Previous Update

Updates Index

(if there are any to speak of)

August 21 - 27, 2018

Something's Wrong with Commerce Street at the JFK Assassination
My First Delve Into the Book Of Enoch
There's a Paste Box in Zapruder's JFK-Assassination Film

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.


In the last update, I revisited Lorraine "the babe." I didn't tell readers why I did so, and I included a some background material for the purpose. The reason I went back to that topic, I thought, was that "babe" and her foot symbol suddenly caused me to realize that God set her up in my life, in conjunction with a white-rabbit theme, to point to pedophilia and child-sex trafficking, especially pedophilia by the Podesta brothers. By all means, read the last update's section, "Bedwetters and Podesta White Rabbit", near the top of the update. I'm not going to repeat it here.

One of the things I claimed to readers was that the white-rabbit theme, and the bra, was Intended by God to point to Donna Brazile. I know of no other girdle in heraldry -- and I know a lot of heraldry -- other than the one used by Braswells. Wikipedia says that Donna Brazile's ancestry was in Mr. BRAswell. The bra on the laundry line, which God connected to Lorraine, in my opinion, was predicted to include something on Donna Brazile in her role as the temporary chief of the Democratic National Committee, especially in the murder of Seth Rich.

On Monday evening, the day the last update was out, youtube fed me a video suggestion (right margin list) from White Rabbit News. It never does that. I may have loaded White Rabbit News months ago when God verified that white rabbits are very important to what He's up to through me. So I loaded the video less than two hours ago as I write, and discovered Matt Couch saying that he has a reliable source who told him that Donna Brazile was at a hospital at the same time, or shortly after, as Seth Rich, on the night he was murdered there for stealing DNC records and transferring them to WikiLeaks.

The White Rabbit News video also includes a pedophile theme, can we believe it, as per Bill Clinton raping a boy. The story concerns Jenny Moore, a journalist, reportedly found dead little more than a week ago (August 12), though I have my doubts that she's dead because this smells of fear tactics by the Clinton crime ring. She was investigating child trafficking and Bill Clinton, as the report goes. In a Facebook page, however, instead of using a photo of Jenny Moore, they used the photo of Matt Couch's wife. This is bizarre, and Matt wants to sue because he feels that this is a direct death threat round-about. The seriousness of this issue, unless it's one grand trick, suggests that Matt is telling the truth with the claim on Donna Brazile. Here's the video:

I don't like to be the herald of sick news, but what choice do I have? As the story goes, Jenny Moore spoke with a victim of box sex, with Bill Clinton as the fiend, and she contacted Homeland Security (big mistake) for to report the victim's testimony. James Munder shares an article (by Investigative Bureau) claiming that there are records showing that Moore contacted HS between July 6-9. Can this be true? They say she filed the same complaint with the FBI (can be a big mistake). Wasn't Seth Rich murdered on July 10 (2016)?

Jenny Moore is said to be a friend of George Webb. The latter has shown me evidence of being a fake anti-deep-state operator working in reality for the dark side. White Rabbit News has at least a few videos on child sex issues in the news, if you can stomach this topic.

I have told the following story multiple times, but need to repeat it. After the white-rabbit event in my youth came to mind and to topic in these updates (see last update for that), I found White Rabbit youtube owner (not White Rabbit News) who released about 29,000 Clinton emails. I thought this was relevant because my own white-rabbit theme was looking like God's work of the Clinton crime ring.

Shortly after finding White Rabbit (I don't think I was looking for him), a friend called and said he'd like to visit. He had purchased a white Volkswagen days before, and so we went for a drive, at which time I was telling him about White Rabbit. And he then told me that his white Volkswagen is a Rabbit model, which I didn't know. When we got out of the car, I noticed a white-rabbit logo on the floor MAT. The reason I'm re-telling this is because White Rabbit News has a video on Bunny Ears, featuring MATT Cohen. I'm just providing the possibilities for what God may want me say.

Just found this video where White Rabbit has found, by the looks of it, Obama's relative in a most-unlikely place, a Subud cult to which Obama's mother belonged or was acquainted. This video is mainly about Obama's murder of an innocent American, though if it wasn't Obama, it was one of his supporters:

In the last update while discussing Podesta's wet works, I didn't know that WikiLeaks had revealed the following email exchange between Podesta and Chris Stone, on the day Scalia died. The Subject of the email is: "Scalia replacement": a

I've just watched a video telling that Poindexter's ranch (where Scalia was murdered) was co-owned by C. Allen Foster, who was not only with Poindexter, in Washington, when Scalia was at first invited to the ranch by Poindexter (according to Poindexter), but, according to Poindexter, was the one who convinced Scalia to go once he showed signs of not accepting the offer. And it's known that Foster flew with Scalia down to Texas, where the judge left his security men. There must have been one large plot to get him to leave the men there.

Allen Foster is an honorable member of the International Order of St. Hubertus. Known as a close friend of Antonin Scalia, Foster provided the late Supreme Court Justice a private jet to the Cibolo Creek Ranch meeting of the Order, where Scalia was last seen alive. Presidio County, Texas sheriff Danny Dominguez reported that Foster and the other members of the order insisted he had no authority in conducting an investigation of Antonin Scalia's death on February 12, 2016 (Wikipedia).

I'm watching a video where Scalia is himself accused of being a pedophile. Sometimes, I think there are people pushing pedophilia too far. This video says that Foster was a leader of the Hubertus group.

Here's from Associated Press:

When the body of the 79-year-old Scalia was found Feb. 13 in his bed at the Cibolo Creek Ranch, ranch owner John Poindexter was initially vague when reporting the death to authorities, the report said.

Presidio County Sheriff Danny Dominguez complained that he was delayed in responding because Poindexter would not reveal during a phone call who had died.

“I then advised Poindexter that a death reported in Presidio County was under my jurisdiction and that it should be reported to my office,” Dominguez wrote. “He then stated to me that this death was way beyond my authority and that it should go to the Feds.”

After a series of phone calls, Dominguez met U.S. marshals at the ranch near Marfa, about 190 miles southeast of El Paso, where they were taken to Scalia’s room. They found the jurist face-up in his bed, with sheets pulled to his chin and his hands at his side.

...Poindexter told the San Antonio Express-News that Scalia was found in his bed with “a pillow over his head,” a comment that seems to have generated theories that Scalia was attacked and possibly suffocated.

The theories were abetted by leading Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump.

“They say they found the pillow on his face, which is a pretty unusual place to find a pillow,” Trump told a talk radio host Feb. 15.

Now that he's the president, and even after replacing Scalia, Trump, so far as I know, hasn't even mentioned the word, "Scalia." Never mind his murder, Trump appears to be thinking. I have another election to win.

So, Poindexter didn't want to tell the sheriff who had died, and he wanted the FBI to handle the case instead. Sounds like a conspiracy to me, especially from what Trump now knows about the politicization of the FBI under Obama. It's a no-brainer that the social engineering of Obamaites needed Scalia off the court extremely badly.

God gave me an event at age five. The kid next door came walking around the corner of my porch while I stood on the railing taking a pee. He got the "golden shower" on the head, and, when he looked up with his mouth open, it went right down the center. He fled. I never saw him again, so far as I can recall. I cannot ever remember playing with this boy, nor ever being at his house, except once. All I can remember was a man at his garage showing me a hunting rifle. I assume now that it was a hunting rifle due to the great likeliness, for what else can it be regarded as St. Hubertus is specifically a hunting group. Poindexter is himself a member, probably a leader.

Poindexter was at least one of the Hubertus members who forced the situation out of the sheriff's hands. The latter did not create a crime scene, which should be automatic in the death of a supreme-court judge. The FBI failed in this matter too, of course. At the time of Scalia's death (mid-February, 2016), Hillary was gearing up for the Fusion-GPS crime against Trump. As this crime went on, she began to believe that she would be replacing Scalia. This was a huge deal for the Democrat party. It's a large reason that it was so crushed at heart by Trump's victory.

The video (Fincastle Underground) that wants to portray Scalia as a pedophile says that Hubertus is "tied to Red Circle, which is pedophilic in nature." No evidence is provided for this link. It goes on to share a story where a 13-year old boy slit Scalia's throat at the ranch when Scalia was preparing him for sex. But isn't this a story fabricated by the murderers, to frame in our minds a scenario that deflects away from the hunting group? The owner of this video seems very open to accepting stories like this without the proper evidence, and even paints Reagan and Bush as engaging pedophilia. There are men who accused Scalia of sex acts with them, exactly the sort of story to be expected by the corrupt Democrats wanting him out of power.

At the same age roughly where I pee'd on the neighbor, I remember sliding down the stairs = SCALA on my belly more than once. Later in life, my mother told me that I drank turpentine that was sitting on those stairs. Why did she bother to point out that it was on the stairs? All she said was that I drank it, and was brought to the hospital. Wondering whether God was using that event to point to surnames (as often is the case in special events He set me up with), I looked up the Turpen surname. It has a version of the Rodden/RODHAM surname, but is a better reflection yet of the Aid surname.

The Aid surname was first found in Berwickshire with AITons/Artems, which I trace to ARTEMidoros, a king of Galatia. Galatians are expected from the transvestite Galli priests of the Kabeiri cult. Galatians lived in Phrygia, and the sun god of Phrygia, Attis, had a PINE symbol. The neighbor who I pee'd on was, PINO. I remember his name even though I don't remember playing with him. And I drank turpentine, which is the resin of PINE trees. Attis was the god of the Kabeiri, a cult closely linked to Ares, father of Eros (Cupid to Romans), a child-sex cult.

The Kabeiri had a center in Thebes, which was in Boiotia with mythical Orion, the latter being the mythical hunter and named after "urine." Boiotia is beside Attica, suspect with "Attis." The goddess of hunters was ARTEMis, after whom Artemidoros was likely named. The mother of Plancia Magna was a priestess for an Artemis temple in Perga, and while I trace "Perga" to the Perkins surname without doubt, Hillary Rodham Clinton hired Perkins Coie in her Fusion-GPS crime against Trump.

The Perkin surname comes up as "Parking," and then there was a parking lot in a sleeping-bag dream I was given that pointed immediately (that same morning) to Poindexter's Hubertus cult. I crossed a ROAD before enter the parking LOT, and the Lot surname shares the brown dog of Lothians, who happen to use a pine tree and a HUNTING HORN. The Horn/Orne / Heron surnames are from "Orion." The Foster surname, first found in Northumberland with Roddens/Rodhams, not only uses hunting horns, but a motto, "Hunter blow thy horn." And, believe it or not, the Foster hunting horns are black with gold stripes, as with the Lothian hunting horn.

TurpenTINE. The Tine/Tyne surname is expected from the namers of the Tyne rivers. One flows in Northumberland, and the other starts in Lothian.

The Foster surname is also "Forrest," that the sleeping bag, in the dream, was picked up by me in a forest. I awoke that morning (April 2017) from sleeping under a black sleeping bag with a red stripe down one side only, and if I recall correctly, it was that very morning when I loaded, for the first time, an online photo of the Hubertus cult, where all the members have black robes with the red lining showing down one side only, like a long stripe, as with my sleeping bag. Here's the group photo (December 2013) that I first came across (second update of April 2017) at a website

Poindexter is the tall man in the front row beside the small man. If Foster is in the photo, I don't know where, and haven't checked. The motto of the cult includes, "aniMALIA," and Melia was the honey goddess of Boiotia, very linkable to Artemis of Ephesus' honey / bee cult (called, Essenes) because Pandareus of Ephesus was father to Aedon of Boiotia, all from Merops of Kos, an island near Rhodes.

Myth writers made Ares the special mate of Aphrodite, official wife of Hephaestus, leader of the Kabeiri cult. "HEPHAEStus" looks like code for "Ephesus." I identify "Ares" with "Hros / Horus," and therefore with the proto-Rus that included such terms as Rhodes and the Rodden/RODHAM surname.

Ares elements are also expected to form terms such as, rosen. "Turpentine is the volatile oil distilled from pine resin, which itself is obtained by tapping trees of the genus Pinus. The solid material left behind after distillation is known as rosin." Cupid is celebrated at February 14, and Scalia died the night of February 12/13. The possibility is, therefore, that Scalia was killed by child-sex goons in the Hubertus cult.

