Previous Update

Updates Index

(if there are any to speak of)

August 7 - 13, 2018

Jim Lippard Wants to Destroy Messianic Prophecy
Richard Dawkins Thinks Christians are Hallucinating
George Bush Connection to JFK Murder Seems Correct
Sleeping-Bag Dream is About Nazified CIA

I haven't abandoned the Iraq topics, though I have considered suspending the Iraq Updates due to seeing no real progress in the Middle East. I'll give this some more time, and continue to talk on other matters while waiting.

I thought it would be good to start this update with this prophecy from an old woman of 50 years ago. She hit the nail on the head in several ways, and seems to have seen a vision in which Armageddon takes place as large flows of immigration into the West take place from minor nations:

The Bum of Lucy

With all the fraudulent activity taking place these days in every area, and contributed to by the American government (why not also other Western nations) for decades, why shouldn't we expect another fraudulent missing link from evolutionists? Let's look into Lucy, shall, we. The video below claims to expose eight lies of Creationists concerning Lucy. In the first argument, he says that a Creationist claimed that a "knee joint" was found a couple of miles from Lucy's skull, but, says the video owner in rebuttal, it was only a knee cap, not the entire joint, that was found a couple of miles away, wherefore the Creationist was lying. What a dope this video owner is, and he even sounds like a brat:

The main reason for the Creationist's statement is where fraud was apparently taking place. Although the discoverer of Lucy admitted that the knee was found elsewhere, he may not have wanted to admit this at first, until he got caught passing off his hoax. He had to admit that the knee was not Lucy's. The knee bone is important. In Lucy's Wikipedia article, where there are no criticisms on Lucy, which therefore comes across as a brain-washer article, it says: "One of the most striking characteristics of the Lucy skeleton is a valgus knee, which indicates that it, or 'she', normally moved by walking upright." There you have just one plug to argue that "she" was our human ancestor. A missing link like this is important to the desperados, the fraudsters.

Here's from a Creationist, David A. Plaisted, author of, "Problems with Lucy and Skull 1470," trying to get to the bottom of things:

The Lucy skeleton is supposed to be an intermediate between ape and man. There has been a lot of discussion of Lucy's knee joint by Creationists and much misunderstanding. The best I can now determine is that there were 2 knee joints, one found nearby [in the backpack of the fraudster?] and one far away. The one found far away was found two to three kilometers away from the skull and 60-70 meters deeper in the strata. Dr. Johansen does not claim that the knee joint belonged to Lucy. Instead, it was part of another fossil he found some time earlier. He does put them together logically, though, claiming that they were of the same species.

Ahh, it's only a "claim" by Lucy's "discoverer" that the knee cap was of the same species. he really didn't know do we? And since he (or someone else) got it far away at another time, doesn't that work well with a conspiracy to commit fraud? It appears that they had the knee cap already, and that they conspired to use it when pretending to dig up Lucy, which, by the way, has other human-like characteristics that should have red flags attached.

Apparently, we are to believe that the knee cap used for Lucy was the other one found nearby, but this one may have been made-up (wouldn't have been mentioned otherwise) when the discoverer had to admit that the knee was found a couple of miles away.

It appears that this conspiracy has gone wide, no surprise: "Most evolutionists, including Johanson, insist that the footprints that Mary Leaky uncovered in "3 million year old" strata in Latoli were made by Australopithecus afarensis, though these prints are indistinguishable from those of modern man." Clearly, they want Lucy to have human feet. They even added a human-like spine to the bag of bones they claimed for this ape. Up to that time, this was the most prolific find for this species, which was named, Australopithecus. Previous specimens, so far as I'm gathering by some online information, were merely skull parts. In other words, this was a major attempt at fraud, by the looks of it, a big step toward forthcoming parts of the hoax.

The first-ever skull found, in 1924, is the Taung Child (awe, gosh, a real baby), and was celebrated as the proto-human because, somehow, merely part of the skull revealed that this monkey walked upright. Doesn't that sound like a big leap? With this claim that the skull belonged to an upright ape, it was the perfect "species" with which to conduct a hoax, and Lucy may not have been the first attempt. In April of 1947, STS 5 was found, though just a skull without the lower jaw, and in August of that year, STS 14 was found by the same crew, both of the same species, they say, as the Taung Child, and all celebrated as our ancestors, or nearly so. One red flag is that STS 14 was mainly of a hip area, and claimed to have human characteristic. Doesn't that look like part of a hoax? First a skull is found that allows the claim of human-like characteristic, and then a hip too? Very suspicious. It's known that a true Piltdown hoax for human ancestry was tried prior to the STS finds. Evolution was filled with frauds, desperate to murder God.

What appears to be at least part of an upper knee joint, and a lower knee joint on the other leg, was part of the claim. Yet in the video above, the brat says that there is no knee joint displayed with Lucy. He's splitting hairs just to have cause to call a Creationist a liar for using "knee joint." Without the full knee here, how did Lucy's discoverer know that the knee found two miles away was from an Australopithecus? As I (very new to this) understand it, there had never been a knee found for this species until Lucy. And here we have one found a long ways off by the same fraudster that found Lucy. It gives me the impression that the knee found far off was slated for use in the original hoax.

In the article above by Mr. Plaisted, he quotes a scientist: "In summary, the knee of [Lucy] shares with other australopithecines a marked obliquity of the femoral shaft relative to the bicondylar plane, but in all other respects it falls either outside the range of modern human variation (Tardieu, 1979) or barely within it (our analysis)." I suppose that one could ponder whether they arranged the knee to have just one human-like characteristic. But even if it authentically does so, those pictures of half-ape, half-human that evolutionists paint are completely without merit. An upright ape is no proof of evolution, but the proponents of Lucy are trying to pass her off as someone who did walk just like a human, more so than a gorilla. This is the dishonesty, and Creationists just want to air this position, which rightly they should.

People were loosing faith in the fossil record to prove missing links, and here there is an attempt to provide one. Lucy has become famous because they are pushing her, like a dope dealer pushes happy drugs. All the atheists are soaking this up. They love feeling as though there is no judgment of God coming to them. They dearly want evolution to prove that there is no God, before they die.

So far as I can make out, the video above (prior to the two-minute mark) tells that the discoverer didn't admit publicly that he had found the knee far off until 1986, some 12 years after the discovery. If that's correct, doesn't that sound like fraud? He may very well have been forced to admit this by experts who got suspicious about the knee. The video also mentions that there was a complete knee joint found, as part of this story, though the discoverer didn't use it for Lucy. This sounds like the one found a couple of miles away. It could be that he did in fact use the top half for Lucy.

As the video progresses, a funny thing. The brat shows other finds for this species, but shows only skulls or partial skulls, with no neck bones attached or even showing, and he happens to be in the midst of arguing that the neck bones for this species is human-like. Apparently, he's trying to fool the dumbest of the dumb.

Just before the four-minute mark, he talks about Lucy's human-like spine. He shows a spine from supposedly the same species, and it's nothing but small spine bones with lots of space between them, so that people can curve the spine anyway they wish, either human-like or ape-like. His evidence is complete nonsense. The listener is to take the scientists at their word that the spine is arched like a human's spine, but others have said that there is nothing remarkable about the spine. Who's lying now?

Next, the brat emphasizes the hip, and admits that Lucy's hip was broken. Hmm, maybe deliberately broken in order to play a trick. He quotes a Creationist who claimed that the hip was reconstructed to produce a hoax. Why couldn't that be true? How does the brat know it wasn't true? Who is this brat, anyway?

The brat's video says that no hands were found for Lucy, and therefore the Plaisted article above seems telling with this: "The paper by Stern and Sussman also mentions that the hands and feet of Australopithecus afarensis [another specimen, not Lucy] are not at all like human hands and feet; rather, they have the long curved fingers and toes typical of arboreal primates. Notwithstanding, the St. Louis Zoo features a life-size statue of Lucy with perfectly formed human hands and feet." This type of thing is rotten. The demons want to re-educate humanity with frauds.

The same article goes on to expose the extent of the hoax, pushing the idea that Lucy had human intelligence, enough to construct tools! Zowie, now we know it's a conspiracy:

One of Zuckerman's associates in the field of anatomy Dr. Chas. Oxnard (USC) writes "Although most studies emphasize the similarity of the australopithecines to modern man, and suggest, therefore that these creatures were bipedal tool-makers at least one form of which (A. africanus--"Homo habilis," "Homo africanus") was almost directly ancestral to man, a series of multivariate statistical studies of various postcranial fragments suggests other conclusions [= not man-like]."

In other words, the skulls were monkey skulls, no surprise. They used monkey parts and humanized other parts.

Wow, they didn't pay close attention to the bones? They discover the missing link, and they didn't test the bones to assure authenticity?

...But when Gary Sawyer and Mike Smith at the American Museum of Natural History in New York recently began work on a new reconstruction of Lucy’s skeleton, with help from Scott Williams at New York University, they noticed something odd.

“Mike pointed out that one of the {vertebra} fragments, which no one, including me, had really paid close attention to, looked fairly small to fit with the rest of Lucy’s vertebral column,” says Williams.

No one, he says, paid attention to the spine, the spine that some say has a human-like arch. What sort of science is this? It's called, the let hoax roll out. It's as though no one even bothered to verify whether it was a monkey spine. Don't hurt the money flow, let the hoax roll on. It's good for paleontology, just like fake pieces of Jesus' cross is good for the Vatican's bank. The article says that these "scientists" did a hunt for what animal this one bone may have belonged to. They were even entertaining non-monkeys, if that shows how easily bones can be misinterpreted. It continues:

The results showed, surprisingly, that the fragment may not have belonged to Australopithecus at all.

“Baboons were a close match, both in shape and size,” says Williams. “So we think we've solved this mystery. It seems that a fossil gelada baboon thoracic vertebra washed or was otherwise transported in the mix of Lucy’s remains.”

He stresses, though, that the analysis, which he will present at a meeting of the Paleoanthropology Society in San Francisco next week, also confirms that the other 88 fossil fragments belonging to Lucy’s skeleton are correctly identified. And the mislabelled baboon bone fragment doesn’t undermine Lucy’s important position in the evolution of our lineage.

Yes, but if that one bone looks so much like the other Australopithecus spine bones, that no one noticed the difference, and if the baboon spine therefore looks so much like Australopithecus, then why can't the latter have the spine of a baboon? Ahh, but of course. Lucy's discoverer took the spine of some monkey, and combined it with a knee and hip not from the same monkey. But of course, this is to be expected. Hoax's in the fossil world are rife. No matter how one cuts this, the guys above admitted that Lucy's spine looks like a baboon's spine. , and, of course, there will be resistance to this claim. Look at the page blow to see the few spine bones are claimed for Lucy, and ask how anyone could possibly know the shape of that spine's arch?

Below is a video featuring a well-known evolutionist. The video says that while Lucy's knee looks human, Lucy's hip does not. But others differ and say that it does look human. Apparently, the video below is speaking directly to the difference between the two. The evolutionist shown is Owen Lovejoy, who says that Lucy's hip was fractured in nature, and then fused together in nature, which seems completely ridiculous. He doesn't of course say that men may have glued it together in a hoax.

It's hard to know what exactly he's trying to say in this video, but an anti-Creationist video presented below explains. It seems that he's trying to convey the idea that a human-like hip on an ape was altered by nature to look more monkey like. Lovejoy is, I think, saying that Lucy's hip was originally more human-like than it now shows. He comes across as a whistle-blower in this video, however. He's helping us to understand the hip part of the hoax, that is. They took a human hip and changed its shape rather than starting from a monkey hip and shaping it to look more human.

In the last couple of seconds of the video, Lovejoy shows his personal reconstruction (or did someone else do it?) of Lucy's hip on a human hip to show the similarity, which is stark. With a straight face, he said that some pressure in nature pressed one part of the hip fossil against another part, which twisted it out of shape between the two parts. No, stupid. The fraudsters mucked with it, and you appear to be their accomplice.

Who is this man: "C. Owen a functional anatomist at Kent State University, Ohio...He is best known for his work on Australopithecine locomotion and the origins of bipedalism. " (Wikipedia). Ahh, well, a leader in proving the hoax of human evolution from apes.

In this anti-Creationist video, Lucy's complete hip is shown at the 6:17 point. Compare with the 1-second point of this video showing a human hip. You can't fail but see the resemblance.

A broken hip provides an opportunity to twist the upper half from the lower half a little, to give it a slight, non-human curve. The idea was, apparently, to hide the use of a human hip in act as Lucy's, a compromise situation wherein some human-like features remain, yet no one could claim that it was a human hip without accusing of a hoax. Not too many paleontologists would want to make such an accusation if the leadership did not. It's known that fossil stone can be worked to where no one notices, especially if the investigators badly want missing links to be found (turn a blind eye to what looks like worked, fossil stone).

The video showing Lovejoy changing the shape of Lucy's hip looks like a reality show. Who was taking the video, and isn't Lovejoy just acting for this piece? It says that he cut the pieces of Lucy's hip apart, but, really, is that credible? I mean, this is a holy relic, and he's allowed to just cut it up??? I doubt it very much. If he had cut it up, he would have found the glue between the pieces.

At the 12:13 point of the anti-Creationist video above, a Creationist shows the socket at the back-bottom of Lucy's skull where the spine enters. The socket is a more toward the back of the skull's bottom than that of a human. With humans, the socket is closer to the jaw, and more centered on the skull partially because the human jaw is smaller. The ape's spine enters more toward the back of the skull, as is the case with Lucy's skull. A human skull with spine is shown at 12:27; it's not exactly centered, still being toward the back of the skull, but it is closer to the jaw, though not by much.

The pathetic evolutionist in the video shows a skull socket from an Australopithecus, and says deceptively that the socket is at the base of the skull rather than the back. He implies that Lucy's is at the back but not the base. That is untrue. The socket he shows (12:41) is clearly not even close to being centered on the skull, but is waaaayyy back toward the back. Big problem there, deceiver.

Ask: why didn't this evolutionist show the skull of Lucy, since he was trying to rebut the Creationist showing her skull? Surely, such a huge discovery as a human-like socket on an ape skull would be plastered all over the Internet so that this evolutionist should be able to find for us a picture of Lucy's socket? So why didn't he use it? As I view video after video, nothing thus far has come up talking about this amazing, human-like socket.

A conspiracy that included the Leakeys?

During the 1970s, two fossil hunting teams began uncovering evidence of ancient human ancestors in east Africa. One team, co-led by Donald Johanson, was working at Hadar in Ethiopia. The other team led by Mary Leakey, was over 1,500 kilometres away at Laetoli in Tanzania. Fossils discovered at the two sites were found to have very similar features and ages but they did not match the fossils of any species known at that time. A new species name, Australopithecus afarensis, was therefore created for them in 1978 (article below).

But of course no one had ever found this species before, since it was a combination of bones from different species. The statement above tends to verify that, previous to 1978, all they had was skulls. Another way to detect the fraud is that all Australopithecus finds are all dated roughly the same. It is impossible to find hundreds of specimens of a single species in different parts of the world all at the same height in the "fossil record." The dating of these specimens is crucial to evolutionists, which is why they are using tricks to date them all the same, not long before the time they've hammered down for the start of human evolution.

At this point, I'm wondering whether any independent (not privy to the hoax) people witnessed the locations in which the many specimens were found, or, on the other hand, whether the fraudsters merely claimed to find them at certain strata and locations. It would be easy to do a dig, leave it for some time, and later announce an Australopithecus find there that never took place.

Knee AL 129 1a + 1b discovered in 1973 in Hadar, Ethiopia. When this 3.4 million year old knee was discovered, it was the first fossil to provide evidence that our ancestors that had been walking on two legs for more than three million years. The discovery of this fossil encouraged Donald Johanson’s team to return to Hadar where they ultimately found ‘Lucy’ and hundreds of other fossils of this species.

LH 4 – a lower jaw discovered in 1974 by Mary Leakey’s team in Laetoli, Tanzania. This fossil is the ‘type specimen’ or official representative of this species.

So, when you hear that there are hundreds of Australopithecus specimens, most of them, apparently, were found by this one or two fraudsters. Note how Leakey was finding the same species at the same time at another place that had never been found before anywhere. Highly unlikely, unless it was a concerted hoax.

Once the hoax is established on the field, myriads of evolutionist writers disseminate it, with all the bipedal talking points. It infiltrates schools, you name it. And virtually the only guards of truth are the Creationists. God bless the Creationists, who will not lose this war. We shall win it, and are winning it, because they have the great advantage in brainwashing, yet people are very skeptical of evolution these days. Their high party is over. They scratch out their own eyes by trying to rock the Creationist's world. They are learning it's better not to even mention Creationists, for it only adds to their troubles.

The article above has this talking point: "unlike most modern apes, this species did not have a deep groove lying behind its brow ridge and the spinal cord emerged from the central part of the skull base rather than from the back." It's a repeated, talking-point lie. If apes have the spine going into the back of the skull, versus the bottom, why doesn't the anti-Creationist or the brat simply show this? There are no shortages of monkey skeletons online from which to borrow. I have looked at Google in efforts to find this super find, of a Lucy socket like a human socket, but it does not pop up. Surely this huge find should be plastered all over Google. Where is it?

At the 3:40 point of the brat's video, he shows an ape's spine and skull going straight up into the base of the skull, even while he's arguing that apes don't have such a thing. The ape's spine enters the skull a distance from the jaw, but so does Lucy's. The ape's skull is not technically entering the back of the skull, but the base. The socket on the dark Australopithecus jaw (anti-Creationist video) isn't even near the jaw. These guys are out-right lying, and even provide the evidence against themselves in their own videos. Go ahead, scratch out your own eyes.

Here's a talking point from a UK news media: "One of the most important things about Lucy is the way she walked. By studying her bones, in particular the structure of her knee and spine curvature, scientists were able to discover that she spent most of her time walking on two legs - a striking human-like trait." Her spine curvature, a mere fantasy. And the article comes with some beautiful pictures of a living Lucy that puts Obama's wife to shame, even without make-up.

Lucy didn't have hands. But, no problem, hands were found. In the 15th minute of the anti-Creation video, after some more beautiful shots of living Lucies, so adorable, the guy says that Australopithecus had hands intermediate between apes and humans. Buy of course, it was arranged that way. The evolutionists were hard-up to prove evolution against the coming tide of Creationists, and the latter have only gained ground since, lots of ground, even though they are on-the-cheap, with all the money bags owned by evolutionists.

We wonder what the raging was amongst evolutionists on Lucy. From ICR: "Several investigators, including Richard Leakey, have now concluded that two or perhaps three species have been wrongly combined in 'Lucy.'" Hmm, I take it that the baboon bone is one, but there appears to have been some other problem, and that Mr. Leakey had to admit to one or two of them.

Creationists that have clout are not in a position to speak as frankly as I am on this hoax. Until absolute proof of a hoax arises, a Creationist with a following needs to be careful. I don't need to be careful. I know a hoax when I see one. One bone after the other was found with transition to humans. I know a hoax when I see one.

In December 1912, British paleontologist Arthur Smith Woodward and amateur antiquarian Charles Dawson announced to the world that they'd found an amazing early human fossil in Piltdown, England. The curious specimen had a humanlike skull with an apelike jaw. Given the scientific name Eoanthropus dawsoni, it was more commonly called Piltdown Man.

Creationists with clout need to increase their vocabulary to include words like, "throw the bums out." The article asks the wrong question: "The question is, who stained the bones to match each other and filed the teeth to appear more human?" Here's the right question: How did the bums at the head of evolution allow this hoax to roll on for decades??? Creationists are far too respectful to evolutionists. No other human skull with monkey jaw had ever been found. One would think that the jaw should be inspected closely for tampering. Surely it was. But they let the hoax roll on, didn't they, knowing the truth all along.

If they saw that the teeth in the jaw(s) were smaller than normal monkey teeth, hello? Surely a dentist would be able to tell that the teeth had been filed down. Surely, all they had to do was to pay a dentist 40 bucks to discover the fraud. Go ahead, file your own teeth and so if you can fool a dentist on your next visit. For a couple of hundred bucks, they could have rented a microscope to check the teeth out for file markings. Hello?

The article is written by a bum. It's time to call a bum a bum. She says that the hoax was motivated by possibilities having nothing to do with murdering God. What a sham. It's absolutely to be expected that evolutionists will conduct hoaxes. When they cry out against Creationism, we can sense their passion. They are very devoted to the holiness of their fraud. Their fraud does not include stained bones alone, but their writings and claims in several departments of science. If they are willing to be that wicked, in our faces, they will also stain bones behind our backs.

I think I have already exhausted the central debate features on Lucy, aside from excruciating, technical details on skeletal designs and what they might mean. This is a depressing topic. They can't make it worthwhile by showing cute paintings of Lucy. It should be depressing for the evolutionist, except that they party when they destroy God. It's a depressing topic for Creationists because it's a waste of time that could be better spent. Lucy pushers are the same zeros who would paint an entire creature based on one tooth. You can't win with such bums. You can only call them out. God bless Creationists for "wasting" so much of their time.

As per my hunch that the discoverer of Lucy (whose name I won't respect because his true name is Bum) originally used, for Lucy, a knee from two miles away and 200 feet lower in the rock strata, here's a corroborating statement from a Creationist: "Only under questioning did {Johanson} admit that the knee was found over a mile from Lucy. To the best of our knowledge this admission has not appeared in print!" This statement couldn't have been made in a vacuum. The writer was convinced that the discoverer was a fraud.

It seems that the knee from far off was used in the original Lucy, and that it remains there right now. I assume further, tentatively (until more facts surface), that the discoverer was caught talking about finding the knee far off, and once this spilled into the larger community not privy to the hoax, he had to admit that he did find a knee far off. But rather than confess that this bone was on Lucy, he said it was another knee bone. That's roughly how I see it. He also claimed that it had been discovered in the previous year (1973).

It doesn't matter whether Mr. Bum was referring to Lucy's knee, or another knee, when he told of the knee far off. What matters is the implication in this sentence: "Only under questioning did {Johanson} admit that the knee was found over a mile from Lucy. To the best of our knowledge this admission has not appeared in print!" In other words, it seems that Mr. Bum didn't even publicize this other-knee find when publicizing Lucy. Very suspicious, wouldn't you say? I mean, it was the first-ever knee find of our ancestors, but he wasn't going to mention it to anyone, apparently, until he had to. It's no small deal to find Lucy's cousin 200 feet lower in the strata; it's a huge deal in evolutionary circles, but neither he nor anyone else who knew about was going to mention it. You decide what you see. I see a hoax.

Says his supporter: "Johanson's writings have always been clear about the fact that his 1973 knee joint was a separate find from Lucy." How does the supporter know it's a fact? Was he there? It's a fact just because Mr. Bum says so? Not so fast. This is about a monkeyman, and anytime a monkeyman with a monkeyman crops up in fossils, we need to entertain a hoax. The fact that evolutionists are not helping to expose this hoax is proof that they are all, virtually, bums. As went Piltdown, so this hoax rolls on unobstructed. Piltdown showed that the evolutionist community is willing to accept a fraud.

What are the chances that the knee used for Lucy was not found at the same site where Lucy's bones were found? So far, I've learned only that the knee used for her was found near her bones, but not with her bones. It can appear that Mr. Bum, when questioned early, confessed that the knee bone was found "nearby," but he didn't tell that it was two miles "near." Later, as other pressed him, he continued to say, "nearby." Being not good enough, some investigators began to pry, and, finally, Mr. Bum had to confess. Later, he retracted it, and said that it was another bone found two to three kilometers away.

? The writer of the quote above laments that Creationists won't retract their claim that Lucy's knee was found a couple of miles away. Apparently, there is good cause to believe that Mr. Bum is lying about the second knee.

The claim originated with Tom Willis, head of the Creation Science Association for Mid-America, in an article he wrote for the Bible-Science Newsletter (1987). In his article, Willis reported on a lecture by Johanson at the University of Missouri on November 20, 1986. Willis reported that the following exchange occurred during the question-and-answer session which followed Johanson's lecture:
Q. How far away from Lucy did you find the knee?

A. Sixty to seventy meters lower in the strata and two to three kilometers away.

The article is by the supporter of Mr. Bum. You will note that more of the interview is not shared. Is this only a small thing? Think again. In those two sentences alone, there is very little context to go by in deciding which knee was a couple of miles away, whether Lucy's knee or the other knee. But if I understand this correctly, no one yet knew about the other knee at the time of this interview. The one who asked him the question would therefore have been speaking to Lucy's knee, and Mr. Bum knew darn well that the question concerned Lucy's knee. But the supporter of Mr. Bum is absolutely sure that Mr. Bum is speaking not about Lucy's knee. If Bum were responding with the other knee in mind, it clearly should be part of the interview. But as the supporter does not share any other part of the interview to show that the other knee was mentioned, this is a slam-dunk case of guilt. Mr. Bum took Lucy's knee from 200 feet lower in the strata, and no one in evolution is talking about it...because they are all bums.

