanting to know everything that happens in order to curve the ballgame their way.

---

NEXT UPDATE

For Some Prophetic Proof for Jesus as the Predicted Son of God. Also, you might like this related video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWkngqBoK6M

Table of Contents

---