If my drinking turpentine from the stairs is code for Scalia due to the stairs, then perhaps Scalia was poisoned to death. It makes sense because Poindexter said that Scalia got up from the dinner table (sitting beside Poindexter) and went to be early right then and there. The sleeping-bag dream ended with my pulling Miss Peare by the waist toward me, which scene is to be connected to a night when I pressed a hand on her belly, pressing her toward me as we slept in the same bed. I've written extensively on these two scenes, and the belly was found to be code, without a doubt, for the "bello" term in the Bouillon motto. I don't want to re-explain the entire thing here.

Godfrey de Bouillon was the son of Eustace II, and brother to the first king of Templar Jerusalem. This cult formed the Hospitallers, who are in the write-up of Guerins/Garins. The latter use the Payen Coat, and the first grandmaster of Templar Jerusalem was Hugh de Payens. I drank turpenTINE and was sent to the HOSPITAL. The TINE/Tyne surname shares the lion in the Guerin/Garin Chief. The Tine/Tyne Coat uses black-and-gold bars much like those in the Arms of Saxony. Italian Garins use three fesse bars in those colors, and German Garins were first found in Saxony.

The Tine's/Tyne's also use a stag, symbol of both the Eustace's and the Order of St. Hubertus. I just saw a picture of the Hubertus symbol with Jesus placed between the antlers of the stag, and it just so happens that a symbol between antlers is shared between Eustace's (branch of STACeys), STAGGs, and EUS-like Vise's. Clearly, the heraldic stag is a symbol of the Eustace bloodline. I trace this line to the Bauts, first found in Auvergne with Bouillons, and to the BAUTica river. The Tine's/Tyne's are said to be BOUTville's/Botville's too, and Bauts are shown also as Bots. German Bauts share a "bello" motto term with Bouillons. The Turpen lion heads are in the colors of the German-Baut lion heads.

Saxony is where Julians were first found whose six pale bars are in the colors of the six fesse bars of Babe's, the latter first found in Dorset with Turpens. The Blonds, whose sun I link to that of Babe's, use the six Babe bars in the gold-black colors of the paragraph above. See the Blond-Babe pedophilia connection in the last update. The Oulette's happen to share the Tine / Baut lion heads, and it was a Mr. Oulette who blurted, "what a babe," as he saw blond Lorraine for the first time, at exactly the event in which her beautiful feet impressed me, for which reason I claimed that God gave her a foot symbol, months before finding that Blonds use a foot on a sun.

Bello's share the Coat of English Billets while French Billets/Billiards use a white version of the Guerin/Garin / Payen Coat. Bello's and Billets share the cinquefoil of French Bacons while English Bacons are Beacons too while German Belli's use the beacon. The Fullers, who likewise use a beacon, have a foot-like motto term that I see as code for Futters. I slid down the stairs, where the turpentine was swigged, on my belly.

I pee'd on Pino as he walked around the front corner of the PORCH, while I stood on the porch railing, and the Porch surname happens to share the Bello / Billet cinquefoil, but see also the giant one of Bus', first found in Norfolk with Porch's.

Here's the accuser (Fiona Barnett) of Antonin Scalia's pedophilia:

This topic makes me sick and murderous at the same time. I don't know whether Barnett is telling the truth, but she appears to be. It would need to be one elaborate trick if not true. How possibly could Scalia have been slit in the throat with no one noticing? The story asks us to believe that even the sheriff covered this murder up. There's a video: "Fiona Barnett, Billy Graham Raped Her At Bohemian Grove, Come Out Of Masonic Polluted "Churches"" It could be that Barnett is going around demonizing good people because she herself is a satanist. Bohemians, by the way, were part of Saint Hubertus make-up.

Might pedophiles / satanists be helping to bring us the anti-pedophile videos to put horrible pictures in our minds, to de-sensitize us? This movement is fast going to where they will describe and show us the graphic details. I refuse to see them. The planet will shake on account of these demons.

Back to Matt Couch. First of all, he's not revealing his sources. In that case, what evidence is there that his claim about Donna Brazile is correct? What if he's just a money maker in youtube? On youtube's, "Donna Brazile’ response... Guilty Conscience," Couch claims that Brazile contacted him. He also says she didn't deny being at the hospital. But since he didn't show the texts, I'm not going to share the video with anyone. Off the cuff, I'm guessing that Brazile didn't contact him, making him a liar.

He says not to get down on Hannity for not covering this, but, I assume, Hannity would love to do this story if Couch's sources are reliable. Therefore, I'm not sure what to think about this claim. If Hannity has no story soon, I'd suggest that this is a bogus claim.

According to Q-anon (whom I don't follow), Bill Clinton offered Loretta Lynch the replacement of Scalia's seat. It's not very proper to make such a claim without telling how he knows this thing. There is nothing more to say for lack of evidence.

Why would God permit pedophilia on innocent children? It's horrible. I am reminded that God knows the future; he knows who will or will not hate his Son. Could it be that evil comes on the children whom God knows beforehand to become his enemies? It may not be so clear-cut, but I'll assume that it's generally true. Even if we become believers eventually but act with evil beforehand, God may abandon us to whatever might happen while we are evil. It's the only explanation I know.

By the way, the website, which describes what the symbols are, has not been loading for me over the past week or so. The website still operates.

Kennedy Conspiracy

Let's leave one sick topic for another. In the last two updates, I delved into the Kennedy assassination for the first time. If you read the last update, and watched the main films, you won't need explanation for the first point to be made. In front of Kennedy sat the Texas governor, and the latter's wife sat beside him. She appeared on Larry King to say that, when Kennedy was shot in the neck, she heard a noise, and turned around to see him. I was unable to see this turn in the Zapruder film, but I can't take her word on it because she lies.

She said that her husband heard the noise, and, knowing it to be a bullet, he turned around. We can see him turning in the Zapruder film. She said he was having a hard time turning enough to see whether he was shot, and this appears feasibly correct, fine. She then says that, as he turned back around, Kennedy was shot again in the head, and this is correct, as stated, fine. Then she says that her husband received a bullet to the back of the shoulder, which came out his lung, crushed his wrist, and went into his leg (he was covered in blood, she says). I assumed she meant when he turned back around, for his shoulder was not facing a gun in all the time that he was turned around trying to look at Kennedy.

However, the official story is that the bullet that hit Kennedy in the neck, from behind, passed through Kennedy and hit the governor in the shoulder. This means that either his wife was lying, or the official story is wrong. For she said that her husband merely heard the bullet and turned around to check out Kennedy. If he had already been hit through the lung, I don't think we would see what we do in the Zapruder film. If even she's lying, or mixing up her story, then it seems that she's playing to the deep state in fear.

Is this any way to operate a country, with the mob instilling fear in all police departments, governorships, and in both bodies of congress? Are the American people afraid to rise up against this thing? Where is the president who will lead the people to topple this insidious bunch of rats? There cannot be that many. Isn't it a no brainer that, once the battler begins, many police departments, media bosses, governors, will begin to fight on the side of good, and against the rats? Yes. They are afraid to go against the rats if they must go it alone, but once there is a wave started, it seems a no-brainer that most leaders will want this thing scrubbed from the government. Where then, is the hero who will start this war? Not Trump, that's for sure.

The bullet that hit the governor is called the "magic bullet," if you care to research it. It requires a low-slope shot from Oswald, a good reason that it never happened. The slope would need to be such that it went from Kennedy's neck to the Governor's lung some three feet away. That's a drop of about a foot over three feet of travel. My estimation is that this angle is produced from the 6th floor (60 feet up), where Oswald was said to be, when Kennedy is 180 feet away. This explains why the deep state had to alter Zapruder's film in order to get the shot as far as possible from the 6th floor of the Depository. But even after they fixed the film to have the shot as far away as possible, they had only about 120 feet from the Depository. That's a one foot drop for every two feet of travel, too steep, but credible.

The video below is most-excellent where never-before seen film slices found Jack Ruby in a room with police moments before he shot Oswald. It was a government plot to show Ruby on television shooting the framed murderer; for all we know, Oswald was not shot at all.

The video shows investigators in the room where Oswald apparently shot Kennedy, but we can, by now, realize that imposters were sent into that room to frame Oswald. In the video below, which provides evidence, from the doctor who worked on Kennedy, that the latter was shot from the front, we find Ruby accusing Kennedy's vice president for the murder plot. It could be that Ruby, once he saw that the police were treating him in a way that was not part of the deep-state promise to him before he shot Oswald, decided to betray Johnson. You see, he was in jail at the time that he accused the vice president, but likely, the deep state promised that he could shoot Oswald while not getting jail time

The video below seems to tell a story of two men looking out the Depository window from where Oswald supposedly shot from, but the evidence vanished, suggesting that Oswald was neither of the two men. Or, if he was, the other man was deemed problematic:

Here's Roger Stone's (= evil guy) mention of a man (Malcolm Wallace) seen in the Depository's window:

I've not mentioned the bullet hole to Kennedy's back, which is too low to have entered him at the limo unless there is a hole in the back of its seat. I've not even heard that the limo had a hole in its seat, but I would have, by now, if there was. Here's a photo (31 seconds) of the seat, with no holes where they say the bullet entered Kennedy's back:

The video above deals with the bullet hole at the center-top of the limo's front windshield. The Secret Service denied the existence of this hole, added evidence that it was trying to frame Oswald. There is crime upon crime here, conducted by the Secret Service. Trump's enemies lurk in his Secret Service. They will strike if he makes a hard move against the deep state. Trump needs to get private body guards, forego the SS. He can come out to say that he doesn't trust the SS, which will make a super news story. It should become the start of the war against the swamp.

Where else could Kennedy have received a hole to his back? Under the bridge? That would make everyone in the limo a deep-state accomplice. Was there a man in the depository that fired a shot or two? Oswald's gun was planted there. Was it necessary to shoot it at that time in order the frame Oswald? Seems reasonable. Mr. Stone says that Wallace was the vice-president's hit man.

I'm not up to speed on how anyone was sure to see Wallace way up there on the 6th floor. Was it from camera shots?

Here's is the governor's testimony of his being shot. Note that he has Kennedy's brains all over the interior of the car, which is not possible if the brain debris exited the back of his head. Translation: the governor and his wife are deep-state accomplices. Why couldn't the driver be too? But then what about Jackie? She too? Possibly. Women have killed their own husbands for just one adulterous affair. This governor lies and lies and lies:

In my opinion, I don't think that the Texas governor knew of the shooting beforehand, or he would never had been in that car. But, afterward, he was "conditioned" to tow the deep-state line. This evil needs to be purged from a country. The idea that people cannot tell the truth lest they be murdered, or worse, has got to be cleansed. What's Trump doing today that has greater importance? What joke is this man? People are still falling before his eyes by the deep-state weapon, and he's busy keeping clear of it by being a little puppet himself. He's not being a good puppet, more like a bad / outspoken puppet, but he's essentially towing the line just the same.

Kennedy was killed days after he said that his ambition was to expose the powers wishing to make slaves of the common people. The Americanized Nazis under George Bush. With the Internet, the deep state has their dream of enslaving the people within its grasp.

In the latter half of the 6th minute of the video below, we learn that the Secret Service -- the organization tasked with protecting Kennedy but, in this case, having him killed -- had a man washing the interior of the limo with a bucket and sponge before the law had the opportunity to investigate it, and report on it. When asked why he wiped away the crime scene, the man, Sam Kinney, claimed that he didn't want to leave all that blood in the American memory of Kennedy, awwwee, what a sweet guy.

Sam Kinney was driving the second car. "'I saw the president grab his neck,' Kinney told the interviewer. 'By that time, there were two following shots, pow, pow….'...'I and Hill put coat around Pres. head.' Hill was Clint Hill, the Secret Service agent who famously leapt onto the back of the presidential limousine..." They say they covered the president's head, as though they were being sensitive to the nation, but isn't it likely that their bosses ordered it?

"'[Kinney] found a piece of the skull,” Rosser said. “It was about the size of a small ashtray. He put it in his pocket until he saw White House doctor Adm. (George) Burkley. Burkley put it into his pocket.'...'Nobody ever asked him about it again,' Rosser said. 'That bothered him.'" I don't think Kinney was privy to the murder, or he wouldn't have been driving the second car.

But it seems that he understands enough to tow the line. He cleansed the crime scene as he was ordered, and then, not to make it appear that he was ordered, he claimed that it was his own idea. He took the blame because he was afraid that not taking it would get him a bullet too. Is this mobster-monster part of Trump's make-America-great-again plan? Looks like. It looks like he has no plan to kill it. He's letting the monster eat and eat and eat, letting it grow fatter and stronger.

