Previous Update

Updates Index

(if there are any to speak of)

October 1 - 8, 2018

My Flat Tire: Flavians with King Maccus
The Light of "Turin's" Shroud Versus the Stupids (not even the Vatican believes)

Sure enough, the Washington Post brought out a new accusation against Kavanaugh over the weekend because a new accusation justifies an extended FBI investigation. This is the same media that was putting out robo-phone messages informing women across the land that they can earn money if they have some bad thing to say against Roy Moore.

There is anger, justified anger, required anger, and then there is belligerence: "hostile, aggressive, threatening, antagonistic, warlike, warmongering, hawkish, pugnacious, bellicose, truculent, confrontational, contentious, militant, combative." The Democrats are belligerent, aren't they? How do we tackle wicked belligerence? We first of all give it to God, by claiming the power of Jesus upon it. We expose it by speaking out against it, telling how it opposes God, for God then wants to become involved...if those who claim His name are loved by Him. But how much does God love the likes of Mark Levin, Sean Hannity, etc.? If people who do not respect Jesus much fight belligerence, will it not become belligerence versus belligerence? Isn't this how some wars start?

When it became known that Moore's chief accuser had tampered with her yearbook's entry -- the entry that served as evidence against Moore -- Hannity failed to support Moore. And this was after Hannity told his audience that he was done with Moore, implying that Hannity (joined by Jarret) thought he was guilty. I heard no other word from him on Moore's woes.

Online definition of belligerence: "bellicose pugnacious contentious quarrelsome. These adjectives mean having or showing an eagerness to fight. Belligerent refers to a tendency to hostile behavior: A belligerent reporter badgered the politician." Every press conference by Sarah Sanders has belligerent badgers. They go there to be belligerent; they prepare themselves to act it. They send out the message that all Democrats should become badgers until they get power back. And Republicans then tend to do the same (but not nearly as badly) when they want power back. Bad attitudes in politics, for power's sake, is a wicked thing. It's the reason that we should not get involved politically. Instead, we must speak the truth as best we can arrive to it, whether it favors our party or not.

Democrats are now using far worse than belligerence. The false witnesses brought against Kavanaugh are timed with what could be Rosenstein's demise, making me wonder whether the false witnesses have been brought forward by the Obama "shadow government" to strike fear in Trump as to what could be done against him if he moves to declassify. Until now, Trump has been a good boy toward the deep state that opposes him, but let's wait to see what it does if Trump actually starts to do something against it. Or, let's see whether Trump does anything, for last week he left declassification up in the air.

Obama is predicted to be sore / vengeful for his failure, thanks to Republicans, in replacing Scalia on the supreme court. There is a question as to why the scam occurring to Kavanaugh didn't occur to Gorsuch. Perhaps the wheels of Obama's machine were not yet greased at the time due to fear of being caught for corruption, but since then, Trump has shown every fear of his own to attack the Obama circle using the FBI. The starting point of Trump's attack is to declassify the damning papers so that the FBI has no choice but to start and complete an investigation.

As early as Monday, but more on Tuesday, it was heard that the FBI was ready to finish its Kavanaugh investigation by late Tuesday / early Wednesday, which, if true, means that the FBI has no desire to investigate the accusers. That's my take. The accusers all look politically-motivated, which likely represents crimes spurred by the Democrats as they work in collusion with the accusers, and Wray apparently has no righteous bone in his body to snuff out this diabolical attitude.

On Wednesday, Bloomberg: "The FBI hasn’t interviewed Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh or Christine Blasey Ford because it doesn’t have clear authority from the White House to do so, according to two people with knowledge of the matter." What? Five days into the expedited investigation, and they didn't even talk to Blasey??? It figures. It's an excuse. This looks both like a stall process and an avoidance of being guilty upon questioning an obviously-guilty person. On the same day, we're hearing that the FBI report is complete. What kind of a sham is this? The FBI's not worried, for while Trump speaks a heavy game, they know he's a push-over.

It turned out that the FBI finished up early, and did NOT interview Blasey to the apparent disappointment of Democrats. This is very suspicious because Flake and the two wayward Republicans can now argue that there was no FBI investigation by which they can decide to vote, and, therefore, they may justify voting "no," which may be the very reason that the FBI refused to do the investigation. According to Republicans, the FBI concluded that there was no stuff in Blasey's accusations, and ditto for the other accusers, but I say that the FBI is either playing a trick.

As the FBI claims to have found Blasey's testimony as unfounded, shouldn't the FBI do a criminal investigation of the Democrats who fronted her? Yes, absolutely. It is absolutely required to punish this despicable political tactic. I say the FBI doesn't want to do it, and that's at least half the reason that it decided not to question Blasey.

On Friday, one day before the final vote, there was a close vote on whether to go ahead with the final vote: "The vote to invoke cloture was 51-49. While the vote was not necessarily indicative of the final confirmation vote, it moved him one step closer to sitting on the highest court in the land, with three out of four key undecided senators voting "yes" to advance the nomination." One Republican, Lisa Murkyswampski, didn't even want to go forward, so precious to her is abortion "rights." Within some 20 years, she may find that God will abort her from eternal life. Twenty years is not much time. Look out. "The source said that the White House believes Murkowski will ultimately be a 'no,' but Manchin, Collins and Flake will all vote 'yes.'" I wouldn't be so sure about Flake.

If the FBI were to uncover some damning thing, causing Kavanaugh to lose, it would be afraid that both Trump and the Republicans would start an investigation on the FBI's part in this political script. That's what I think is going on.

By Friday evening (October 5), Collins, Flake and the lone Democrat (Manchin) said that they would confirm Kavanaugh, for a total of 51 yea votes promised even if Murkyswampski votes nay in protest.

In the last two updates, I shared an event that I thought may have been set up by God, which included a flat tire, a blazer, and a tie. In the last update, the flat tire pointed to the Flat/Flett and Flag/FLACK bloodline and therefore to Jeff FLAKE, and I had said: "It just so happens that Jeff Flake is supported by senator, Susan Collins, while the Collins surname shares the martlets of Flys, from Flagi." Mrs. Collins did support Flake in wanting the FBI probe to, hopefully, destroy Kavanaugh. Perhaps it was known by Flake and Collins that Manchin was going to be a yea, and perhaps Flake decided that it was too much political risk to vote nay. Once Flake revealed his yea vote, it definitely became too much political risk for Collins to vote nay. In the end, Manchin seems like the winning vote because it forced the hand of the Republicans who wanted to sink Kavanaugh.

The blazer was stated as God's pointer to Linkletters, whom can be linked by the Flats/Fletts to Lynch's, for the latter use a version of the Feller Coat, both sharing trefoils with Falls'/Fallis' and Flats/Fletts. It's suggesting that proto-Rockefellers (from Roquefeuil) were of the Flat bloodline. The Lynch-like Lance's, who are more like Langs, share the Lynch trefoils and probably the Alan star, for English Lance's (Oakhampton fesse?) have a fesse colors reversed from the Alan fesse.

I trace Linkletters / Lynch's to Langs, all from Lyncestis, beside PELAGONia, which explains why Langs use the PELICAN. It's code for the Pellican surname, first found in Maine with the Josephs that share the Collins martlet, and the Collins write-up has one Saint Collen, said to be the namer of LLANGollen ("Collen" is in "LlanGOLLEN"). Coincidence? The Irish Collins share lions combattant with Abreu's while the latter's tower is also the Pellican tower. As per Christine Blasey Ford, English Fords use the OWL while Howells (Wales, same as Llangollen elements) share the same tower.