In fact, that webpage is an excellent example of evolutionists scratching their own eyes out by attacking Creationists. It would be better for their cause if they just shut their mouths. After Mr. Bum told how far the knee was found, the next question to him (by Roy Holt, Creationist) was: "Then why are you sure it belonged to Lucy?”

Mr. Bum: "Anatomical similarity." There you go. Mr. Bum did not say that it wasn't Lucy's knee, but rather answered in such a way as to assure it was her knee, for the question even included her name. But Mr. Supporter above didn't add this last part to his trick, because it would have spoiled his trick. That's how they play, dirty bums.

Let me put the entire thing in context:

Q. How far away from Lucy did you find the knee?

A. Sixty to seventy meters lower in the strata and two to three kilometers away.

Q. Then why are you sure it belonged to Lucy?

A. Anatomical similarity.

There is a huge problem there. He didn't have another knee to compare this knee to, and so how can he argue that there was similarity? In what way was it similar to the bones found 200 feet higher? It was a fossil of an unknown species. How could he know that it was similar to something he had never seen before? He clearly had no answer for Mr. Holt's surprise questioning, and this looks like the best shot he could take off the cuff, which was a bullet to his own head. Perfect. And those who support him are therefore fellow frauds. These bums use science as a mask for conducting very dirty business. This is the ruin of the nation if the people allow it to continue with thumbs up.

So, we now have evidence that the knee found and used for Lucy was not hers. Mr. Bum admitted that it was not hers. He used something else's knee for hers. Anything else he claimed to contradict what he said at Holt's questions are not to be taken for truth. He spoiled the party for all his fellows, and I think it's wonderful that evolutionists continue to support him, because the exposure thus continues in this way to this day...unless we fail to make light of it.

In the comment section of the page above:

Can we get a link to the papers and transcripts you quote for this article? I have been trying to find a source for the Donald Johanson quote that Lucy’s knee joint was found several kilometers away, because this would discredit his science and his motive, but have been unable to find any record of this claim in print.

Bum's supporters don't want to put online what he said, isn't that right? He stuck something's else's knee on Lucy, and others wrote about the knee to prove an upright-walking ape. That's what they did.

Here's a partial quote from the same comment section, off topic but beautifully said:

Thanks for the article. What confuses me most about Darwinian theory is the belief that all life evolved through a series of random mutations with no intelligent influence. To use just ONE example, I find it VERY difficult to believe that the ability to fly happened “randomly”. Nature just walked around blindly and stumbled upon a system that solved the problems associated with gravity and aerodynamics? It would be hard enough to conceive that just ONE species would hit this astronomically improbable “random mutation lottery”, but thousands of species, all with their own UNIQUE solutions? Where are all the failures? If the process was completely random, then surely our planet would be covered with the remains of all the species who couldn't mutate all the way to achieve flight....

The world needs more brilliant minds like that. After his comment, the bums take their best shots to discredit the author of the page. They ignore the fraud by Bum, and attack the author of the page. Good one, do it again and scratch your own eyes out. The better people will see right through it. This war is won. The good guys win, the bums go to Judgment. They have time left only to condemn themselves. God knows they won't repent, and so they must be permitted to condemn themselves by their own words and actions. This is coming to a head with violence against His people, because God's enemies feel they have the absolute right to rule the world, and God trained His people to resist them exactly for this cause of condemning them. Jesus trained us to know evil so that we would not become part with it, and, despising it, we cry out against it now that it's prospering in our midst. Perfect.

When I was a Christian for maybe a month, the young guy I shared the basement with would continually take the Lord's name in vain. One day I walked into the kitchen and started to say something like: "praise God, praise God. If you can curse God I'll praise him." I then walked back to my room and sat down at the desk, when he barged in and started to hit me with his fists on the back of the head as hard as he could. I learned fast how they have passion against God. It's not just disbelief; it's passion of hate.

Let's look at a typical way of skirting Bum's predicament. Another comment pipes up hot: "The idea that Lucy’s knee bone was found over a mile away is easily debunked. This was not 'Lucy’s' knee bone, but another specimen. Stop lying and pretending that he was referring to Lucy. Does anyone check their facts anymore?..." This fellow has limited intelligence, apparently. Yes, it's true that it was not Lucy's knee bone, but Bum admitted that he used it for Lucy. Plain and simple.

Q. Then why are you sure it belonged to Lucy?

A. Anatomical similarity.

He admitted by that answer that the knee was used for Lucy. He knew it wasn't Lucy's knee, but he played that question as though there was nothing wrong with using the knee of another animal because, as he implies with "anatomical similarity," it was a knee from the same species. What he did was a no-no, but he tried to put the best face on it. Had he come clean from the start that he used a knee from far off, it wouldn't have been so bad, but then his hoax wouldn't have worked. The hoax was based on the knee. So, Bum shot himself in the head, and anyone who supports him is the living dead.

Why didn't Bum just lie to Mr. Holt? Why did he admit something so much like a dagger to the hearts of his supporters? As soon as he admitted to finding the knee so far away, all of his friends, except the dark God-killers, deserted him. He could have told a lie, that the knee was found with Lucy's other bones. But wait. Someone in his field, who wasn't exactly a friend, must have discovered where he got the knee so that he was unable to deny it, ultimately. Mr. Holt may have asked the question because he heard through the grapevine that it wasn't found with Lucy's other's bones.

I'm noticing how there is not one evolutionist popping up at Google or youtube who takes issue with how Bum responded to Holt. But here is an evolutionist, Bum's competitor of sorts, sounding a little like a whistle-blower: "Richard Leakey and Roger Lewin wrote of the find: 'Johanson had stumbled on a skeleton that was about 40% complete, something that is unheard of in human prehistory farther back than about a hundred thousand years." It's yet another reason to suspect a hoax.

When you are told that Bum found up to 400 more specimens of the same species, have the wisdom to know that many of them could have been with as few as two or three bones, and are, apparently, nothing to speak of because none are mentioned along with Lucy as fellow contributions to apeman claims. To put it another way, none of the 300-400 other finds show the curved spine, the near-human knee, etc. Otherwise, I would have come across those items by now. To put it another way, the other 300-400 finds should prove to be nothing but monkey bones, but you're supposed to get the impression of armies of upright-walking apes.

In the article below, Bum says that the first time he spotted Lucy's arm bone taken out of some sand on his lucky-feel day, he knew it was of a hominid. The author of the page asks the right question: whether it was a hoax.

I've spent about 12 hours writing on Lucy thus far, much of it online, and have yet to see anyone discuss how her arm bone is a human-like one. Please, Mr. Bum, tell us why you knew the arm is human-transitional.

Apemen with tools is not an idea new to Australopithecus:

It was determined that the teeth in the jawbone [Piltdown] belonging to an orangutan, had been worn down artificially and that the "primitive" tools discovered with the fossils were simple imitations that had been sharpened [by fraudsters] with steel implements.

You can't convince me that science was able, in 1950, to determine that steel was used to form the teeth and tools, but unable to determine the same three decades earlier. In all those decades, did no one check for fraud? Unless these bums are thrown out of the schools and the halls if science, this world is a lost cause. They are perfecting the art of fraud in every level, aided and abetting by full, federal governments. The liars rule because God had determined that they should be exposed while in the act. The exposure of Piltdown was better after a few decades than after three days, for it teaches us that the wider evolutionist world is as guilty as the few who conducted the hoax.

It sounds as though Piltdown was made of bones, not fossilized, but perhaps the fraudsters also made their own cement cast as yet another part of the hoax, because it's hard to believe they would try to pass off mere bones in the ballpark of a million years old. "In the detailed analysis completed by Joseph Weiner, this forgery was revealed to the public in 1953. The skull belonged to a 500-year-old man, and the jaw bone belonged to a recently deceased ape! The teeth had been specially arranged in a particular way and added to the jaw, and the molar surfaces were filed in order to resemble those of a man." It sounds like mere bones. If they had created their own fossil, then this exposes their confidence and ability to shape fossilized teeth for fitting into a fossilized jaw bone not their own. In that case, why couldn't Lucy be a grounded-down fraud of the same magnitude?

The Creationist article continues:

Then all these [bone/fossil] pieces were stained with potassium dichromate to give them an old appearance. These stains began to disappear when dipped in acid. Sir Wilfred Le Gros Clark, who was in the team that uncovered the forgery, could not hide his astonishment at this situation and said: "The evidences of artificial abrasion immediately sprang to the eye. Indeed so obvious did they seem it may well be asked -- how was it that they had escaped notice before?" In the wake of all this, "Piltdown man" was hurriedly removed from the British Museum where it had been displayed for more than 40 years.

Yes, what about those accomplices in the upper levels of evolutionism? What should be done to them? THROW THE BUMS OUT.

The page above has all the famous apeman hoaxes, adding a short paragraph on the first Australopithecus find: "A fossil skull discovered by Raymond Dart in South Africa in 1924 was initially depicted as a supposed ancestor of man. However, contemporary evolutionists can no longer maintain that it represents such an ancestor — because it subsequently transpired that the skull belonged to a young gorilla! The famous anatomist Bernard Wood stated that this fossil constitutes no evidence in favor of evolution in an article published in New Scientist magazine."

Same page:

The French scientific journal Science et Vie covered the story in 1999 under the headline “Adieu, Lucy.” One study, performed in 2000, discovered a locking system in Lucy’s forearms enabling it to walk using the knuckles, in the same way as modern-day chimps.

...As a result, the evolutionary researchers concluded that Lucy should no longer be considered man’s direct ancestor. As is typically the case in the field of human evolution, a single bone structure overturns years of grossly exaggerated claims. In the face of all these findings, many evolutionist experts declared that Lucy could not have been a forerunner of man.

"Adieu Lucy" is a kind way to say, throw the bums out.

Online articles are usually short on details. We would like to look into that claim above that evolutionists tossed Lucy based on her arm's locking mechanism. The webpage below shows the wrist of her Australopithecus cousins, along with that of a chimp's, but does not inform us on what the locking mechanism is. The only purpose of this article is to give the mechanism a mention while retaining the Lucy hoax:

Buttressing features in Chimpanzees and gorillas wrist joints that help lock their wrists in a stable position that can support a good portion of their weight on their fingers...The presence of the same wrist-locking mechanism in the early australopithecines suggests that their ancestors were knuckle-walkers. The trait disappears in later hominids, however, being absent in 2.0 to 3.0-million-year-old A[ustralopithecus] africanus, which possessed more humanlike, flexible wrist joints.

This is a good piece of information to have, that, following the Lucy hoax, different types of wrists were used for Australopithecus. The trend was always toward more-human-like features, as is expected of fraudsters in the act of murdering God. The stupids in the article above think that Lucy walked both on her knuckles and upright like a human.

In the late 1990s: "'Little Foot' (Stw 573) is the nickname given to a nearly complete Australopithecus fossil skeleton found in 1994–1998 in the cave system of Sterkfontein, South Africa. The nickname "little foot" was given to the fossil in 1995. From the structure of the four ankle bones they were able to ascertain that the owner was able to walk upright". You be the judge on what appears to me to be wishful thinking.

It's easy today to lie and get away with it. The government has no protections against lying in a free-speech world. If the government would only charge $200 per lie, using the same deterrent tactic as speeding tickets, there would be a lot less lying. In the page below, the evolutionists lie, showing the arched spine of an Australopithecus. It can be deemed a lie as opposed to an opinion because there is no evidence that the spine bones found for this species take on this shape. If someone wants to use a picture like the one this page does, there first needs to be proof for it, but there is none, guaranteed.

Take a look at those small vertebrae in the picture. If you had an entire bag of them, you couldn't tell how they shape a spine. Besides, we can't trust the shapes of the vertebrae in this drawing, because it was drawn by a liar. To prove that Australopithecus vertebrae form a human-like arch, one needs to show the true bones found with the digs, and then explain soundly why they would form the arch. There is no such attempt I have come across. Not only does the government not fine people for telling lies, it allows evolutionist lies in the classroom. This is how far-gone our world is. The government is in a racket with schemers.

Just think of how much tax money the government could make on liars. These would pay the court costs involved in running such an operation, and, the great thing is, we would all need to pay less taxes because the evolutionists will contribute a couple of trillion dollars in no time.

The page reads: "The curve of your lower back absorbs shock when you walk. It is uniquely human. You can see a similar curve in the spine of this early human, Australopithecus africanus, who walked upright in a way very similar to modern humans." Where can we see this? In the drawing??? But of course, only in a mere drawing. And this is exactly what the government allows the schemers to do to the children in schools.

Scroll down the page to where the spine bones are shown into the skulls of a chimp, a supposed apeman, and a human. The apeman's spine, in a mere drawing, is shown entering smack beside the skull, but in the real skulls of Australopithecines, that wasn't true at all. Therefore, this website owner needs to be fined, or this sort of thing will never get cleaned up. The picture has the spine of the chimp on a drastic angle to give the appearance that the spine enters at the back of the skull. Due to this angle, the skull is itself not level on the page, but almost vertical. If the skull were level, the spine would be entering the base, not the back. The same spine angle is not used for the apeman, a deceptive tactic. Adding to the deception, the monkey's spine is drawn twice as thick as that of the apeman's and the human's, giving the appearance that the apeman's spine is more like the human's than the monkey's.

Scrolling down again, we come to upper leg bones. The chimp's is shown straightly vertical, while both the apeman's and human's leg bones are at the same angle. However, I read that a human's leg bone is at a nine-degree angle while some monkey had one at 15 degrees. Therefore, this drawing is deceptive in not choosing a monkey with an angled leg bone. Secondly, I haven't seen a second hip for Australopithecus other than that of Lucy's, but as her hip was busted into pieces, there is the possibility of a trick. The only way to conclude the angle of the upper leg bone is by having the round hip socket along with the upper bone.

It's clear that the talking points have the goal of factualizing lies by repeating them as facts in waves and storms. This is why we need Creationist writers. Anyone can be a Creationist writer. I have no expertise in bones or fossils, but look at what I've just written in a couple of days to help expose the enemy. The Internet allows us both to assemble the information needed, and to contribute for the cause of truth. If we don't contribute, they will succeed in murdering God. They were well on their way until Creationists stopped them. We trust that when God sees us working, he'll make up for the fact that the enemy owns most of the educational channels.

Let's go back to that busted hip. The shattered pieces were glued together. The evolutionist won't use, "glued," of course, but will rather use, "fused." Clearly, if they had truly been fused, then the evolutionist's explanation would be something like that of Lovejoy, that some pressure from the rocks came against Lucy's fossil, and crushed it to the point that the fossil split apart in several pieces. Does that sound likely to you? It sounds like a lot of pressure, I wonder what it could have come from? Why were other bones, or even the other half of the hip just a couple of inches away, not busted into pieces in a similar way?

As this hip is being used to claim biped status, it's more reasonable to expect a hoax. Someone smashed the hip in order to justify changing its shape. The trick was, apparently, to get the hip's socket to a different angle so that the leg bone would fit into it while on a slight angle, like that of humans.

Back now to the Holt questions to Mr. Bum. The evolutionist at the page below: "Is this [Creationist charge] true? Did Donald Johanson find a knee far from Lucy's body, then deceive scientists and the masses alike into believing that it belonged to the same skeleton? Did he then only admit it when confronted by Creationists in 1986, almost 12 years to the day after Lucy's discovery?" The one who asks the questions above then says:

In 1981, five years before the questions from Creationists, Donald Johanson published a book with Maitland Edey called Lucy: The Beginnings of Humankind, giving the details of the discovery of Lucy, and the A. afarensis knee joint found over a mile from Lucy's body.

Big hmmm. Why doesn't the writer share what Mr. Bum said about that knee? There's not even one quote so that we might get a sense of what was said versus the possibility that this writer in out-right lying? There are too many evolutionary vagabonds in the world to trust merely a claim. We need evidence to change our positions. What details, exactly, did Bum give about the knee, and did he actually tell how far from the Lucy site he had found it? Perhaps he only said that it was found "near" Lucy. Perhaps this is what raised suspicions, and caused Holt's questioning in the first place.

Below is a letter from Bum on this issue. But the letter is dated after he shot himself dead, and so we can expect him to change his story in some clever way. In the letter, he writes:

In 1974, "Lucy" was found in locality A.L. 288, situated some 2-1/2 km northeast of the knee joint locality. "Lucy" preserves a proximal tibia, as well as enough of distal femur, to indicate that the anatomy of this skeleton in the knee joint region was identical to that of the 1973 discovery. Hence, "Lucy" was also capable of fully upright bipedal posture and gait, as her hip and ankle joints also indicate. Stratigraphically, these two discoveries are separated by nearly 70 meters.

Wow, we now even have the ankle joint as proof of humanity. Isn't this a lot like Mr. Bum's confession that he threw in a worked-over ankle bone not of a monkeys? Yes, it is. He may not view it as a confession, but everytime he opens his mouth, he'll scratch his own eyes out, because we know this thing is a hoax.

So, what he says above is that, while no one had ever found a knee from this species before, he found more than one in the same year. His main point in that paragraph is to support his "anatomical similarity" statement to Holt. But what he doesn't address is the question that Holt asked when it was answered with, "anatomical similarity." If he wants to be taken seriously, he's got to address that hot question, for his answer to it was a confession that he found the knee used for Lucy almost two miles away. Bum fails to address it. And lookie at what else he says, which comes off as a possible attempt to deceive his supporters:

I find it surprising that [Brown] says, "Johanson needs to clarify or deny this in writing. None of his published writings do." If Mr. Brown would use his library card, he would be able to read in Lucy: The Beginnings of Humankind, published in 1981, details of these two discoveries...

Wunderbar. He's implying, but only merely implying, that his writings prior to the Holt question had already revealed that the knee was found almost two miles away. But why doesn't he just add one killer quote, in this letter, from his book so that Creationists would stop attacking him on this matter? Mr. Bum, I'm more suspicious now than ever. What exactly did you say about that knee find?

Wowie. The letter is dated waaayyy back in 1989. That was aeons ago. This means that his supporters have had about 22 years of Internet time to publish the relevant parts of his 1981 book that blow Creationists out of the water, and yet I have not come across anyone who has quoted from that book to settle this issue in his favor. Even the one who published his letter at the website above adds ZERO from the book to blow Creationists away. Laughable. The one who published this letter is the same character (Jim Lippard) I had earlier in this update, who had Holt's first question (to Bum) while not publishing Holt's second question, the one that blew Bum out of the water. So much for honest reporting by Bum's supporters.

I have used the find feature to search "anatomical" on his page (the one presented earlier), and while it is on the page once, it's not there in respect to Holt's question. Therefore, if this goon, who is harassing Creationists, does finally add Holt's second question to the page (dated 2003), be assured from me that it's not there as of this week. This is the same goon portraying Creationists as dishonest. Scratch you own eyes out, it's good for our quest for truth. He doesn't give the date when he published Bum's letter.

Look at how much time Bum has had since writing that letter in 1989 to just add online one measly quote from his book to blow the Creationists away? When I google, " donald johanson's letter ", the only relevant pages that come up are Lippard's two pages. Shall we weep for these con-artist scums? They would deceive our children so that they become twice the sons of hell that they are. There is a time to pray for our enemies, and a time to expose them. They are getting into position where they will deem the Internet to be a government property that, as with schools, disallows Creationist education. That's what they want.

Jim Lippard's Blindness

Lippard has an article, "The Fabulous Prophecies of the Messiah":

"I have examined all the passages in the New Testament quoted from the Old, and so-called prophecies concerning Jesus Christ, and I find no such thing as a prophecy of any such person, and I deny there are any."
-- Thomas Paine (1925), p. 206

...The view expressed by Thomas Paine, however, is much less widely known. This is unfortunate, because Paine is correct. Every case of alleged fulfillment of messianic prophecy suffers from one of the following failings: (1) the alleged Old Testament prophecy is not a messianic prophecy or not a prophecy at all, (2) the prophecy has not been fulfilled by Jesus, or (3) the prophecy is so vague as to be unconvincing in its application to Jesus.

Well, knowing prophecy well, I can attack Lippard on this issue, and prove that he's just as much a liar here as is he for the evolutionist bums of the world. he later says: "On the other hand, if it were found that there are no such specific prophecies fulfilled by Jesus, or that there are specific messianic prophecies which were not fulfilled by Jesus, this would be evidence against the truth of Christianity." Now you know what a God murderer is, if you hadn't already. Often, they are apostates, once Christians whom have now seen the satanic light. Demons fill their minds and assure them that they are thinking straight when in fact they are thinking on a lower level, missing the truth as often as the dark spirits can swing things.

You need to be keen to see Biblical prophecy in regards to Jesus because God obviously made if shrouded to a degree, for it was necessary that the priests of Israel, dark spirits, should kill the Messiah. And it's also necessary for dark spirits like Lippard to feel very confident that Jesus was faked by the apostles, so that they will condemn themselves with their actions and words in other regards.

If God came right out to say, in Old-Testament times, that a man named Jesus will come shortly after Julius Caesar, to die for the sins of Israel at the hands of the Romans, then that would spoil the Plan. But, in very fact, all those very details are in prophecy, shrouded to a degree, but said in such a way that the Sheep can make them out easily. Those who have eyes can see it, those who are placed on a lower level of thinking, by dark spirits, are unable to see it.

Jesus' name (Joshua to Hebrews) is in Scripture twice, in Joshua, the successor of Moses, and also a high priest in Nehemiah's day. Both were signs of things to come. Those with eyes to see can understand the Joshua was made the high priest if Israel immediately after the 70-year exile, which was God's removal of the former leaders from power. In the same way, God will remove end-time Israel from power, and install Joshua as the High Priest.

Those with eyes to see clearly understand why Joshua succeeded Moses, both because the Law could not save, and to symbolize the entry into a future, Christian Promised Land. One can even say that the merciless destruction by Joshua, of the pagans in proto-Israel, is symbolic of what God will no to the Lippards of the world.

As we continue in Lippard's page, he comes to Isaiah 7:14: ""Therefore the Lord himself will give you a miracle: Behold, a young maiden will be with child and bear a son, and she will call his name Immanuel [God With Us]." I have no problem with this prophecy. There was no Immanuel when this prophecy was made. By what coincidence did Jesus proclaim to be God with man while this prophecy speaks to a miraculous birth by a young maiden = virgin. Lippard can argue until he turns blue in the face that the Hebrew word is not necessarily to be taken as "virgin," but it certainly can be, and should be, because there is no miracle if merely a maiden gives birth to a son. Is Lippard stupid? Yes, because dark spirits prevent him from seeing through God's Old-Testament shroud.

God could not say, "a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call his name, Jesus." That would spoil the surprise. There are other surprises still in effect, when Jesus returns as a thief in the night to destroy the Lippards of this world. He doesn't get it, and hopes dearly it won't be true. Our advise to Lippard: there is still time to weep in repentance for being such a donkey's rear. I shouldn't need to be wasting my time here due to grainy men like him. They love to create waves for us.

Lippard argues that the Hebrew language had a word for "virgin," yet Isaiah didn't use it for the prophecy above. That can be explained by the shroud effect by which God operates in prophecy. He wanted to give the Lippards of the world an alternative explanation for the prophecy because God intended to open the eyes only of those He loves. Again, God worded it in such a way as to say that the woman giving birth to a man-God would be a miracle from His own hand. There is no miracle if merely a woman gives birth. That's how we known this mother (Mary) is special.

Isaiah's prophecy about Immanuel is placed in connection to the coming Assyrians, destroyers of Israel, who are a symbol of the end-time anti-Christ, for Isaiah calls him an Assyrian in 14:25. So, yes, Immanuel returns to defeat the Assyrian king.

Lippard claims that the most-damaging part of the prophecy is in Isaiah 8:3-4, because he sees it as the fulfillment of the Immanuel prophecy. This seems so ridiculous it doesn't deserve a response.

The virgin birth is necessary to keep the male seed from contaminating Jesus. "God With Us" is quite frankly God with us. Why doesn't Lippard get it? Why doesn't he discuss this part of the prophecy? God With Us and a virgin go really well together. We understand it, it is not beyond our grasp. God wanted to be the male seed in Mary. Wonderful, excellent, magnificent. Lippard can't handle it, and despises it. He wants to be free of Jesus. Therefore, free he will be of God's Kingdom. How many years have you got left, thou wicked? It won't be long now.

Lippard has a problem with Micah 5:2 because God doesn't spell out clear enough for him that Jesus is the subject. The prophecy says that a ruler for God, whose days are from eternity (hint-hint), will go out from Bethlehem. It's just a way for God to indicate to his loved ones that Jesus really is the Messiah, but put in such a way that allows the Lippards to have their way until Judgment By Surprise. God hates them so much that he decreed Judgment by Surprise from the foundations of the earth. It's part of how God does prophecy, to allow the wicked their denials confidently until Surprise Day. If they were not totally wicked, God would have chosen them, and opened their eyes.