In the last update or two, I've been saying that the Zapruder film was elongated artificially to get the limo further away from the depository than it really was when the shots rang out. It has therefore become my view that the throat and head shots were very near to one another, whereas the Zapruder film puts some distance between the two for the reason of elongating the scene. And it tries to hide that the throat shot took place at the sign. Below is the testimony of the bumperman. In another video I heard him say that the streets were packed. Immediately after saying this, he was asked if there was anything unusual on Elm street, and he said, no. Yet the Zapruder and Nix films shows no packed crowds lining the curbs on Elm, because both were false images of the real scene, taken at another time, and there was evidence presented in the last update that some of the people were pasted in.

The people lining the curb at the corner of Elm and Houston weren't even watching Kennedy go buy, in the Zapruder film. Why do you think that is? The people in the Nix film are not positioned like those in Zapruder when the limo goes by, and the media has not made this smoking gun an issue because it dares not take on the deep state. Ditto for the faking president now in the White House. When will it be time to take on the mob in government? Kennedy wanted to. Who will follow in his steps and be more careful doing it? Not Trump, that's for sure. Nor do I think the bosses at Fox have it in them.

Below is the bumperman saying that, when he heard a shot from the right-rear (Oswald terminology i.e. bumperman is an insider tool) and saw the president with hand(s) on his throat, he got off the car to go check him out. He then says that, before he could get to the limo, Kennedy suffered a head shot. The Nix film shows him off the car, and running for Kennedy's limo in the second (11-12-second point) that the head shot comes, and he's barely off his own car at the time, which times the two shots very close to one another. That is, his testimony is such that the throat and head shot must be close together. The only problem is, he's wanting us to think that the throat shot came well after the passing of the sign, for that's when Kennedy's hands go for his throat in the fake Zapruder film.

The Zapruder film froze (frames repeated) his hands going for his throat all the way from the sign until the bumberman gets off the car. This is what the deep state did when intent on blaming Oswald. The bumperman said that Jackie got onto the rear hood to get a piece of her husband's brain, but this is not evident in the Zapruder film. He trying to put the best face on her abandoning her husband in absolute fear, and that's a white lie. Bumperman looks like a liar all-around. He even says that the president fell into her lap once she got off the hood, which is nonsense, for he was already lying on the seat when she was on the hood. The deep state is made of mere deceivers, losers, Jesus-forsaken animals; are we going to be afraid of them? We must be their worst enemies. We must call them out.

If you watch carefully at certain times, you can see two paste boxes in the Zapruder film above. It was my discovery in the last update's section, "Proof of Film Tampering," that this version of the Zapruder film was the deep state's rough draft before cropping the picture for a television audience. When cropped, the visible edges of the paste box were no longer visible. See last update for details and my preliminary thoughts.

The Nix film above is presented at 1/4 speed. If you then set youtube at 1/4 speed, you'll have it at 1/16th speed, excellent for watching the faked head spatter. It starts at the end of 11 seconds, and grows larger during the 12th. It seems to me that they removed the way-back motion of Kennedy's head seen in Zapruder. Indeed, in Nix, the head goes only forward. I assume they want us to believe that the spatter was blown backward by the apparent wind caused by the car's forward motion.

In the video below, we find the bullet that hits the curb on Elm, and then penetrated into the ground. The woman, a witness of the bullet hole in the ground, says that police officers on bikes came out, from under the bridge, to see what she and her team was doing. It sounds like they were trying to cover for this bullet. By the looks of the spot at the curb, well down from the depository in the background, the bullet was fired from high on the knoll. It apparently missed Kennedy, and may have missed the car too.

My problem with the woman's testimony is that she "traced" the bullet for "several" feet back. What could that mean? Did she dig up the dirt over several feet? No. Then how did she trace it? One thing seems certain: the hole's path was perpendicular to any bullet coming from the depository.

The bullet hole in the windshield could only have come from the bridge, or from Elm street beyond it. If the driver was privy to the murder, that shot would have rattled him for being too close for comfort. The driver may have participated if told that the shot would come from the opposite side of the car, but the hole in the windshield was on the driver's half. If he were not privy to the hoax, he would have screamed concerning the bullet hole. It was in front of his face. But we see no evidence that he saw this hole. It makes the driver appear complicit.

There is a so-called "sewer shot" bullet theory, where the shooter was in a storm sewer (see photo) a few feet beyond the stairs at the grassy knoll. Here is a drawing with the location in respect to the stairs. The angle is perfect for the head shot, yet I wouldn't expect the back of the skull to be blown open from a shot striking the temple from ground level. Off the cuff, it seems possible to see a head on the extreme side of the limo, from ground level. Kennedy was on the extreme side of the seat, hugging the car's side. Was he directed to sit that way to appear more friendly when in fact they wanted him to sit that way to get killed? There was almost no chance of hitting the biker officers, or the SS people standing on the follow-up car, if the shot(s) came from low and then up toward the sky.

This sewer shot suddenly brings my sewer shot in the Obama dream to mind. It was Obama's billiard hall, though I instinctively knew, at the beginning of the dream, that he had a partner. I wasn't told who the partner was, but came to think that it was Loretta Lynch. My sewer shot on the table was taken as God's pointer to Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, and Perkins Coie, all part of Hillary's crimes against Trump. Was the sewer shot also an indication that Strzok's FBI was of the same goons that held the FBI under the Kennedy cover-up? I've pointed out in the past that my sewer shot was a bullet shot. Straight and hard into the left-corner pocket. Otherwise, I can't think of any evidence for the Strzok-Kennedy connection.

The further away the car, the more possible a head shot from a sewer hole at the street curb. The hole wasn't probably more than four or five inches tall, maybe six at the most. Here's a video on the possibility of a storm-drain murder:

The video shows a photo shot of the bridge, and says that railroad men were up there. Why would there have been railroad men up at the railroad tracks? Stupid question? No, it isn't. Chances are, there was no issue at that part of the tracks, that day or hour, requiring men from the railroad. And, more likely, other types of people would have thought to be up there for the best-possible eye shot of the president. It seems clear enough to me that other types of people were forbidden to be up there (only insiders), and that faked railroad men were planted instead.

The video ends with Oswald being the only possibility, your sure sign that this video is from the wrong people. Can we trust them with the claim that Kennedy could not be seen from the storm sewer? No, we cannot. The man inside this sewer, doing the test, needed government permission to be there, and that's the smoking gun against this video: it's a deep-state production.

I don't understand some things in the first five minutes of the video below. You can start at 5:45; it's about a sewer shot by someone who says he has no doubt about it. He unfortunately needs to show the graphic head shot so that the viewer imagines the bullet coming upward from ground level...which does look very correct as per how Kennedy's head reacts. However, at the time, Kennedy was slightly slumped toward Jackie, making a sewer shot seem impossible:

I suppose it's possible that the cover had been off, and that a man fired out from it, not from inside the storm sewer, though that would have been dangerous unless there were insiders around to keep anyone from seeing the open manhole. In the 8th minute, they have a man inside the storm sewer. It doesn't show evidence that a rifle in the sewer could see Kennedy's head. All it does is show that the sewer leads to an outdoor exit at the Trinity river, and that a man with rifle had been spotted near the Trinity so as to cause a police investigation concerning it. The man is shown removing the manhole cover easily. It's very light, that is, easy handled by a man with gun.

At 7:14, a camera shot from the manhole is shown down Elm. It becomes clear that the best time to shoot is when the car is at the far end as it comes on a slight angle toward the hole. After the car turns straight toward the hole, that's the hardest time to see Kennedy. That is, the best time to shoot is while the car (center lane) was before the sign. On this aerial photo, the sign was at the lamp post to out right of the stairs. The manhole is visible in the aerial.

Is it coincidental that the Nix film, which has no people across the road at the manhole, puts people in the way so that we can't see the manhole? In fact, there are two people very close to one another, seen at the far left of the group, at 35 seconds. The aerial suggests that the manhole is directly in line with these two people. In Zapruder, there is only one person there, suggesting that the Nix film pasted one in to hide the manhole. In fact, this is the group of people whose positioning is unlike the positioning of the same group in Zapruder. Zapruder conveniently leaves out the curb scene altogether.

Below is part 1 of 6 of Jack White's Zapruder-film hoax. Mr. White is a photo expert. I respect his moon-hoax investigations. At the 6:13 point, Mary Moorman's photo is showing, which White says is authentic. I'm not of that opinion, but I have much yet to learn, if I ever get there. Some believe that Mr. Zapruder is at the right side of Moorman's photo, but I proved without a doubt, in the last update, that this cannot be Zapruder. Jack is the one who gave us the badge-man image in much clarity, and he has a clear image of what he thinks is Zapruder too, which is not so evident in the original Moorman photo. I'm now beginning to ask whether Mr. White hasn't gone overboard on his methods to show what maybe isn't really there.

At 8:29, the Moorman photo is shown again, with the man-like shape visible now on the far-right concrete slab. This is not the original look of the photo, but rather is an enhanced one from amongst White's high-tech equipment. At 8:34 he shows an enlargement of the man-like image, and frankly it looks more like a woman standing in front of Batman. It makes no sense that Zapruder's secretary stands in front of him while he's filming the car. I think Jack is wrong on this one for sure.

Jack has yet to realize that Zapruder's camera was to the our left side of a line through two lamp posts (on the aerial photo). However, the woman and Batman, so to speak, are either on the line or to our right of that line, as viewed on the Aerial photo. The two lamp posts, visible at the 23-second point of the Zapruder film at my link above, include the lamp post closest to the manhole, and the one at the tip of the grassy, center island (across the street from the manhole). You need to learn the geography of the grassy knoll to prove to yourself that I'm right on this one. The last update gets you familiar enough with the geography. The woman and batman were standing under the trees in the aerial photo.

In part 2 of White's series, he shows what I had suspected, that the deep state pasted Moorman into the film.

At 6:19 of his part 3, he shows the two lamp posts I mentioned above, but he doesn't seem to acknowledge what they speak as to Zapruder's precise location under the modern trees. I agree that Zapruder was tampered with, but I expect the background scene to be the actual Zapruder scene, with tampering on the car scene mainly, though pasted people can apply. White shows evidence that the Zapruder scene (including the height of people) is 30 percent larger than the reality (he wasn't working on the panoramic view that I'm linking you to here, which is the one having the paste boxes). He mentions the ghostly items to the extreme left but doesn't call them out as part of a paste job in these videos.

Wow, at 4:13 of part 5, as per an eye-witness (William Reymond, speaks 3rd minute) of the original Zapruder film, it claims that the shots took place immediately after the turn on Elm street, and, yes, the sign was hit by a bullet(s). The limo stopped for a couple of seconds, and there were two head shots while stopped. Why wouldn't the ones having this original come out with it???? I don't get it. The witness is interviewed starting in the 5th minute. I've never seen this before; I'm watching as I write.

He says that the original video (a copy) was owned by an ex-leader, in the 1960's and early 70s, of the French far-right. Neo-Nazi's, I assume. Wikipedia: "During the late 1960s and early 1970s, the French far-right consisted mainly of small extreme movements such as Occident, Groupe Union Défense (GUD), and the Ordre Nouveau (ON)" It left out FAME.

He's asked why the owner won't reveal the film publicly, and the answer seems to be due to loyalty to some involved in the murder plot. The witness is also in part 6. Here he says that Howard Hunt purchased a copy, and this is how it got to France. He claims that the killer was a Frenchman, one of the three tramps. I don't know their story well, but I faintly recall reading that they were found in a railway car, which makes it likely that they were about the bridge area.

This killer Frenchman, "Max," I think he says, was a sniper in France and paid to kill Kennedy; he was positioned "behind the fence" (grassy knoll). Just as the limo made the turn onto Elm, Max shot Kennedy in the throat. That's what the Reymond says. A shot to the throat immediately after the turn is the conclusion I came to in the last update. I didn't know about this French guy or this French story until the middle of this week. He says "after that," Kennedy was hit twice in the head, one from behind, one from the front, but he doesn't say how far down the street it was, or how much time had elapsed. At 3:10-20 (part 6), he says the "kill zone was not just after the Stemmon sign, but before, on the turn..." Just as I concluded. I have heard no one else locate the killing just after the turn. Why would he introduce something so radical, unless he did see it in the film?

He says plan A was to kill at the turn because the limo slows down for that. He's says (probably his own theory) that plan A was ruined by the wide turn, and that plan B was to stop the limo (implicates the driver). He says he'll try to bring the film to the public. Is he looking for an early grave, or is he lying? These videos are dated 2009. It's old news already, and he said he saw the original three years ago (before this interview).