Moreover, the Irish Gainy/KEAVENey Coat (it's the Kelly Coat) is a version of the Abreu Coat (see also O'Reillys of Cavan), and Kavanaughs are also Cavans and KEEVANs. The latter share the red lion and red crescents with Gollens, whom I looked up as per, "LlanGOLLEN." If God was pointing to the Kavanaugh affair, why? As per Brett Kavanaugh, I now see that German Bretts share the same bend as Collins, while English Bretts share the red lion, in both colors, of Gollens.

In short, it appears that the blazer-with-tie event points also to Susan Collins, yet the tie, under the circumstances, became suggestive of a 50-50 tie vote, though that was just my personal idea. As things sit now, it's headed to a 51-49 vote, though a nay from either Collins or Flake would bring it to 50-50. My blazer-tie event was introduced two updates ago without my connecting it to the Kavanaugh affair. It was the flat tire, which I thought of a day or two after the update, that connected things to Kavanaugh more heavily than after I realized that the Blazer surname is also, "Blasey." It was remarkable that Irish Fords, with a "Christi" motto term, share the Blasey/Blazer martlets.

The Hill writes: "Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), in a widely watched floor speech on Friday afternoon, gave Kavanaugh his crucial 50th Senate vote." Note that she's of Maine, for the Collins martlet is used in giant form by the Josephs, first found in Maine (France) with Pellicans. And the Flys of Flagi, with the same martlets, were first found in Hampshire with English Josephs. The article continues: "Her announcement came hours after Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) confirmed that he would vote for Kavanaugh. Shortly after Collins’s announcement, Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) said that he would also support Kavanaugh’s."

So, Collins gave the tie vote, in a sense, yet my tie had other significance, not necessarily having to do with a tie vote. Yet the Collins surname was first found in Shropshire (beside Wales) with Cleffs/Cliffs, and my tie was decorated with treble clefs. I trace Langs to the Aleng variation of Alans, and Alans of Dol were in Shropshire. German Rothes were at Brunswick, which was political with Luneburg, where the pelican-using Langs were first found, and Shropshire is where English Rothes' were first found. There is a Langolen location in the Finistere part of Brittany. Alans of Dol had Flat-like Flaad as their first-known ancestor.

Democrats have gone insane, accusing and teaching that Collins is a man-loving, white supremacist, traitor of women. In reality, her vote is due to her own political concerns. This is another example of how Democrats promote lies until all Democrats go crazy in complicated falsifications. . One cannot think properly with false information as the guide. Collins framed her speech to make herself appear as respectable and noble as possible, though in reality she wanted Kavanaugh defeated for fear that he would overturn abortion rights. Let's stick to the truth, and we'll make better conclusions with our minds. Ignore Fox news and Trump as they give Collins a pedestal.

It's almost 1 pm as I write on Saturday, hours from the vote. It's possible that one other Republican could put in a nay vote so that a tie results. This would be a Republican who doesn't want Kavanaugh, but decided earlier to vote yea if the votes are there otherwise to confirm. Why make things rough with a nay vote if it goes to waste? But, now, after what we learned yesterday, a Republican or two might decide that a nay vote will not be a waste.

I have just seen for the first time that the Fly/Flythe Coat is no longer being presented by houseofnames. My best recollection (viewed it last week, and many times over the past few months) is that it's Flat/Flett/Flight chevron but with a gold Shield, and throws in three martlets somehow, in both colors of the Joseph martlet. Either the Fly martlets or the Fly fleur-de-lys are within black roundels, code for the Alans of Arundel. The Fly page comes up, yet the Coat area says, "Sorry the coat of arms/family crest for Fly could not be displayed." It was showing for years previous. Flat's/Fletts (version of Float/Flott Coat) were first found in Orkney with Blaseys/Blazers.

The Fly Coat is a super thing for linking Josephs back to Flavius Josephus, the Jewish historian. Even the write-up says, "The surname Fly is derived from "Flageum," a French village named for Flavius, the owner of an estate in the region. This village eventually became known as "Flagi" (pronounced "flah-hee"). The surname Fly was first borne by emigrants from this region to England." It assumes that Josephus had children, and that their descendants knew their ancestry at least to the Fly surname.

Note that while Pratts use a version of the Fly / Flat Coats, Belgian Pratts are Brett-like.

Here's from an online Fly-surname page:

Hello Cousins,

I believe we have had many additions to the readership of the Fly/Flye Forum since my posting #1387, but I have no way of knowing how many of those who have joined our exchanges have realized that they can still harvest lots of general information from my early postings. Please re-read #1387 as preface to reading THIS posting.

I have acted on a suggestion from one of the Cousins (Was it Ralph David junior or senior?, (or someone else?,) I have sought possibilities as to WHO was our large-scale LANDOWNER, Flavius, whose Estate name was Flaviacus, leading to the village name Flagium, Flaiensi, Flagi. And ulitmately "de Flagi" became "de Flye" and Fly/Fley/Flye, Flythe, etc.

He suggested Flavius Honorius as a possibility. He wondered about others who might qualify. His thought processes built a fire under mine and I dug in "Google" search for Flavius Constantius, one of Flavius Honorius' Generals in the period 411 - 421 A.D. The latter's movements and involvements of the times seem "in sync" with many known bits of data relative to the matter until his death 1n 421. He was only Co-Emperor of the West (with Flavius Honorius) for SEVEN MONTHS, ending in his death in 421. Flavius Honorius died in 423.

Flavius Constantius was a Praefect of Gaul, and there are countless OTHER things to tie the relationship into place.

One of these is that Flavius Constantius is thought by at lease several historians to be ONE AND THE SAME PERSON as UTHER PENDRAGON of Arthurian Legend. Uther/Flavius Constantius was FATHER of Arthur.

Pendragon was not a real person, but myth code for the Pendragon surname, which probably shares a form of the Fly/Flythe fleur-de-lys. I can add that the Fly/Flythe fleur are colors reversed from those of the English Constantine's. It appears that Flys and Constantine's do trace to Flavius Constantius, yet Pratts (almost the Fly Coat with Flat/Flett symbolism thrown in) are very helpful for tracing back to the imperial Flavians of Rieti (e.g. Titus, 70 AD), for the Arms of Rieti has a "PRATus" motto term. Flavius Josephus was "adopted" by Titus. After having said these things now over several months, and linking also to Joseph Caiaphas, I can understand why someone would contact houseofnames to get the Fly Coat off the air.

In the second update of last month, I discussed a spider-fly dream (included some web) I had not very long ago, tending to reveal that the Webbers and Flys (beside the Webbers) use fleur in the same colors due to being related by marriage at one time at least. Pendragons are a branch of LYNX-using Penes'/Pennys, the latter sharing the courant greyhound of Palmers, first found in Norfolk with, and related to, Flags/Flacks (Floats/Flotts were also first found in Norfolk). To my great surprise, Mrs. Kilpatrick came to me and took both of my PALMs in hers, during a church service, on the only day I wore the blazer and tie. She took my hands for PRAYER, and Prays/PRATers look like a Pratt branch by more than similarity of terms. God knew what he was doing, but why does this set of things trace to the Flavians of Rieti while also touching upon the Kavanaugh affair?