Instead of believing the apostles at their word, Lippard thinks that Jesus was falsely said to have been born in Bethlehem just to make it appear that Micah was speaking about Him. I note that Lippard says nothing about Isaiah 53, where the Messiah is said to die for the sins of Israel, and then to become the ruler of the world, which of course implies a resurrection, which of course is just as great a miracle as a virgin birth. Note that the Messiah's resurrection is never mentioned anywhere, in the Old Testament, as such, and that God couched it in Isaiah 53 for anyone who has eyes to see.

So, God hid the Resurrection from the prophets, and from the people, because He wanted no one to know what the Plot was at Jesus' first coming. The plot was that the priests of Israel would offer up the Lamb on Passover, and that God would make him the Ultimate King. Lippard might even believe that the apostles were lying when they said that Jesus was crucified on Passover, yet he'll believe that fat, brainless chance from merely mutations created all living things. What kind of a twisted human being is that?

Lippard claims that Jesus did not fulfill Micah 5:2 because he never became the ruler of Israel. He denies the claim by Christians that Jesus will be the ruler at a later time, and that's where Isaiah 53 especially, and other prophecies, come in. It's a super plot of God to make the mockers mock until the Second Coming. For the love of His own, he's really going to hurt the mockers, especially the Lippards who actively set the human race against Him. Woe unto Lippard.

Lippard smears the two genealogies of Jesus. He's not astute enough, it seems, to understand why one of them has Joseph. Actually, he understands it, but is looking for any slight way to upset Christians, and to keep non-Christians away from Jesus, if possible. The genealogy does NOT go through Joseph by blood, of course, and we don't need to comment on why this is so. There are two, different immediate ancestral lines, for Jesus, in the Gospels, one of them likely going back through Mary, and the other through Joseph. Both genealogies go back to king David. But the scoffer would naturally suggest that the two genealogies are necessarily contradictions.

If we ask how the family of Jesus knew their ancestry all the way back to David, there may be a clue where Mary was the sister of Elizabeth, the wife of a high priest. This man was likely close to scribes and record keepers, and Elizabeth may herself have been of elite circles i.e. that kept a record of their history. It seems useless for God to prophecy that the Messiah would be of the tribe of David if it were not mentioned concerning Jesus. It would have been quite an insulting slight to the family if an apostle or two fabricated the genealogy. All in all, Lippard thinks the apostles were liars, cons.

Some may view the two genealogies as contradictions due to both having Shealtiel, father of Zerubbabel, but with Shealtiel having a different father. We can't have that, unless they were different Shealtiels and different Zerubbabels. Indeed, the two Zerubbabels are given different sons. The genealogy in Matthew 1 goes from the wicked king Jehoiachin to his son, Shealtiel, father of Zerubbabel, father in turn of Abiud...and all the way to Joseph. This is not the line to Jesus. This is the line to Joseph. Jesus was not the son of Joseph.

We therefore need to go to Luke's genealogy, which says: "[Jesus] was the son, so it was supposed, of Joseph, of Eli, of Matthat..." This is not the ancestry of Joseph given in Matthew 1. It looks like an error, but probably not. It is hard to believe that both men would have done a painstaking genealogy if one of them couldn't even get Joseph's father correctly listed. Surely, they both knew who Joseph's father was. I therefore suggest that Luke's genealogy was originally, or at least was intended to mean, "Mary, of Eli, of Matthat," but that someone replaced "Mary" with, "so it was supposed, of Joseph." The phrase, "so it was supposed," means that they wrongly supposed. Clearly, the Gospel writers knew that Jesus was not the son of Joseph.

Now Lippard barks and bites our heads off because the end of Jeremiah 22 says that none of the descendants or sons of Jehoiachin will sit on the throne of David. Yet the line from Jehoiachin goes to Joseph, not Mary. Perfect. Matthew apparently gives the line of Joseph back to Jehoiachin for the purpose of showing that Jesus was in the male line from royalty.

Here's Lippard, where he wrongly makes Shealtiel in Luke's genealogy a son of Jehoiachin (or Jeconiah):

On the other hand, if the genealogy in Matthew is taken seriously, then Jesus has as an ancestor Jeconiah (Matthew 1:12), of whom the prophet Jeremiah said, "Write this man down as childless, a man who will not prosper in his days, for no man of his descendants will prosper sitting on the throne of David or ruling again in Judah." (Jeremiah 22:30) The genealogy in Luke suffers from the same problem, since it includes Shealtiel and Zerubbabel, both of whom were descendants of Jeconiah.

Again, Jesus did not descend from Jehoiachin, and the line back from Luke's genealogy goes back to another Shealtiel, father of another Zerubbabel. The Zerubbabel in Matthew's list had a son, ZerubBABEL, according to Chronicles, and thus this name appears to have been popular at the time of the BABYLonian exile. I would suggest that both Shealtiels were closely related, explaining why they both had sons by the same name. Lippard wants the two Shealtiels to be the same man because it allows him to claim a contradiction.

There are a couple of prophecies in Matthew, not to mention the story of the star and magi, that seem incorrect to me. The two prophecies are the one concerning Rachel weeping for her children, and the calling out of Jacob from Egypt. There doesn't appear to be much merit in the use of these texts for the purposes that Matthew gives them, but I'll let God deal with Matthew on those items, or whoever else it may have been that may have incorrectly added them to the book, if indeed they are incorrect. A few minor mistakes, or even 20 or 30, in the New Testament can't shake my faith.

As Lippard says, Matthew claims a scripture telling that Jesus will be a called a Nazarene while we know of no scripture saying so. Yet it implies that there was a book we don't now have. Nazareth is in Galilee, and Lippard doesn't mention Isaiah's prophecy: "In Galilee of the Gentiles. The people who walked in darkness Have seen a great light; Those who dwelt in the land of the shadow of death, Upon them a light has shone." What could this mean if not the Messiah? It's found at the start of Isaiah 9, and Isaiah 8 is still talking of Immanuel and "God is with us."

Lippard then tries to do away with Daniel's 70-Week prophecy (483 years plus seven years) by arguing that no decree in the Bible lands the 483 years at the time of Jesus. But Daniel doesn't say that the decree needs to be in the Bible. Nevertheless, Lippard says: "The decree of Artaxerxes to Ezra described in Ezra 7:11-28 allows for the people of Israel to return to Jerusalem, taking with them various support from the royal treasury. This decree was issued in 458 BC. (see Ezra 7:7), which would put the coming of the Messiah at 26 AD. This works fairly well..." It works darn well because there is evidence that Jesus started his ministry in 27 AD. It's possible that there was another decree with more specifics in the following year or two. Yet Lippard says: "Most Christians reject this decree..." I can't see how that can be true. It seems to me that every Christian who believes in the 70-Week prophecy, without wanting to twist it into something it's not, would accept that decree for Daniel's prophecy. It may be true that most modern prophecy writers, who do not constitute most Christians, who speak on this prophecy, choose 445 BC as the start date, but this is clearly wrong. Pre-tribulationists choose many wrong prophetical interpretations in willful ignorance, and they were the ones who first started to emphasize prophecy in the past generation. We have a lot of work to do to correct their errors, and the Internet has allowed us to succeed to a fair degree.

Lippard seems desperate to kill the Daniel prophecy because his purpose is to kill all prophecy pointing to Jesus. Here's such a prophecy, but Lippard takes the stupid's hat, puts it on his own head, and claims to be the authority on the subject. This is the prophecy predicting the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple after the 483 years, and the coming of the anti-Christ on an edge of the temple during the final seven years. The Romans left only one part of the temple standing, the Western wall, which is an edge of the temple grounds.

Lippard is really being stupid here where he sees that Daniel's prophecy is at least close to landing at the ministry of Jesus. Daniel had no way of knowing this aside from the Spirit of God, yet Lippard has decided to be the foul-mouthed dragon for to spew fire upon the prophecy. The Jews as a near whole have rejected this Daniel prophecy too. It must become second nature to us to realize that God shrouds prophecies for the purposes of Surprise Day. That's why he speaks with "weeks," we may assume. It allows the wicked to ignore the prophecy.

It is not a contradiction to say that God wants everyone to be saved, yet he doesn't want everyone to be saved. He wants everyone saved by having the proper respect for Him, and by putting in a life acceptable to Him, but for those who do not, and especially those who are willfully evil, he does not want them saved. So, looking ahead at human history, he drew up a plan to punish the wicked, and decided to play invisible to them. This allows the wicked to do as they choose, because justifying their destruction requires their condemning themselves. Prophecy makes clear that God holds a court against them, and he feels a need to justify their end before all the angels.

If God were ever-present, the wicked would act righteous while secretly being evil, like the priests in Jesus' day who were so desperate to bad-mouth Jesus that they attacked his healing on the Sabbath. And when they wanted to kill him, they used the charge of his claiming to be Israel's king, which is not a capital offense, really, except in the sight of an evil caesar. Daniel's prophecy was so shunned or misunderstood by the Jews that the Bible writers do not use it as evidence for Jesus' authenticity. But then we have got to assume that Jesus himself did not teach the apostles about that prophecy because he didn't want it known by the Jews that he was definitely the Messiah. He claimed to be the Messiah before the Jews, especially near his death, yet he did not want the wicked to turn and be saved. God apparently chose an attitude for Jesus that would sufficiently reveal his fulfillment of Messiah only to the chosen ones.

The Plan was to send Jesus to conduct miracles before the faces of the evil, and in the meantime to teach Scripture and Law with great capability, so that no one would be justified in killing Him. The Plan was that Messiah should do all things well, with goodwill toward Israel, tireless, good deeds not seen in any man, and new revelations concerning the Kingdom and the world if demonic activity. The Plan included his arguing to be the Messiah by true words that would anger the Jews nevertheless, because they were secretly looking for a way to get rid of him, to kill him if necessary. It got to the point where the chief priest himself suggested killing him, as an option, in the presence of other leaders. And this is the option they took because Jesus was gaining a sizable following that threatened their political positions. The Plan worked like a charm. The Jews did what they did, no one forced their hand. They killed the God they claimed to serve. They did not wish to consider that maybe, just maybe, he was the Messiah. They instead credited his miracles to the powers of satan.

For those studying the 70-week prophecy as shared by Lippard, he gives a faulty translation. My Hebrew interlinear reads, "...shall be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks." The period is a part of that text, but the translation used by Lippard has the 62 weeks in the sentence after the seven weeks, not smart at all. The translation reads: "Then for sixty-two weeks it shall be built again with squares and moat, but in a troubled time." This picture is completely wrong. Instead, the picture should be that the rebuilding of Jerusalem, is followed by 62 weeks, or even more. The purpose of the seven weeks is not given.

Daniel retained the prophecy in his book even after 70 normal weeks had passed without the prophecy's fulfillment, which is a strong argument that normal weeks were not in view. God could have been straight forward with the actual number of years, but, apparently, he wanted to put a little fog into the prophecy. He was willing to reveal the future, but often with a potential second meaning so that those who were not seriously interested in Him could ignore prophecy. He didn't want people who disliked Him abiding in social settings with the Chosen while faking their devotion to God. We saw how destructive the faking of devotion was in the Pharisees and Sadducees, turning the Jews into hypocrites.

It's possible that historians have got their dates wrong in the first few centuries BC, by as many as ten years or more, as per the decrees by the Medes. I don't know anything about this, and have never tried to discover how they do date it. For me, the Daniel prophecy has 483 years that satisfactorily fulfills the prophecy in Jesus, but for Lippard, a few years out of whack, as he sees it, makes him a non-believer...because he has chosen to act the part of a wicked fool. This prophecy gets so much into the right ballpark no matter which Biblical decree we use that a wise man, who has nothing against God, naturally allows room for perfection out of the little fogginess Lippard speaks to.

Lippard goes on to attack Old-Testament scriptures that Christians regard as allusions to Jesus. Lippard wants no part in this. I see Jesus in the "arm" of God used by Isaiah. Lippard will naturally scoff. How, exactly, does he think that God should allude to Jesus? Why does Lippard ignore Isaiah 53, one of the best allusions to Jesus? Doesn't this show that Lippard is being dishonest with his readers? If Lippard were willing to accept Jesus as the Messiah, he too would spot the allusions to Him. They are not few.

Shortly after Isaiah's virgin-Immanuel text, and even closer to God's allusion to Jesus in Galilee, it speaks on a child to be born who will be called "Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace." You can't get much-more plain than that concerning a man born as God With Us. Therefore, wherever Isaiah speaks on God's arm, or other such allusions, we understand that it's talking about this God-Man, the Son of God. But Lippard is a fool because he wants nothing to do with this great Plan. I have no idea what he wants in life, but he does not want part of this salvation nor the Kingdom to come, and he also wants to rob other people of the Invitation.

Lippard then has the stupidity to say that quotes in relation to the one above can't be about Jesus because He never became a king. I just can't understand such stupidity, unless it's based on hatred for God, a willful rejection, a willful war against Him. The end-time prophecies include a war against Christians, and here we have the fulfillment seen in Lippard and his ilk.

He is familiar with the 70-Week prophecy, and has condemned himself for that reason alone, for it says that Messiah will be cut off prior to becoming anointed in the Kingdom of God. We see that God did not say that He will be "killed," probably because He wants to shroud the prophecies to a degree. He knows that His Christian people will glean "cut off" to be the Crucifixion, but He also wants the Lippards to condemn themselves by teensy excuses, acting as though they don't have the smarts enough to glean what the prophecy means.

So, Lippard sees that Messiah must first be rejected before he becomes the king, and Isaiah 53 makes this more plain that the 70-Week prophecy. The Person in Isaiah 53 is called "My servant" in 52. The Lippards will interpret that phase as anything but Jesus, even though 53:8 plainly says that this servant will be killed for the sins of Israel. Verse 10 even says that it's God's will to kill Jesus, and previous verses tell that this death is a sacrifice for sins. The Lippards would rather believe that the disciples faked Jesus to make him appear as the fulfillment of Isaiah. That would be a pretty elaborate hoax, wouldn't you say? We would expect the disciples to be completely-wicked men, yet they never give hint of having such characteristics in their writings, and no historical writers we know of ever laid such charges against them, for example that they were stealing the money of the membership. If it was a hoax, the purpose would have been to steal money, yet Paul was able to boast that he never used donations to make his own living...though we can be sure that he allowed some to cook him dinners, perhaps pay for a ship's ticket to a nearby port, and other such things that I have no problem with.

No one ever wrote that the apostles had mansions and learjets. Paul could have gotten himself out of prison by recanting of Jesus, if indeed he was a fake all along. We can even suggest that God had him in prison for the very purpose of proving to us that he was sincere in his mission to the gentiles. It seems impossible to believe that the apostles could have been living it up on donations while no one in the membership caught them. Surely, if they had mansions, hookers, and parties, it would have been mentioned it in at least one surviving piece of writ. Don't give the modern fraudsters any ideas or they will fabricate such a piece.

Lippard's willful blindness: "A final prophecy dealing with Jesus' life and ministry is Zechariah 9:9, which says 'Behold, your king is coming to you ... humble, and mounted on a donkey, even on a colt, the foal of a donkey.' Again, Jesus was not king, so that aspect of the prophecy remains unfulfilled." What Lippard really thinks, probably, is what he's not willing to put in print here, that the disciples invented the story of Jesus riding on a donkey in order to help fool the membership into believing that he was the Fulfillment.

Lippard points out one of Matthew's mistakes, where he credits Jeremiah for the potter-field prophecy instead of Zechariah. But never mind how this minor mistake was made; the question is whether Matthew was fabricating the story of Judas and his 30 pieces of silver, for if he was, then he was either an imposter who knew that Jesus wasn't the Messiah, or a liar who loved and believed in Jesus, wanting others to do the same even if he had to make up stories to prove His authenticity. The problem that Lippard has is that other prophecies are clear in pointing to Jesus as the Messiah. No other person has come close to fulfilling the Messianic prophecies / allusions.

We Christians shouldn't be dismayed if certain entries were added to the Gospels, even if they were incorrect entries made by the Gnostic heretics within Christianity. The basic story of Jesus and the main prophecies are in harmony. If some of the details don't always jibe, don't throw out the baby for the Lippards. Keep your head. We can't prove or disprove whether Judas threw 30 pieces of silver into the temple, but we can weigh the prophecies to see whether they speak of Jesus.

Zechariah's prophecy on the 30 pieces of silver tossed into the temple makes little sense to me, but it does say that it's the value the Israelites gave God. God then donates the silver to the potter, which seems out of context with the shepherd theme to that point, and the potter apparently lived in the temple, for God instructs Zechariah to throw the money to the potter, and he throws it "into the house of the Lord to the potter." Very strange...unless one of the priests in the plot to kill Jesus, or even Judas himself, had a pottery business. Perhaps God arranged to make this person come across Zechariah 11 shortly after the Crucifixion, at which time the prophecy turned into a mirror. He saw himself in the mirror, that is.

Matthew says that the priests bought a potter's field with the 30 pieces of silver. That could indicate that one of the priests, especially the one providing all or most of the 30 coins to Judas, was in the pottery business. Acts claims that Judas bought the field, and so, perhaps, Matthew may have had his facts wrong, or the priests bought the field for Judas. That makes sense, actually. The fact that Luke speaks on this field in Acts 1:18-19, and the way in which he speaks on it, tends to exonerate Matthew against Lippard's implied accusation that Matthew invented Judas' payment.

Lippard might even be Jewish, for he takes the same position as Jews do as per Psalms 22:16: "For dogs have surrounded me; a band of evildoers has encompassed me; they pierced my hands and my feet." It sure sounds like Jesus on the cross. Lippard is unwittingly informing his readers that Jesus is the Messiah. Of course, the dogs will want to deny that this Psalm refers to a piercing of Jesus' hands and feet, and so what the Jews do is to point out that the Hebrew word means, "as a lion." Verse 13 even says that the "bulls of Bashan" open their mouths "as a lion ripping and roaring." It's the same word (Strong's #738) used there as the word translated "pierced" in verse 16.

Yes, but since when does lion-teeth symbolism gets used merely on hands and feet? In allegory, we don't normally use a lion attack to someone's feet, but more like the head, neck, arm, or leg. The combination of hands and feet seem out of place here, except that other parts of the same Psalm allude to the Crucifixion. It doesn't matter that the text is, in its literal sense, speaking of David's woes. The fact seems to be that God caused David to write things about Jesus that David didn't realize he was doing. I am a witness that God has written through me, many times, without my knowing about it. It's very easy for God to do this, extremely easy. It's nothing so amazing that we should doubt it. It's not something unbelievable like the big bang, or Lucy carrying a purse to the salon.

"Bulls of Bashan" is interesting where Og was a ruler of Bashan. In a recent update, I showed how Og's Rephaites trace to the Knesset's geography, and likely to the Rothschild founders of modern Israel.

Psalm 22 adds "all my bones are spread apart". I can see why hanging on a cross spreads bones apart. It then says, "You appoint me to the dust of death, for dogs have encircled me, a band of evil spoilers..." I can see that as part of the Crucifixion. It says that his tongue sticks to his jaw while all his strength has evaporated. Sounds like he's thirsty and tired. Jesus was probably up most of the night; he had been abused physically, with more to come in the morning.

Lippard then turns his fangs onto Zechariah 12:10: "they will look on me whom they have pierced; and they will mourn for him, as one mourns for an only son..." We are now in the end times, with the return of Jesus to an unsuspecting Israel. They witness Him. God uses "only son," very appropriate. The remaining Israelites, worn out from terrible war, recognize that this One coming from the clouds is the only begotten son of God whom they had hung on a cross. The allusion is there, but Lippard denies it. But he'll believe that Lucy wore jewelry based on what evolutionists claim for the sight of mere bones.

For the record in case a reader is mislead, Lippard claims that Zechariah 13:6 speaks to Jesus, which it does not.

Jim Lippard then adds the gospel of John as another one fabricating items in Psalm 22 too fool the membership. He won't come right out to say that they were imposters, but his readers get it. They supposedly tailored parts of the Crucifixion story to match Psalm 22. But Isaiah 53, which Lippard conveniently leaves out, says that Jesus will die for the sins of Israel by the will of God. I have read that Rabbi's, when they read to Bible from front to back over a period of time, skip over Isaiah 53 for fear that it sounds too much like Jesus. Jim Lippard has dome a similar thing here, knowing that he would be called out on it.

Psalm 22:1: "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me, and are far from my salvation..." Either the apostles injected these words craftily and dishonestly into Jesus' mouth, or he uttered them because God wanted the apostles to be tipped off concerning Psalm 22's Crucifixion allusions. The way that I've seen Jesus feeling when uttering these words is that he felt abandoned by God, because that was integral to the punishment we deserved for our sins. It makes much sense.

Before Jesus ascended into the sky, we read that he showed his disciples where the Scriptures alluded to his coming. They needed a healthy building of their faith at the time, and so it would have struck them forcefully if he did speak Psalm 22:1 in their hearing, especially if the soldiers did cast lots for his clothing. Then they would have known that God subtly predicted the Crucifixion in Psalm 22.

Lippard gets cheap:

A final prophecy I wish to examine relating to the crucifixion is that Jesus' bones would not be broken...A requirement of the [Mosaic] paschal lamb is that none of its bones be broken (Exodus 12:46, Numbers 9:12). But this analogy fails for several reasons: the paschal lamb was not for the atonement of sin, and Jewish sacrifices were required to be completely without blemish, sore, or injury (Leviticus 22:20-25) while Jesus was scourged and mutilated

Of all the animals used in sacrifices, Jesus was called a lamb. I think I can understand why he wasn't called a bull, for example. But even with this, Lippard needs to criticize. We see his need. He is a sick man who needs to rape Jesus, strip him of his Wonderful, turn him into a hoax. And, yes, God demanded lambs without blemish to represent Jesus without sin, perfect, but Lippard criticizes anyway. God can do nothing right for Lippard. He does not even speak on Jesus dying on Passover when, in his eyes, the day of his death was not his choice, nor God's choice. Why doesn't he speak to this grand coincidence? Why does it appear that God arranged Jesus to fulfill the Passover lamb of Moses? Ahh, but Jesus had his body mutilated, he says, wherefore he cannot be the fulfillment of the Mosaic lamb. But even the unblemished lambs were slaughtered.

He has a footnote of note:

It should be noted that some Christian apologists claim that "virgin" is meant because the Jewish translators of the Old Testament into its Greek form (the Septuagint) used the Greek word "parthenos" ("virgin") for "almah" in translating this verse. This probably indicates, rather, that Matthew used the Septuagint [ridiculous claim]...Nahigian (1993, p. 13) also points out that later Greek translations of Isaiah, by Aquila, Theodocion, Lucian, and others did not use "parthenos" to translate "almah" in Isaiah 7:14.

Well, we may not be able to know why the latter men didn't use "virgin," but this is irrelevant to its use by the Septuagint, which was a Jewish translation in times before Jesus. Just think of it: the writers understood Isaiah 7:14 correctly, and were willing to predict that the Messiah would be born of a virgin. Isaiah predicts a virgin because he's predicting a miracle while it is no miracle for a normal women to birth a son. And Matthew was not quoting the Septuagint, but was quoting what he had heard from Mary herself, or what others had heard from Mary herself. The account of the virgin birth required that Mary tell her story. In Luke's genealogy, there is an implication that Jesus was not the son of Joseph.

Near the end of his article, he comes as close as possible to telling how he sees things: "...nor did they consider the possibility of intentional fulfillment. (For example, a Messiah claimant might hire a John-the-Baptist-style messenger to precede him, or intentionally ride a donkey into the city of Jerusalem.)" He didn't want to out-right claim a deliberate hoax at the start of the article, but hoped to convince readers enough as he continued that he could, nearer to the end, draw that picture blatantly.

It was all a grand hoax to fool the Israelites and steal their money, but none of the many conspiracists were ever caught to the point of being exposed in writing. Not even Josephus, a writer who did comment on Jesus / Christianity, who had been a Jewish general and later a friend of the caesars, heard any such rumor, and he lived beyond the time that the epistles were written.

All in all, Lippard wishes to disconnect Messianic prophecy from Jesus by claiming that his disciples were conspiracists bent either on making staged appearances of prophetic fulfillments, or telling lies. The way that Christians view it is not an option for him, but he doesn't tell us the reason.

He has good reason to view Isaiah as a virgin birth, but decided to take the view that this must be an error. How does he know? Is he God? Why did he take that view? We could say it's because he does not belong to Jesus. He doesn't want to. That would be a good motive for writing what he has written. He doesn't merely disbelieve the prophecies, he wrote about them as an activist against us. He's an anti-Christ activist.