William Reymond has written two books on the Kennedy assassination. I have some doubt that Reymond is telling the truth about seeing the real film, but then his report of the film corroborates my conclusions. If the film really was in the possession of the French right-wingers, it's doubtful that Reymond would allow himself to watch the film with them because, chances were, he'd be killed. He saw this film after writing two JFK books, making him a deep-state target already...unless his task was disinformation on the deep-state's behalf. After all, in at least one work, he said that Oswald was the killer along with some anti-Cuban guy.

The possibility is that while he started out a deep-state pawn, he betrayed it and told about the real film. But I know next to nothing of his previous views, and can't speak to his position. His Wikipedia article says nothing about his claim to seeing the real film. And, another problem may be, I didn't hear from Brugioni that the kill zone was near the intersection.

In one of the videos, White says that the lamp posts are 14 feet tall (he measured them). If at the 23-second of Zapruder the tops of two lamp posts were even on the page, then Zapruder's camera was 14 feet higher than the island upon which the far lamp post stands, if that island is perfectly level as far as the nearest lamp post. As the furthest lamp post is actually higher at 23 seconds, it suggests further that Zapruder's head was more than 14 feet above the island. The Zapruder film itself suggests that the island rises with distance from the camera, and we can reliably expect the road to slope down slightly toward the sewer drain next to the lamp post nearest the camera. The lamp post furthest from the camera is so close to this road's curb that it's doubtful there is more than a one-foot difference between the elevations of both lamps. In Zapruder's image, we can therefore drop the lamp furthest from Zapruder about 1/14th its height in the scene, but that still has the top of that post some five feet higher than the top of the lamp post nearest Zapruder.

If Zapruder was as far back from the nearest as the two posts are from one another, he would be about 14 plus 5 = 19 feet above the lamp post at the sewer drain. The aerial photo therefore suggests that he wasn't, at the most, much further back than 19 feet higher than the curb side. Whatever his exact altitude, it would be an easy matter to pin-point Zapruder's position by going to the site and replicating the lamp-post scene in his film. Mr. White must not have done this. It may turn out that Zapruder's feet were in the air, if his scene was tampered with, for the ground above the knoll goes up only so much, then levels out.

Take a look at the shadows presented by the lamp posts in the aerial. The shadows are all pointed in the same direction, at a significant angle to the road (Main street) nearest the viewer. The shadow at the tip of the island is longer because the ground has more of a slope there. As shadows go downhill, they get longer. The shadows in the aerial are roughly identical in direction as per the first half of Zapruder's film, but the lamp post at 24 seconds, one of the two under discussion, has a shadow direction clearly not the same to the shadow of its neighboring lamp. The lamp post under discussion has a shadow traversing the closest distance between the two roads. Comparing with the aerial, that shadow is much wrong, about 23 degrees different, which is the sun-angle difference between one full season. In other words, the scene in latter half of the Zapruder film seems to be from another month altogether than the November shot at the assassination.

The stickman running past the lamp post actually goes backward a few feet during the 24th second. Another lamp post comes into view with the same shadow direction as the wrong one above. Here's a map of the Dealey-plaza island. One can now make out that the shadows on the aerial are pointed north-east, with the sun south-west of the lamp posts (assuming the map is oriented with perfect north at the perfect top of the map). The two lamp shadows on Zapruder's 23-26-second points are pointed almost perfect north, with sun at the south. If it's not perfect north, then the scene was taken before 12:15 pm, for reasons below.

In Dallas, a shadow as long as the one seen with the north-pointing shadow (of the lamp post) can only take place far from summer, such as November 22 at noon. The assassination was at roughly 12:30. In that case, the lamp and people shadows in the first half of Zapruder's film are erroneous simply because the shadows in the second half of the film are at least roughly correct. Indeed, notice how long the shadow is of the lamp post at 21 seconds. That puts the sun down too far in the sky for 12:30. The shadow direction itself claims mid-afternoon. Comparing the length of the 21-second shadow to those on the aerial, the 21-second shadow is about the length of the lamp post itself, which requires a sun angle of 45 degrees, half way down to the horizon i.e. mid-afternoon.

How far down from perfect, solar noon was the sun at 12:30? Not much. Almost nothing. Sunset on November 22 in Dallas is at 5:22, with sunrise at 7:03. That puts the solar noon (exactly midway) at 12:13 (sun is due south at this time). The shadow at 12:13 must be due north, proving that the people shadows are erroneous (if the map above is oriented north-south)! This means that the Zapruder scene in the kill zone is NOT from the day of the assassination.

On the first day of summer in Dallas, a sun at solar noon casts virtually no shadow toward the north (or in any direction). When the sun is at 45 degrees, half way to the horizon, at anytime of the year, the shadow of any item (on float ground) is as long as it is high. But the sun's angle, from a solar noon on the first day of summer to a solar noon on the first day of winter, changes by only about 23 degrees, or roughly half of 45. If therefore there is almost zero shadow on the first day of summer, the shadow should be only half as long as a person's height on the first day of winter, yet November 22 is one full month prior to the first day of winter, requiring an even shorter shadow. Yet Zapruder's first half has peoples shadows slightly longer than the people. No good. They should be more like half as long as the people / lamp posts.

If the shadows of the people are as long as their heights in November, the time would be somewhere (I don't know exactly) between high-noon and mid-afternoon (3:17). That's enough to discredit the Zapruder scene in its kill zone. However, the lamp-post shadow at 24 seconds, in the second half of the film, is about half as long as the height of the post, which looks bang-on correct. The switch from the false scene, to what I'll call the true scene for the time being, should be after the lamp-post with too-long shadow is out of the picture at 22 seconds. During 22 seconds, no people remain in the scene's grass, and there is yet another wrong-angle shadow of a lamp post (top-left) visible immediately after the last two people go out the picture at the end of 22 seconds. The correct-shadow lamp post above comes into view at 23 seconds. The person at the curb at 24 seconds likewise has a short shadow pointing north.

There is another correct-shadow lamp post coming into view before the one above. I have the scene (on 1/4 speed) paused on frame 390, at the end of the 22nd second point when the wrong-angle shadow of a lamp post appears in the top-left corner. In this paused scene, a correct-angle shadow (perpendicular with the road) is at a lamp post to the near right, between two cars in traffic. But there are two Main streets on this scene!

Therefore, a major discovery here: the two lamp posts on the south side of Main, in the one scene (22 seconds), are the same lamp post! Zinger, it's true. They spliced a false scene to the true scene by having both their Main streets showing in the one scene. Had no one ever noticed?

Yes, the angled-shadow post to the left is in the false-image scene, and the same but perpendicular-shadow post to its right is in the true-image scene. In the first case, there are no cars, but in the second case, there are cars. In this satellite image of Dealey Plaza, there is a third road, Commerce street, this one beside Main street too, but I can show that the street with cars should not be Commerce.

In Zapruder, there is a grassy area seen between the two Main streets. We may therefore be led to believe that this is the grass showing on the satellite image between Main and Commerce, but if one studies the shape of this area in Zapruder, it doesn't match the satellite image's grassy area, first of all.

Secondly, the film fails to show the Commerce-street lamp post between Main and Commerce, and nearest the tip of the grassy area. Get a grip of this post. It's the one closest to Commerce, and on the sharpest part of that street's curve. I'll call this the Commerce post. If we entertain it as being the center one in frame 377, it's impossible, because that post's shadow reaches well onto Main street while the satellite image the Commerce post too far from Main for its shadow to reach even the edge of Main, especially at the angle that Zapruder shows it.

This is important for establishing fakery, so let me belabor this Commerce-street post. The satellite image essentially shows only the lamp-post shadows; the lamp posts at essentially straight down from the satellite camera. It's important to be able to measure the lamp-post shadows because it's more than 14 feet from the base of the Commerce post to the edge of Main street. A shadow 14 feet long is one with the sun at a 45-degree angle in the sky, but it's impossible to have a sun at 45 degrees at 12:30 on November 22. The most it could have been was about half of 45 degrees (if straight up is 0 degree), meaning that the shadow could only have been about seven feet long, yet there's a distance of more than 14 feet from the Commerce post to Main. The post in Zapruder's frame 377 has a shadow on Main about a quarter of the way across a 30-foot street, wherefore it's impossible for this shadow to be from the Commerce-street post. The shadow can only be from a Main street post (to the north-east of the Commerce post).

Yes, the post at the edge of Main is so close to Main that it's shadow could reach one quarter of 30 feet in mid-afternoon in some months, including November. Therefore, the shadow on Main street is from the Main-street post. Note the white rectangle (level with the ground) at the south side of the Main-street curb at the right side of frame 379. That rectangle can be seen on the satellite image near the Commerce-street lamp post, yet this post is missing in Zapruder even though there is a clear view of the area; there's no reason for it not to show, unless it's not Commerce street showing.

This is so damning that this satellite image may no longer be shown one day. Or, like the Getty aerial, it will cease to show Commerce along with Main and Elm.

The way to measure the distance from the base of the Commerce post to Main street is by comparing a white line on Elm street (aerial photo) with the car beside it. The car can be reckoned at 12 feet long, making the white lines about 10 feet long. All the white lines, on all three streets in Dealey Plaza, are the same length, according to the aerial photo (satellite photo not as reliable). From the base of the post to the nearest part of Main, there is the distance of about two white lines = 20 feet. It would be considerably more than 20 feet if a shadow reached Main on an angle, but the Zapruder shadow goes even further than the edge of Main, to a quarter way across Main. Therefore, the lamp-post shadow in the middle of frame 377 is NOT the Commerce-street post, meaning that the Zapruder film does NOT even show that post, meaning that Commerce street is not showing in this center part of frame 377.

I therefore suggest that the center part of frame 377 has two Main streets while the right side of the same frame could have Commerce street connected to the top-most Main street, which I'll call Zapruder's third street. That is, at some point in Zapruder, Main is probably spliced into Commerce so that the two look like one street, the third street.

If the lamp-post shadow at the right side of 377 is considered to be on the south side of Commerce, as Zapruder's image would at first glance suggest, this can be shown false, leaving only one alternative, that this shadow belongs to the same post as shows the shadow in the left side of frame 377. The two shadows in the same frame are from the same post because the killers arranged for two Main streets in the same scene. I don't know why they did it that way, but they did. To prove it, let's look at the center shadow in frame 377, only let's look at it in frame 381. It's notable that it reaches halfway across the street, about 15 feet, way too long for 12:30.

In frame 381, we see that the shadow is to the east (our left) side of the white rectangle above. On the satellite image, four rectangles on all three streets are on a straight line. When we allow this line to go to the south side of Commerce, it's to the east of a lamp post under the tree. This under-the-tree post (not visible to the eye) can be assumed to be directly across the road from what I called the Commerce post above. The problem is, the under-the-tree post is on Zapruder's right (west) side of the white-rectangle line, yet the shadow in Zapruder is on the left (east) side of the rectangle line...meaning that this shadow, half way across Zapruder's third road, is not from the under-the-tree post, and therefore not from any post on the south side of Commerce (there are no alternative candidates). The only alternative is that it's a repeat of the Main-street post that has a shadow a quarter way across the road (the two images were taken at different times, explaining the differences in shadows).

I've made my case, and it seems full-proof based on multiple arguments.

Commerce street is a one-way street, and the cars showing in Zapruder are closest to a driver's left-side curb, which makes it appear definite that we are not seeing Main street, for Main is a two-way street. But this "problem" only indicates that the killers pasted at least one car on the left side of Main street to give the impression that it's Commerce street.

My bet is that the deep state asked Getty Images to leave Commerce street out of its aerial photo.

Mr. White tends to prove that the cars were filmed on the day of the assassination, because he speaks to the driver of a car near the bridge. But the cars near the bridge are probably showing, in Zapruder, on Commerce. I have no problem with Commerce showing at the end of Zapruder's film. At some point in the film after the center of frame 388, the killers turned the third street from Main to Commerce. I'm keeping an eye out to detect that slice.

In frame 388, the white rectangles can be seen on both sides of the second street, but they are NOT on a straight line (perpendicular with the street) while the satellite image demands that they be on a straight line. The rectangles are on a straight line in the aerial photo too, where we can see that they are the concrete slabs for manhole covers above sewer drains.

Above the hood of the center car in frame 388, there are two black post-like objects, side-by-side, on the far/south side of the third street. At what looks to be exactly the same spot, the satellite image shows two black items, side-by-side. Therefore, the film splice between Main and Commerce could be between these two items and the shadow reaching half way across the street. Possibly, the splice is to the front of the car so that the car is fully on the Commerce side of the splice.