I don't think God would be interested in Flavius Josephus unless he was closely related to Joseph Caiaphas. As I feel secure in tracing "Caiaphas" to a version or outcropping from "Cavii," what about Cavan in Ireland, which is the namer of "Kavanaugh," or vise versa? "Cavan was founded by the King of East Breifne, Giolla Íosa Ruadh O’Reilly, sometime during his lordship between 1300 and his death in 1330. During his lordship, a Franciscan friary was established close to the O’Reilly stronghold at TULLYmongan". The Tully surname ("Vis", like VESpasian), sharing wolf heads in both Shield and Crest with Pratts, shows Flood/Floyd variations suspect with Flat / Flott liners because Tulls/Tullia's use butterFLIES! Just like that, my flat tire can go to the founders of Cavan, and to Kavanaugh himself.

The Kavanaugh lion thus becomes suspect as the Tool and Tull/Tolle lion in colors reversed. This goes to Tullia of Lyon (at the lifetime of Attila), whose descendant, Munderic, got suspect with "Mundzuk," father of Attila the Hun.

Kavanaughs are said to descended from MacMOROGHs, and Reillys (first found in Cavan) share the MORGan/Moore lion. This will trace with Moor-head Morano's to Morano/Murunum (Moor head) at the Sybaris river. The people of Sybaris founded nearby Laus, suspect with "Lissus" of the Cavii. Chappes' share the Moor head with Titus'. Beside Morano is Terranova di Pollino, possibly of Vespasia POLLA, mother of emperor Titus Flavius Vespasianus. Pollins share the pelican, scallops, and a bend with bendlets with Pullens/Pullys (share Fly / Joseph martlets), the latter definitely from Vespasia Polla. The Pollin Coat is a fair reflection of the Bone Coat while I trace "VesPASia" to the Pasi's of BONonia.

For the record, the blue scallops of Pollins are those also of Sodans, from the Irish Sodhams in the family of pelican-using Pattersons. I trace the Sodan Coat to Cassano's because Pattersons are also Cassane's. Cassano's were first found in Modena (near Bononia) with Morano's, Morinis' and Marano's. Sodans probably use the wavy Dol fesse in colors reversed, and with the Alan stars upon it, because Sodans were first found in Devon with Stewarts and Walerans.

Alans of Dole married Robert D'Avranches of Ferte-Mace, which is the line of Praers / Prayers, and to/from the Ferte eagle in the TIRE/Tier/Tyre Coat. The Tire's were of the island of Kintyre, and this eagle, which belongs also to MacDonalds of the Scottish Isles, tends to prove to me that king Maccus of the Scottish Isles was from Ferte-Mace. As I sat down beside the tire to raise the van with the jack, the Kilpatricks were passing me, and I waved. The "I MAKE sure" motto of Kilpatricks is partly for Maxwells/MAKESwells, for they share the Kilpatrick saltire and are said to be from "Maccus."

Note that while Maccus elements are expected on Bute, that's the origin of Bothwells who share the Lynch Coat, a version of the Feller Coat, the latter in the colors and format of Maccus-line Mackays. Remember, Lynch's, Fellers and Bothwells share three trefoils in the same pattern with Flats/Fletts. The flat tire speaks, and it was I, a Massey liner, who had to fix it.

Maccus' father was Harald, and Haralds/Herods, in Pollock colors, were first found in Argyllshire with Tire's and MacDonalds. Harald's father was SITRic, and the first surname I loaded (years ago) seeking lines from Sitric was the SITTERs (shown properly as Sittwells/Sidewells), likewise in Pollock colors. I SAT down by the tire, amazing. The Sitter/Sittwell write-up has one Francis HURT Sittwell, reminding me that while Haralds/Herods are also Hurls, the English Herls/Hurls (Northumberland, same place as Sitric and Sitters/Sittwells) share the fesse of Hurts.

Sitric married Edith of Polesworth, the latter suspect in naming Pollok in Renfrewshire. It's known that the first Pollock was named after this place, yet he may have been a Massey of Ferte-Mace otherwise. Pollocks are a known sept of Maxwells.

As per "PolesWORTH," Worths share the double-headed eagle of Maxwells. Polworths use the three piles of Orrs/Ore's (same place as Pollocks and JACKs) in colors reversed, and throw in the red MacDonald fitchees. Maxtons, likewise from "Maccus," use blue fitchees. Tire's share a hand holding a fitchee with Isle's/YLLeys, the latter suspect with Yell of Shetland (shares raven with Isle of Man and with Pollock-suspect Peters). Yells use a "VIRTute" motto term for (I think) the Virty variation of Ferte-liner Vardys/Vertys. It's known that the father of the first Pollock was a vassal of the Dol Alans. Remember, the FLAT tire traces to Flavians / Josephus (from Israel's priesthood) with Pollocks. There is a Polwarth location at Edinburgh, and the Mens/MENGzies surname was first found at the Edinburgh theater.

People of Man are called, Manx, and the Manus/McWEYNish/MacVINis surname comes up as "Mang/Mong," recalling the O’Reilly stronghold at TullyMONGan, of the founders of Cavan. It's known that Fane's/VEYNES'/Vans, who share the gloves of Maceys, are a sept of Mackays ("Manu" motto term). The Manus/Weynish/Mong surname (another paw in Crest) was even first found in Shetland. I trace paws to Palins/Pawleys, from Palinurus, smack beside the Laus mentioned earlier. It makes Cavan look like a Cavii element. It also makes it appear that God chose the flat-tire event to point to both this Maccus line and to the Kavanaugh affair.

The Manus/Weynish/Mong/Magnus surname was in CORTANce of Aberdeen, and Aberdeenshire is where Manns/Magnus' (dragon with hurts, goats) were first found who use a version of the Dragon/DRAINer Coat, which traces to the Drin river, at the mouth of which is Lissus. Yup. CORTENs/Cortys (Curtis colors) use goats in Mackay colors and format. "Cortance" is interesting because, after she let go of my palms, she did a CURTsey toward me while standing in the center ISLE. I'm not making it up; here's from the 2nd update of May, 2016: "It had been decades since I saw a woman do a curtsey, but that's exactly what she did, when I said, "I'll pray for you too." It wasn't a full curtsey, but the start of one, done very fast and spontaneously. She did this in the isle before the entire church, and her husband too."

Dragons/Drainers (Kent, same as Minute's/Mynetts and Greens), who look to be using a version of the Man/Ment Coat, use a colors reversed version of the Minute/Mynett Coat, a surname from Amyntes, grandfather or great-grandfather of SEVERus Bassus, where I trace my "Safari." Amyntes' son had a granddaughter, Julia POLLA, whom someone says was the sister of Severus Bassus. He lived in Hasmonean-like Akmonia (a Hasmonean founded Maccabees). Two moose just walked past 30 feet out my window, the second one walking on three legs with the front left leg held off the ground. I'll come back to this because I can make sense of it.

CURTus MACCabee comes to mind, for I trace Masseys/Maceys to Maccabees. Josephus said he descended from Curtus Maccabee. Curtis' (Plow Coat) use a plowshare, making "Plow" suspect from "Flavius." As per "plowSHARE," it links exactly to Mrs. Kilpatrick, for Share's are also Sheers while Kilpatricks show a Sheera variation. The "I make SURE" of Kilpatricks must be for Sure's, who share a JACK Coat. The Kilpatricks drove by as I was sitting to apply the jack to the VAN.

After her curtsey, I don't think I ever talked to her again. Circumstances drove me out of Texas, and wouldn't allow me to return. I left the tie there. The Tie/Dye Coat is a reflection the Isle/Eyles'/Eels Coat, and Yellows (share black fesse with Yells) were first found in Oxfordshire with eel-using Shiptons.