Which is harder to believe, the virgin birth or the birth of the universe by a godless proto-universe? How hard would it be for God to produce a child apart from male seed? If God did perform the virgin birth, then Jesus is an unusual character. We could fathom that he possesses the Holy Spirit as his soul. Marvelous. And as a reproduction and reflection of God, he doesn't come across cruel at all, as the anti-Christ claim for the Mosaic God. On the other hand, Jesus claims that he will be made the judge at Judgment Day, a cruel day for those who reject him. This is a perfect reflection of the Mosaic God, a gentleman and helper of those who love Him, and a killer or tormentor for those who reject Him.

If you just read the comments of anti-Christ, now visible for all the world to see, you can understand why God wants them dead. God will justify his Judgment Day by the deeds and words of his enemies prior to Judgment Day. The next section will quote some of these anti-Christ, all from the same video page. But there are thousands of such video pages with the same self-destroying attitudes, all reeking of sheer hatred for God. Who leads their charge? People like Lippard.

Lippard could have chosen to view the 70 weeks as a Messianic prophecy, but chose not to, based on a wee-little inability to get the 69th week to land smack-on Jesus's ministry. This is very revealing, that a terrific prophecy is rejected on such small grounds because the man despises Jesus. Therein is his motive, though he wants you to believe that his motive is from the fruits of his scholarly investigation. Poopery. His scholarly investigation is nothing but a conspiracy to murder Jesus.

In footnote 6, he mentions a tidbit from Isaiah 53, but, as I said, he skips completely over the death for Israel's sins and the resurrection afterward. This was not a sincere / honest investigation, was it? In his 9th note: "Prophecies I have not dealt with include Isaiah's writings about the "Suffering Servant" [Isaiah 53], which are dealt with by Sigal (1981, pp. 35-68) and in issue 30 (June 1985) of Biblical Errancy." Oh, I see. He has an article on Messianic prophecy, but fails to explain the best of all Messianic prophecies, sticking a mere mention in the last footnotes, as far from the reader as possible. I see. And he doesn't add a link to the Sigal's work. Sorry, he says, Isaiah 53 is too hot to handle, goes against everything I wrote, and will not be elaborated upon.

In his third footnote, he claims that Christians view the virgin-birth text of Isaiah as a double-fulfillment prophecy. If any Christian believes this, it's mistaken. There is no evidence in Isaiah that this virgin birth was meant to take place with some other woman in his days. Lippard lies.

Here are parts of Isaiah 53:

He was not of appearance that we should desire him, despised and abandoned of men...and as the hiding of faces from him, being despised, we did not value him. Surely, our sicknesses he has bourne, and our pains he carried, but we esteemed him plagued, struck by God, and afflicted. But he was pierced [not the same word as "as a lion"] for our transgressions, crushed for our iniquities; the punishment of our peace upon him, and with his wounds we are healed.

No prophet had ever talked like this before. A human sacrifice? It comes out of the blue. But it's so logical, because it explains why God had instituted the animal sacrifices practiced even by pagans. The latter even had human sacrifices, and here we have a human sacrifice of God's own. But God's hero is not a super hero that we might see in mythology, but a lowly one who would be despised. If Isaiah was fabricating this thing, he was not exactly inspiring Israel with its lead character, by which I mean to say that it doesn't appear like a fabrication. Why would a false prophet describe his super hero as a loser? But Jesus was not a loser. Rather, his Jewish enemies, the majority, despised him and cast him away.

The Lippards of the world will say that the apostles conspired to make Jesus appear like the fulfillment of this prophecy. Does it say that Jesus healed the sick? Yes, but the apostles just lied when they claimed that Jesus healed the sick. It was an elaborate hoax by criminal types, and their entire story is one huge fabrication. Does it portray Jesus as meek? Yes, and so the apostles therefore claimed that Jesus was meek, and rejected by the masses in Jerusalem. Or, they were not imposters, and this prophecy simply came true because God foretold it. Which is harder to believe? Which has the ring of truth? They can't both be right.

? You have the option of asking God to reveal the truth to you, and you can judge at the time of His answer whether it was truly God answering, versus a figment of your imagination. I trust that if you sincerely want to know the answer, because you have sufficient esteem / desire for Jesus, God will answer you. Lippard will say that you're just being played with by your own mind, that God is not really answering. But when Jesus said that no one can snatch out of his hand those whom he loves, he meant that he will convince them in various ways that he's for real, and there is absolutely nothing that Lippard can do about it. I do not fear Lippard's ultimate failure, but I do not appreciate his upsetting the family of God in the meantime.

The Hebrew word (Strong's #2490) used in this prophecy: "a primitive root (compare 2470); properly, to bore, i.e. (by implication) to wound..." "Pierced" seems a good translation, which reminds that Psalm 22 had the piercing of His hands and feet long before Roman crucifixions did exactly that.

Let's continue:

...Yhwh [God's personal name] touched him with the iniquity of us a lamb to the slaughter he was led...For he was cut off from the land of the living...though he had done no violence nor was deceit in his mouth. But Yhwh was pleased to crush him...

It goes on to describe him alive afterward. The Lippards might describe "pleased to crush him" as part of God's cruelty, or lust for blood, as though he enjoys a horrible, fatal blow to his own, lowly son. But the one with a higher level of intelligence sees it another way: the Father and the Son were in sync; it had to be done in order to create a desirable family base, and the end-result (a family) was pleasing. It's hard for God-haters to believe that God wants a family, especially a family of normal, harmless people.

The quote above has "cut off," as does the 70-week prophecy, though the two Hebrew words are not the same. They both mean, "cut off / cut away," however. The message of the Cross is: I'm willing to take your punishment momentarily so that you might recognize My great desire to have a new start with you as a member of My family. Although this was a momentary pain of death, it was very real. Jesus suffered horrifically. It wasn't a slap on the wrist. It's a serious attempt to convey God's going as far as he shouldn't have to in order to salvage the plan of mankind. For he loved the original plan of mankind (family) so much that he gave Himself as the sacrifice for our sins.

The other option was a total wipe-out of man. From the creation of the earth, God had decided not to scrap mankind, but to offer His Son just as He did. It makes no sense to us why his taking our punishment allows us to be spared our due punishment, but this is the free gift God is willing to offer if it makes us one with Him. I like it. I like it a lot more than horrible Judgment and forever-death. Sign me up, Jesus, I'm with you. Did Matthew make a little mistake in his book? Not to worry, Jesus, I'm still with you? Do the Lippards hate me? Not to worry, Jesus. I'll stick it out forever because I like your style, I like your attitude, I like your powers, your super-intelligence, and I love you for being true, the unfailing helper of weak men and women, the ultimate example to the world on how to create a happy home. And best of all, I love you for not being like the evolutionists, and for killing them in due time. Yes, it's true, I want them dead, because they wish to steal your glory, and to rule on your throne with lies and mere blood.

To put it another way, I prefer that evolutionists were not there, did not ever come into existence. But as they are in our faces at this time, I prefer that they be gone, or that they repent and cease with their war against Jesus. But as they refuse to cease, the only solution is for Jesus to jail them. As I understand it from God, they deserve death, not mere jail. We are forbidden to kill anyone even if they persecute us, which was the message of Jesus from the cutting off of the ear at Gethsemane. So far as we know, the apostles did not retaliate when the apostle James was killed by the sword. Jesus did not lead a rebellion for the murder of John the Baptist. Incredible patience, incredible restraint. Let God do the killing when he hands Jesus the authority to carry this out.

Jesus did not come to judge, but God will make him the judge at the Last Day. There's no contradiction there.

The Anti-Christ Generation Speaks

Here is an arrogant Mr. Intellectual, who speaks as though he's really something, and he wears a look on his face as though he really thinks he's something. He's done by the first minute, and is not as insulting as he has shown himself to be in other videos:

Richard Dawkins knows that Creationists, let alone the average man on the street, can't possibly know what the genes of millions of animals look like so that they might be able to prove or disprove his claim in that one minute. There is no other way to take his words but that gene designs are a natural progression (impossible for anyone to even imagine) from the animals on the lower end of the evolutionary family tree, up to all other branches. Anyone with even half a brain knows that this is a desperate lie, but, the point is, Dawkins knows we can't prove him wrong. I suggest that he wants ignorant, evolutionist supporters to repeat what he's saying here as fact, in efforts to make up where evolutionists are losing the game to Creationists.

There is just no way that genes of all animals compare with one another in such a way as to merely add programs, from species to species, while retaining the old programs so that Dawkins can boast that one genetic set of codes progresses from another. There is one thing sicker than the outlook of this impoverished man: the comments on the video's page.

If you would like to see intelligent men speak, just tune into Creationists when speaking on genes. The evolutionist, when he's involved in "debating" a Creationist, is NEVER going to extol the grandeur of the genetic code. The simpler he can make it seem, the better his puppets will receive his view of gene creation. Genes are by far the best ammo Creationists have for proof of a Designer, explaining why Dawkins is going way out on a limb to claim as fact that there is proof of an evolutionary creation for genes. Good luck.

We know we are dealing with hopeless creatures when they refuse to give glory to God for the genetic code. It is shocking to see this, but when they more than deny it, when they speak so arrogantly, as Dawkins does, it about makes us want to puke. He makes it very hard to love our enemies. If he asked me for a glass of water, into his face I would throw it. But to fulfill what Jesus commanded, I would then get another glass for him to drink, and throw it at his mouth. After that I would give him a lightning-quick knuckle-punch to his nose to let him know exactly what I think he deserves for the way he spoke against God. Alas, we're not allowed to. Shucks.

You need to dwell on how God will punish these types. How much pain is God willing to give them? A punch in the face is as nothing as compared to what God promises to give them. I don't know that the Bible teaches on eternal torment. Possibly not. The Biblical word translated "forever" can mean only to the end of the Millennium, at which time this earth's history comes to an end. But even if the damned rise at the second resurrection to be tossed into the lake of fire for one day, that can amount to a lot of pain. The added pain is to discover that Creationists get to live forever while evolutionists will know they are forever lost from life. God will wipe the arrogance from their faces. They will all have an oh-no look as they first awake to the Judgment. The more they realize where they are, the more that horror will set in. It could be a slow torment until they are tossed into some raging fire, or into some cold, awful place that causes their teeth to gnash. It's not anything I like to dwell on.

It should occur to us that most of what we know concerning genes is taught to us by evolutionists. They may be hiding things from us, or distorting the truth. I expect it. I can see exactly what sorts of diabolical creatures they are. As evolutionists have not correctly understood something so simple as a proton attracting electrons much like a magnet takes iron filings, then I expect that they are fools too when it comes to understanding the genetic code. They may have learned how to play with it, but that's a far cry from knowing how it works.

I tend to believe that God will make fools of the intellectually arrogant. As they fail to give him glory for the creation of genes, he will either allow, or personally arrange, for the infestation of their science departments with demons. They will mislead them. They will impulse their minds with thoughts. That's what we see when evolutionists open their mouths against Creationists.

Dawkins is featured in a 14-minute video: "Dawkins' 10 Best Comebacks and Rebuttals." This is where the atheists get out the popcorn. The first question is why religious people are religious. His answer includes indoctrination by parents of children. Like I said, demons are in his words. He also says that, well, you know, we fear death and want to believe that there's a nice, little Heaven even if we are just fooling ourselves. To be sure, defeating the sting of death is no small thing, but that is not why I remain a Christian. You will hear my sort of testimony repeated by many: Jesus broke though to my mind and heart, and shared with me His Spirit. Defeating death is only a by-product of this gift. We remain Christians because we love God's Spirit, and we respect his might and super-intelligence. We get it. Dawkins will not know Him, by his own choice. He wants to remain in the cold. If ever there was a definition of a jerk...

I have a conscious sense, most every day, of God. He's not a thing to me. He is not merely my hope of evading death. My hope is to see his glorious ways when Jesus returns. I want Him to take my hand, to soar with Him as he shows the glorious things He has done. Dawkins is way off the mark. Mr Smug Intellectual, the mocker.

In his second response, he's again on a false-comfort theme. He probably wants every non-believer to think that this is how shallow we are, that they might keep their distance from us. I hate to break it to you, Mr. Know-It-all, but God will introduce Himself to whomever he so pleases, and there is not a thing you can do about it. We shall win, make no mistake about it. We are not here to evade death, but to work for God against the likes of you. We evade death automatically by remaining in Jesus, and while we remain, we will work for God as pleases him, and he will accomplish what he wishes through us, and your kind will suffer shame yet again, and again, the worst is yet to come. You are earning for yourself a monster at your own death.

Every word he speaks has been calculated to act as anti-evangelism. He desires to rob you of your faith. He's trying to convince you that you are a weak and miserable creature to depend on a God crutch. Look at me, he says, how I am strong in defiance of God. Be like me, and stop being a wimp. Take my truth; I will save you from Jesus. I will show you the right way. Woe until Dawkins. He has but a few years left before he meets his maker.

Dawkins rails against God for ordering the stoning of a person caught in adultery. I am on God's side with this, and think that Dawkins needs to be stoned. God's Law was not only seeking to teach the great sin that adultery is, but was wanting to have a deterrent against would-be cheaters. Adultery hurts someone deeply. Hello? Dawkins apparently loves the fact that there is no penalty today for adultery. Our world is the very thing God was wanting to prohibit. And so, you see, there will be Judgment. Jesus said that not on dot of the Law will be done away with until the judgment of the wicked. With the Law of God they will be sentenced to death, and I think that they will prefer to be stoned at that time as an easier penalty.

By the seventh minute, Dawkins bored me enough to stop watching. I get his game, that's enough. I've wasted enough time on him already.

Bill Nye and others are teaching the Creationism is child abuse. It seems they want to rob the minds of our children for indoctrination their way. When the world thought more favorably of God, and when the apostasy had not yet begun, the world for children was very safe. Even when I was a child in the 60s, the community was very safe. People were normal. Look at how the world has become as evolutionists have had reign over education. Will they blame this on us? How? God has given them power to rule to expose what criminals they are, and this is proving to all that they are abusing, not only the children, but the adults. It is criminal to turn a blind eye to prostitution, porn, gambling houses, and on and on it goes in modern Sodom. It was not Sodom in the 1950s. Children who believed in God were not abused; they generally don't look emotionally disturbed to this day. They grow up with manners, and are more self-controlled, well behaved. That is a general fact.

There's a video, "Richard Dawkins Destroys The 10 Commandments." As it opens, he mocks God for being jealous of other gods. This is the attack on the first commandment, and some in the audience laugh. It's time for popcorn again. They laugh all the more as he continues, loving it. The anti-Christ generation is here:

It's as though Dawkins cannot understand why it's wrong to worship others Gods. But of course he can understand it; he just prioritizes the mockery of God. He cares not if we are watching; all the better for his entertainment. He knows our position, that there is one true God. What is there to mock? Of what surprise is it to this joker that God should forbid the worship of false gods? The first rule of life: worship only the true God, and God will be your helper. When we talk about the love of God, it is more than a sensation. God's love is exactly defined as: he will help us. He is a gentleman to those who respect Him, even a servant. And we know that Dawkins is no servant of man. Such a tiny man is he.

Here is a comment on the video page: "If Satan is the opposite to god then he doesn't suffer from jealousy, He doesn't require blood sacrifices, he doesn't order the deaths of thousands and he doesn't approve of slavery. Satan seems a far better character than Christians claim." As you can see, their understanding of God has serious bounds. They can't get their heads high enough to understand. God is a gentleman and servant to those who respect them, and a brutal force to those who mock him. Yet, he is patient. He is able to hold off wide vengeance until Judgment Day. Woe to those who willfully sin and break God's law habitually, but then what will the torment be for those who mock and defame him for all to see? You would never have seen this 30 years ago.

Another comment: "I love watching christianity be so easily destroyed by simple logic and its about time." They want to get under our skin. They want to shock and anger us. From now on, the God-is-cruel line will be repeated with greater amplitude. And anyone who holds to God will be considered cruel and disposable. What they really want is to murder us, because they have been trying to murder God, but we keep getting into their way. They want a Godless order, and we keep calling them out, reminding them of their sins. It's just a matter now for a leader who will turn them on us in drastic persecution.

They call God cruel because Moses and Joshua razed entire towns, killing all women and children too. We have a choice: 1) view God as cruel; 2) view the Amorites as cruel, in need of purging from the human race. Why do God's enemies not consider the second possibility? Because, they are on a kill-God mission. They judge God harshly for taking life from those to whom he gave life. These are the same people who suffer dirty, disgusting faggots, dirty, disgusting hooker houses, and who kill babies in their own wombs. They don't want to be reminded of these things when they are acting all-righteous, eating popcorn as Dawkins jokes on.

It will be to their horror that they love freedoms to do as they please. From the words of their own mouths will God feel free to do as he pleases, with them, and with no explanation or reason given whatsoever he will abort them from life in the same way that they abort people in the womb. God had wicked societies done away with in old times, to protect Israel from their wicked ways, but these scoffers today kill younger children than the Amorite ones they pretend to be advocates for. God was doing His part to establish a righteous nation on earth; the Amorite weeds had to go. Can we trust that God knew what he was doing?

Amorites were cleansed from the land because they were swamp to Israel. We can glean that these Amorites were akin to, but probably not as bad as, the liberal swamp mocking God today.

Another comment on the video page: "Why is the crime rate falling at the same time belief in a god is falling?" That's as intelligent as the popcorn audience can get. This is the best that Dawkins can attract. I hope I don't need to answer that question. I hope you realize how wrong it is all on your own.

Another comment: "According to the two polls run by the Discovery Institute and the NCSE we can now say that 99.99% of the world's scientists support evolution as being a scientific fact." That statement is proof of a monopoly. The wicked arranged a monopoly by keeping Creationists out. We get it.

"The sheer degree of BUTT HURT coming from the religitards here is priceless. Grow up, you idiotic god freaks." Ouch.

If the person with the last comment comes into my house, do I get the freedom to ask him to leave because he has insulted me? Here's another comment: "I guess I'm going to hell because I'm a perfectly moral person, who has never stolen, cheated, hurt anyone, or even killed, but I say 'Oh my god' as an expression. Great." If you are a great person on earth yet insult God by rejecting him, you get good rewards on earth from God, but will not be invited into his house. God has chosen to allow no place in his house for those who reject him, therefore, you will die. He warned you ahead of time. You can't blame God for killing you, since he has the freedom to call the shots as he sees them, and your staying clean from crime now won't get you life with him. It's just not enough.

Or, if you are a great person to everyone else, but insult me, hate me, must I be forced to have you at my party? Neither does God think you should force him to have you at his celebration, when Jesus returns to party with us. You made your decision, live with it. Lie down in death, and don't complain. You chose it all your lonesome, had fun while doing so, that's just the way it goes. No one will feel sorry because you had many years to choose, and you chose to hate God. You may claim that you don't hate God because you don't even believe in Him, yet God is forcing everyone to take sides. The time is here when you either side with Jesus, or with those who hate him. This means the time is here when you must confess with your own mouth that you hate God, for if you do not, you will not be welcome by your peers. You must show that you hate the God you claim not to believe in. By these words he has the right to reject you.

If you understood how big God is, you would know that he can hear every word everywhere. How big is the universe? Who made it all? Why is it that you think a big bang created it all but you cannot fathom that God created it all? Which is greater, God, or the nothing that created the big bang? Your god is the nothing that made the big bang, and then you call us ignorant for thinking that a God created it. We cannot understand what is wrong with you, but we feel that the Dawkins of the world are responsible for they way you have come to think. We cannot understand why people hate God merely for sensual pleasures. Who needs to grow up? Those who chose downward sensual pleasures while despising God for calling us to a higher standard.

We all know that you hate god for the pleasures of life. We were once just like you. We know all about it, and we decided to go for a higher calling than the ones our sex organs called us to. Your beloved teachers welcome dirty, disgusting faggots whose god is the anus and the penis, but we decided to go for something higher. May we have your permission to do so, since it seems you demand we ask your permission? Unless we become like you again, we are not proper for your society. You will needle us unless we come back to your filth. Do you think you can grow up enough to allow us to have our higher calling?

And, while you are at it, allow us to invite people in your camp to join our camp. Ahh, this drives you crazy. We get it. You don't want us to have more people until we have more power until we take away your world of absolute freedoms. You Amorite! You Hittite! You point to our tiniest of imperfections while you favor Sodom openly and wholeheartedly. That's where you are willing to tilt because they won't let you be part of them unless you welcome Sodom. Make your choice. Join us, join them and die, or be alone and die.

Another comment: "If God is really omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent why is there so much chaos on this earth?" We all ask the same question. I would have done it a different way. I wouldn't have allowed war. I would have set limits to the evil that man does by his own choices. But God decided to do it as he saw fit, and he even contributed to wars. But one thing I trust: he wants good people who do not kill because causes to kill do not exist. "Thou shall not kill" does not refer to the destruction of sinners. If sinners are not killed, they will create wars, rape the women, and sometimes kill the children too. Before you judge God on how he treated the Amorites, maybe you should discover whether they had invaded neighboring towns, pillaging and killing even the children. This sort of thing was habitual with pagan Europeans to nearly the modern day. Have you any idea how many good people God saved from war? Let's trust that God knows what he's doing. This is a very painful "moment" of eternity, but afterward there will be healing, God's promise.

Did God order the vikings to pillage peoples they did not know? Then why do atheists blame this on him? Perhaps God thwarted many would-be wars, you wouldn't know. Shut your trap and give God the benefit of the doubt until we know the entire story. I trust that God can explain everything. It pains me to think of all the wars he allowed. I will need to live with this, trusting that there is a good explanation. The mother of all wars is coming from this same God precisely because this world is Sodom 2. To put it another way, the greatest war is coming due to the Dawkins and Hawkins of the world, who hate and malign the God of Israel, who would, if they could, literally murder him that they might have the eternal kingdom. It's called treason.

"Dear God, how dare you create a world in which there is an insect that eats a child's eye from the inside out causing severe pain and ultimate blindness. Why would you do that to a child? If you do exist and I doubt you do, I want nothing to do with you and I wonder why people spend their lives bowing and scrapping to such a monster." Dear atheist, why do you celebrate a man entering a womb to cut a baby to bits piece by piece? Dear atheist, how many millions of babies each year suffer an insect eating out an eye? Dear atheist, does the insect know that it's harming a child as the abortionist does? Dear atheist, does the insect get paid as does an abortionist for killing a child? Dear atheist, you accept abortion most when we Christians oppose it. Dear atheist, abortion to you is like a trophy because you defeated us Christians in that battle. Dear atheist, you have a lot of blood on your hands.

"Why is there not a commandment that prohibits rape? Or slavery?" What is the motive for this question? Is it to say that God favors rape somehow, as he permits slavery? Biblical slavery was such that the slave sold himself to it, because it allowed him to survive with food and board. It was not the forced slavery that you would make it out to be. As for rape, it has sky-rocketed in this last generation of anti-Christ liberalism and porn. All sin is out of control, including blaming Him for the sins of men.

If you allow poison into your soul against God, it can grow more toxic. Remove the poisons, a little at a time if necessary, by conscious decisions not to remain angry. Feed the anger, and that defines the poison. Get above the hate, and start by looking at the bright side of God's gifts. Yes, God has given men weeds and insects. They threaten our food supply, and make food gathering harder, more expensive. There are "weeds and insects" in other areas of life that are from God's curses on the human race. We have the choice of setting our hearts against God...because we expect Him to provide all things golden for us. Just think of it. People who reject God expect him to make life wonderful, otherwise He gets punched in the face. That's as high as the intelligence levels of the Lippards and Dawkins go.

If God is so wonderful and loving, they argue, we'd expect the Creation to be all-wonderful, but look at all the blights and horrors that spoil it. And these people are willfully blind to their own sins that have spoiled the Creation. They have become so angry that they wish to keep us from teaching our own children the value of God and obedience to him. The Law of Moses was, in short: if you cross Me, you'll get curses. If you please Me, you'll get me to stoop to your needs. The Law will never pass away until the end because God will use it to condemn those who go to their deaths in anger / hate. Make anger a habit, and it will take hold of you. Let God be God, but you get yourself into submission. Be a team player with Him, be wise. You'll be glad you did. Be happy. Do not worry. When you are at peace in Jesus, no need to worry. It's the smart way to go.

Taking the Lord's name in vain can become a habit when things don't go well for you, but the utterly wicked use such language, as well as profanity, in normal conversation. They wish to spread their vocabularies to everyone. They, as with much of Hollywood, think that use of profanity is the real world. They lie. Profanity is growing because hatred of God is growing, and this is what they want the norm to be, which includes profanity as a tough-guy symbol. And the end-time woman is being fashioned with a tough-girl image. Being a lady is going out of fashion in a God-hating world. Fortunately, this is only temporary. Unfortunately, I happen to live at this time, and it's taking too long to go away, getting worse with each passing year.

Jesus turns potential criminals into people who satisfy the laws of men. It doesn't sound like a bad thing. Jesus takes hookers and transforms them into good wives, but not overnight. It is the task of Jesus to be tough on our bad habits, to not cease from tilling our soils until we bear fruit...if we continue in him. He cannot continue to till if we abandon him. The Doctor will look at you, devise a way to fix you, if you let him.