To put it another way, the two out-of-line rectangles shown in frame 388 are probably one and the same slab. That can locate the splice between the white slab on the third street and the front of the car. It suggests that there was some scene on Commerce that they didn't want for us to see, and so they covered it with a piece of pasted Main street.

But there are problems. There is no sewer showing on the far side of the second street directly across the sewer slab that we do see. And, in frame 395, the two black, post-like items cut across the sidewalk and make contact with the car, impossible in a real situation. Therefore, I cannot yet be sure where the splice is between Main and Commerce. A slab on Elm street enters the picture at frame 382, at which time three slabs can be seen in a straight line, but they are not nearly on a line perpendicular to Main street, while the satellite photo demands just that. Zapruder's grass scene at frame 382 is very wrong.

To make this seem preposterous for some, everything on the second street, and upon the large grassy area, to our left of the slab under discussion, is a scene from another day, or at best another hour, not at 12:30 on the day of the assassination. And the shadow half way across the street is likewise too long for 12:30. The real Zapruder scene must be to our right of this latter shadow.

Let's take this from the top. The wrong-shadow post on the south side of Main can be seen entering the right margin at the start of 21 seconds, and it moves across the entire scene to the left margin. It is clearly directly across Main street from the other wrong-shadow post, and these two are on the aerial map directly across the street from one another, both showing identical shadows (not noticeably different). In frame 388 or 390, the correct shadow is crisp, and can be seen exactly parallel with the back of the car i.e. perfectly perpendicular to the street. Knowing now that this is a Main-street post, we can determine that it was taken on the day of the assassination. That is, it's part of Zapruder's true scene, because shadows on that day must point north at 12:30 pm.

If, on the left side of the splice, you are viewing the post and people shadows as perpendicular (90 degrees) to Main street, which the mind can trick you into doing, this can be proven to be incorrect. The key to getting the correct shadow angle is to compare shadows near Elm street (frame 360 is a good one) to Elm street. Easy enough. If you use Elm's curb line as zero degrees, those shadows are less than 45 degrees, more like 30 degrees. So, you open the aerial map, and draw a line at 30 degrees, from the curb at Elm, and this line turns out to be 45 degrees roughly off of the curb at Main street! Zap, the culprits are zinged. That's a shadow line northeast-north, well after 12:30 in the afternoon. This film would never stand as true in a court of law. (By some coincidence, the shadow direction in the aerial look identical to the wrong-angle shadows in the Zapruder film.)

Now, I am using the so-called panoramic Zapruder film, but this is not the one shown to the world. As I understand it, the one shown to the world is the one in the first part of the video below; it does not show the two lamp posts together, on the south side of Main, that have different shadow angles. It shows only the one shadow between cars. It yet shows the meridian (or apparent meridian) between streets, however, but the film doctors cropped out the lamp post (seen in the top-left at frame 390). Therefore, I do declare what I said in the last update, that the panoramic is not a panoramic at all, but rather the rough draft of the deep state killers. For, anyone trying to create a panoramic had no scene to take from in getting that extra post at frame 390. If anything, the killers created a panoramic to deceive us.

In the television version, they removed the widest part of the apparent meridian. That's what they did, because it was obviously problematic. In the television version, they have that meridian reduced to what looks more like a curb. But there is no curb between westbound and eastbound lanes on Main street. And there never was a curb. Very big problem. A judge would have convicted.

The Thingie is in Both Zapruder Films

Next, I have studied that rectangular box that floats across the grass behind the limo. It's not supposed to be there, but was part of the televised film, except that they cropped almost all of it out, leaving in just a little along the left margin. In the "panoramic" version, the entire box shows. It has ghostly features popping in and out at times, as well as partial letters and the fender of a motorcycle. In frames 445 and 446, a man looking like a police officer shows up, very very bad.

In frame 93 (frame numbers are at the top-right), there is a spherical halo to our right of the fender on the rear officer's bike. Inside that halo is a diagonal piece in roughly a black color. It remains, with slight changes in shape and position, until frame 100, and fades out by frame 103. As you can see, the first officer disappears at frame 106 as a faint box cuts across his bike. I have no idea how that was done on a technical level. The bikers are part of that faint box (it's a second box), and never appear outside of it. The officers are being added to this film's scene, and we now know that the scene was not at the assassination.

After the limo appears at 8 seconds, we again see the faint box's right edge at the sign. It's a ghostly box, but it's there. Train your eyes upon it. At frame 86, another box (smaller) begins to enter from the left margin. It's got that halo with that diagonal thingie in it. The center of the diagonal piece is a small sphere, and there is always the same piece of something that comes to this sphere's bottom side. This box with thingie is moving toward the biker, and is on our right of his fender in frame 93. At frame 100, it begins to go back to the left margin, where it remains until frame 131. I do not know what it's purpose is. As it begins to come to the center of the picture in 131-132, the scene changes, and the limo shows up. A large part of the film was cut from our view.

When the limo goes out of the first box, the part of the limo outside of it disappears. The limo is a paste job with(in) this box. In frame 147, the thingie reappears beside the fender of the bike beside the follow-up car. It's supposed to be a different bike, but, it seems, they used this bike for the other bike that we saw in the first seven seconds. At frame 198, this bike disappears outside the small, vertical box. He with the follow-up car disappear in frames 208 to 211, which are three frames left out of the televised version. The vertical box appears in frame 212, and the thingie reappears over the heads of the officers starting about frame 220. It's very visible in the bushes in frame 233. It actually follows the bushes, on a horizontal path, until frame 248. Why do you think that is? It then cuts across the grass way above the officer's head, and seems glued to the right side of the its box.

Whacky things happen in this box until a bike fender shows up in frame 312. I can see the tire, the fork / shock absorber at times, the headlight (frame 330), and even the steel rim. The thingie is visible with the bike wheel in frame 327. The thingie's small, black sphere is to the right of the wheel's hub. The thingie continues to be a part of the wheel until 332 and 333, but at the latter frame, the wheel is no longer distinguishable.

The thingie in its box remains until the very end of the panoramic version, but it's also at the end of the television version of this film, meaning that no one put the thingie in the panoramic version other than the killers who provided the television version. In the television version I provided above, the thingie shows up for one frame at 49 seconds. Unfortunately, the frame numbers are not included at that time, but a slightly different version begins at 53 seconds. During the 49th second, pause it when the top and bottom left corners show large white items. That's when the thingie is visible in the tree leaves. The small, black sphere is there along with the doo-hickie underneath it.

You can now view the same film, starting at 53 seconds, only this time the vertical box is shown on the left side, and the frame numbers are included. I can see the thingie in frame 133 (at the biker to our left), but it's thereafter hard to spot until frame 220, on the white wall above both officers' heads. It then follows the bushes as with the panoramic version. And, the thingie with doo-hickie is in the tree leaves at the end of the film, just as we saw it above. This second version starting at 53 seconds is exactly the panoramic version, minus the obvious give-aways on the right side of the film. Clearly, the panoramic version was the original, doctored film from Kennedy's killers. But why didn't AntdavisonNZ (youtube channel), from whom I got the panoramic version, say anything about those obvious paste boxes. What's his "NZ" about? Nazi's?

Frame 405

At Frame 405, there are what I'll name three vivid lamp posts, Right, Center and Left. A line toward Zapruder's camera from Right through Center shows that the camera was to his right of this line. A line toward Zapruder from Left through Center shows that his camera was to the left of this line. We need only draw these lines on the aerial photo to find his spot. He must be between the lines.

As best as I can make out beneath the trees of the aerial, the lines will place him where the Moorman photo has a man-like object. I objected to this conclusion during the week, and released the objection in this section on Monday. I had insisted that Zapruder was not at the Moorman spot, the so-called Zapruder pedestal, because lamp-line measurements showed otherwise. However, I was using lamp lines as per the lamps of the aerial photo, but the lamps on the north side of main have been moved several feet north since 1963. I didn't realize this, which alters the camera line, until around midnight Monday evening. It's Tuesday morning as I correct this.

In other words, the imaginary lines that can be drawn from the three lamp posts above do allow for Zapruder to have been at Zapruder's pedestal. Therefore, much in this section and the last update needs to be deleted.

Let's now load frame 384, where three of the sewer slabs are seen in a straight line. This is an erroneous view; they have these sewer slabs on a drastic angle (almost 45 degrees) to Main street whereas both the aerial and the satellite images show the slabs at 90 degrees to Main. It's a mystery in itself as to why the film doctors created this erroneous slab line. The supporter of the deep state will point out that the Commerce post above is the one with a road shadow some 20-30 feet to our left of the slab line. No good. The satellite image demands that the Commerce post is at most 10 feet (one road line) from the slab line. And I explained above why the Commerce post could not cast a shadow on Main street to begin with. So, it appears to me that the film doctors used this shadow of a Main-street twin to act for the Commerce post.

To put it another way: as the shadow of the southern Main-street twin is showing along with its partner on the north side of Main, the slabs are not true to the picture because the line of the twin posts is perpendicular (as it should be) to Main street. Therefore, as computer technology was not available in the 60s and 70s to produce the slabs on an angle, the film doctors went to all the trouble of fixing, frame-by-frame, an angled slab line. But why?

If the slab in the bottom corner of frame 384 were to the right far enough that it would create a perpendicular line across Main street with the first slab at Main, it would require Kennedy's limo to be further to the right. In other words, they may have stretched Elm street to make the car appear further away from the depository when Kennedy was shot.

The next question is: why did they go to all of this trouble to falsely fix Zapruder's film? It's obvious: Zapruder was an insider. He sold the film rights to Life, and Life refused to show the film, because it's full of evidence against the killers. When, finally, Life was forced to show the film, it sold it back to Zapruder, for one dollar, because it became a criminally hot potato. If Zapruder was not an insider, or at least forced to play with them eventually, he would have known that the television version was not his original.

Of the three slabs visible in frame 387, the center one appears to be in its correct position, no pasting needed for this one.

While at this frame, let's talk again about the lamp-post shadow that extends half way across the feigned Commerce street. The top, glass part of the shadow is smack in the incorrect line of the slabs. So, go to the satellite image and put your mouse pointer at the base of this lamp post, which is under the trees directly across the street from its twin. If you look across on the Commerce curve one more set of twins, one of the twins is apparently not showing a shadow, but on a closer look (or expand the size of the image), it is showing, partially obscured upon a perfect line with the edge of the sidewalk. Therefore, the post behind the trees has a base on the same, southern edge of the sidewalk, and we can see the sidewalk to be about ten feet wide (it's wider than one traffic lane).

You now know exactly where to put your mouse pointer for the base of the lamp post under the trees, and this is supposed to be the lamp post in Zapruder that has a shadow half way across Commerce. Impossible. The shadow would first need to traverse 10 feet along the sidewalk, then 15 more feet across the road.

The deep-state supporter would now argue that it isn't really the shadow of a lamp post at all that we see in Zapruder. But frame 377 shows it clearly to be a lamp-post shadow. At the satellite image, run your vision or mouse pointer from the base of the lamp under the trees to midway across Commerce (on a 90-degree angle to Commerce), and you will be just about smack-on the slab line, which is the case in the Zapruder film too, proving that this pasted / doctored shadow was intended to be for this lamp post under the trees. This again argues for my claim that they eradicated the Commerce-street scene, and replaced it with something else.

As you can see, a shadow line for this post, perpendicular with Commerce, is a line toward the northeast-north, impossible at 12:30 pm.

If interested, here's
the Redneck video and a Google street view. Here's the stairs street view from the other angle, hope it loads properly for you.

Aside from the glass tops, the street-view lamp posts look identical with the green one at the start of the Zapruder that I'm using (the panoramic version).

The Day of Decision

My delving into the Kennedy assassination shows that "false-flag" operations go back to at the least the early 1960s. The essence of these operations is a long-standing, single-winded, concerted conspiracy from a government body fueled successfully by military-standard obedience on the part even of unwilling participants. They were ordered to do their jobs, or else. The same remains the situation today, and the wicked players know that, if all the unwilling participants came out at the same time, it will be game over. But the primary force for the success is the need of the unwilling participants to pay the bills, to keep their jobs. The higher up they are, the more they are paid, the more they value their jobs, the more they participate. Sad.

So, deception rules the day. The wicked keep-on in wicked paths of all sorts because demonic spirits whisper to them the paths they should take. They are open to these spirits, and see them as their powers. Call the grouping what you will, it grabs them all when they are willing to be secretly deceptive. They find one another to have this thing in common. They have an understanding. It grows into a larger, worldwide conspiracy, and new thorns stick to their pants as they go to and fro. They come to delight in deception and evil, which, when full grown, is the anti-Christ war against Christians.