The fleur of Isle's/Eyles'/Eels is in the colors of the June fleur, and colors reversed from that of Cake's, first found in Cambridgeshire with June's. Cake's are suspect from the Caech surname of Sitric above. June's (same place as Capone's) have long been suspect from Junia Caepionis, granddaughter of QUINTus Caepio, and here we find that Quints (Maxton chevron?) share a lion paw holding a cross with Isle's/Eels.

Cheap-like Cheps/Cheppa's/Jeepma's share the black, double-headed eagle with Worths and Maxwells. The German Belows share the Chep/Cheppa eagle in both colors while Chep-like Shiptons use the EEL and bellows (fans). Irish Foys/Feys (Cavan) use another eel and probably the crescent of Chapmans/Chepmans (same place as Capone's / June's). French Foys were first found in ILE-de-France with French Chappes'.

I always link the Sitric > Maccus line to Seatons (same place as Bruntons/Brunsons), who should be with the red crescents of Max's/Maxseys' (Ferte eagles likely, share red chevron with Maxtons), for "Max" is a motto term of Bruntons/Brunsons (may have the Mans/Ments in their motto)...who in-turn use the same eagle as Ferte's. Max's use the crescent in Chapman-crescent colors. The Bellows are a branch of Belli's, and it just so happens that German Belli's use a beacon, which at one time was in the same design as what's seen in the Brunton/Brunson Crest.

The three Polworth piles are in the colors of the three of Guiscards/Wisharts, first found in Stirlingshire with Chappes'/Cheaps ("VIRTUS"), making WISharts and Edith of Polesworth suspect from VESpasia Polla, wife of Flavius Sabinus. Chappes'/Cheaps share the gold garb in Crest with Josephus-liner Josephs. French Chappes' are suspect with the perchevron of Ottone's, a branch, likely, of the Oddie's and Odins (of HOLDerness), the latter sharing the Coat of Greenwich's, first found in Kent with Greens ("VIRTUS"). Otone's are also OLTENs while Cheps/Cheepa's were first found in OLDENburg.

Back to Flavius HONORius, for the Honor/Honan Coat is essentially the Green Coat . As I said, the only day I wore the green blazer to church, I also wore a light-green shirt, and Mrs. Kilpatrick wore, for the only time I had seen, a green dress (the Kilpatrick Coat is a version of the Blazer/Blasey Coat). Hicks' even share the gold stag with Greens and Honors/Honeys. Blazers of Blay can be linked to BLEDs/Blays, and while Bleda was the brother of Attila the HUN (House of DULO), HONorius is suspect from some Hun group in relation to the Alans of DOL, who became the Stewarts that happen to use a version of the Honor/Honan stag. It appears that imperial Flavians of a Caiaphas vein were in the line of Tullia of Lyon as it merged with Hun elements.

The Fly page above continues:

More information. I have come to believe that Germer and St. Germer should be pronounced "Ger-may" like the French verb "to germinate". A seed germinates. And, while I pondered over how the French pronounced "FLY"; I found one place in French usage that gave "St. Germer de Flaix", along with "St. Germer de Fly", indicating the pronunciation "FLY" , as we say it in English in everyday usage here. (and NOT as I had thought,- "FLEE".)

Germers, first found in Flavian-infested Norfolk, use a "VIRTis BASIS VITae" motto phrase, part-code for the Prayer kin of Vardys/Virtys, and obvious code also for Julia MAESA BASSianus (200ish AD), wife of Julius AVITus. The Vardys/Virtys are the namers of Ferte-Mace, where I trace the Maesa > Massey bloodline. Mrs. Kilpatrick was born Miss Hicks, and she took my palms, a Massey liner, while Palms, sharing the Massey fleur, were first found in Yorkshire with Hicks', and it just so happens that the sister of Julia Maesa was the wife of emperor Septimius SEVERus, who died in Yorkshire. I've been tracing "SEVERus" to my SAFARi van (i.e. God chose the Safari for me to point to a line between Severus Bassus/Bassianus and Septimius Severus), which is the vehicle that had the flat tire. After she took my palms, I walked out of church to discover the Safari with a flat tire.

Norfolk is the location of Sparham, and the Sparham surname comes up as "Spare." The jack was used for a spare tire. Compare "Sever(us)" to "Spar." Sparrows (Norfolk, same as Sparham) share the white unicorn with Rasmussens/ASSMANs, suspect with "Akmon(ia)," home of Severus Bassus on the SAKARia river. SAGARs/Seagars were first found in Norfolk too. Houseofnames now says Seagars were first found in Devon.

I know only two surnames with lozenge buckles, the Germers (new to me here), and the Shakle's. Germers are listed with Jernegans/JENNINGhams. It just so happens that English Jennings (possibly the Cleff/Cliff wolf head) share the same, split (different color) wolf head in Crest with the Pratt Crest, and Pratts use mascles, which is what the lozenge buckles are. As I said, due to the flat tire, I had to take the JACK out to put on the spare, and Jacks (Yorkshire again) use the Prayer / Bardy scallops, but here I can add that the Jack fesse looks linkable to both the Shakle and Jenning fesse. Here's from the last update:

Reminder: Blaseys/Blazers use a version of the Kilpatrick Coat. Plus, I had the JACK the vehicle up to put on the spare, and Blaseys/Blazers and Jacks/Jacques' were first found in Yorkshire while Jacques de Molay was probably from Le Molay, three miles from the Blay location of Blaseys/Blazers.

It just so happens that Shakle-like Shacks/Shake's, first found in Lancashire with Jennings, use "MOLE hills." They could have used moles alone, but mole hills suggest the Hills as Shake kin too, first found in Worcestershire with Honeys, suspect with Honors/Honans = Huns.

A new thing here is that Scottish Jacks use holly while one Holly surname (Norfolk) is properly "Cullen/Collin," like the Collins who are linkable to the flat tire (i.e. needing the jack) via Susan Collins. The Hollys/Collins use the mermaid that is very linkable to the Anjou Fulks and therefore to the VOLKS/Fulke's of Norfolk (kin of Belgian Flecks). This reminds that, four days after Joel purchased a white Rabbit VOLKSwagen, we drove to Shakle road with it. I have this recorded several times over the past year; I'm not making it up here.

As I said, on the way to Shakle, we passed the cut-off, and Joel had to pull over to check the map, at which time I believe God gave me a Sign with a sea gull walking in lock-step with the click-click of the blinkers of the car. I can now add that the LlanGOLLEN location of the Collins' could have named as per a Gollen surname, three of which are also the Gull surnames. I should record here, as per golf themes and two golf-related dreams, that German Gollens/Gulls are also Golfins.

Blinkers are listed with BLANCHards, a possible branch of the PLANQUEtte's/Plante's, suspect with the Fulk-branch Plantagenets. Plunketts (version of the Holly/Collin Coat) were first found at/around Dol, and share the Hill tower. The first Mr. Plantagenet was Geoffrey of Anjou, and Jeffreys (branch of Geoffreys/Jeffreys) likely share the pale bars of English Gulls (Gully/Golly motto term) and German Julians. French Julians share an Alan and a Galli Chief. Plocks/Plucknetts, sharing the Fly / Joseph martlet, are said to have named, Plunket, making Plunkett and Plock liners look like Fulk liners of the Pollock/Polk kind. Pockets/Pouchers share the giant Blank cinquefoil in colors reversed.