My First-Ever Look at Bush-JFK Connection

Wow, look at this angel who spent considerable time and money to prove that the Twin Towers were taken down by American insiders, no airplanes needed:

I love that video. The one below is not as lovable, but it's true and reliable, and, best of all, simple to understand and verifiable with merely a mental experiment. That is, you darn well know that a straight-down building collapse by floor-to-floor crashes needs some slow-down in downward velocity at each floor-to-floor crash:

In short, long before the Obama-FBI conspiracy now in the news, the American government, and the government of mayor Giuliani, conducted a most-wicked hoax on the world, framing Arabs as the guilty party, and robbing untold billions, if not trillions, of dollars in the coming years. Giuliani now happens to be the public face of Trump. What's going on, really? Did God arrange Giuliani's participation here to expand His exposure of the gangsters? I hope so. Mueller was appointed by president Bush, less than a week before 9-11, to be the FBI chief. His job was to cover for the insiders, to assure that none were jailed if caught, though the FBI played other schemes in quelling the evidence against the perpetrators. The same gang involved in 9-11 are now seemingly having a power struggle, with Trump clearly opposed by the Bush side, perhaps because Trump knows too much, and has shown himself to be a high risk for telling all. We hope so.

Anyone want to make any predictions as to how the fall-out from this current war will spill over to 9-11? The latter's exposure came much from Democrats in opposition of Bush. Most Christians, I think, didn't support the accusation of a 9-11 hoax based on their love of Bush, yet Trump-supporting Christians have cooled toward Bush, and some may be willing to accept a 9-11 hoax. I know that there must be some 9-11 would-be whistle blowers whom have not had the courage to blow as yet, and they might feel that the time has come as Trump changes the Intelligence guard.

See the video below on Trump's declassification of JFK files, as per those who believe that Kennedy was killed by George Bush Sr:

It could appear that the Bush's have Trump to fear for more than the JKF murder. Note in the video above that Trump caved when pressured by CIA / FBI people to hide the names of some very-aged people, or perhaps of one especially. You can watch the whole, or just start at the 13-minute mark of the video below to see some shocking things. Included is what looks like a false alibi given by both George and Barbara Bush for to place themselves in Tyler, Texas, on the day of the JFK shooting. George gave his alibi to the FBI on the day he called it to tell of a suspicious person, suggesting perhaps that his murder accomplices were stirring the pot with confusion as to who done it. In this case, the primary purpose of the call may have been to state that he was calling from Tyler, but in those days, a telephone provided no record (at the receiving end) of where a call originated.

At the end of the 21st minute, it says that he was definitely in Dallas (where JFK was shot) the day before the murder. The full FBI memo concerning Bush's call above, about 75 minutes after JFK was shot, is shown at 23:00:

Next, watch a video with James Files, the supposed murderer of JFK, keeping in mind whether he was paid to give his "confession" to steer attention away from Bush, or whether he was part of the Bush-CIA operation:

After shooting Kennedy, he says he took the shell of the bullet, put it between his teeth, then pressed his teeth against it until denting it. Who would do such a thing in reality? We are then shown a bullet shell, with a dent mark, supposedly found at the site of the murder. This sounds like a fabrication to "prove" that he was the killer. What do we expect his details are as per who he was paid by, in 1963, if he's now been paid by the Bush / CIA people to tell a false story?

In the same year, 1994, that Files gave the confession, the FBI claimed he wasn't credible. The FBI at the time was under Bill Clinton, perhaps not friendly toward Bush. "In 2010, Playboy magazine published an article by Hillel Levin in which Files also implicated Charles Nicoletti and John Roselli in the assassination of Kennedy." Yup, he pointed to the Mafia instead of Bush. But then, do we think that the CIA would have used the Mafia to do the killing? Perhaps. None of the killers needed to know, of course, that the CIA was behind it.

Hmm, you may have read over the past year where I mentioned a David Morley who appeared in a dream of mine riding what looked like a Nazi motor bike out of WW2. There are many David Morleys, but one just happens to crop up in this story:

On May 7, 1991, Files and his friend, David Morley, were involved in a roadside shootout in Round Lake Beach, Illinois, with two police officers, Detective David Ostertag and his partner, Gary Bitler. Ostertag and Bitler tried to apprehend the two for driving a stolen vehicle. During the shootout, Morley shot Detective Ostertag in the chest. Both Files and Morley shot at Detective Bitler but missed. Files and Morley then fled on foot but were arrested a few hours later.

For the record. Were Files and Morley of the Bush-Nazi circle? My David Morley appeared in a dream that was at least partly about Perkins Coie, Hillary's law firm that hired Fusion GPS, which in-turn came to own the Steele dossier that was originally a Republican scheme to undo Trump. It just makes a lot of sense that the original dossier was a Bush product.

Let me repeat here that, in the dream, Morley came from a road when circling the spot I was at upon a steep hill in a forest, and he then rode up this hill back to the road just as I was crossing it into the PARKING lot of a MALL. The dream ended after I walked into the mall. The Parking surname is also "Perkin," and one Morley surname is listed with MAULs. The split Shield of Morleys/Mauls is shared by the Dossier surname.

Use the link above to open all pages for all surnames, and if you'd like to verify a Coat description, enter the surname here:

I have written many times about every aspect of this dream as it can relate to surnames from the items in the dream. This is how I claim God was communicating things to my readers over the last couple of years. I can now add to what I've said before, via the Files surname. It uses a version of the Shake surname, which itself uses, not merely moles, but "mole HILLS," and meanwhile one half of the Hill Coat shares the Dossier fesse. The hill in the dream was suspect with the Hill surname because it shares a white-on-black tower with the Plunkett surname, and the latter is from PLANCia MAGNA, who lived with her husband in PERGA, where the PERKins/Parking surname derives.

Go ahead and load the Walker surname, for the Nazi-supporting Bush family had Walker blood, and English Walkers use a "MAGNA" motto term. Is that not amazing?

Repeat: "Morley came from a road when circling the spot I was at upon a steep hill in a forest." Where I now live, a forest is called a BUSH. English Bush's, first found in Yorkshire with Walkers, use the same fesse as Hills who in-turn use the same tower as Plunketts while Walkers love Plancia Magna. Walkers can be gleaned as a branch of Walch's/Walsh's, and George Bush Jr. married Laura Walsh.

The Bush fleur-de-lys can be gleaned as that of Morley-branch Morlands who had a Mauley branch in Yorkshire, but the specialized Morland symbol is that if Aids/Ade's, whom I trace with AITons/Artems to ARTEMidoros below.

The reason that the Parking/Perkin surname can be traced to "Perga" is that "Simplex" is a motto term of that surname while Julia Tertulla, a close relative of Plancia Magna, married Lucius Julius Marinus Caecilius SIMPLEX, as you can verify on this page.

Moreover, Plancia's father (Tertullus, from Latins) was from Galatia, as was Julia POLLA (granddaughter of Artemidoros), while the SIMPLE surname was first found in the same place as POLLocks. Moreover, Vespasia POLLA, mother of emperor Vespasian (from Lazio, home of Latins), married the son of a Tertulla, suggesting connection to Julia Tertulla. If that's not enough, Eschyna de MOLLE had a daughter who married Robert Pollock. If that's not enough, Molle's share the boar head of Marone's, like the Marinus name of Mr. Simplex.

As per the Nazi, Josef MENGELe, it's now important to point out Julia TYCHE, mother of Julia Polla and daughter of Artemidoros. I have shown good reasons for linking TICKhills, of Yorkshire, to MANGELs/Mansells and their Mansfield branch, the latter first found in the same place as TIGHs. TickHILLS thus look to prove that Hills do use the Plunkett tower closely, which in turn suggests strongly that Tickhill of Yorkshire was named after a line from Julia Tyche. As Bush's share the Hill fesse, note that the gold fleur-de-lys on that fesse should be in the Tickhill Crest.

Mangels and MansFIELDs both share the Tickhill maunch, and both look linkable to the Coat of Ticks/Tooks/Tucks/TOUQUE's. It just so happens that the Tonys (or Toeni's), who use the giant maunch of Tickhills in colors reversed, were of a MALahule line through to the Tosni's at Les ANDELys of the Touques-river area. I trace "ANDELys" to ANTALya, smack beside Perga.

There was another event in my life, at age 24, that God used in pointing to Nazi's. I was accustomed to the ladies in those days, but I never saw anything like the night that Mamie just plopped herself on my lap at a camp site with the beer gang. I had only met her once before. That night, I slept in her SLEEPING BAG, in a TENT, wherefore compare the Tent surname with the Mangels/Mansells and Mansfields. She was gorgeous, guys, and beautiful of form. But she wouldn't let me hug her while in the bag with her. She turned away, facing the other way, and I had to be content with draping an arm around her WAIST. That's how we went to sleep.

She spent the entire next day with me, most of it in a two-piece bathing suit. In the evening, while back at her place, she was at her front-yard flower garden, and my eyes caught the impressive beauty of her perfect thighs for the first time. It's like when a sight burns into your head. Decades later, after realizing that God created events in my youth to act as pointers, along with my heraldry experience, I realized that she had been a tease on the night we slept in the tent because God was pointing to the Tease/TIGH surname, first found in Nottinghamshire with a Mamesfelde location of the Mansfields. We saw these two surnames above, with the Bush discussion, and although I can't recall, I'll bet that there was a BUSH in her front-yard garden.

The point is, "MAMESfelde" is like "Mamie," and while the Mansfield write-up (wrongly) says that Mamesfelde was named after a word for breasts (like "mammal" = animal with breasts), Mamie had breasts not a little on the large side. They were too large. I saw them once, naked, with my own eyes; they were too large for her. If we think that God would not provide such situations for anything to do with his work through me, I would argue that it only underscores how serious he is in getting this work done.

I will admit that I was a new Christian at the time of about two years, and on my way out from spending time with the old non-believer friends. I was hoping that Mamie would become a Christian. We didn't have sex because I refrained. We had the opportunities, and, for all I know, we may have split up because I was refraining. I cannot recall what split us up. But I do know that God got me a job as a taxi driver when moving into HUNT street. I have mentioned this story, including Hunt street, many times. Amazingly, this recalls a Mr. Hunt involved with JFK's assassination.

The she point is, a fellow tenant at Hunt street was a dispatcher for the local taxi company, and so I got a job there. I was called upon to pick Mamie up twice during the time I drove cab, which was during the year after we split up. On the second occasion, I asker her out on a date, and it was the last time we would be together. It was enough for God to point me to the Tax/Dach/Dack surname, no doubt a branch of the TEASE/Teck/Tess surname it uses a saltire in the colors of the saltire formed by the crossed swords in the Tax/Dach Coat. This is so astounding, so amazing, because the Arms of DACHau is a sling SHOT while swords in the colors of the Tax/Dach swords are used by Shots/Shute's.

Dachau was the Bavarian headquarters of Hitler's concentration camps. There can be no mistake about it: God moved her to plop herself on my lap that night we slept in a sleeping bag, the night she had teased me, in order to point to the Americanized Nazi's under George Bush.

Let me repeat another aspect of this story so that you can be convinced. On our last date, I took her to the restaurant of Joseph, a Jew that still had an Israeli accent. Joseph and I got to know each other fairly closely, but I never got his last name. A few years later, I took my car in to get repaired, and there was this same Joseph working in a suit at this place. He gave me his business card, "Joe Fix," which looks like a fake name, not Jewish at all. In any case, variations of the Fix surnames are like variations of the Fesch surname that happens to share two white, crossed, giant swords with Tax's/Dachs. Believe it or not.

One of two Walsh surnames uses a "TransFIXus" motto term. The Trans/Trent Coat, which gets us back to the Dossier / Morley Shield, has two crossed swords in the colors of the same of Tax's/Dachs. It appears that Walsh / Walker liners had a fundamental link to Dachau elements.

Like I said, I got the Taxi job because I moved to Hunt street, but never before has Hunt street, so far as I can recall, been a reason to mention E. Howard Hunt's involvement with JFK.

The Dallas Morning News, the Dallas Times Herald, and the Fort Worth Star-Telegram photographed three transients under police escort near the Texas School Book Depository shortly after the assassination of Kennedy. The men later became known as the "three tramps"...Appearing before a nationwide audience on the December 31, 1968, episode of The Tonight Show, Garrison held up a photo of the three and suggested they were involved in the assassination. Later, in 1974, assassination researchers Alan J. Weberman and Michael Canfield compared photographs of the men to people they believed to be suspects involved in a conspiracy and said that two of the men were Watergate burglars E. Howard Hunt and Frank Sturgis.

I had started a business in residential building at the time, without a vehicle. My first job was building a DECK for the landlord, Mr. Archibald, where I was staying. The next job was tearing out the insulation from an ATTIC two doors down from Archibald's. If one jumped the back fence from the small strip mall where Mr. Fix had his snack shop, one would be on a Church-street property directly across from where I worked that attic.

The Hunt surname (Shropshire, same as Sleeps) has a saltire in the colors of the saltire formed by the Fesch swords.

For the next job, I had to paint a three-story apartment building owned by a GERMAN, hmm, who still had his German accent. He was further down on Church street. I then moved out to Hunt, and recall carrying my 16-foot extension ladder (scala) on my shoulder, all the way (probably less than a half mile). This ladder recently reminded me of judge Scalia, and I wrote about it, because he was murdered while with a HUNTing gang. As the sleeping bag in the dream pointed to Scalia's fellow hunter, it's notable that God set me up with Mamie one last time due to my moving to Hunt, which event pointed to Dachau. It's known that Hitler's inner circle included Austrians and Catholics, and the hunting crew that I believe killed Scalia, called the International Order of Saint Hubertus (Catholic), is now led by Austrian nobility living in Mexico. Scalia's dead body was rushed from the hunting ranch to the Mexican border town at El Paso.

The ranch was owned by John B. PoinDEXter, who was the one that originally invited him to hunt at the ranch, making him a prime suspect. It just so happens that the Poindexter Crest is an "esquire's" helmet, more-often called a squire's helmet, and the Squire's/Squirrels share the red squirrel with Decks/Daggers, whom I see as a branch of Dexters/DECKsters. I built Mr. Archibald a deck. Later, I bought a Scala while living at Archibald's, and moved it to Hunt street. Is this making sense? Why would God point to Scalia's murder way back then using these sets of events?

My girlfriend while building the deck was ROXanne (can be read as RoxANNE too), and while Archibald's were first found in ROXburghshire, Anne's are said to be from Tickhill. My first-ever evening with Roxanne was in an apartment I was renting at the apartment building above. Roxburghshire is also where Scottish Walsh's were first found who share the Hunt saltire, but I cannot find reason to link their saltires closely.

George Bush Sr. became the director of the CIA under the Nixon circle i.e. same circle as the CIA's E. HOWARD Hunt. God might just have named Mr. Hunt as Howard to prove that he sent me to Hunt street...because the Howard surname has a motto term (mottoes are usually code for related surnames), "inVICTA," while the Feschs who are expected with the Tax/Dach swords are also VECHTers. It much appears that Mr. Hunt was part with the Bush-Nazi circle of killers.

The Howards are said to be from LEVENs (location) in Westmorland. This is amazing for multiple reasons. First, Levens were first found in the same place as Hunts, and as I've said, I met Mamie for the first time at her party, where no one was dancing, but when she crossed my path in the LIVING room, we just started to do a slow dance together, though I cannot recall that we had even talked previously. It was a miracle, or move of God, trust me. Nothing came of it because I left the party early, probably minutes after the dance, to go see my girlfriend (entertaining guests that Friday night). I didn't know that this would be my last night with Lorraine until I got there, and realize that God split us up so that I could be with Mamie.

A few weeks later is when Mamie plopped herself on my lap, the second time that we saw each other, the night she TEASEd me, and it just so happens that the LEVEN Coat looks like a version of the Tease/Tigh Coat. On our last night together, after being with her of Joseph FIX's place, I drove her to my place with the TAXi (it was my personal car rented 24/7 for the job), at LEVENdale road, I kid you not, in Richmond Hill, Ontario, one street north of Hunt street! Check Google maps. And the LIVING surname is also "Levin," first found in Westmorland with the Leven location of Howards!!! Zikers.

We started to get heated on the COUCH, and we went just a little too far, I confess. It was our first time, awkward and disappointing. It struck me that the Tint surname uses a COUCHant lion. Maybe it's coincidental, but it can be gleaned as the lion of Wissels/WHISTLE's (Somerset, same as Tints, beside the Tintons that use tents), recalling the Wessels/WAISTels. Earlier, I had draped my arm around her WAIST in the Tint-like tent. I kid you not, and I've told this story many times, the couch we were on belonged to Albert Oostyen, who had invited me from Hunt street to keep his apartment warm while he went to work the winter at WHISTLER mountain ski resort. The Wissels/Whistle's are also Whistler's, can thou believe this? And the Leve's/Leafs (leaves) share the dove with Wessels/Waistells.

The German Tease's/Tecks/Tess' (Switzerland) use leaves as code for the Laevi on the Ticino/TESSin river (originates in Switzerland). These Laevi are highly suspect with Livings/Levins and Levens.

That DANCE we had in her living room was reckoned as God's code for the line of Donnus, a Cottian king, grandfather of Vestalis, suspect with "Waistell." Donnus ruled out of Piedmont, where the Donnas/DANCE surname was first found. Piedmont is near the Ticino river. Piedmont is the location of Busca, and where Italian Bosco's/Busca's were first found.

Near the end of my living at Hunt street, I started to build Mr. Fix a DANCE hall in the basement of his snack shop. I was still building it the night I invited Mamie to Mr. Fix's. It's therefore a little interesting that the Vest surname, possibly from "VESTalis," may be related to the Vechter variation of Feschs/Fechts. In other words, I may have been building his dance floor because Fix's are a Fesch/Fecht branch. It's very apparent that the Fisk Coat is related to the Victor(ia) Coat, and while Mr. Fix's place was a glorified coffee shop, the Coffee/Coffer surname (Mota colors) uses a "victoria" motto term. The Coffee/Coffer Crest is the naked rider on a dolphin in the Arms of TARANTo, and it's the Trans'/TRENTs that are in the Walsh motto term, "TransFIXus." These Walsh's were first found in Roxburghshire.

The Motels were from Taranto, and they use an arm in armor, the symbol of Armors that throw in a squire's helmet. Squire's are expected as a branch of Shire's/Shere's that look to be using a version of the Schere/SCHERF cross. George Bush Jr. married Miss Walsh, and his father was, in my opinion, born Mr. SCHERFF. More on that below. The Motel-like Motts/MORTE's named a Mott region in Cotes d'Armor, and Walsh's (Morton colors and format) use a "MORTuus" motto term along with "Transfixus."

Wikipedia: "In one passage, [Szulc] also stated that Hunt was the acting chief of the CIA station in Mexico City in 1963 while Lee Harvey Oswald was there." It sounds as though Hunt is helping to frame Oswald. Szulc accused Hunt in a book of killing JFK. Hunt's alleged ties to Mexico may play to that scala = ladder that I carried to Hunt street (had been stolen from Hunt). The Howard fitchees (Tint / Acton colors) can link to Cravens who in-turn love Actons/AXtons who in-turn could be of the namers of AXholme, location of a Howard branch, and meanwhile there are two Axe rivers in Somerset, where Tints were first found. Finally, the Acton/Axton fesse is the full Arms of Austria while Austria is beside Croatia, where I trace Cravens.

James Files claimed that Oswald visited him in Mesquite, Texas, in preparation for the murder under the orders of Nicoletti. Oswald seems to have way too much activity in this event. That may be due to so many fingers pointing to him to cover for the real murderers. It could be, therefore, that Files is just being a friend of the Bush's in his testimony, and in the meantime he hopes to cash in on book "fame." I'm not saying that Oswald wasn't part of the plot, for he was probably killed abruptly to keep him quiet.

I think I now know why I moved into Hunt street between the two times I was dating Mamie. I kid you not, that I had been living at the home of VERNE Archibald immediately before moving to Hunt (carried the ladder between the two places). Was he God's code for Bob Vernon? As I said, Mamie and I fell asleep in the tent with my arm draped around her WAIST, wherefore note that the West surname uses a so-called DANCEtte i.e. suspect with the Donnus > Dance line. The two men who interview Files in prison were Mr. Vernon and Mr. West.

On August 17, 1992, West interviewed Files at Stateville Correctional Center in Crest Hill, Illinois. After West's death in 1993, his family requested that his friend, Houston television producer Bob Vernon, take over the records concerning the story. Vernon is the owner of a bullet casing with teeth marks on it, even though it was not found until 1987.

Ahh, so, it was not likely found at the scene of Kennedy's death. It looks like a fabrication by the Bush people. It was found in the year before G.H Walker Bush became the president. I get it. The Bush people arranged the dent in the bullet shell, and Files was told to mention this to Vernon before anyone had told him about it. Says one stupid: "It is a fact that John C. Rademacher of Granbury, Texas, discovered a .222-caliber shell casing on the north Grassy Knoll in Dallas' Dealey Plaza in 1987." Twenty-four years later??? Still there? C'mon.

"On May 3, 1993, researcher Bob Vernon along with TV executive Barry Adelman first interviewed James E. Files in prison. Files claims to have used an unusual and expensive single-shot match pistol, a .222-caliber Remington XP-100 "Fireball", to shoot President Kennedy from behind the wooden picket fence on top of the Grassy Knoll. Toward the end of the interview, Files casually mentioned that he had left the .222-caliber shell casing behind on the Grassy Knoll and that if anyone was to find it they would know it was his. When asked how it could be identified, Files said he had bitten down on the empty shell casing and left it behind on a cross piece of the wooden picket fence. "It will have my teeth marks on it," he explained." C'mon.

None of this phony-bullet evidence necessarily means that Files and the mob were not involved, especially if it can be proven that the CIA was working with the mob. The purpose of the phony bullet is simply to make the public believe that Bush had nothing to do with it:

According to the Files confession, the JFK assassination was carried out by Chicago mob hit man, Charles "Chuckie" Nicoletti on orders from boss Sam Giancana...Files himself was only to have transported weapons to Dallas and acted as driver. But, according to Files, Roselli arrived in Dallas early on the morning of November 22, 1963, by means of a "military flight". Roselli said the CIA had sent an "abort team" to Dallas to stop the assassination and he declined to participate saying they would all be killed. Undaunted by Roselli's fears, Nicoletti decided to move ahead with the carefully-laid plans and so asked Files --- a man who had been his driver and confederate in several other jobs --- to back him up. Many critics have questioned why Files at such a young age and not being a "made" Mafia man would have been included on something as important as the JFK assassination. This is a very good question but it appears answered in this account of Files' last-minute substitution...

As per the following (article above), there is always the possibility that Tosh and Files were being paid to make identical claims by the same Bush circle. In this story, we are to believe that the CIA was divided, some for, and some against, the assassination:

In the late 1980s, Tosh took me on a guided tour of Dallas and presented an incredible story of how he piloted a plane from Florida to New Orleans on November 21, 1963. In New Orleans, he picked up a team of men, along with some small cases, and flew them to Dallas, arriving early on Nov. 22...This group was largely unknown to Tosh except for one man whom he had piloted before. He only knew this man as "Colonel John Roselli". Tosh also said he was told that the group were an "abort team" sent to Dallas to stop an assassination attempt on President Kennedy...

Tosh says he flew Roselli into Dallas on a military plane and Roselli tells Files he arrived on a military flight. Tosh said the flight was to bring in an "abort team" and Roselli bows out of his part in the assassination confessing fear of an "abort team". Since Tosh and Files are the only two people I have ever heard mention an "abort team" and since by all research Tosh and Files never met, how could Files have known about an "abort team" unless his story of Roselli's statements are true?

Well, the two testimonies may have been configured by the Bush people, and it's therefore not necessary that Files had ever met Tosh. However, if this configured view is correct, one wonders why the storyline would admit that the CIA was involved, for this points generally to Bush, for we saw earlier, in the Cuba video, that George Bush was on paper as an employee of the CIA (1960s).

On the other hand, even with the mention of the CIA, this pair of stories can exonerate Bush because he can be deemed part of the CIA's good guys. It's a little hard to believe that a youthful Files, the mere driver, jumped at the opportunity to kill the president even while learning that the CIA had a squad on-site to thwart and kill any would-be murderers. Besides, how did he get away under those conditions? And, when he says he shot Kennedy so gruesomely, then put the bullet between his teeth when he should instead have used those seconds to get away, he comes out looking more like Clint Eastwood in an entertainment movie.

The news back in the days of the murder said that none of Kennedy's security was on the ground that day, because they (who's they?) said security wasn't needed. Clearly, they were in a position of power to the point of removing his security guards, and even the police. In that case, where was this abort team? Not there? Files and Tosh were lying about it?