The war against us predicted in Revelation 13 may be the war we see already, for in no way will this government-led movement allow Christians amongst them. It begs the question on where people like Trump's vice-president truly stands, whether under the obedience-umbrella of the military, or with the Truth of Jesus Christ. The military will entertain Christians in the lower ranks, and, probably, they will be sent to the front lines in war under the banner of, die in glory for your country.

The work of God is to believe in Jesus because, from the time that he left the apostles, the war began. The primary target of the enemy was to take away our belief. There is work in life to pay the bills, maintain the estate, raise the children, but there is the more-important work of keeping faith, the training of the mind to believe that the word of the Apostles is true, not fabricated. There has never been found a written, or even a traditional/oral accusation, by anyone in the churches, or by secular writers such as Josephus, that the apostles were flying around in jets and living in mansions, as we see from false teachers today who are in the game for the robbing of Christians.

Surely, if the apostles were robbing their membership, the insightful amongst them would have noticed, and this would have become a major schism revealed in all sorts of writ. But there are no such writings, at least that I know of. So, we trust the apostles to be truthful; they saw Jesus alive after he was murdered, and the murderers went on to create the Illuminati, I now believe, the Templar bloodlines that infested America with Masonic elements now the willing tools of the secretive, military-minded deep state. In Masonry, the most-important tenant is to obey and keep the secrets, or you can die brutally. If this is all that the deep state is, the man who would kill you without a qualm just for calling him an idiot, then idiots they are, pea brains and useless, waterless clouds, good-for-nothing garbage. That is the way God views them, because it's the simple truth.

Hey, mister, why are you such an idiot? Pow, bang, you're dead. The Mafia is like that. You must not only obey the Mafia leader, but respect him. You are to honor pea-brain garbage. Otherwise, he might have you killed. This is the devil incarnate, the one not big enough to rise above it, the soul too immersed in evil to see straight. The military is trained in killing, and it has murder on its hand. What is the difference between the American military under the CIA and the Mafia? Nothing. They think alike. They have the devil in common. They were bound to find one another and marry. The evil cop joins them. It's inevitable. The evil guys seek the leadership, they get it eventually, and the whole world groans on account of it. We are in the day of decision. Make up your mind whether you will be a "man," or a piece of pea-brain nothing.

Kennedy was killed at the delight of George Herbert Walker Bush. Later, his son would hire Mueller to become the FBI boss about a week before 9-11. The deep state. It's now going after Trump. By what coincidence did lawyer Cohen betray Trump in the same hour that Manafort was convicted of eight crimes? Clearly, the deep state is after Trump. He has allowed this animal to operate, and he is being stung by it repeatedly. Fair is fair, Mr. president. If you don't do your job as protector of the people, then you should go down first. You admitted that the deep state exists, yet you refuse to attack it. Words are not enough. Trump thinks that if he can just stay politically safe from the Mueller attack, it should be his only concern. Meanwhile the deep state has long-term plans to enslave the nation in a satanic brothel. We can clearly see that we are already back to Sodom and Gomorrah, and Trump has been a contributor. There is nothing he wants to do for us. Better people must take on the job for Truth.

It appears to me that the Cohen affair has been orchestrated. Cohen may have been a rat/spy on Trump from years ago. As soon as Trump announced that he might run for the presidency, the deep state may have purchased (or exploited by other means) Cohen to act as a spy. From this, the deep state realized that a president Trump was bad for their plans. We gather that Obama changed some inclinations of the deep state by installing Democrat leaders in Intelligence and military circles. We expected Trump to destroy that part of the animal, and to install acceptable replacements. Instead, the goof (appropriate word for a failure) has allowed the wicked to remain on the attack.

How big is the deep state? Not very. It has unwilling puppets everywhere crying, begging to be released from their power. And what does Trump do? He allows the ones ruling over them to grow stronger. The deep state is only as powerful as their subordinates remain loyal in fear. Once a war against them has been declared, the unwilling loyalists will break free, gladly, and betray. But it's no use. Trump is scared, and he doesn't know where his own loyalties lie. Can he be coaxed into acting the right act? We hope. But he may surprise us; he might actually decide to start the fight in all sincerity. Sometimes I think I can see it in him.

So, what will Trump do now that the deep state is predicted to bring an impeachment wave over him, thanks to Michael Cohen's confession this week that Trump told him to pay hush money to two porny women? Cohen (a Jew) framed his guilty plea to make Trump look guilty of a campaign crime. Word at this time is that Cohen agreed to some jail time, but this may be a ruse. He may get off for "good behavior."

I am not knowledgeable in impeachment procedures, whether the attorney general can launch or advise for such a thing. I tend to think that congress is the only body that can start an impeachment process. Will Paul Ryan allow it? Possibly. Rosenstein and Mueller are, like the Bush's, Republicans. Can we guess correctly that Mafia men were part of the Bush deep state, thanks to what we know about the Kennedy assassination? How entrenched did mobsters become in the Republican camp? Can we suspect such Italian names as Pompeo? Who was it, I wonder, that caused Trump to pick Pompeo? On the other hand, might Pompeo ultimately be the deep state's worst broker on behalf of Trump? Isn't that wishful thinking? Should we allow ourselves to take on that mirage? Can phantoms like that harm us? Yes, they can lead us to fall into a trap. Be alert. Play it safe. This is the day of decision.

The coming elections, in less than three months, are grave. Talk is that Democrats have enough new seats in the House to topple it. I imagine that the Republican part of the deep state might allow this toppling, but even if not, the DNC will arrange for fraud at the voters' stations, because Trump, Ryan and Sessions didn't do anything about the fraud machine while they had opportunities. If Democrats win, there will be a massive influx of Mexicans in order to secure stronger Democrat votes. I can see horrible evil with the next Democrat House and presidency. Trump's best option to retain power is to attack the deep state openly. He'll win in a landslide.

But why should God glorify Trump if He has plans to cripple the deep state on our end-times behalf. What has Trump done to deserve being the king-pin of a deep-state attack? Wouldn't God rather chose someone better? Trump wants loyalty but gives none to God. Wouldn't God choose someone who's loyal to Himself? Where is this man? Why should we expect only one? Where is the Christian Body, the One loyal to God? Has it been deceived into thinking there is no deep state? In that case, the first order of business is to expose it, lay it our bare for all Christians to see. In the meantime, we wonder what roll we should play to kill it. Yes, we desire it to be killed, or we aren't faithful to the calling of God. This is the very thing that sets itself up as the god of all the earth. This is the thing that calls the whole earth to come worship at filthy feet. But beautiful are the feet of those who bring the teachings of Jesus.

The most-beautiful thing: God desires to have a family. God desires to be a Father, a coach, a teacher, of all. It's what He lives for, and it is marvelous in our eyes because we learn from it that we can be part of a GOOD God. It teaches us that he is not evil by nature, that he wants a team. How beautiful is it for the only God, the one who has power to take away our lives, to desire us? Do we ever think about God's desires? The "man" (as opposed to the pea-brain) realizes the God wants to be appreciated, and that, as God, he deserves to be appreciated. I see no difference between the words, "appreciated" and "worshipped." Worship means to appreciate. But the deep state wants all appreciation to itself. It not only wants to deceive us into allowing its power structures, to leave unscathed its blind and unwilling puppets, but it wants those puppets to appreciate it. It strives to portray itself as the good guys. This is the end-time deception, the False Prophet. The prediction is that the unwilling puppets will, largely, be made willing.

As Trump and others falsely say: most of the FBI are good guys. Not true at all. Good guys get pushed out at all levels after the wicked have controlled an organization for a generation or more. If the FBI or CIA is to be viewed any differently than the general population, it's that it has more of the wicked than the general population. This animal is in the throes of popularizing itself in the midst of an onslaught from Republicans to expose it. And we don't quite know where Trump stands on this mother of all decisions. He acts like he's with us, but his actions are like he's with them.

The bright side is where Republicans pull off a substantial victory in the House while retaining the Senate. This can allow Jim Jordan to replace Ryan, at which point the Republicans who oppose the Republican establishment will have power to clean house like never before. So, this is a good time to vote. If Trump survives, perhaps the deep-state attack on him now will cause unity between the House of Jordan and the White House. But all credit will go to Jordan and his supporters, not to Trump. I'm willing to give Trump credit where he deserves it, but I'm also leary of his loyalties to our enemies.

Just because the military establishment has been opposed to Russia doesn't necessarily make it a righteous bastion. Since when can't satanists oppose Russia? Don't American satanists want world rule? Isn't the definition of "satan" the New World Order, the Masonic "Order" that calls all religions to itself, to serve under the "light" of its leaders? This heap of garbage cannot attain this goal unless it foments appreciation for itself, and its opposition to Russia has become its chief tool for galvanizing respect for itself. Trump is falling heavily into this military-establishment camp. Why should we trust him to be our own when he looks more like a false hope? Space Force? He's got to be kidding? Return to the moon? The man has lost his integrity. He kowtows to NASA, which wants us to believe that it's the right arm of Jesus. Wasn't John Kennedy in bed with NASA?

Trump loves shooting missiles. Here's why bazookas are aimed at his Oval office: "Cohen told Judge William Pauley III that 'in coordination with, and at the direction of, a candidate for federal office' he arranged payments to two women for their silence 'for the principal purpose of influencing the election.'" It's exactly what the Clinton and Bush circles together wanted him to say. However, I'm having a problem understanding why Cohen is guilty of a crime while Trump is not. It is not a crime for Trump to pay hush money at any time. My understanding is that it would have been a crime only if campaign money was used for the pay-off. Perhaps Cohen is trying to send the message that campaign money was used. Perhaps he's willing to provide evidence of that thing in order to reduce his sentence. That's called a betrayal, and traitors of Jesus deserve to be betrayed. Armageddon is the Betrayal.

The traitors will be delivered to Betrayal. They will fall down their fiscal cliff while hanging themselves, committing suicide to relieve themselves of the agony of defeat. They will call on the rocks to fall on themselves for an early and swift death, but, instead, they will fall to the rocks of the cliffs so that their inners fall out, to be exposed to all, to be eaten by the buzzards. The End. And then comes the New World Order...under a New Name. Stick to this hope. Just stick to it. With all your being, make this your work of God. "With all your being stick to it" means love and accept the Lord your God with all your strength...because it's the only thing that remains when our physical lives are spent. The idiot who shoots you for calling him what he is doesn't think on these things.

Why do I call them idiots? Isn't that immature? I'm calling my own sons to view them as idiots because we must not respect them. We must disrespect them, because any respect given to them is exactly what they desire so that they might have power over us, to exploit us. When they cause us to respect them through fear of them, they will use fear of them all the more. This human condition, around from the beginning amongst human leaders, is why it was said long ago: it is the Lord your God whom you are to fear. We trust that God will not exploit us when we willingly come under his wings. We trust that he desires to serve us when we are under his wings. We think that he is big enough not to be a self-serving idiot. Call us fools, but that's what Christians believe, and it is marvelous.

Trump had Jay Sekulow as a lawyer, but went and hired Rudy Giuliani, Bush's and Mueller's co-conspiracists for 9-11, to become the national face for Trump's war. It's not much of a war if this is the best Trump can muster. The first thing Giuliani did as the president's lawyer was to betray him in this very Cohen issue by telling the world that Trump knew of Cohen's payment to the porn witch. This lightning-fast betrayal is why I think that Giuliani's main job now is to act like he's opposed to Mueller and Cohen so that he can act as a spy in Trump's house. Perfect, Trump deserves this for being a total idiot. He's the hope of Christians for to hold the fort against Democrats, but, unfortunately, he's an idiot. His own wife might be looking to hire a paid assassin as we speak.

The deep state will now want to make Trump's payments to the porn witches look like they were his idea, not Cohen's. We might watch Giuliani closely to see how he sets Trump up in this scheme.

Trump was an idiot to choose Sessions, and an idiot not to replace him. This permitted the Rosenstein-Mueller machine to raid Cohen's office and home, resulting in what we are seeing this week. The Clinton crime ring is happy here because it's safe while Trump is in danger for a much smaller "crime." The Clinton crime ring, even Hillary alone, is guilty of many crimes, but Trump has only one spin-zone sin thus far that's bound to stick. People can understand Trump's legally-white sin, but Hillary's crimes are gross, and involve secret things under Obama's plots, where further gross crimes are expected. The trick for Trump supporters is to turn attention away from Trump's sin, and to expose Obama's secrets. Under this pressure, the no-nothing Trump might start to act.