When Mrs. Kilpatrick took my hands to pray (no hesitation, quality-loving act), I was wearing a new watch and ring. The Watch's/Wadge's use wedges while Wedge's can be linked to the Fulk-possible Figgs and Foggs, all linkable to Blacketts/Placketts (looks like they loved Travis'/Travers), Medleys and Methleys, the latter sharing the Chief, apparently, of Tie's/Dye's (Yorkshire, same as Methleys). Blacketts/Placketts (same chevron as Blacks) use the chevron-with-scallops of Rings (Norfolk again) in colors reversed. Blacks share the Kilpatrick saltire.

At a related Fly page, note the Meade term:

Further material of interest. ---- When Dorothy (Porter) Griffen, Mrs. MEADE F. Griffin, (a Fly cousin down from Col. William Fly, b. 1794, "Rev." John, b. 1772) visited St. Germer de Fly, the "Sainte Chapelle and Abbaye" church in Lower Normandy, the Abbe' told her that the lands in the area had once been part of an estate known as "Flaviacus", the lands of Fly. From the explanation given above, it would appear that one Flavius must have been the owner of the estate. The village at this place was known in Latin as "Flagium" and this devolved during the middle ages through "Flaiensi", "Flagi", "Flagie", etc. The "g" is pronounced gutterally, like the "ch" in "Loch Loman".

The Medleys and Methleys are likely a branch of Meads (Sussex, same as Medleys, near Hampshire), whose pelicans trace well to a Joseph-Pellican merger. It's online that Arthurs (pelican) of Clapton married Meads of Clapton as well as the Hicks'. Clapton is at PORTishead, which can explain Dorothy Porter in the quote above, for Porter-suspect Potters, both first found in Hampshire with Flys, share the white cinquefoil with Portis'/Porch's (probably the Pocket/Poucher cinquefoil).

Note the "'Sainte Chapelle and Abbaye' church in Lower Normandy," for the Hampshire Josephs share a Chief version likely of the Hampshire Caplans and the double chevrons of the Normandy Chaplains. The Caplans happen to use GRIFFINs, and that should explain "Dorothy (Porter) Griffen, Mrs. MEADE F. Griffin."

The Chapelle-like Chapells are in the write-up of Taylards, who I say share the Chives / Hykes/Hack quadrants. The Chives lions are thus suspect with the Taylor lions. Plunkett-like Blacketts/Placketts, who share the Hykes/Hack scallops, were at West MATfen, and while the scallops of Blacketts/Placketts, and their motto, suggest Travis'/Travers as kin, the latter can be linked to Tarves'. The Chives', first found in Tarves, share the Mathis moline because they were from the Cavii at the Mathis, now the MAT, river. Note how the Abbaye term can be a Cavii liner, and one Abbaye/Abbey surname (branch of Abbs'/Apps') even shares the scallops of Caiaphas-like Capes', the latter first found in London beside the Abbs'/Apps' of Medley-like MIDDLEsex. French Chapelle's were first found in Forez, where the Lyon surname traces that shares the green lion with English Chapells. James Whitney Fly (of the pages above) has another webpage featuring Lucy Fly CAPPS.

I have mentioned COLIN Cowie (high-school friend) as part of a Cheech-and-Chong event that I think God set up for my heraldic work, and Cowie's (Aberdeenshire), like "Cavii," happen to share the boar heads of Turins, the latter first found in Aberdeenshire with Tarves, important because Chives' named Chivasso at Italy's Turin.

The Tie's/Dye's, possibly of Aberdeenshire's Dee river, are said to have been at Wakefield, and Wakefields happen to share the split Shield of Tarves' along with what should be the Joseph Chief. "Cavii / Cowie" is suspect with Joseph Caiaphas. Dee's/Die's happen to use a "Hic" motto term, which recalls that in the dream with Miss Hicks, I was told to WAKE her up. The Wake's led to players in the FISA scandal. Dee's/Die's were first found in Aberdeenshire and Cheshire, and there is another Dee river in Cheshire (into Wales). The Arms of Cheshire share the garbs in the Wakefield Chief, suggesting that Josephs use the Cheshire garbs.

Cowie's can be a branch of Cue's/Kue's (Norfolk), who share the Arms-of-Cheshire / Wakefield / Joseph / Weaver garbs.

Plunketts are from Plancia Magna, a descendant of GLAPHYRa Archelaus, wife once of Herod Archelaus, the latter suspect with the Lyons and Lannoys. She traces to CLAVERs/Cleavers, a branch, I think, of Cleffs/Cliffs/Cleve's (married the Sticks who share the Singer/Song scallops, explaining the song clefs on my tie). It dawned on me just now that the wolf heads of Cleffs/Cliffs reveal a Cliff-like variation as "Guelph," for the latter were also "Welf" while Welfs/Wolfs/Lupus' (share wolf heads) were first found in Cheshire with Cleffs/Cliffs. Glaphyra is the known ancestor of Lupus Laevillus' wife, QUADratilla Bassus, whom I trace to Quade's/Wade's who share the three, black-on-white wolf heads of Cleffs/Cliffs. Perfect. And the "FIDELitus" motto term of Singers/Songs is for Fiddle's/Fidelows, who use three wolf heads too! God arranged for me to get a tie with clefs on my birthday to make this and other points, and he gave me the withal or courage to actually wear this tie to church one day.

Kavanaughs (gold garb) use a "fairSINGE" motto term. English Singe's were first found in Shropshire with the Cleffs/Cliffs of Moreton-Say.

The Welf-related Este's once showed the same horse head design (in black) as Singers/Songs. In the fly dream, the spider on a strand of web was about to get the fly, but I saved the fly. The Webbers, sharing the Fly fleur-de-lys, in Singer/Song colors, are a branch of Cheshire's Weavers, and the latter use the motto, "Este FIDELis." We get it. The Flys are from Lupus Laevillus somehow, as well as from emperor Titus, as well as from the line of Plancia Magna as it formed the Fulks of Anjou.

The Moose

Repeat: "Two moose just walked past 30 feet out my window, the second one walking on three legs with the front left leg held off the ground. I'll come back to this because I can make sense of it." It first of all reminds me of a dream in which Paul Smith on crutches walked by my garage following a sick-looking stag. The Moose surname shows no Coat, and I wasn't going to mention any heraldry on the Moose until I loaded the Lame's, who share the motto of Caseys. Recall how Sagars/Seagars traced to Severus Bassus, for they use a moline cross, suspect with "MumMOLIN," in the colors of the Crozier cross. Mummolin ruled at Chalons-sur-Marne, the Arms of which is the other Crozier Coat.

This is amazing, because, minutes before seeing the moose, I had written, "After her curtsey, I don't think I ever talked to her again." I was going to add that I did honk my horn at Mr. Casey as he was at the front gate of the Kilpatrick residence, as I drove by. It was the day that he had been to my place to discuss selling my place for the first time, and I gave him the contract. That morning, he had been telling me things about the Kilpatricks. He married Mrs. Kilpatrick's aunt. As I drove by to honk, Mrs. Kilpatrick was coming to the gate.

As that event was going through my mind above, I was thinking that Gate's are suspect with Geddes' from "Cetis," where the line of great-granddaughter of Severus Bassus ruled, with Laevillus as king. The Bassus' can be traced both to Bassania, near Lissus, and to the Bessin, location of Caen along the Orne river (Ferte-Mace is also off the Orne). Caens use a "liCITIS" motto term for Citis/Cetis, and the Orne's are HORNS, you see; I honked the horn of the SAFARi. As per Paul Smith, Smiths use the heron, as do Horns/Orne's, a branch of Herons and HAVERANs that I trace to AVARAN Hachorani Maccabee. So, the lame moose got me to write all this (thanks to the Lame motto), whereas I had decided not to, because I didn't feel I had the evidence to show that God set the event up.