The way I understand this story from Tosh, Roselli, a CIA asset of some sort, was asked by the good guys to protect Kennedy, and the good guys didn't know that Roselli was one of the bad guys. But maybe I shouldn't be bothering my head about this. If Roselli and Nicoletti were big mob guys, they wouldn't be doing the shooting, would they? The big guys don't take their chances like that. They hire their wicked. And likewise would the CIA hire nobodys. Maybe Tosh and Files are both telling the same lie for the same killers. Nicoletti is portrayed as a contract killer, but was he even at the scene, or is he more of a rabbit trail to nothing?

The following looks like the framing of Oswald:

Oswald's host was George de Mohrenschildt, a Russian-born petroleum engineer...

He was the uncle of President George H.W. Bush’s prep school roommate, a friend of first lady Jacqueline Kennedy’s parents, an associate of Oswald and a notorious womanizer and bon vivant who was rejected by the wartime Office of Strategic Services for alleged Nazi sympathies. In December 1963, he surfaced in Haiti to tell CIA operatives there that he knew Oswald, Kennedy's assassin.

Yup, it looks like the Bush-circle Nazis framed Oswald, and had him killed too. It continues: "'Dear George,' de Mohrenschildt wrote Bush on Sept. 5, 1976, 'You will excuse this hand-written letter. Maybe you will be able to bring a solution into the hopeless situation I find myself in.'" They knew each other. When Bush was asked about the letter's background or inference, he said he barely knew Mohrenschildt. Such a response is to be expected if the two were together on the JFK murder. "In 1942, the FBI reported, de Mohrenschildt had tried to join the Office of Strategic Services (OSS), which was the precursor to the CIA. But he was rejected as 'a Nazi sympathizer and possibly a German agent.'" That says it all to me.

Interestingly, very interestingly, President George H.W. Bush, at the end of his last year as president, signed a law (Oct. 26, 1992), demanding that the classified Kennedy files be unsealed within 25 years, probably knowing that the deep state would not release them until the full 25 years were up. After 24 years, during the election in which Jeb Bush was a candidate, they had not yet been released. It can appear that the Bush family was freaking, because a Trump win would allow him to release too much. As it happened last year, Trump released them to the day, 25 years later, but withheld some of the documents for a few months, though, later, in April of this year, he said he'd withhold (about 500) until 2021. Trump thus agreed to his part in this cover-up, what a farce. The way I see Trump, he doesn't know how to blush.

2021? It seems that the deep state was happy with a deal to keep them withheld until the next president, confident it can replace Trump at the end of 2020. If he doesn't go after them, they will get him. It's dangerous, but someone needs to cure the nation of this mobster mentality behind the government. It was necessary for Trump to put into place leaders of the infected organizations who would promise to send their rats running for their lives. Instead, Trump failed miserably to the point where he's now a naked target before them.

The only One who can cleanse the nation from the gangsters is Jesus. But if the nation refuses to deal with its pitiful morality, Jesus will more-likely allow the nation to be raped by the gangsters. So, fellow Christians, devise plans to take cover. We can see where this is going. Prepare to die, if necessary, but don't engross yourself in fear.

No Mohren or Mohrenschildt surname comes up, but there is a Moren surname that must be using the Phillips Coat, for the latter has an "amore" motto term. It just so happens that a Miss Phillips was in the dream with David Morley. I saw her in the mall, and I have said at least twice in the past that she had a boyfriend in her youth, MORENo. Amazing coincidence. The MORleys / Mohrs/Moore's are probably a Moren branch, and the Clements in the Morley/Maul motto share the bends of Marino's. English Marin(o)s look to be sharing the Lawrence Coat, and while Lawrence's were from Lonsdale along with Penningtons, Louise's friend, when I knew the two, was the girl of my friend, Lawrence. One of the Clement surnames (Oxfordshire, same as Amore's and Damore's, branches of Spanish Marina's) may be using a version of the Schild Coat i.e. makes MohrenSCHILDTs look like a Schild branch.

But there is more. Her first name is Louise, and while the Louis surname shares blue lozenges with Penningtons, I met her when she worked at Pennington's clothing. She became a girlfriend of mine for a while, and the last time I saw her, she said she was going into choreography (stage work). In the dream, some 40 years later, she was on a stage, though I did not know it was her when I was having the dream. After I awoke, I figured out that she was one of the two women on that same stage. I knew during the dream that the other woman was Lawrence's girl above. I know, for other reasons, that God gave this dream, but it helps that the Pennington motto well reflects the Phillips motto.

When I ask myself why God would set up a situation in my youth to point, this day, to the Kennedy assassination, I am speechless. Maybe some special light will occur to me. My original claim for the Purpose of this dream was a pointer to the killers of judge Scalia, but it then began to include Perkins Coie as part the Steele dossier. Scalia was murdered in Texas in mid February of 2016, probably at the time that the players in the Steele dossier were gearing up their plots.

Again, the dossier began with Republicans (came to include John McCain) at the Washington Free BEACON, and was then handed over to the Democrats suspect in Scalia's murder. You will see how the Beacon surname plays to the sleeping bag, shortly below, and it was the sleeping bag that expressly pointed to the killers of Scalia the day after the dream. If not for the sleeping bag, I had no reason to see the dream as pertaining to Scalia.

I did not know, while having the dream, that David Morley, an old friend in my early 20s, was the Nazi-like rider on the old bike. It was weeks or months after I suggested that it was he that I found one of the two Morley surnames listed with Mauls. That's how I knew God intended him to be the one. This Morley character is now, for the first time, pointing to David Morley, the murder accomplice of Mr. Files. It tends to confirm that Files was in on the Kennedy murder. My Morley came off the road (along the mall parking lot) and circled around the spot on the hill where I had picked up a SLEEPing BAG, and BAGleys, first found in the same place as Sleeps, use the three blue lozenges of Louis', apparently, but in both colors of the Pennington lozenges.

Both the Bagley and Louis Coats are nothing but three blue lozenges in the same arrangement, and it just so happens that I SLEPT one night in the same bed with the two ladies in the dream. The dream itself, without a shred of doubt, pointed to that night (no sex) with these two ladies. In the dream (as I've told in these updates as many as ten times), I was pulling Miss Peare, the other woman on the stage, toward me by her WAIST, and it felt so good (dream ended right there). It felt exactly as I felt when sleeping with both ladies, when I awoke in the middle of the night with an arm around Miss Peare's waist, pressing my hand on her BELLY, toward myself (her back was toward my front). One Belli surname happens to use a BEACON, can you believe this?

While I have repeatedly spoken about the WAISTell surname in conjunction with the waist in the dream, it was Mr. WEST who discovered Mr. Files. I have explained why the West surname is a branch of Waistells, and while the latter are also Wessels, German Wessels share the split Shield of Dossier's and Morleys/Mauls. Is that not incredible? The black-on-white fesse of Dossier's is in the colors of the West and Hill fesse, and, as a reminder, the Files Coat can be using a version of the Shake Coat that itself uses mole HILLs.

There is more, for the Files surname is like the Phillis variation of PHILLIPsons, and they are said to have a vague connection to Furness, which is beside the Lonsdale area of both the Penningtons (Louise Phillips worked at Penningtons) and the Shake's, the latter suspect with the Files/Fylde chevron! Perfect, for Furness and Lonsdale are in Lancashire, location of Fylde, and the Files' are listed with Fylde's. Singletarys, who use three chevrons in the colors of the Phillis/Phillipson chevron, are said to have named a Singleton location at Fylde.

The paragraph above tends to confirm that the two ladies in the Morley dream were there as pointers to the partners in crime, Files and Morley, especially as Phillis'/Phillipsons are said to be from WestMORLAND while Morlands, likewise first found in Westmorland, share a version of the English Morley Coat. I had never been happy with my explanations for Louise Phillips as regards something in the modern day, but here, finally, it appears her surname's meaning has been cracked in Mr. Files. The Field/Feld and File (no 's') surnames both have Gloucestershire in common. The Field/Feld Coat is a colors-reversed version of the Derby Coat (shares antelope with Singletarys), and Derbyshire is where English Morleys were first found. I trace ANTELopes to ANTALya, smack beside Perga i.e. the line to the mall parking lot.

The above just caused me to search for a Bagley character who may have been involved with JFK, and here's what came up: "[Tennant Pete] Bagley was the CIA handler of Yuri Nosenko, a KGB officer who defected to the United States with information about accused presidential assassin Lee Harvey Oswald." Anyone who tries to make Oswald look guilty, as Mohrenschildt had, is highly suspect with the killers. Same page (dated 2014): "Fifty years later, the CIA’s files on Nosenko’s interrogation are among the Top 7 JFK files that the CIA still keeps secret." It appears that the CIA tried to frame the Russians along with Oswald. The CIA has been trying to frame the Russians since.

Weren't the Bush's Yale products? "And Mr. Bagley’s new book, Spy Wars (out in March from Yale University Press), is likely to reopen the old wounds — the name-calling, the bitterness, the deep scars that the Nosenko question has left behind — and reawaken questions of why it is that the C.I.A. seems to have gotten just about everything wrong in its entire benighted history, from the Bay of Pigs to George (“W.M.D.’s are a slam-dunk”) Tenet." My senses tell me that Bagley's work on JFK is very-expensive crap, and that he died a stooge.

I have not decided as yet whether Bagley is in-code with the sleeping bag. It's only interesting at this point. There's a good fit. When things begin to fit this well, I can assume / theorize that God chose the first names of key characters involved. For example, if Tennant Bagley is a key character, perhaps the Tennant surname can show proof. And it turns out that it's got some good proof by connection to Bag suspects.

I'll start off by telling how the Chief-Shield combination of Tennants is shared by Bag-suspect Bacons/BEACONs, the latter first found beside the first-known Bags and English Towns/Tune's, the latter a branch of Tennants. This can explain why Tennants share the white boar with Bacons/Beacons, and why Tennants use a "mast" while a "mastiff" is used by Futters who are in-turn suspect in the motto of Fullers who in-turn use another BEACON. Then, while I've argued that the Monk surname can be a branch of Monaco's, Grimaldi's, who share the Bag Shield, were from Monaco. Then, Bacons/Beacons are said to be from MONKs-Bradfield, and descended from one Grimbald.

The Phillis/Phillipson boar heads are in both colors of the Tennant boar heads, in white, same as the boar head of Shake-beloved Mole's and Marone's (reminds of Moreno, Miss Phillip's boyfriend). The Tennant crescents are black, as are the TUNbridge crescents.

Also, for what it's worth, Spitzers use HILLS, the center one having a Tune-like "tunnel," and the Tunnel/Tunno Shield is also the split one of Morleys/Mauls, in colors reversed from the same of Dossier's (Mauls use the split Shield in both color combinations, one colors reversed from the other). If I'm understanding God's use of codes, the original, Republican schemers behind the dossier are extensions of Kennedy's killers.

Monks and Monaco's are expected to have been the namers of Munich, a Nazi haunt, and the Munich surname shares the chequey Shield of Vairs/Fers', a branch of Vere's/Vairs and Vere's/Weirs while Irish Weirs share a version of the Grimaldi / Bag Coat.

Tennant Bagley was in a Russia-bashing scam in connection to Oswald, but Mohrenschildt is another Russian product pushing the same Oswald frame. Oswald's "temporary defection" to Russia was possibly a CIA lie, and other CIA tricks are expected. His wife was MARINA Oswald (Russian), I have only just learned. Morencys, by the way, share the Marin cross, apparently. Oswalds may have been a branch of OSberts/Osborns, and Morinis' were descended from an Osbert (see Deering write-up). Osborns use a "bello" motto term while a beacon is used by German Belli's. English Bello's look like a cross between Tennants and French Bacons.

Supposing that God gave us this dream to point to Walker Bush as part of Kennedy's assassination. What for? Is God planning to expose his circle of accomplices today? I hope so. And 9-11 too? That would be something.

After Hunt's death, Howard St. John Hunt and David Hunt stated that their father had recorded several claims about himself and others being involved in a conspiracy to assassinate President John F. Kennedy. Notes and audio recordings were made. In the April 5, 2007, issue of Rolling Stone, St. John Hunt detailed a number of individuals purported to be implicated by his father, including Lyndon B. Johnson, Cord Meyer, David Phillips, Frank Sturgis, David Morales, Antonio Veciana, William Harvey, and an assassin he termed "French gunman grassy knoll" who many presume was Lucien Sarti (Wikipedia's Hunt article).

Oh, after he died, when he's safe from persecution, the sons come out to confess. But why, really? Was it to provide a faked story pointing to the wrong people? I'm noting that Files is not in the list. In that list, David PHILLIPS looks interesting. "Phillips was born in Fort Worth, Texas and attended The College of William and Mary in Williamsburg, Virginia and Texas Christian University in Fort Worth...During the war, he served as a nose gunner in the United States Army Air Forces. He was shot down over Austria and captured by the Germans, but was somehow able to escape and make it back to Allied lines." Perhaps he did not escape. Perhaps he was let go because he had been a Nazi spy in the United States. He rose to become a CIA chief until 1975. Bush became the CIA director as January 30, 1976.

"James Files says that his CIA supervisor, who also recruited him, was David Atlee Phillips...Several members of the committee wanted to call him again for they believed he had not told the truth and committed perjury...According to his nephew Shawn Phillips, who is quite a famous musician, David Atlee Phillips confirmed to his brother James Atlee Phillips that he was in Dallas the day Kennedy died." It looks as though David Phillips was in charge of the murder.

I have just realized something, which led to another thing. I met Louise Phillips roughly at January 30, 1976. To the best of my recollection, I started to sell shoes in the fall of 1975, following in the tracks of Lawrence. he sold shoes on the first floor, and I on the second. After my being there for a short while (I cannot recall whether it was weeks or some two or more months), he walked past the store with Miss. Peare, whom I had never seen before. She worked as a saleslady a few stores down from my store; I was determined to take her away from Lawrence before she was officially his girl. I temporarily succeeded, for two maybe three weeks, afterwhich he took her away from me on a ruse that should have ended the friendship, but, I suppose, God had other ideas.

Miss Phillips entered my life because she was Peare's friend, and likewise a saleslady in the same mall. Shortly after Peare went to be with Lawrence, the ladies wanted to stay the night at my apartment, but Lawrence went home, and we all three slept in my bed. It was the first and last time for this, and, as you read, I think God set that threesome up for to point to Mr. West and Mr. Files. I've got to say that this threesome night must have been at least close to January 30th, 1976, the day that George Bush took over the CIA, almost immediately after David Phillips had quit. Perhaps the insider consensus was for Phillips to pass the Nazi torch to Bush.

I didn't work more than a few months at this shoe store when the manager (allegedly a cocaine user) asked me to run a store (alone) in another mall. In my head, I've thought that this was the Cedarbrae Mall branch on Toronto's KENNEDY road. Amazing, except that I've checked this just now to find that Cedarbrae Mall is not on Kennedy road. I now have the choice of whether the shoe store was at Cedarbrae Mall, or at a mall, for example, the Kennedy Commons mall, on Kennedy road. My recollection is that this second store was horizontal on a map (due east-west) with the original store (Fredelle's) in the Scarborough Town Center. In my head, that store has always been at Kennedy road, but I could be wrong. It just fits so well with JFK.

Note SCARborough Town center, for I have a long chapter where I explain my belief that George Herbert Walker Bush was born George Herbert Scherff Jr., son of a Nazi, who was then taken in by "adoption" of sorts by the Walker-Bush family. The Scherffs became Scherfs, and there is a Scherf surname listed with Scar-like SCHARE's/Schere's, who happen to share roses with stems, and a vertically-split Shield, with Walkers, and moreover Bush's are Buschs too while Bosco's are in the write-up of the Rose surname, in-code with the roses above. The Bosco Coat is much like the Schore Coat (more roses), and the one who reportedly revealed that the president was born a Scherff was the Nazi, Otto SKORzeny. Scarboroughs and Scarfs were first found in Yorkshire with Bush's and German Walkers/Walchers.

Miss Peare worked at Reitman's clothing, and while the single red rose on a stem of Walkers/Walchers/WELKers is used by Jewish Reitmans, Dutch Reitmans use an anchor in colors reversed from the Welk anchor. The Scarboroughs share the Murena tower, and the family of Aulus Terentius Varro Murena (BC times) trace to Walsh's/Walchs without a doubt. When I was in a hurry to take Miss Peare from Kepke, she and I snuck up the stairs of the La Paloma bar in Scarborough, then out the door, and we kissed there for the first time, with Kepke coming after us in a huff. He was mad. Fair is fair; she came willingly; it wasn't my fault he was a slow poke.

Later, when he left Miss Peare for Miss Walsh, they happened to have an argument at the La Paloma. She got in my car, closed the door on him, and I leaned over to plant a kiss on her cheek while he looked on from the outside. I kissed them both at La Paloma. Why? It all looks related to the Scherf-Bush theme. Again, George Bush Jr. married Laura Walsh.

Peare's are a branch of Pero's and Pierro's/Pero's (roses), first found on the Ticino river. The Pero pale bar is in the colors of the four pale bars of Italian Donnas'/Dance's, and she with Lawrence loved to dance; they lived for the will of God for to point to the two Dance surnames. English Dance's were first found in Yorkshire with same-colored Keppocks. Lawrence's surname is, Kepke. It fits like a shoe. And the Pero pale bar is also in the colors of the two pale bars of Spanish Paloma's. It took me many months to figure out what God was referring to with the kisses at La Paloma, because I didn't at first know of the Pero surname. The Laevi on the Ticino were traced to king Laevillus of Cetis, and the Kiss/Cush surname had already been traced with the Bibo cushion to Laevillus' mother, Vibia. Perfect. That's why we kissed there, but then I should be tracing Walsh's (love the Mortons) and Murena's to Laevillus too. Italian Paloma's even share the dove with Leve's/Leafs.

If that's not enough, Kepke's brother had already married Miss Walsh's sister, and both brothers went into Paloma-like plumbing. German Plumers look Reitman- and Roten-interesting. We all called the sister, Nikki, but she may have been born, Nicole, like "Nicoletti." Could be coincidental.

There is something yet to discover on why we both sold shoes in Scarborough, but I think I can now predict that the Shoe surname will one-day link to Nazi's of the Bush circle. Kepke got the shoe-sales job first. One day while visiting him, I went to the upper floor to ask another shoe store if they needed help, and was hired on the spot (a miracle, so that God could get me to Kennedy road?). Previous to his working at the shoe store (Acer was it's name, so far as I can recall the name correctly), I had invited him to work at Knob HILL FARMs with me, and he got the job. The English Farms/Farmers happen to use a version of the Dance Coat, and Irish Farmers share the same fesse as Hills as well as the same red lion heads as Dance's. I had known Kepke since age 11, but never knew him to dance until he was with Miss Peare.

One of the three tramps is thought to be Chauncery Holt. "In 1963 Holt claims he received instructions from Phillip A. Twombly to provide false ID documents for Lee Harvey Oswald. These documents (in the names of Lee Harvey Oswald and Alek Hiddell) were delivered by a man called George Reynolds. In August, 1963, Twombly asked Holt to travel to New Orleans, where he met Oswald and Carlos Bringuier." Looks like Holt was part of the confessors, along with Files, whose job it was to continue the framing of Oswald. Note how "Hiddell" has the consonants of the Hiedler/Hitler surname. The other two tramps (disguised deep-state agents) are thought by some to be Harrelson and Rogers:

Holt later claimed he was went to Dallas in November, 1963, with Charlie Nicoletti, James Canty and Leo Moceri. In Dallas he passed on forged documents and guns (with silencers) to Charles Harrelson and Charles Rogers (Richard Montoya). Holt was told that "an incident was going to be created which could be laid at the door of pro-Castro Cubans. The word attempted assassination was never used. We assumed that from all this light loaded ammunition that maybe somebody was going to try to take a shot from somewhere, probably the Dal-Tex building, or one of the buildings around there. But at no time was it ever intimidated to us that an assassination or attempted assassination on Kennedy."

Obviously, the main part of the event was to get rid of a president. Such wickedness in high places, the demons will pay in a Hell roast, and no one will care for their screams. Here's a good video on the Tramps, showing that the three men (not the above) passed off as the tramps are NOT they i.e. the authorities were tricking the public. The end makes a good case that the police just let the three go out the back door of the police department. Amazing, a president is murdered, and the local police are part of the cover up. There was an understanding in police departments, since at least 1963, as to who really had the highest hand in the nation. The brutal, the Hell-bound, those who will be tormented before the Son of God.

"On 29th March, 1977, Charles Nicoletti was murdered in Chicago. He had been shot three times in the back of the head. George De Mohrenschildt died the same day. Both men were due to appear before the Select House Committee on Assassinations where they were to be asked about their involvement in the assassination of John F. Kennedy." Work for the wicked, get burnt.

What do we suppose was the job of the three agents dressed like tramps? Look-outs? Did they pack walkie-talkie's? Files doesn't know anything about these three. He talked a lot, but not about these three. Maybe he's covering for them.

If you care to read Files' testimony at the scene of the crime, he sounds more like he's steeling a bubble gum than committing an assassination. No conscience, that is, no sense of horror for ending one's life with such cruelty:

The page below, if you can stomach anymore reading, says that Files bit down on the bullet casing because he liked the taste of gunpowder. No doubt he made that up when someone tested him on this part of his testimony, saying how unlikely it is, due, for one, on the bad taste of freshly-fired gunpowder. He just gives that a twist and says he likes the taste. But the guy who supposedly found the bullet said it was about five inches deep. We are to imagine that it sat around on the grass, visible for a year or two to anyone mowing / raking the lawn. Then, we are to believe that five inches of soil accumulated over 24 years, which cannot be true, or either roadside curbs would need to be replaced every 15 years, or three inches of lawn dirt everywhere would need to be scraped away every 15 years. In other words, checking the height of grass about roadside curbs 24 years old does not suggest a soil build-up of five inches, not even near.

The guy was lying, and he coordinated the lie with Files. They had a purpose in the confession, and Files may not be the killer at all. The purpose (probably diversion) may not have been in the works while West was trying to get the confession, but may have developed after Vernon took over, perhaps with he as part of the hoax. The diversion seems to be to point heavily to several mobsters when in fact the killers may have been more orthodox (poor choice of term) contract killers of the CIA. Of course, if you are a Christian, you know that contract killers hired by the CIA makes the country a very nasty place. If Trump doesn't clean this mess up, a curse be on him. It's time for a president to declare all-out war, and only afterward to come out and do other business, which can wait.

Repeat: "If that's not enough, Kepke's brother had already married Miss Walsh's sister, and both brothers went into Paloma-like plumbing. German Plumers look Reitman- and Roten-interesting. We all called the sister, Nikki, but she may have been born, Nicole, like "Nicoletti." Could be coincidental." As I concentrated on what this could mean, especially as Walsh's use a pheon in colors reversed from the Nichol/Nickle pheon, I wanted to add that, maybe, George Bush married Laura Bush because she was descended from something in relation to Nicoletti. But thinking that to be too wild, I decided not to say it.

Then, during the spell check, it stopped me on "Plumer." And it was then that Lorraine's BUS stop came to mind. Lorraine was the girlfriend I went to see a few minutes after dancing with Mamie. I had asked her out some weeks earlier for the first time at her bus stop at the corner of Lorraine-like Lorne street and Yonge street in Richmond Hill. This bus stop was a few properties up from the coffee shop of Joe Fix, and while "bus" is like Bush, it's simply amazing that Kepke got me a job at a Plumbing Mart store that, to the best of my recollection, was either directly across the street from this bus stop, or in the mall with Joe Fix's coffee shop. That store went out of business decades ago i.e. can't check now exactly where it was.

The only problem is that "Lorne" and "Lorraine" is not quite like "Laura," though the Lorraine surname uses laurel and even a "Lauro" motto term. If that's not enough, Lorraine's share the bend of Keeps. The Laurie surname, traced in its write-up to a location that links well to the Lawrence/Laurence surname, likewise uses laurel, and it was Lawrence Kepke's brother who married Nikki Walsh. The bottom half of the giant Laurie cup is in the colors of the giant pheon of Nichols/Nickle's, and the Laurie Shield is split horizontally, as is the Nicoletti Shield. It's all interesting, especially as I trace "pheon" to the ancient Paeoni people that I think Lorraine represented.

The Nicoletti Shield is split vertically, actually, with the left half using what could be three of the two Hiedler/Hitler bends. The other half of the Nicoletti Shield is split horizontally, with a red upper half. Compare with Italian Bosco's (same star as Hiedlers/Hitlers).