Until now, he's been driving his yacht in the swamp, which explains why he's stuck in the mud. Trump gave Hillary a pass. Isn't that the same as lowering his yacht into the swamp he claimed to oppose? To this point, he's refused to declassify the material that would expose both she and Obama. Trump was hoping that, if he was soft on them, Mueller might be soft in return. But Mueller and Rosenstein don't work for the Clintons. They work for the Republican deep state, which is why Trump was an idiot to hire Giuliani on top of his other hapless hirings. And he hired a military man to lead his own White House. You cannot become more blockheaded than that, coming in the thick of Middle-Eastern schemes that are still protractions from the Bush invasions. On whose side it this man on?

If the Democrats now go after Trump -- and they are -- for trying to hush two women during the election, the Republicans will fire bigger cannon balls toward Hillary's election crime through Fusion GPS, etc. The two things are not comparable at all. We might say that Trump's woes at this time are good for exposing the Obama crime ring. By all indications, Trump is coming close to firing cannon balls instead of tweets, especially because he seems to be skirting wholesale destruction from the bazookas. If Republicans retain the House with a sizable majority, and with Jordan at the switch, I foresee tanks in formation. And with Nunes, I hear the sound of terrorizing jets overhead, dropping payloads of destructive papers the world has never seen before. You've never seen the deep state get burned by mere paper before. Blow the fans, raise the flames. Pour in the barbecue fluid, for this might be cause for a festival. Or, the deep state will prevail.

On Wednesday, Cohen appeared prepared to lie in order to get good-behavior status:

Michael Cohen is willing to speak with Special Counsel Robert Mueller about a “conspiracy to collude” with Russia during the 2016 presidential campaign, his lawyer said on Tuesday night.

Cohen...wants to tell Mueller that Trump knew of an infamous 2016 meeting at Trump Tower and the Russian hacking of Democratic institutions before they took place, Lanny Davis told MSNBC.

“Mr. Cohen has knowledge on certain subjects that should be of interest to the special counsel and is more than happy to tell the special counsel all that he knows,” Davis told the network (New York Post).

This is a zero story until Cohen has evidence for the latter claim, and even then, I don't see it as much. First of all, just because certain Russians interfered in the election is no reason to assume that Putin or his Intelligence people did. Russian media were gunning for Trump; since when is that classified as "interference"? It's nothing-burgers like this that promise a Republican festival.

On August 22, Fox and Friend's lovely lady (still don't know her name) interviewed Trump. He said that Mueller wanted the FBI job, and that Rosenstein recommended Chris Wray. Wow, I didn't know that. Trump, the fool, listened to Rosenstein. The president promised to clean swamp, which required the FBI's role, and then he didn't even seek out his own man that would do the job; he just gambled on a Rosenstein recommendation. How do you say, *&(jErk@^%&! He admitted this while bragging about himself, trying to convince his voters he's king Midas.

That's why nothing is getting done on top of Trump's sad pick of Sessions. On the evening of August 22, the lovely lady (Ainsley Earhardt) appeared on Hannity and said she had something important to say as per what Trump told her concerning Sessions. We all think it has to do with firing Sessions. But she wouldn't tell Hannity what this great thing was, saying that we need to watch her on Fox and Friends the next morning. I've loaded that show and am watching it now, looking for this apparent good news. I didn't watch every minute, but neither did I see the bombshell. My guess is that the Fox bosses directed her not to say anything, perhaps at Trump's request. There was no other news story that day with any bombshell on Sessions' departure.

In the meantime, earlier today (23rd), Lindsay Graham and Chuck Grassley have said that they would be willing to replace Sessions while some/many of their Republican peers in the Senate cried foul. A carrot on a stick is being formed by this because they are saying, after the election, we'll try to fire Sessions. I see. Vote for us because of this and that, and then nothing happens. That's what Republicans always do. They always give a big cake to their liberal enemies because they are afraid of them. Instead of doing proper battle, winner takes all, they treat the enemy softly, hoping not to get trounced. But giving the enemy the breath of life means they've lost the battle even before it begins. The right thing to do is always to chose the right, always to stay on God's side, win or lose. In the end, they will win, but if they allow the liberal enemy to live, it will also thrive. Fight and go down with dignity rather than playing soft with the enemy, pathetically hoping to eke out some power now and then.

Sessions, for his part, came out to say he doesn't want to play politics. What? Handing justice to crime-ridden politicians is playing politics??? Unbelievable. Sessions is no man of justice. Look at this disgusting picture of last month:

Listen to Graham: "Graham had previously said that 'there will be holy hell to pay' if Trump were to fire Sessions." In other words, let's bake the enemy a cake so that they don't pound us. Let's just do what the liberal media want of us, and, hopefully, we'll get a couple more years in power. How do you say, %#pUke%@*! It's taken Graham nearly two years to finally talk the talk of a winner. Almost two years wasted, and he comes out now, just before the election, to portray himself as a do-battle guy. Why should anyone trust him? Why should anyone follow his carrot? The enemy gets big cakes, and his voters get a carrot on stick.

Do the right thing. Let the media holler and whine and pay holy hell, but fight the good fight, win or lose. Fight with all you have, and give victory a chance. It's the only way, otherwise you are a mere Jeff Sessions. Look him up in the dictionary; he's the definition of "loathsome." It's just playing politics, he says, to arrest people for crimes in high-political places. It's his fellow Republicans who want to see justice utilized as a tool to deter further crimes, and so he uses this situation of say it's just playing politics. The appointed king of law thus slanders all of those who promote the rule of law.

Exactly what holy hell will there be to pay merely for asking Sessions to resign? Will this be the first time that someone in high places is asked to resign? Of course not. Why should this be a holy-hell situation, then? Is it only because the Democrats will cry foul? Who cares? They cry foul no matter what the Republicans do, and they cry louder foul exactly when Republicans do what hurts them the most. So, what will Republicans do, shun from doing the greatest things against the enemy because they don't want to anger the enemy? You have got to be kidding. Is this what trump has devolved into? Yes, it is what trump has devolved into, because he listens to the wrong people. Smaller and smaller he becomes, even as he brags about the bigness of himself. No one should measure his true size by his poll numbers, for people are willing to vote for this small man in hopes that the cruel tyrants will not arise again.

Get lost, Mr. Graham. You're toying with the voters. He appeared on Fox to say how much he appreciates Sessions, such a good man, but not once did Graham talk about Sessions' failures to arrest the guilty now attacking his own president. Not once did Graham mention the long list of complaints that his peers have against Sessions. He would have the voters blind to all of that. Get lost, Mr. Graham. You're toying with the voters. Someone should replace him, because he stands a good chance at becoming the chief of Senate Oversight. What then? Do-nothing and cake baking. He'll give the time of day only to the bakers. The rest will be silenced. Get rid of Graham fast.

It is not necessary to replace Sessions with one who cancels the Mueller probe. This probe is the best thing to happen for the Republicans. It provides the reasoning to attack the deep state. It exposes the deep state as an empty suit framing (fabricating) its accusations. Let Mueller continue, and then, in the end, after he's done with the probe, bring him in for DOJ questioning as to why he allowed the real criminals to stay free who had engaged the Russians. In the meantime, arrest Comey, the Clintons, Lynch, McCabe, Wasserman, Strzok, Ohr, Obama, Brennan, Holder, and similar others. Arrest media bosses for telling lies. Free speech doesn't include telling lies. Start to arrest media bosses, and watch the lies wiped away from the news. To correct incessant evil behavior, tough penalties are required. There just is no other way to deal with evil. If you let it thrive, you live a little longer in peace, but it will cost more in the end than fighting it tooth and nail to begin with.

Forgive others, yes, when they repent, but use the sword of justice to deter evil patterns.

When the media get loud-mouthed in complaining about a Republican move, just yell back louder. Instead of granting a peace cake, throw flower pots at them. Republican voters have been de-spirited by the flake attitude to date. For a moment, they believed the Republicans were going to fight. Then, nothing. It was all a mirage. And now at election time, the Graham flake-fake comes out wearing boxing gloves, pretending that he's listening to the voters. And trump's playing the same sort of trick. Throw these bums out. Elect better Republicans, the doers. The sooner this president is impeached, the sooner another man gets a crack at this fight. The next Republican platform for the presidency should be, Bang Down the Doors, Bring on the Doers. Come on, Republicans, a little fight, please. You are all boring me to death. Stop repeating things, Mr. Nunes and Mr. Jordan, but work to add to the fatalities.

Here's a yellow-belly: "'I think it would be bad for the country, it would be bad for the president, it would be bad for the Department of Justice for [Sessions] to be forced out under these circumstances,' Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn said on Thursday. 'So I hope he stays the course and I hope cooler heads prevail.'" Exactly how would it be bad for the country? How could it be bad for Trump? This is fear-tactic. This is a scaredy-cat at the helm. Throw Cornyn out. Get an activist. The liberals are activists, and Republicans need to be better activists than they. Throw the do-nothings out. Let them wash the dishes or clean the toilets, but do not let them run the Senate. It is not time to be fearful when you have control of both houses. Act like leaders, you fools. Don't show fear, you traitors.

Fire Sessions tomorrow morning, and there's nothing the enemy can do to you. It's the right thing to do, because he's not a man of justice. Do right, and bring on the mustard. Do right, and celebrate a festival when Dems go out of their minds in anger just because you did the right thing. How can you Republicans miss out on this great party? Get together and blow the party whistles. Turn in the traitors in your own ranks just because it's the right thing to do. And enjoy it. The louder the screams of the nightly insane, the more you should guzzle the beer. It's not a time to fear, but to celebrate. Line up, line up, get your winning ticket today. That's the spirit. But watch your back.

I know what's going on. The secret players of the deep state have contacted all the would-be fighters in the R camp, and directed them, under severe threats, to bake cakes instead. That's why they are traitors. What they should do instead is to reveal the threats as a bloc, and together resist these animals. If the bear growls to test your resolve, pound your fist loudly into the wall, and watch it tear off. Throw a jar at it's tail while it reveals that it's more scared of you than you of it.

Trump "owns" Intelligence. If there are threats being made against Republicans -- and Chaffetz claimed that he was threatened -- then Trump has the right to order Intelligence to discover where the threats come from. Never let them get away with such a thing. It's equal to paying off an abductor. He will abduct again. So long as Republicans cower from threats, the threats will keep coming. The wicked will rule the day and the night.

Let's go read what the big-bad wolf, the Washington Post, said about firing Sessions:

...the politics and legality of firing this particular official at this particular time would be fraught, because special counsel Robert S. Mueller III [is he the king?] is already investigating Trump’s intentions around his repeated attempts to force or shame Sessions into quitting, to determine whether those efforts are part of a broader pattern of attempted obstruction of justice.

Are you scared, Mr. Trump? Did the big-bad wolf scare you? Arrrrr, Mueller will getcha. Sessions is obstructing justice for the Rosenstein-Mueller side, yet Mueller is threatening to charge Trump with obstruction. Will this thing win the day? You're the leader, Mr. Trump. You're not allowed to cower. If you want to celebrate, you've got to do the right thing. But, the question Goldilocks has: whose been sleeping in your bed, Mr. president?

This president has the power to unleash the very documents that Sessions refuses to unleash, and so this president is acting in cahoots with the very Sessions he claims to oppose. Yes, the big bad wolf is threatening you, Mr. president, but if you allow the threat to win the day, are you not sleeping with the wolf?

The Post continues: "Firing Sessions, a former senator from Alabama, could provoke a fierce response in Congress, where many Republicans are still very supportive of their former colleague and where many Democrats fear that the president is willing to tear apart the Justice Department to torpedo the Russia probe." Are you afraid of a fierce farce, Mr. Trump? Or are you behind it? Are you the big-bad wolf in granny's nightgown?

The media wants to make appearances that Trump wants to fire Sessions to save himself. Not true. He doesn't want to fire Sessions at all. He only wants to give appearances that he does. But he will fire Sessions when his voters start to fall away due to his acting just like Sessions. The time has come when Trump's facade is being realized. Just like Sessions, Trump refuses to declassify the evidence against criminals in high places. The two men are one and the same do-nothing, scaredy-cat traitorous, fools.