Mr. Smith was on crutches, and the Crutch/Crooch surname is a branch of the Cross/Croce surname, likely also a branch of Croziers, and it just so happens that Lame's use croziers! Zowie. The Lame saltire is also that of Oddie's while their Odin branch uses a sinister-rising crozier (sinister is code for Maccabee liners). Both Crozier surnames trace to Mummolin, descendant of Tullia of Lyon (she married Decimus Rusticus in Auvergne), and the Crozier's/Crossier's of Auvergne use crosses in Lame-saltire colors. Smiths almost use the Crutch/Crooch cross. The Creuse province beside Auvergne, and the Creuse/Croux surname (another lion paw), should apply.

The Moose's sinister leg was the hurt one. Moose's can thus be expected from mythical Mucius (right hand, and later left hand, symbol), code for the Mucius / Mucianus surname highly suspect with RasMUSSENs, for they use a sinister-rising bend, as do Masci's that happen to share the fleur of Crozier's. The Moose surname has variations like that of Moses', the latter sharing a calvary symbol with CRYSTals. Just before Mrs. Kilpatrick attended the church I did, she was attending in Crystal City. Moses' share the single pale bar of Tulls/Tullia's. Why was Mr. Casey involved with my honk? Why was he a friend of Mr. Kilpatrick? The Kilpatrick cushions trace both to Laevillus' mother, and to the Kiss/\CUSH surname that uses the CASS Coat. Laevillus' son, Proculus CHARAX, traces to Carricks who can be gleaned in the Coat of Kilpatrick-related Share's/Sheers.

I've just checked for a Crost surname as per "Crystal," and found one sharing blue-and-white lozengy with the Arms of Bavaria. Moose's were first found in Bavaria. And Moss'/Mose's share a white griffin head in Crest with Crosts. This lozengy traces well to Grimoald of Bavaria because Grimaldi's use a lozengy Shield too, yet there was also Grimo, grandson of Mummolin, at about the same time as Grimoald, and Grimo traces excellently to Grimaldi's and to Kiss'/Cush's via BABcocks, whom I trace to Babon, Grimo's father. Cocks share the Grimaldi Shield and throw in the red BabCOCK / Kiss/Cush rooster.

Back to the Horns/Orne's (same place as ABBS'/Apps'), who share one Heron Coat in the same colors, the colors of the ABBE's too, while the other Herons (connected to O'Reillys and Cavan) are in MacABBE colors. The latter were first found in ARRAN, which traces to the AIRAINES location of Hirams/HIRONs, making it apparent that Hirons, and possibly the namer of Arran, are Orne-river liners. In fact, Herons come up as "Harron" while HARRANs/Horans share the green Shield with Herons and MacAbbe's of Arran. Arran is beside Bute = Avalon while Harrans/Horans share the Morgan lion for a link to Avalon's mythical Morgan le Fay. MacAbbe's/MacCABE's are in Cable colors while Cable's use a Coat version of Caens i.e. from the Orne river. The Cable motto is suspect with Vido's/Vito's, first found in Tarvisium, and thus this links again to the Cavii. The Cable motto is also suspect with Pavia's/Pavie's/Pavers, first found in Somerset with Cable's. My bet is that Freemasonry's Hiram Abiff (fictional, symbolic) is code for this bloodline.

If you had read my work on mythical Orion's link to the Biblical Shechemites, with the latter highly suspect with the pagan Levite priest of Laish, this part of the discussion applies. Laish traces to Lissus of the Cavii, and Orion traces to "Orne," while the Levite line out of Laish has been suspect with the Laevi, who founded Pavia. We just saw one Pavia surname (shares the red fesse with Cable's and Caens) suspect in the Cable motto. The Pavia Coat looks like a version of the Cowie Coat. Italian Pavia's could be using the Capes / Apps Shield on the bottom half. Capes were first found beside the Middlesex Horns/Orne's.

The vote came in, 50-48 final, with the votes of Daines and Murkyswampski not counted by consent of both. If Collins had voted, nay, the vote would have been 50-50, so that she can be considered the tie-breaker. Murkyswampski said she would withhold her nay vote so that Daines didn't need to return from his daughter's wedding to vote his yea.

Democrats paid dearly for their scam, but they almost succeeded, acting as a warning to good people to destroy that machine before it can act similarly again. The only way to destroy it is not to allow it to operate without stiff jail sentences. Are the Republicans up to it? Not under the do-nothings such as McConnell, Ryan and Trump. That is the saddest thing, that Trump is just as much a do-nothing as he screams from the sidelines. Democrats are not cowering to merely his screams.

They need to be jailed, Mr. Trump, or you will be blamed for ruining America, for you now had the opportunity to jail them, but you refused to even try. The danger of these demons in human form far outweighs any other current issues that Trump and McConnell fight for.

We now get to see how Kavanaugh will vote on the pressing issues. He will be far-less apt to vote in a way favorable to Democrats out of respect for them, for all respect for them has vanished. The political right can now speedily advance all issues to the supreme court that matter much to good people, right? Yes, that is what we expect, unless the Republican leaders / majority are in love with the sinful world as it now sits, like the harlot she sits.

Hurry, someone get an abortion case to the supreme court.

Shroud of Turin - New Finds, Maybe

The video below on the shroud of Turin has an interesting claim that I would like to engage over an entire section right here. At times the video is over my head, and I almost stopped watching after the first ten minutes or so. But then it came to some interesting evidence (or not) that the shroud has more than one image of Jesus, showing him with his pose while dead, and then with another pose while alive, having moved his left hand. I find this enormous if correct:

In much of the presentations, we are aware that different people can see different things in the "fog" of close-up images, and some can come to see what's not really there. I think the producers of this video make these mistakes at times, though I applaud the effort to show things that were not previously known, so far as I know, such as one or two chains on His body, small fruit on his head, and what strike me to be ropes on his arms.

I think I will also disagree with the notion that radiation came forth from inside of Jesus' body, in order to produce the "photographic negative" on the shroud. I once believed this due to the logic of power streaming from within the body, but, on second thought, I fail to see how power streaming through the skin can produce the 3-D bodily lines / curves on the "photographic plate" that is the shroud's linen. On the other hand, if radiation came from the outside, and bounced off of Jesus' body, then back onto the shroud, that is a photographic-plate scenario. The shroud's image seems to be the Father's Light of Life reflected onto the linen. It's possible that Light entered Jesus as opposed to having a source within his body.

It can't be ordinary, physical light, obviously, because linen is not a photographic plate for such light. This was a different kind of radiation, so exciting, the Light of God's revival energy. As it entered Jesus, or even before it entered, solid blood was liquefied, and the heart was started. Dead body cells were fixed. Lots to ponder here.

As the video opens, it shows what could be a negative versus positive of the same image beside white blood stains on His forehead. In the human negative of the image, blood shows white. Whenever we see the image having a black background, that is the human negative of the real image. I don't think it's correct to say that the image is a negative because it's the original image. A negative, by definition, is a colors-reversed version of the original.