One day, during a period when keeping an eye out on whether Lorraine's and Lawrence's were branches, I remarked that both Lawrence Kepke and Lorraine had "sun-bright" blond hair, and this was while telling readers that God had impressed me (one time only) with her beautiful feet. I was so sure that God was pointing to the Foot / Feet surname that I repeatedly mentioned this. At that time, when mentioning "sun-bright" blond, I loaded the Blond surname to find a foot in a sun. Pretty darned amazing, wouldn't you say? And at the very moment when I spotted her beautiful feet, a young man I knew was passing by me and remarked, "what a babe." The Babe surname uses a sun! Hiedlers/Hitlers uses the sun too.

Decades later, I tackled her bus stop and all the things that happened on that first day to decipher what God was getting at. We ended up kissing that night at a picNIC table across Church street from her home (not more than about 10 homes from Mr. Archibald). She had her white pants on; I recall because I had my hand on the front of her thigh during this kiss, and then looked down. Her bus stop was deciphered as code for Stops/Stubbs, which happens to use downward pheons in the colors of the same of Nichols/Nickle's, can you believe it? Walsh's and Nichols use the pheon in colors reversed from one another. I traced Stops/Stubbs to "Stobi," an ancient city of the Paeoni i.e. to which I trace "pheon." That's why I saw the Bus surname as the entity naming AstiBUS, another ancient Paeonian city. In Cuneo, there is an Asti location not far from Busca, where I trace Bush's/Buschs (Church colors and format).

Pheons are used by Pilote's, while Pillars are listed with Pilots, while Bosco's use a pillar, and then English Pilotte's (two 't's) use cups, the Laurie symbol. German Nichols use so-called pellets, and Pellets use the Pilotte Coat, which happens to be the Christine Coat while Miss Peare is Christine. The same Coat is used by Shaws while the Bosco pillar is used in the colors of the similar Schore "column" while a Schor surname is listed with Schaws/Shows.

On the night I left Mamie's party to go see Lorraine, she came home while I was there waiting with her female friend. She was out on a neighborhood walk with her friend's husband (which I thought was odd), and when getting back, there was a green streak of grass on her white pants. I pointed at her pants and accused, which ended the relationship. I take this to be God's pointer to the Pansy/Pantzer and/or the Panther/Panter surname, both of which can be traced to Paeonians. For example, Panthers/Panters share so-called "spur rowells" with Payens/Paions (Paeonians were also, Paioni). Payens/Paions were first found in the area of Mont Pilat, in Burgundy, where pheon-using Pilate's were first found.

By the way, Bosco's use "tufts of GRASS" on their pillar, and Dutch Boschs/Bush's come up as "Bos" too.

Payens/PAGans were first found in the Dauphine area of Burgundy, where French PAGe's/LePage's were first found, and then English Page's use more pheons, as well as sharing doves with the Pansy/Pantzer Coat. Can you believe it? Recall that I traced Astibus of the Paeonians to Asti of Cuneo, for Asti is smack beside Bra, and God gave me another event in my youth where Bra was to be connected to the Coney / Conn Coat. It means that Coneys are Cuneo liners, but the point here is that Coneys use a coney rabbit in Crest holding a pansy! Coneys were first found in Lincolnshire with Pilotte's.

It's completely amazing that the event which pointed to Bra was when, at age nine, I touched a bra of a young, blond lady as it hung on a laundry line. This lady was roughly the age of blond Lorraine when I asked her out 15 years later. I was on a deck when reaching out to touch the bra, and under this deck was a cage with a white rabbit(s)...that I saw and fed on multiple occasions. The amazing thing is the laundry line, for when I approached her at her bus stop to ask her out, I suggested we meet at the laundromat in the evening, where I was doing laundry.

I was able to decipher "LAUNDRy" as God's code for Landens/LANDERs, and this was deciphered further as a pointer to Pepin of Landen, for one can see that the Pepin Coat is a version of the Stop/Stubb Coat. These Coats are in all three colors of the Coney / Conn Coat.

The laundromat where we met was in Levendale plaza, for I was staying in that area at the time. There were two laundromats in this strip plaza, one at both extreme ends. After Lorraine and I stopped seeing each other, I was with Mamie. As was said, I was living at Albert's place at Levendale when I was with Mamie one last time about a year after we stopped dating. After Albert wanted me to move out so that he could have his apartment back, I rented a basement a few houses down on Levendale, which was right next door to a laundromat at that strip plaza above. One day, as I walked into my kitchen, which had a laundry sink for the kitchen sink, the landlord was clubbing to death a rabbit in this sink. Believe it or not.

To prove that the laundromat was God's code for Landens/Landers, they use the same six pale bars as LANGleys, and Bra / Asti happens to be in a Langhe part of Cuneo. Recall how Pilate's link to this picture, for Pelosi's/Pilati's were first found smack beside Bra.

Pepin of Landen married Ita of Metz, which may have been in the Lorraine part of France, but if not it's right beside it. Ah, yes: "A historic garrison town, Metz is the economic heart of the Lorraine region..." Amazing, is it not? Without my knowing about it, God was setting up events for me, in those days, that were intended to point both to modern crime rings, and to historical people groups and families likely at the root of deep-state satanists.

The namers of Metz may even be some Mat surname, as per "laundroMAT." Pepin was a leader of Merovingians, they being descended from queen Basina, who traces without doubt to ancient Bassania at the modern Mat river (anciently the Mathis) of Albania, I kid you not. The Metz surname uses many BESANts. Was my landlord clubbing the rabbit to death? Yes, and the Besant/Bessen surname uses a club, so absolutely amazing, because the Club/Clobbe surname is in the colors and format of the CHILD Coat because Clubs/CLOBBE's are from "CLOVis," son of king CHILDeric and queen Basina. Bassania was beside Lissus, and while the Lys surname is also, Lisse, Pepins use the fleur-de-lys, said by others to have been the symbol of Clovis.

Prior to realizing that God was setting up events in my youth, I had told readers that either Pepin of Landen and/or his wife descended from queen Bebba of Bernicia. Recall the man who walked by Lorraine and blurted, "what a BABE." The English Babe surname with the sun was first found beside the Lapps who in-turn share the blond mermaid with German Babe's/Babels. Bebba lived at Bamburgh castle (Scotland), and her people were called Bebbanburgs. German Bebanbergs were at Bamberg, Germany, and they were founded by Poppo I. So, you see, Poppo was a Pepin liner, and Pepin of Landen was somehow related to Bebba.

The touch-bra event was deciphered partly with the killers of judge Scalia, and with Peter Peterson, chief of the Council on Foreign Relations. The latter was pegged because the tenant who owned the bra was staying in the basement of the Petersons, who also owned the white rabbit(s), and Peter Peterson had married Mrs. Cooney. Shocking, is it not?

As I've said multiple times times, I'm not making this up: some two or three years after being with Lorraine, I was having coffee with Paul Smith, when I saw her walking by us with an infant CHILD. What are the chances that Smiths trace to Childeric and Basina? Smiths use a heron, and heron-using Herons / Orne's/Horns are from the Orne river that flows into the Bessin. The Bessins share bees with Talls, the latter first found in Thuringia, where Basina had family (with her father). In Childeric's grave there were found gold bees, and both Talls with Bessins use bees. Talls are expected from the Taulantii peoples at the Mat/Mathis river i.e. location of Bassania. I can't be making this up; it has got to be all correct.

Here's the old maps. Bassania is on a river at the lower-left of this
dark map that is shown as the Mattis on this
light map. On the dark map, the Taulantii reach to the Mattis river. The Cavii peoples on the north of Bassania trace to the Chives' surname because it shares the black moline of the Mathis surname (Burgundy), and Chives' named Chivasso at Turin, suggesting that Basina's Thuringia was related to the namers of Turin.

Scottish Turins were first found in Aberdeenshire with the Conns, and with the Chives', said to be first found in Aberdeenshire's Tarves. Turin is in Piedmont with Conn-liner Cuneo, and while Busca is in Cuneo, it's beside Saluzzo while the Saluzzo Shield is used by Cluns and Clun-like Clintons who in-turn share the six fitchees of Tarves' and Hillarys. Savage's (same place as Bessins) use six lions in the same pattern and colors as those six fitchees, and are from SAVIGliano, the place in Cuneo where Pelosi's/Pilati's were first found. Often, heraldic savages come with a club.

In that I asked Lorraine out (we had never spoken before) at the corner of Lorraine-like Lorne street, it's notable that while no Lorne surname came up a few years ago, I had suggested Lorne's to be of the Lurnack variation of Lanarks (share heart with French Sauvage's), who happen to use the cinquefoil in the colors for it of Bus'. The Lanarks are said in their write-up to be from a Lorne region. A Lorne page does come up now, with the surname said to be first found in Aberdeenshire. Another heart is used by Douglas' who can be expected as a branch of Dogs/Doags (Lanark cinquefoil), first found in PERTHshire with Cluns, and with the Colts/Celts having the Pilate pheon (because a peak at Mont Pilat is the PERDrix). This tends to verify wildly what Wikipedia says (or once said), that the mother of Pontius Pilate was a Pict of Perthshire.

Perthshire is where Glen Lyon is located, named by the Lyons, first found in Perthshire and sharing the green lion with Lorraine's. It just so happens that Glen Lyon is in the Mens write-up while Pepins and Poppins use a "Mens" motto term. The Mens Coat has no symbols, but does have a Chief. The Saluzzo and Clun Coats have no symbols but do have Chiefs. Saluzzo was ruled by the Vasto's, a branch of Montferrat's rulers who used a Shield with a red Chief and no symbols, in both colors of the same of Mens' (Poppins use similar). Glen Lyon (or "Glenlyon") has a Culdares area that looks like it should be of the COLTers, first found in Lanarkshire. Lyon is a city near Mont Pilat.

The Vasto's are linkable to Fasts (reflection of the Lorraine bend) and Fists/Fausts, and it just so happens that Poindexters use the Fist/Faust fist.

Bedwetters and Podesta White Rabbit

I'll now re-explain the main reason that the touch-bra event seems like a pointer to the killer of Scalia. One night during the time (about April of 2017) that I was initially reading concerning an email exchange, released by WikiLeaks, between John Podesta and Mr. Elmendorf, the touch-bra event happened to come to mind. The email exchange had "wet works" and "bedwetters" in it, this is amply online. Here's from the first update of April, 2017:

We have Elmendorf writing to Podesta on Tuesday Feb 2, 2016, "We won. Raising money today, talking the bedwetters off the ledge and heading to NH for the long weekend...let me know what else I can do."...Podesta writes back in the same minute of receiving the email, just to say "Thx."

Podesta and Elmendorf were fools-hat upper-levels supporting the accident waiting to happen, Hillary Clinton. Podesta [Hillary's campaign manager] was top dog and probably had power to hire and fire. "Talking the bedwetters off the ledge" sounds metaphorical for getting someone not to take the plunge (as in a suicide plunge off the high ledge of a building). But whom does he mean by "bedwetters"?...

Seven days later, on the day Bernie Sanders was destined to beat Hillary in New Hampshire (primary), Podesta writes (4:36 Eastern Time in the afternoon) to Elmendorf nothing but, "Didn't think wet works meant pool parties by the Vineyard." Huh? It must be an inside joke. It sounds as though Martha's Vineyard (Massachusetts) is at issue due to the V capitalization, but what's with "WET works" and, seven days earlier, "bedWETters"? How do we understand pool parties in freezing Massachusetts February?

...On the same day (February 9) of Podesta's "wet works" email, Elmendorf writes him back: "I am all in. Sounds like it will be a bad nite, we all need to buckle up and double down."

He's in with some plan. It's just a few nights before Scalia would be murdered on February 12/13, the long weekend. "Wet works" is a phrase known to mean, "murder," and because the official report has Scalia dying naturally in his bed, "bedwetters" sounds like code for the murderers. In Elmendorf's quote on February 2, he says that he's raising money "today" and talking to the bedwetters, then tells where he'll be on the weekend that Scalia is murdered, as if to provide an alibi for himself. Elmendorf says he needs to go raise money, and while that can be taken as raising money for Hillary's campaign, it can also reveal that the murderers were threatening not to go ahead with the plan ("jumping") unless they got more money.

These are the things I wrote in that first week of April. In the first update of May, I told of my coming to think on the touch-bra event:

I didn't sleep a wink all night. I could not get this topic off my mind. I wanted to know what the surname was that murdered Scalia...I had a childhood friend, Jerry Peterson. As I started to think about him, and the things we did, I recalled the attractive blonde tenant that his parents had for the basement. I cannot recall what she looked like, but I found her so attractive that I went to the backyard, climbed the steps to the platform where clothes are hung on the LAUNDRY line, and reached over to touch her ultra-white clean bra with my fingertip. You can't say I was a pervert because I was too young for that. Jerry was there and we were having fun. A few seconds later, she came out and scolded me (but it was worth it). I was maybe eight or nine years old.

Naturally, this crossed my mind with Lorraine the blonde and the LAUNDRromat. As I began to ask questions, last night, as to how the bra event might square with the Lander/Landen surname, it struck me that I've known of a Bra location in Cuneo, and it's smack at Langhe, while the Lander/Landen pale bars are used (same white-green colors) by LANGleys. You just have to be me to feel how these things amaze me...

One of the first things I remembered as per the bra event is that there were cute, furry white rabbits in a cage under the laundry platform. I used to feed them carrots. I saw them there. But my mind wandered from the rabbits to something else, things concerning the Bra area. It's where Asti is located, on the Tanaro river, which location was traced to the Paioni location of AstiBUS. What do you see? I see more than you do. This is going to flatten you, it's not for the faint of heart. But may it pump up your faith in God, and please give God a hand for how he performed this work. The BUS STOP is where God asked Lorraine [speaking through me] to meet me at the laundromat, and of course you see AstiBUS, but the Paioni capital was STOBI, which I traced to Stubbs a long while ago. But thanks to the Bus stop, I discovered recently that Stops are listed with Stubbs. Therefore, it is undeniable that the Bus Stop is two codes for Paioni liners, which included the Poindexters. It all came to mind last night as I did not sleep [remember, the Vasto's in the Poindexter fist were in Cuneo].

We now know that it was God who touched that bra (whew), not me, because I wouldn't do such a dumb thing. God needed to trace Blonds to Bra of Cuneo, and to show that the laundromat was code for Langhe's Italians. And that's probably the area where my Masci line originates, I get it. I then went back to the furry rabbits, and recalled that "Cuneo" sounds like the Italian for "rabbit," and the Conns and Conys (both use a version of the Meschin and Mussel/Muscel Coats) use WHITE coney rabbits even. So, God got the Petersons to buy / breed those rabbits because He wanted to prove to readers that He touched the bra for a reason, and it's not for my pleasure or yours, though I don't mind a little fun along the way.

It's online that John and Tony Podesta are PEDophiles ("ped" means "foot"), and I think that my touching the bra of an attractive blond, at about age nine, can be regarded as God's code for pedophilia. It floored me to find, months later, that Alex Podesta is online in a white-rabbit suit!

I'm not finished the story, but I wanted to say here that the Blond Coat has nearly the six bars of Babe's, and that the Blond bars are in so-called "nebuly," in the colors of the nebuly bends of Maria's (branch of Marina's). Jerry's mother, Maria, was Italian. Spanish Italians share the same fleur-de-lys as Masci's, first found in Piedmont. I do have some evidence that "PIEDmont" (said to mean, "foot of the mountain") led to the Foot and Feet surnames, and that the Foots and Fothes' were related to Ranulph le Meschin's son; this recalling the foot in the Blond Crest, and God impressing me with Lorraine's feet while a friend blurted, "what a babe."

It's known that Blondville's/Blundville's (probably use the Masci wing) were related to the ruling Meschins of Cheshire. Blundville's are said to have been at Beeston, which is a variation of the Bessin surname (line of queen Basina), and it's known that Ranulph le Meschin's father lived in the Bessin. Foots and Fothes' use one chevron in the colors of the three of Levi's, and the Blond Coat looks linkable to the Coat of Leavells, whom I trace to "Laevillus" and therefore to the Laevi on the Ticino. The other Leavells share the three piles of Yonge's, and God asked Lorraine to the laundromat while she was on Yonge street.

Bare with me to repeat that while I trace Squire's/Squirrels to Decks/Daggers suspect with the namers of the Ticino, the PoinDEXTER Crest is an ESQUIRE's helmet. Wasn't I on a small deck (built to raise the laundry line well off the ground) while touching the bra? I trace Decks/Daggers to the DEXARoii peoples beside the Poin-like Paeoni. Dexaroi were on the Drin river, home to the Cavii mentioned above. Fothes' were first found in Aberdeenshire with the first Chives'. While Poindexters are also Podesta-like Podesters and PudDISTERs, there is a DISTER surname sharing a version of the Diss/Dice Coat, and Disters were first found in the same place as Squire's/Squirrels. Dexters/Decksters were first found in Leicestershire, while the Arms of Leicester has the ermined cinquefoil of Bus', the latter first found in the same place as the first-known Fasts, and beside the first-known Diss'/Dice's.

Again, the Vasto's of Saluzzo were probably at Bush-suspect Busca, and the Italian Busca/Bosco Coat (Piedmont) even has the single star of Poindexters in colors reversed. The Fasts are likely using a version of the Bouillon cross, and while Bouillons trace well to the Bautica river, that's the location of the Chives-related Chivasso location. But this river is also the location of Ivrea, home to the Arduinici that were from the Ardiaei Illyrians.

I didn't want to go too deeply into heraldry here, but will add that Diss'/Dice and Disters trace to the Ardiaei Illyrians living with or beside the SELEPitanoi, where the Sleeps trace that are in-code with the sleeping bag. It was my opinion that the sleeping bag was God's code to be for the killers of Scalia as they touch upon John B. Poindexter's involvement with the International Order of Saint Hubertus. He's in an online photo with this group, standing right beside the leader of the group at the center. All the men in the photo wear black robes with one red stripe of the inner lining showing on one side only. When I awoke from the sleeping-bag dream, which was the day, or perhaps the day before, seeing this photo for the first time, I realized that I had been sleeping that night under a black sleeping bag with a red stripe down one side only. It's just a fully black bag with a red stripe to one extreme side. Coincidence, or was God pointing to Poindexter's group?

It floored me to discover that Poindexters show Podesta-like variations, as if God had arranged this to prove that John Podesta was at least privy to the murder of Scalia. Let me go on with the quote from the first update in May:

There is more I realized last night. The Tankerville's use the BUS cinquefoil, and are said to be from TANERdevilla, looking like they were from the Tanaro [the river through Astibus-suspect Asti, beside Bra]...

...If we are convinced that God gave both the bra-rabbit and Lorraine events to be related to one another, then let me tell you what else came to mind last night. And one can spot the reason that the bra-rabbit event was at Jerry's place.

One day, when I was about six years old, my mother was chewing me out for peeing my bed, and it was a lovely summer's day, the bedroom window open. While my mother was chewing me out, Jerry was beneath the window, but unseen. I had NOT been playing with him outside. I recall that his being at the window took me by complete surprise, and I was wondering by what coincidence he would be below the window, in the back yard, while my mother was chewing me out. He wasn't prone to just going into the back yard alone. And his voice came through the window screen. "Ha-ha, you peed your bed, you peed your bed." Embarrassing, yes.

But it wasn't me who peed my bed. It was God, right? Yes, and perhaps the Peterson surname (Peter-Pollock line?) has something to do with Scalia's murderers. I just don't think it was coincidental that, on the same night that I realize the Podesta variation of Poindexters, I also find the bra-rabbit event to be utterly compelling as an act of God; I then find Jerry involved in [the bedwetting event] I could never forget 40 years later. God made it a vivid memory.

You can see why I put that event beside Elmendorf's "bedwetters." Alex Podesta wears a white-rabbit suit looking like it's made for kiddies, and the same Peterson friend (my age exactly) with me at the rabbit-bra event pops up at my bedwetting event, and meanwhile Peter Peterson "married Joan Ganz COONEY, a creator of Sesame Street," a show for kiddies! Amazing.

But there is another clue where "ped" means feet. While a pediatrician is a child doctor, a PEDorthist makes footwear. Podesta-like PEDESTrians are people on foot. When God impressed me with Lorraine's feet, someone remarked, "what a BABE." It's clear as day: her feet were code for pedophiles. And while I was moved by the Spirit to lump Lawrence Kepke in with Lorraine's blond hair (because the Lawrence surname was suspect with the Lorraine surname), which found the foot of Blonde's, he is the one who got me into shoe sales!!! Shoes are made by pedorthists! Zikers, I get it.

And the Shoe/Shoemaker surname, I kid thee not, shows a single star in the colors of the same of Poindexters! It's as though God has thus revealed the killers of Scalia within the Hubertus group of Mr. Poindexter.

Cheneys have a "Fato" motto term highly suspect with the Fate variation of Feets because both Cheneys and Feets/Fate's share gold, FOOTless martlets. The Cheney Coat is a good reflection of the Hubbard Coat, and Hubbards are obviously a Hubert branch (both first found in Cheshire, both sharing the Bessin/Beeston bend). The Bois/Boze Coat is another reflection of those Coats, and that surname is said to be from Bosco's, making "Cheney" suspect with Coneys. The Bois/Boze surname comes up as "Boast," which is a motto term of Nemo's who happen to be in the Poindexter motto. Did God arrange this for pointing to the Bush-Cheney presidency and the 9-11 disaster?

Bosco's use "tufts of grass," and Tufts (Cheshire) have the Fast crosslets in colors reversed. I always link Cheneys and Salemans to Saluzzo, where Fast-related Vasto's ruled. The Hubert and Hubbard bends are likely the bend of Cheshire's Sales'.

I am so impressed with the job that God did in this.

Recalling that George Bush Sr. was, in my opinion, born a Scherff while Schere's/Scherfs share the cross of Shire's/Shere's, note that Tufts use a reflection of the SHERwood Coat, said to be of Alan de Shirewod, and that Schere's/Scherfs share roses on stems with Sherwoods.

This section on Podesta was written Tuesday. I ended above, then went to town, and upon returning there was news of a massive report of Vatican child-abuse in Pennsylvania:

Dossier News

Republicans have got some new information, which includes the transfer of information from Christopher Steele to the FBI with Bruce Ohr of the DoJ as the middleman. Ohr was acting as the middleman after the FBI fired Steele, and during Trump's presidency. I'm not sure from a first listen whether the FBI was asking / welcoming Ohr to be the middleman, or whether Ohr (may be considered the FBI's boss) forced Steele's messages upon the FBI (by order of Obama?) in order to make the FBI act in a certain way. Hannity has the story:

One way to interpret this story is that the FBI fired Steele as a ruse, because he was a loose-canon, hot potato. Yet they kept in touch for to continue the anti-Trump plot. It is terrible for the FBI to have been in contact with Steele because he represented a "product" purchased by Hillary Clinton, and the FBI knew it by then. But the same guilt to the FBI for this goes to the DoJ, does it not?

This video below is better than the Hannity one. Take special note on the details starting in minute two:

The conversation between Steele and Ohr shows that they were conspiring together, and Steele seemed to know that Ohr might get knocked out of the DoJ. Steele begs him to provide another middleman if he gets knocked out. Steele was passionate in accomplishing this task, whatever it was. "If you end up out though, I really need another (bureau?) contact point/number who is briefed. We can’t allow our guy to be forced to go back home. It would be disastrous." Looks like Republicans are going to seek the meaning of this mystery guy. It sounds as though Steele took upon himself to protect some man from being removed from a position of importance to Steele and Ohr's discussion. It's going to be hard for the two to lie about who this "guy" is if "go back home" and "disastrous" doesn't fit his life at the time.

There is now no doubt that the Obama government was involved in sedition. This presses Rosenstein to charge the FBI. But Rosensteins has known all this and more, yet he's failed to act until now. Poor Rosenstein, he looks mighty bad at this point. We knew this was coming, no thanks to Trump, so far as we know.

How will the liberal media spin this successfully? It is predictable that the media will be hurt by this as people see it trying to squirm out of the real story. This story comes out just as the media is blasting Trump about a little-bitty meeting of his son with some Russian cons (arranged by DNC / Hillary to frame Trump) concerning a promise to get Trump some dirt on Hillary (it never came), and here we have a gigantic story on Hillary trying to get dirt on Trump that involved Russian liars on Clinton's behalf. Will the media show outrage for Obama's justice department? If not, deeper down the tubes it will go. Perfect.

More bad news for the mobsters from Judicial Watch:

There is word early this week from WikiLeaks that the United States congress has invited Julian Assange to tell what he knows concerning Russia issues, in a closed-door meeting. Very interesting. Jeff Sessions, an imp, says that Assange is a priority. He wants Assange jailed for less than Hillary's guilt. Sessions, an imp, has known the seditious acts of several police people under Obama, and yet Sessions, an imp, wants Assange instead, who has little bearing on ruining the country. Therefore, Sessions is the ruin of the country. Allowing the Hillary circle to go unscathed is the ruin of the nation. Jeff Sessions, he just looks impish these days.