The deep state is lethal until it's attacked publicly. When the public is called upon to attack the deep state, it's a game changer. That's why the first line of deep-state defense is to win the public to its side. The public method of attack requires Republicans to get together as a team, meaning that the deep-state Republicans will cause schisms to avoid team work. Yet, even with the public on-side, it is impossible to win this fight with Jeff Sessions in Justice and Chris Wray in the FBI. There's no one to send the rats running. This fight was lost when Trump chose these two. It means that the public must get these men replaced if the public wants to stand any chance of winning the current battle. The public needs an attorney general who will commit, before taking the job, to ordering Wray to make the proper arrests. That's when the festival fires can be lit. Bring out the fireworks, it's going to be a long night.

Why does anyone bring these fat cats to power? Try men of principle for a change, those who are responsible, reliable, proven activists, faithful to the causes of decency in every avenue of life, faithful to their wives, not hoarders of money. But no, the majority of Americans don't want activist Christians. And neither does Trump, though he'll chose a few to make a show of it to get the Christian vote.

"'I'm absolutely certain the Washington swamp will bubble up with obstruction accusations,' Michael Caputo, a former adviser to Trump’s campaign, said." Oh no, not that. Obstruction accusations? Shudder. Let's play dead.

Farce: "...the Senate Judiciary Committee has warned Trump that it wont hold confirmation hearings for a new attorney general if Sessions is dismissed..." It's a bluff. They'll have no choice. They will either need to get a new AG, or allow Rosenstein to lead until 2020. Trump gets to appoint a temporary replacement, anyway, which will be a lot better than Sessions. But wait. Maybe not. Maybe Trump will make things even worse. Oh no, my heart. It's going to fail. I can't take it anymore.

See the 11th minute of Jason Chaffetz for the latest twist on Comey's criminality:

Here's White Rabbit News with the visible proof that an online directory lists the FBI as the employer of the so-called girlfriend of the Las-Vegas shooter:

Don't you think that says it all, if indeed the FBI was/is her boss? America needs an attorney general who looks into things like this on day one. Find the manpower, do the job. Ask what Obama knew.

Play the Anti-Christs

Let's move on to having a different sort of fun, this time responding to a anti-Christ atheist, an activist enemy, one of countless soldiers for the end-time cause, the blips on the screen of history who go down in colossal shame:

Ahh, Richard Dawkins, the guy who thinks he's got unbeatable arguments against us. He's asked why he won't leave religious people alone when they find comfort in God, and he responds with a sort of twist, one that takes aim at God, saying that finding comfort in God doesn't prove He exists. He's putting the cart before the horse. People find comfort in God because God proved His existence to them. It's like the comfort of the summer breeze, which one can feel. It's proof of wind. It is very comforting to receive a personal visit from the Almighty; Dawkins wouldn't know anything about that. We receive these visits, and they are proof of His existence.

Dawkins wants his followers to believe that we would believe in God without evidence of His existence. It's like when the Greeks thought that thunder was a noise from the sky god. It's not proof of God just because there is a noise in the sky. It's not proof of God's hand upon us with every summer breeze. But we see the whole picture, that God created the noise and the wind in the air, and the human heart in which He likes to reside at our pleasure. He likes it when we invite him to be in us, when we think the things that give him pleasure. It's not hard to understand. So, we look to find God working in our hearts, and Dawkins thinks that we are deceiving ourselves. We find pleasure in God in our hearts, and it's exactly where we can find proof of His existence, but because science can't venture there, God in the heart is given no value by the scientific stupids of our time.

If Dawkins can't think a kind thought toward God, neither will God desire to abide in his heart. That's called darkness. He prefers this to fooling oneself, but hasn't he got the buggy before the horse? He doesn't want to ask the question. He would rather gamble that there is no God. He can't prove that God doesn't exist, wherefore he's a gambler, and he wants to reproduce his attitude in every last person in the world. That's his dream for utopia: people using science to kill God.

Okay, science proved that thunder is an effect of sky energy, not God. Does this mean that there is no God? By the way, the Hebrew scriptures in no way claim that thunder and lightning is always an act of God, but we can get the impression that God is sometimes in it. It's not unthinkable that God, the One God, should use lightning or thunder to speak to someone, especially in curbing wrong behavior / schemes.

The schmuck beside Dawkins liberates on "reality," and just matter-of-factly claims that it's unhealthy to believe in a fantasy God. No one on the panel asks him, "how do you know it's a fantasy"? There is no acceptable answer to that question; atheists have always been dogged by that simple fact. The most they can say is, there is no evidence of a God, but even that is now shown to be erroneous by science itself. The "scientific" evidence for a God is there for anyone to chose to accept it. The evidence can be interpreted in different ways, and the schmucks have their interpretation. That's the best they can say, but, not being enough to turn people against God, they are now trying a new approach: just call it a well-known fantasy. Won't work. God will win this war on the Day of Thunder and Lightning.

The aim of science is to prove that all things in existence have a natural explanation apart from need of a God. Good luck. It's not been working. It's getting worse for them. The best tool of satan is sin. Sin will turn people against God a lot more than science will. Make people love sin and therefore hate God. It's the reason for the Day of Thunder and Lightning.

What did I say? I said, the aim of science is to prove that all things in existence have a natural explanation apart from need of a God. Doesn't that suggest that science is a sin? Shouldn't science be used to reveal the truth rather than having a pre-determined plot to kill God? Ahh, now we understand. Scientists who govern science want to be the antithesis of God.

The schmuck says that the beautiful thing about science (which science?) is that it has no pope, no cardinals, to rule the body. But this is a lie, especially when it comes to anti-Christ science, which is an establishment with power to bring in their own kind, and to reject Creationists, which is exactly what they have been doing. Why? Because the purpose of this particular science is to kill God. It means that their science "facts" are constantly framed for the underlying purpose of killing God.

There are sciences that do not get into the game of proving or disproving God. But there is a "science" that is always mentioned by anti-Christs in the sense of, The Overwhelming Authority on Knowledge. This is their god, the god they fashioned to announce that there is no God. This science is a farce, in other words.

They boast that, for every scientific "fact" they advance, they have the ENTIRE scientific community on their side to back them up. But of course they do, because they invented it, designed it, nourished and controlled it. They called in their false witness, and they use it as a true witness. That's all this is.

Atheists have always been the minority, not because people are generally naive, or ignorant of science, but because people have the healthy suspicion that there is a God...even while the anti-Christ establishment rings out otherwise. Many believe in God, but few are called by God. It means that God is picky. There is a certain bar that believers must achieve in order to rise in the First Resurrection. Not everyone who says, "Lord, Lord," will be saved. For example, this means that we don't extol him on Sunday morning under a black robe and white collar, the night after we have child sex.

It's the job of Jesus to spur all to please the Father. But surely there's more to it than strict obedience. Surely the end-purpose is not will you or will you not obey Me? Surely the end goal is such love for God -- that gets us over the bar flying -- that we don't need the Law of God. It was not God's initial will to introduce Law. The Law will be done away with when lawbreakers no longer exist. We could say that the Law was an after-thought when lawbreakers arose. The Law is valuable where it describes, between the lines, what is acceptable to God. But Something has come Who is greater than the Law, because he is the example of loving / appreciating God. He removes the Law when he fixes us. It's His job to fix us, to get us over the bar. But the Father will not call anyone who doesn't have the stuff of getting over the bar.

Does God have the right to free will and free choice? If anyone deserves it, it's He. Freedom must be within the bounds of law. The world has laws. Why can't God? Why does Western democracy allow the freedoms that God does not? It's our first clue that the world around us no longer deserves our respect. It needs the Doctor, to fix it, and we are directed, not to become anarchists, but to help fix it. The situation today, in the West, is such that anarchy is an acceptable means of fixing things, because the rulers are corrupt, and because corruption trickles down from the top. And there will be a Coup.

So, how do we try to fix this ungodly situation? We must communicate. And we must stick to the Jesus-View. We cannot go about communicating things that are deviations from the Jesus-Value. After 15 years of solid Bible study, you're probably ready to be a reliable steward of God's will, right? Not at all. Some people get certain virtues wrong from the start, because they prefer to live the wrong Christian life. They give their money to "men of God" flying around in their own learjets, paid for by church offerings, because they accept such prosperity values. Not everyone who says, Lord, Lord.

If people are leaving the churches, there are other explanations besides the Dawkins of the media. These guys are impotent, lame, silly. Desire for sexual sin will cause more people to walk away from churches than science. My greatest disappointment with the churches was their lack of unity on tackling the falling of Sodom over our society. There is nothing wrong, and everything great, with churches providing social opportunities, but there is also a warranted, derogatory phrase, "social club," that I define as a church enjoying the social activity but engaging not in the military work of Christ.

Jesus was an activist. He went openly against the illnesses of his society. It didn't have the problem of porn and faggotry, but we do. Shouldn't the churches call out this problem to the faces of the governments that allow it??? Shouldn't we have torn our hair out until this abomination was put down? Due to church inaction, porn swept the Internet and entered the minds of the youth. It's what the anti-Christs had in mind since they introduced sex "education" in high schools, before they knew they would have such a thing as Internet. It was a porn bonanza for them, but we are surviving, but I did seriously lose respect for church leadership, especially the leadership above the pastors.

The churches are more than its leaders. Let God judge the leaders, because we probably don't know what's in their hearts, and one of their failings today may not be their failing tomorrow. Let's not be critical on the basis of common failings. But, surely, as the killers of God are out and about, acting like the new apostles of a new good news -- freedom from Jesus -- do we fail to engage them in war?

"Free will" is the god of the atheist, and he wants the Christian to believe that free will is his "right." Since when did God order that we all have free will? I don't know of any scripture. We have freedoms, but they do not include all things. "Free will" is a buzz-word for "do as we please." It's the first definition of sin, because sin starts with desire to run amuck of God's will. "Free will" is defined by the atheist as "my will not Thine be done." Why would anyone want to respond to an idiot such as this? Respond to this idiot, and he will think himself wise in his own eyes.

God does not give us the right to have a free will. That is, he doesn't condone any will we choose. He does give us the right to choose between right and wrong (this is the theologian's definition of "free will"), but even then it is not "free" choice because there is a price, from Him, to pay for the wrong choice. In the name of fair play (as per playing to His own good reputation) and justified wrath, God allows us to choose the wrong. It doesn't mean he's fine with bad behavior so long as he gets to punish it. He would rather not see bad behavior, and rather not punish anyone. He has willed a society, not loners. If men were created to be loners, wandering about alone in the wilds, it wouldn't matter so much if all did as they pleased. But sin is defined as the harm one person does to society as a whole, and therefore "free will" is the destruction of society. We are witnesses of this scientific fact.

The opposite of the atheist's "free will" is not God-controlled will. The opposite of free will is willing to do what God finds acceptable. Free will is the green light to become comfortable in doing what is not acceptable to God.

Is there such a thing as God-controlled will? Not in the sense of an automaton. He will try to curb all evil will, which is a form of control. Yes, as the driver of a car controls the car to keep the occupants safe, so God wishes to control the will of his people to keep society safe. It is the willful sinners who spoil the society. Why would any idiot be for free will when society has thieves, rapists and murderers? Where do atheists draw the line on free will? We should draw the line where God draws the line, because, I feel sure, he knows more than the idiot.

I'm sure that God created the Creation to remind angry people to come back to their senses. A person becomes upset with God for a certain situation, and there are countless such situations. He/she is tempted to be angry forever. And when the spiritual darkness prevails long enough, this person comes to question God's existence too. In the end, as the anger subsides, there is the Creation staring one in the face. But the idiot is the pea-brain who resists this message from a mere look at the Creation: come to your senses, God is not so bad as you have been thinking.

The message of Dawkins is: don't let the Creation bring you back to friendship with God. Remain outside, give him the finger. He has a nicish way to say it, but that's what he promotes, nothing short of remaining angry with God forever. Kill God, and enjoy your life. Very disturbing. Dawkins is a very-disturbed man. Those who love him love to needle Christians because they too are angrily disturbed with God. This is nothing more than the movement of God haters, make no mistake about it. They are not merely non-believers, but activists who would like to do us harm.

The Christian activist has nothing to be ashamed of. We are for a wholesome society. But they want to be viewed as the makers of a wholesome society under atheism. God is not needed in their society, and so they seem blind to the causes of the degradation of society since the 1960s. They are responsible for it. They have ruled education since the 1960s. It was they who set up their liberal supreme-court judges. But somehow all the ails of society is, as they claim, the fault of believers in God. Like I said, they are very disturbed.

What is a Christian activist? Someone who speaks and gives witness of zeal for Jesus. It's nothing to be ashamed of.


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