I can see a bearded man's face in both the negative and positive, an example of our seeing what isn't really there. Caution is the word. I have not understood, in the past, why this blood stain is a thick, squiggly line. I expect blood on the forehead to flow straight down while a man hangs on a cross. But this video has convinced me that the "crown of thorns" came with the berries of a thorn bush, and so this squiggly line could be blood having flowed along a piece of greenery. It turns out that this particular blood stain, and others, were on in the cloth itself, not on the body of Jesus alone.

At 3:18, the video shows our negative of the shroud beside the true view. In the negative, the legs are lighter above and below the knees, they say, because Jesus' knees were bent, with the shroud closer to those parts than the upper and lower legs. The further from the cloth was the body, the less that the Light of God etched the cloth. We assume that the knees were bent because Jesus died that way on the cross, and, once the blood hardened in the legs, they remained bent even in the tomb. If we imagine someone painting this shroud, they would not have known that the areas closest to the cloth had to have more-pronounced etching because no one in those days understood invisible light, nor did they know that intense light of any kind could, in an instant, etch cloth. It wouldn't have entered anyone's mind that radiation should emanate from Jesus' body while he was draped in darkness.

However, I have seen shroud pictures where the knee areas are not the only white areas. I'm not sure why this difference exists.

In the 6th minute, I hear the producers saying that Jesus was laid down on his front. I'm having a hard time with this. It may be due to their misinterpretation of the way in which the image was formed, or their misinterpretation of dark-versus light areas.

Late in the 6th minute, there is a claim, due to some straight-line colorations, that a strip of cloth was hung down from his waist and low across his legs, both on his front and on his back side. The two images on our left of the screen look like the back-side view. But on this claim I am not convinced. The "belt" of this cloth is way above the hips, to the height of the elbows, so that the item would not have been worn during the crucifixion, or it would have slipped down to his hips. And I can't see why they would place this strange item on Jesus during "burial." I think it's a good thing to point out these straight, dark lines (one each on both the front and back view), which I suggest may have been creases in the shroud from when it was packed away, in a folded condition, before use.

The two images on our right no longer have the bright knee area, suggesting perhaps that it's not the original image, but altered in order to bring out the lines of what they think is a long strip. But if you go back to 3:17 (where the bright knee area is shown), there appears to be more of an apron on him to cover up his privates. I can understand why they would place this on him during burial. We can see this dark rectangular area over his privates at the seven-minute mark.

The video suggests that the long strip tied around his "waist" (it's not around his waist, as they have it outlined) was used to get Jesus' body down off the cross. That's an issue in itself: how did they get the body down? Couldn't the soldiers have removed the cross from its hole in the ground? How did they normally remove the dead from crosses? The crosses were used again, weren't they?

At 12:30, there is a fairly compelling case on a chain hanging from Jesus' arm, though like everything else, it's debatable. Perhaps it was the chain by which they had arrested Him (did they have hand-cuffs in those days?). This is a good place to study the left hand, for later when the video stresses this hand. It seems to me that there are five or six fingers showing on this hand, not including the thumb. Two straight fingers can be seen, but the other three or four bend at the second knuckles. This can be a case of a double shot of radiation, forming two images on he shroud, one while Jesus was yet asleep (straight fingers), and the other after he started to move his hand. It appears at he started to clench his hand at the moment of revival.

The fingers on the right hand look too long to be human, but if there were two shots of radiation, with the right hand moving back along he line of the fingers, this could give the impression of too-long fingers. Superimposed upon the first knuckles on the index and middle finger, I think I can see the fingernails of those two fingers. (By the way, I think the right hand on this negative is the left hand on the shroud.)

How can anyone study this without giving heartfelt praise and thanks to Jesus? How can we not be struck with awe?

The discussion on the fruit upon the head starts at 13:17. A few seconds later, the image for the back of the head is shown in the lower-right, and this shows blood stains in a circular shape on the top of the head, exactly expected from the "crown" of thorns.

At 15:30, a discussion starts on a long jewel-chain supposedly lying on his upper face, but this makes no sense to me. Nor does the image look like a chain. After this topic, the discussion loses me until the 21st minute.

At 21:17, the hands are shown again, only this time, I can see a third straight finger for the left hand, and consequently, a fourth one too, of the length that it should be. It makes it debatable as to whether there is a second image of the hand with fingers bent, especially as what look like bent fingers are perfectly vertical, and therefore parallel with numerous vertical lines on the shroud. Therefore, the second image of the hand may not be. But we still have the problem of the too-long fingers on the right hand.

The right hand is studied before and after 23:07. At 23:10, there is a good case for a second image of the right hand in the shape of a clenched fist. But it's debatable as to whether a fist is really there, and it may be a little too small to scale. Discussion on the bent fingers of the left hand starts at 28:02. I wish it were conclusive, but it does not appear very.

Discussion on the nails that held Jesus' arms to the cross starts at the end of the 25th minute, but this is a non-convincing section. If you could imagine removing the Body from the cross, it seems that the nails would need to be pulled out of his arms first. It seems that the soldiers would have taken the cross down to lay it flat on the ground. I do not think that Jesus came to life with the nails still in his body.

In the 29th minute, there starts a discussion on what I reject, that Jesus wore arm bands typically seen on modern religious Jews. If anything, they are the Roman straps that held His arms to the cross, for the nails alone could not hold his weight.

At 34:00, discussion on a head band begins, yet this head band is across the eye brows so that it's not a head band at all, but blood-soaked brows (the blood had hardened of course).

A reason for assuming that there is a jewel-chain hanging from his crown of thorns starts at the end of the 35th minute, where a good case is made for a jewel hanging at the end of the chain. That is, it really does have the shape of a perfect hexagon, as seen at 36:31. It's not quite perfect, but close. Don't ask me why they would attach or lie a jewel on his forehead and cheek, it makes no sense to me.

Below is a video featuring the official JEWish (how interesting) photographer of the shroud at its only scientific investigation allowed by the Vatican protectors of the shroud, as of 2013 (I don't know whether there have been more investigations since):

The 7th and 8th minutes are emotional, and incredible. It says that the Jew finally believed that the shroud was authentic when a fellow Jew told him that blood stays red forever after a man has been tortured due to the body producing a chemical under duress. The blood on the shroud is still red rather than the expected brown normal, dried blood. In the 9th minute, he says that media reported lies concerning the shroud, totally expected from the demonism inherent in the media. Yes, he, Barrie Schwortz, became a Christian (Catholic?) due to the shroud, and he goes about speaking about it. Barrie has a website:, or:

Here's a comment from a typical, ignorant, anti-Christ activist in the comments section of the video: "Give me a break. Everyone is entitled to there beliefs and all that. But this isn't proof of anything other than this guy believes in God... I think I'll stick with science. IMO the Universe as we know it and continue to understand is much more interesting than religion. TED [web owner]...seriously, you can do better than this." They want Ted to remove this video. They always wish to silence Christian testimonies when they make a good case dangerous to evolution. They were hoping that this shroud would prove to be a fake, and even though they can read everywhere that there's no way to explain the image as a fake, yet they still mock Jesus openly, and seek to sway people away from Him. This is the nastiness of end-time rebellion that will get worse.

Here's further proof of authenticity:

Designed in the 1970's for evaluating x-rays and for other imaging purposes, the VP-8 Image Analyzer is an analog device that converts image density (lights and darks) into vertical relief (shadows and highlights). When applied to normal photographs, the result was a distorted and inaccurate image. However, when it was applied to the Shroud, the result was an accurate, topographic image showing the correct, natural relief characteristics of a human form. These results are often referred to as "three-dimensional."