Under questioning from Jim Jordan not long ago, Strzok admitted that Bruce Ohr fed the FBI the Steele dossier, though Strzok said that it wasn't given directly to him, meaning that Ohr gave it to either McCabe or Comey, we may assume. If Ohr didn't give it to McCabe or Comey (top two FBI guys), then it seems underhanded all-the-more, as though Ohr was trying to sneak this anti-Trump smear campaign to Strzok through the latter's underling.

The time frame of Orh's acting as a middleman is during the FISA applications, one of which Comey signed. There can be no doubt that Comey was aware of Steele's involvement with the FBI even prior to the election of Trump, and the great thing is, Steele is not an American so that there cannot be any other reason for his relationship with the FBI but to advance the anti-Trump smear campaign. The FBI is forbidden to participate in this sort of politics, but when the FBI continued to do the same after January 20, it falls under sedition, a serious crime. It is imperative that Trump works to severely punish this, to send the other criminals a strong message as a deterrent in the future. Leave the corruption in North Korea alone, Mr. president, and deal with the much-worse in your own government. Otherwise, you are a sorry pick for the throne at this time.

The scandal here is not merely the Democrats and the FBI acting together to thwart Trump, but is more shocking in the cover-up still going on SUCCESSFULLY. Just think of it: a Republican Attorney General is now refusing to thwart the cover-up. It's one thing for the FBI to abuse its power in an effort to install a Clinton presidency, but when the better part of the Republican congress and the Attorney General chosen by Trump together play on behalf of the FBI, something is seriously demonic in the American government.

This new data is compliments of the House Republicans as per their obtaining some Ohr emails. Here's one exchange (January 27, 2017) suggesting that "our guy" works with Ohr, either in the DoJ, or at Fusion GPS. Note that Steele takes precautions in case anyone on the outside lifts the email or comes to view it by some other method:

: Steele: Hi B! Our guy’s OK for the time being but I would like to keep our channel open on him and his situation if that’s all right? Many thanks for your support and Best wishes.

Ohr: Understood. We will be available if needed. Just let me know.

"Our guy" can be either closer to Steele or to Bruce Ohr. Nothing in that exchange reveals which. If the guy is part of Ohr's "we," then he appears to be closer to Ohr. By appearances, the guy seems to be in trouble, and Steele merely wants to know what might happen to him. On the other hand, Ohr responds like one whose making his services available to Steele's plot with the guy. Just four days later, Steele comes on again on the same topic, only now he implicates Ohr with the "Bureau" = the FBI:

Steele: B, doubtless a sad and crazy day for you-SY {Sally Yates}. Just wanted to check you are OK, still in situ and able to help locally as discussed, along with your Bureau colleagues, with our guy if the need arises? Many Thanks and Best as Always, C

Ohr: Yes, a crazy day. I’m still here and able to help as discussed. I’ll let you know if that changes. Thanks!

Steele: Thanks. You have my sympathy and support. If you end up out though, I really need another (Bureau?) contact point/number who is briefed. We can’t allow our guy to be forced to go back home. It would be disastrous all round, though his position now looks stable. A million thanks. C

Ohr: Understood. I can certainly give you an FBI contact if it becomes necessary.

Steele is worried, apparently, that Ohr might not be available for some part of a plot with the guy. When Ohr signs off with "Thanks!," it's as though Steele is doing him a favor. They are clearly conspiring and saying as little as possible. It seems that Steele is taking it upon himself to keep the guy from going "back home." If "Bureau?" in the brackets was Steele's rather than the one who supplied the article, it seems that Steele wanted an FBI person, rather than another DoJ person, to keep the guy from going back home. Is he a foreigner? A Russian? Was he in the U.S. at the time?

It seems that Ohr was helping Steele to keep the guy from going back home, and that in Ohr's absence from the DoJ, Steele wanted one of the partners in the scheme at the FBI to continue the plot. They wanted the guy to remain where he was in case he's needed, but as the plot would have been a disaster if he was forced home, it seems that it was pretty-much a solid expectation that they would need him.

The Republicans have already called Ohr and his wife to appear for questioning on this matter. It would be wrong to keep these goings-on secret from the public.

Who do we think Ohr had at the FBI that was privy to the attack-Trump scheme? Was Strzok the one he had in mind? Steele, Strzok and Page were implied in the Obama dream that God gave me roughly in the middle of the 1st update in February, 2017, or roughly February 4th, just a few days after the January-31 exchange above. In early March, Chuck Grassley wrote to Comey:

Dear Director Comey:

On February 28, 2017, the Washington Post reported that the FBI reached an agreement a few weeks before the Presidential election to pay...Christopher Steele, to continue investigating Mr. Trump. The article claimed that the FBI was aware Mr. Steele was creating these memos as part of work for an opposition research firm connected to Hillary Clinton. The idea that the FBI and associates of the Clinton campaign would pay Mr. Steele to investigate the Republican nominee for President in the run-up to the election raises further questions about the FBI’s independence from politics, as well as the Obama administration’s use of law enforcement and intelligence agencies for political ends. It is additionally troubling that the FBI reportedly agreed to such an arrangement given that, in January of 2017, then-Director Clapper issued a statement stating that “the IC [Intelligence Community] has not made any judgment that the information in this document is reliable, and we did not rely upon it in any way for our conclusions.” According to the Washington Post, the FBI’s arrangement with Mr. Steele fell through when the media published his dossier and revealed his identity.’s

That's how Steele became a hot potato too hot for the FBI to touch, and yet the FBI continued secret talks with Steele, we now know. Bad, very bad. On March 7, the day after Grassley's letter to Comey (how did Steele learn of this letter so soon?):

Steele: Would it be possible to speak later today please? We’re very concerned by the Grassley letter and it’s possible implications for us, our operations and our sources. We need some reassurance. Many thanks

Ohr: Sure: Would 130 today, DC time. work?

Steele: Yes thanks it would. Sorry to bother you so early but I know you’ll appreciate why we are concerned.

If there had been any doubt as to what Steele and Ohr were talking about a few weeks earlier, this about certifies what it was.

: The Ohr-Steele quotes are from the page below, where the theory is presented that "our guy" is Julian Assange. I don't see how that can work, but I will recommend that you read this article to see that Waldman, who was Steele's lawyer, had become Assange's lawyer too (not really, but they were talking) in a bid to keep him quiet on who leaked the DNC emails. Waldman and Assange were meeting in January roughly in the period of the Ohr-Steele quotes above, and in two or more Waldman emails, Assange is the "other guy." But I still don't see how Assange could become "our guy" with Steele, unless Waldman was able to get Assange firmly on side with the Democrats. On the page below, Waldman is said to have spoken with Ohr of February 3, which may have been the night of the Obama dream, which had a paper plane. The last, or second last, tweet from Assange was on New Years Eve (2017-18), titled, Paper Planes.

If Assange is "our guy," it can explain the rumor that he's been invited to speak to congress. If he is our guy, "go back home" makes not much sense. Where would home be from the Ecuadorian embassy in London? He wasn't slated to go back anywhere at the time, so far as we know.

I can't recall reading whether Comey signed the original FISA warrant in October, 2016, or the first extension needed in late January, smack at the time of the Ohr-Steele quotes above. Comey and crew were using the Steele dossier to assure success with the warrants. It's possible that a foreign witness might have been needed in order to secure the extension.

Mark Meadows claimed this past week that "Chris Steele was secretly funneling information [italics mine] to the FBI in 2017 through senior DOJ official, Bruce Ohr." I can see that the FBI needed some help in the application. I don't know whether it had been granted by January 31.

However, the idea that Steele was funneling information to the FBI is not at all vivid in the quotes above. Why do we not have more quotes? Is this a carefully-crafted theater by the Republicans, to allow only this much to leak? Where's the continuation of this dialogue? Why the suspense? Are we mere dogs? A biscuit here, a biscuit there. A biscuit, good for a couple of weeks of media attention, then another biscuit, and on and on it goes. Where's the rest of the correspondence?

Gowdy said this week that he may have been the first to read these Ohr-Steele messages last fall. Why were they not leaked sooner? Does Gowdy think it's necessary to keep such a thing from the public based on some gag-order technicality respected only be leaky-pants Democrats? They no longer deserve respect, especially when it comes to leaks. They leak lies, and so Gowdy had every right to leak truth. What is his problem, do we think? Gowdy says this week that he wants to talk to Bruce Ohr. NOW!? A year after you read these texts do you want to talk to Ohr?!?! Is this some sort of mad theater? Is there a media script that the masters all go by?

Gowdy says that the DoJ is refusing to allow Ohr and others to answer questions of Oversight. This is madness. Sessions remains the idiot, Rosenstein runs the country, because Trump stays out of it. Gowdy and the rest never call Trump out on his looking more and more the idiot, and madness is the result. The gangsters are loving it. They envision the Great Escape. It's not time to question Ohr; it's time to arrest him. If that means Rosenstein needs to go, then hurry it the hell up. For a long time, Trump voters have been blaming the RINO's for this stalemate, but in fact this is Trump's fault.

No other issue can get Trump more voters than exposing this scandal. If it sets the RINO's against him for future legislative would-be partnerships, so be it, because no other issue is as important as this one. Yet Trump remains cool, aloof. It's what an idiot does when the fort is burning all around. Instead of using the water to put out the flames, he's watering his own roots. Month after month, he's disgusting. Look at me, how wonderful I am running the country. Meanwhile criminals are permitted to operate under his nose in efforts to re-take all the horns of power.

I don't want to fire Mueller because I don't want to lose the election. I don't want to fire Rosenstein because I don't want to lose the election. I don't want to replace Sessions and Wray because CNN will beat me up. I don't want to declassify the FBI scandal because the Democrats will beat me up, and I might then lose the election. How can a puny make America great?

It would be nice to see Devin Nunes take more command, but Trump won't give him the ticket. Everything Nunes wants to accomplish will wildly help Trump's exoneration, but Trump is afraid of losing the election, and so snubs Nunes. What farce is Trump? His wife should be ashamed. What did I marry? A tough-talking kitten? The roar has turned out to be a meow. I want a real man.

The voters are sick of listening to an endless repetition of this scandal's news. There has been little-to-no progress in the revelations because Trump has assured it. Trump has been the problem. And revelations are not nearly sufficient because nothing short of a dozen or two prosecutions are in order.

Trump's missing celebrational tweets this week on the latest revelations can be explained where the latter apply more pressure on him to declassify the scandal. He seems to be hoping that the voters won't hear about this latest material. Moreover, they expect their president to be knowledgeably on top of this scandal by as much as the documents can reveal about it, and the worse the facts become in public disclosures, the worse he looks for not revealing the facts to them. You knew that the FBI was plotting with Steele into 2017, during your presidency, but you never told us??? His wife should give him a hard slap to the face. How dare you, whack! Now get out there and tell your voters all that's been happening.

Indeed, Trump acts as though he learns of things only when they appear in the media. He's the president, you dim-dull voters. He was supposed to have all the papers read to him at daily briefings. He was supposed to get very acquainted with the scandal so that he could deal with it. Instead, he acts like he knows nothing about it more than you do. Farce. Tom Fitton, excellent, for he's calling the president to declassify.

Sekulow was on Fox this week, and he mentioned the Ohr-Steele texts. And he said that "not a day goes by" when he and Trump don't speak about the jailed pastor in Turkey. In other words, they do speak regularly. But what's Sekulow's advice to Trump on declassification of the scandal? I have no idea. He's been back to Fox for a short time only, and, perhaps, he will talk about this soon. He probably doesn't want to get on the president's bad side. That's how I read him. There is nothing praiseworthy about submitting to a meow policy when the gangsters want you to do nothing more than meow. Melania, give him a good Slovakian whack for me too.

Someone leaked a tape of Nunes without his permission while he gave a Republican pep-talk. It's no big deal to give a pep talk, but the leftist media is out giving it their typical spin:

As you can see, the leftist speaker wants to use Nunes' use of "timing" against him, as though it's a cheap thing. In reality, Nunes was lamenting that the time is not yet right to impeach Rosenstein, due to certain bad apples who would become reckless with spite against Trump's latest pick for the supreme court. Nunes sounds like a leader because he is a leader. This news leak by Nunes' enemy serves to show how bad apples work, yet Trump refuses to "leak" the scandals that would put Nunes in the driver's seat of a fiery rocket. As a result, Nunes must spin his wheels in mud, going nowhere. It's amazing how the left condemns Nunes for absolutely zero wrong while it ignores the gigantic FBI scandal. Nunes is in a position to unleash this scandal, just as soon as Trump's voters get off of his nipple, and whack him in the face until he declassifies. It's obscene to me how his voters suck up to this nothing.

All the leftist comments at the video above are accusing Nunes of obstruction of justice. Is this what Trump's afraid of, merely this false charge? Is this why Trump won't get rid of Rosenstein? Doesn't Trump have a backhand of his own? He won the presidency while they all falsely accused him, and now he's afraid to do anything right for fear of the same wasteland swamp? Why did he become the leader if he's too afraid to lead? Here's a go-easy idea. Fire Rosenstein, but promise to replace him with someone who will allow Mueller to continue. It's a solution to de-claw the Democrats, and it may even be a win-win, for the longer Mueller's "probe" goes on, the better for the Republicans, by the looks of it thus far.

Mueller has started to look like a hypocrite for ignoring the real Russia story, and it's looking dismal for him if he was thinking to fabricate a false charge against Trump, for those who would set up that fabrication are in dire trouble. An example of a backhand is to declassify the scandals, all of them, so that no one but the senseless and the smear-happy animals will take the anti-Trump plotters seriously. These plotters are the same who are responsible for the scandals. The Republicans have all but won this war, yet Trump is refusing to lead the attack. With Nunes trying to lead the attack, he's naturally been betrayed by a leaker. The gangsters strike again. Jim Jordan knows all about the smear-happy animals. Time for a backhand, Mr. Trump, or the gangsters will make Nunes into a backfire. You need to turn his crank. You need to light his fuse, let him fly.

On this page, read from the bottom up to see the Ohrs getting together with Steele. In the end, after they discuss things over breakfast, Steele texts Ohr to say that Glenn, master of Fusion GPS on behalf of Hillary Clinton, would be happy to talk further with him. It's an invitation, perhaps the first one, to Obama's DoJ to participate with Hillary's attack-animal program. It's a government crime because Mrs. Ohr, an employee of Fusion GPS, was tasked with finding Russian dirt on Trump at the paid direction of Hillary Clinton. Can you believe this? Only a dope would deny the anti-democratic, self-serving, criminal scandal here. A Brit was granted a free pass into the American DoJ for to meddle criminally in the election, and Trump is afraid of a media that supports this??? I'm ashamed of this president.

We now know that Trump knew all along that there was nothing to fear because crimes can be proven. No one in their right mind will accuse Trump of wrong-doing for exposing this criminality. The leftist media will appear ridiculous accusing the president of serving self while it ignores the criminal meddling into an election. It would be ever-so-juicy if "our guy" turns out to be a Russian, especially if he did play a part in the election meddling. Trump has a built-in excuse for exposing the scandal because it exonerates him. He has every right to use government documents to exonerate himself against the Rosenstein-Mueller probe that the left has used incessantly to slaughter him. If the documents he reveals are scandalous, the left would dig its own grave to emphasize something besides the scandals. That would make this a political and moral win-win-win. But Trump won't do it.

The left continues to pummel his voters, and they continue to stand for him, but Trump won't deliver the death blow on their behalf.

Late on August 10, I checked all of Trump's tweets. He had nothing to say about this Ohr-Steele back-and-forth, out days ago [update, he finally did a tweet on August 11]. Pressure is building for him to step in and help, but he doesn't want to. What a disturbing fake. He has everything going his way at this time, and still he refuses to act. In fact, McCabe has decided to sue the DoJ / FBI for wrongful treatment, which promises to make disclosures about Comey that should boost Trump's position even more. Law suits allow the plaintiffs to secure documents from the other side in efforts to prove innocence, and while Trump has the ability at all times to obtain documents, without court proceedings, to exonerate himself, he would have us believe that his people have failed to obtain them.

It's like the odds are as high as 50-50 on whether he will declassify, and then he will probably declassify as little as possible because he doesn't want to make political waves for the time that he's in Office. Failing to declassify all the guilt will allow the guilty to go unpunished, which is virtually identical to the granting of an underground survival of the plotters until a better day arrives. He has the opportunity to kill the root at this time, but is happier to only pull off a few leaves to give appearances of doing the kill. The weeds need a roundup at this time, but Trump is using mere salt water for a faked weed kill. The obscenity of Trump's attitude is due to the glaring opportunity that has presented itself, in his court, to do a major kill at this time. He has wasted months and months already, and not only is his time limited, but the near future may see this opportunity slip away.

Decades of successful criminal evolution could be crippled at this time all the way to the CIA, but Trump has been more a fellow fink in their tunnels than a hound dog smelling out their holes. He fired Jim Comey. Big deal. The root will put up a new leaf in no time at all. And Trump himself replaced Comey with a weed leaf to begin with. It will be interesting to watch this leaf, and the Sessions leaf, as McCabe is prosecuted. Note that he's being charged merely with lying to his authority. A slap on the wrist is the expectation. But what will these two do now that McCabe is counter-suing them? Cave?

Here's president Fake's tweet this week: "Why isn’t the FBI giving Andrew McCabe text messages to Judicial Watch or appropriate governmental authorities?" Why doesn't Trump just demand the papers himself, and then hand them over to JW and congress??? Because, he's only pretending to be concerned. Another tweet: "FBI said they won’t give up even one (I may have to get involved, DO NOT DESTROY). What are they hiding? McCabe wife took big campaign dollars from Hillary people....." There you go, he admits that he can get the papers himself, but he's months and months late. He has allowed his enemies to position themselves as best they can to win this war. Had he acted a year ago, they would have run into the hills. His voters would have formed a posse to go finish them off.

He admits that his guy, Wray, refuses to hand over the papers, and even though this is the crime of obstruction, Trump allows it to re-occur. In a way, a re-occurring crime can be good (bad for them, good for us), only if they ever get prosecuted. No one's going to prosecute Wray or Sessions for not handing over these papers. The president is very conscious that more time allows them to destroy the damning papers, and what does he do? Gives them more time. Why would anyone want a leader like this? This is no leader. This is a big mistake.

Did you notice that Trump steered clear of mentioning McCabe as part of the Ohr-Steele plot? I noticed. Trump is like a CIA-run but faked anti-CIA org that speaks against the CIA only in ways that others have already done, but never, of course, introduce new dirt. Trump always repeats what's already known in the media, but does not work to get us new details. The impression is that he doesn't want to cross Intelligence. He's acting as a fellow fink, therefore. He's acting as their best friend at this time.

It seems that Mrs. Ohr was not working for Fusion for any other reason than Steele and Ohr having already being in cahoots in the first place. If I recall correctly, she was hired in the summer of 2016, and the Ohr-Steele breakfast above was on July 29 of that year. The Clinton election machine hired Fusion in April of that year, and Fusion then hired Steele. One may assume that Steele and Ohr were put together before Mrs. Ohr was hired by Fusion, and since her dirty-dog job was identical (for all intents and purposes) to Steele's job, they had a ready-made, super relationship. When Steele wrote the Ohrs on July 29, inviting them to speak with Fusion's boss, Glenn Simson, they may not have met him before. This invitation may have led to Mrs. Ohr's new and unique job, a criminal offense round-about by her marriage to Mr. Ohr, but masked by the left as a justified investigation. It's justified only if Ohr's department had sufficient reason to spy on Trump, but taking Steele's word on Trump's sins was not good enough. Ohr's pro-Hillary bosses were not legally permitted to combine political trash with official DoJ business.

There is a question as to why Mr. Ohr was brought into the Steele-Fusion plot to begin with. Was it purely to connect the plot with the FBI (it's under DoJ authority)? Why? Was it solely to get spy powers on the Trump campaign? Makes sense. At that time, the task was not to arrest Trump, but only to defeat him in the election. On the other hand, plots may have been swung from that time as an insurance policy, for lack of a better phrase, in case Trump did win.

In other words, as I feel sure that Intelligence has secret spy powers so that official requests to FISA are unnecessary, it appears to me that the FISA application (on Carter Page) was the insurance policy in that Carter Page was an Intelligence mole. Through the leaking of critical details in the FISA application, the FBI would try to frame Trump as colluding with Russian government. If I recall correctly, the FISA warrant was leaked in January, the month that Trump took office.

From the Gateway Pundit:

We also reported that according to ABC News in March 2017:

More than a thousand applications for electronic surveillance, all signed by the attorney general, are submitted each year, and the vast majority are approved. From 2009 to 2015, for example, more than 10,700 applications for electronic surveillance were submitted, and only one was denied in its entirety, according to annual reports sent to Congress. Another one was denied in part, and 17 were withdrawn by the government.

A very disturbing fact about the wire tapping request of President Trump is that the FISA Court turned down President Obama’s Administration’s first request to wire tap President Trump that was evidently signed off on by Attorney General Lynch.

With only two known applications denied out of 10,700 from 2009 through 2015, the fact that the Obama Administration’s application was denied by the FISA Court is very disturbing [excellent point]. The odds of this happening were 0.02%.

We also know from information released on Friday by the House Intelligence Committee that the Obama administration then went back to the FISA court in September 2016 with the bogus Russia dossier attached to their request to give their request some additional “support”.

...Later, after Donald Trump won the presidency, Deputy Director of the FBI, Andrew McCabe, testified to Congress that the FISA court request would never have been approved without the dossier...

Trump said that Obama's people spied on him at Trump Tower, which probably has nothing to do with the permitted stipulations of the FISA warrant. Like I said, the deep state has secret spy systems as the preferred methods for doing illegal, political-spy work.

In more detail: "The FBI allegedly tried to obtain a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court order to surveil four of Trump’s associates during the summer. 'The FISA court turned down the application asking FBI counter-intelligence investigators to narrow its focus,' the Guardian reported." The original appears not to be about Carter Page, and was early enough (I've read June/July) to be used merely to defeat Trump's bid, i.e. not intended to attack him after he was the president. But the first application to be granted was so late, about two weeks before the election, that it can be regarded as a plot to take Trump down as president. It therefore makes sense that Carter Page was paid to be a mole in Trump's campaign. Whether that's true, I can't know for sure, but the theory remains entertained.

Some have said that Steele and the FBI were already talking in July, before the Steele-Ohr breakfast. In other words, Steele was already hired by Hillary, and in cahoots with the FBI, when the rejected FISA application was tabled. I'm not sure, but I assume that the FBI tabled that application. Just look at that assault. We all felt sorry for the victim, but since then he's proven to be a fellow fink of sorts, because he needs Intelligence to go soft on him, and to support his endeavors. Good luck, dreamer. If you don't tear down and rebuild the CIA and National Intelligence, they will never become your buddies.

Russia Today has a copy of the invitation of the Senate to Julian Assange:

On Friday, Strzok was fired from the FBI. What took Wray so long? Why did he seek to protect Strzok, only to cave now as the scandal gets red-hot? Doesn't that make Wray look like he's the one needing to be fired? Yes, it does, whether or not he's the one who initiated the firing. Feasibly, it may have been Jeff Sessions. Fox doesn't have the details as of 11:30 Monday morning.

See below how John Kelly takes things into his own hands. He may have fired Omarosa because she was an asset to Trump. I still hold out that Kelly wants Trump crippled on behalf of the deep state:

NBC’s “Today” on Monday morning then aired the recording she made of a phone call with Trump shortly after she was terminated.

“Omarosa what’s going on? I just saw in the news that you’re thinking about leaving. What happened?” Trump asks on the recording.

“General Kelly came to me and said that you guys wanted me to leave,” Omarosa responds.

“No. Nobody ever told me about it,” Trump replies.

“Wow,” Omarosa says.

“You know, they run a big operation, but I didn’t know it,” Trump was recorded as saying.

Careful here, because Omarosa and Kelly may have been working together to trounce Trump yet again. Anything's possible in Chaos spyland. But for the time being, it looks like Omarosa and Kelly were not working together, for she's attacking Kelly's integrity. Trump has decidedly taken Kelly's side in this, to date, and has insulted Omarosa so badly publicly that it's doubtful he can reverse course to take her side.

Was Kelly being overly picky in firing her? That is, did Kelly need to dredge up an excuse because he wanted her gone for some other reason that didn't justify a firing? "But according to the new report, White House Chief of Staff John Kelly dismissed her for using the 'CARPET' car service for 'office pick-up and drop-off service,' something Politico said is 'strictly forbidden by the federal government.'" Wow, that does sound like a cheap reason to fire someone. Yet, she hasn't shown much morality since being fired.


For Some Prophetic Proof for Jesus as the Predicted Son of God

If you are stuck with dial-up service, using the Opera browser can help.
It has an Opera Turbo program (free with the free browser) that speeds download time.
Go into Opera's Settings, then click on "Browser"; you'll find the on/off Turbo button in there.

Table of Contents

web site analytic