In other words, a program designed to create a 3-D image of photographs worked on the shroud because it is a photograph. Eat that, rebels. We rejoice that Jesus died for us, and we also become somber at this necessity, but Jesus rejoiced in that others would be saved, for his own salvation was never in question in his mind. What do rebels have to be offended in? Why are we to be despised just because we see the shroud as evidence for the Resurrection?

When input to a VP-8, a normal photograph does not result in a properly formed dimensional image but in a rather distorted jumble of light and dark "shapes." That is because the lights and darks of a normal photograph result solely from the amount of light reflected by the subject onto the film. The image densities do not depend on the distance the subject was from the film. Yet the image on the Shroud of Turin yields a very accurate dimensional relief of a human form. One must conclude from this that the image density on the cloth is directly proportionate to the distance it was from the body it covered. In essence, the closer the cloth was to the body (tip of nose, cheekbone, etc.), the darker [more pronounced] the image, and the further away (eye sockets, neck, etc.), the fainter the image. This spatial data encoded into the image actually eliminates photography and painting as the possible mechanism for its creation and allows us to conclude that the image was formed while the cloth was draped over an actual human body. So the VP-8 Image Analyzer not only revealed a very important characteristic of the Shroud image, but historically it also provided the actual motivation to form the team that would ultimately go and investigate it. Interestingly, only sixty VP-8 Image Analyzers were ever constructed and only two remain functional today.

You can't argue with the facts, yet evolutionists argue for fantasies and reject the facts. The 3-D images were formed on equipment that Barrie did not own or build. There was therefore no trick involved by building a machine that would specifically spit out a perfect 3-D image of Jesus' face. They did not use the machine on the actual shroud, for they had no access to it. At the bottom of the page above: "The photographs we used in the VP-8 were black & white prints of the Shroud as it appears to the eye..." All he uses was a photograph, and voila: a 3-D image appeared from the machine. Couple this with the fact that the image is made of some type of scorching from high-energy radiation.

I don't think X-ray radiation is powerful enough to scorch cloth even when applied for several seconds or minutes, but, in any case, they didn't have x-ray technology in the distant past. Nor can anyone conceive of a way to lay a cloth over a body in order to use x-rays to scorch the image of the body upon the cloth, even if x-rays did scorch cloth. If there were a single burst of energy originating inside the body of Jesus, I don't see that this would form the image of his body, unless, perhaps, radiation originated at every skin cell so that each cell contributed its own scorch mark. The alternative is that energy surrounded Jesus from the outside, and when entering in, it reflected off the body, backward onto the shroud.

I don't know whether the blood stains are white due to the negative image, or due to the color of the cloth. One might suggest that the blood stains are white, as the cloth, because radiation did not pass through the blood strongly enough to etch the cloth. Here is everything that a rebel-in-folly needs to know:

No pigments, paints, dyes or stains have been found on the fibrils. X-ray, fluorescence and microchemistry on the fibrils preclude the possibility of paint being used as a method for creating the image. Ultra Violet and infrared evaluation confirm these studies...

...The blood stains are composed of hemoglobin and also give a positive test for serum albumin.

Whether we accept that some blood can remain red when dried, the fact is, there is red, dried blood on he shroud. It is not trick blood. Perhaps the blood of Jesus, not having had a human father, was different.

The bloodflows on and from the man on the Shroud can be distinguished as antemortem or premortem (before death) and postmortem (after death). For example, the bloodflows on the face are all premortem, as shown by computer mapping which found that all streams of blood on the face flow down the face and none of them flow toward the back of the neck or head! This means the man on the Shroud died on the cross in an upright position and then the blood in his head had drained down internally while he was still on the cross. Examples of postmortem bloodflows include the spear wound in the side, the pool of blood across the small of the back from that spear wound, and the trickle of blood from the right foot after the removal of the nail.

Yup, there was even a spear wound to His side, just as the Gospel(s) says. This has got to be the image of Jesus, so fantastic. The father allowed this evidence to come forth, and it will serve to nail the rebels to their well-deserved Hell, for in the face of indisputable evidence, they become more rebellious. Stay away from them; they can be deadly to your well-being and thinking; they can pass on to you literal demons. Same article:

A test for the presence of proteins in the Shroud man's blood returned an extraordinarily high bilirubin count. In traumatic shock, as would be experienced under flogging and crucifixion, the liver converts hemoglobin from burst red cells into bilirubin, which remains in the blood clots and gives them a red to orange colour. Skeptics had long criticised the Shroud's blood for being too red, pointing out that aged blood normally turns black. But the red colour of the Shroud's blood supports the forensic conclusion that the blood was from someone who suffered a traumatic death as depicted in the body images, which Jesus of Nazareth did!

There are of course online explanations knocking down this claim for bilirubin, but, the problem is, one never always knows whether anti-Christs are out tricking readers with their activism, spewing garbage for science. The entire scientific world has been polluted by these types who will accept fantasy over fact, a grave problem today for people who want facts. Truth will be thrown to the ground, confusion results. There would not be any argument against bilirubin by the rebels had it not supported the suffering of a man at the time of death. Their only fight is against the Resurrection; it is the fight of demons. So, we fight back by giving the facts as best we can. What else have you got to do with your spare time that is more important than fighting back? Retired people have lots of time to contribute to this fight.

"[The investigators] also showed that they had verified the presence of human epidermis (skin) cells in the area of the nail wound in the feet by an immuno-histo-chemical process" Go ahead, rebels, rebel some more. Disprove that too, with your bag of tricks. Leonardo da Vinci put some skin cells next to where he painted the foot wound, right? He always had a bag on-hand for an emergency.

Ask: why has the Vatican been so stingy in allowing further investigations? Doesn't the vatican want to glorify Jesus? Did the Vatican regret allowing the first investigation because it proved an authentic "relic"? Is the vatican making money on the shroud??? Yes, they charge an entry fee. Bad, very bad. "From April 19, 2015 through June 24, 2015, more than two million visitors came to Turin from around the world to view the Shroud while it was on public display. This was the first exposition of the cloth since it was last shown in 2010. Like his predecessor Pope Benedict, Pope Francis authorized an "early" exposition of the cloth this year, since the next formally scheduled exposition was set by Pope John Paul II for 2025." Why so stingy?

Hmm, Barrie says he's not a "Messianic Jew" in this 93-minute, 2017 shroud video:

He mentions the Isaiah prophecy where they pull out the beard of the Messiah, and Barrie attributes this to Jesus. Doesn't that make him a Messianic Jew? Does he refuse to be so named because he's a Catholic, technically? I don't yet know.

In the 28th minute, he says that the blood on his body inhibited or made impossible the formation of a body-part image on the shroud. For the record. This video is much about the history of the investigative team's miracle for to be able to do the investigation at all, for there seems to have been some forces trying to keep the event from happening, which may have included the murder of the pope just as the team was flying out to Turin. After a five day delay (why?) in Turin, the team was permitted to set up shop, just two days before the scheduled first day of the five-day investigation.

Amazingly, to Barrie's great shame, at the 85th minute, he says that he's not sure whether Jesus is the Messiah, even though he is sure that Jesus was inside the shroud. Now I've heard everything.

Below is a long video featuring a speaker (Paul Bromley) from the immediate aftermath of the investigation above; he never comes up for air for almost two hours:

I watched the whole thing. I've never seen a man with such a speaking attitude. I was brought to look at Jesus on the shroud many times, such a great backdrop for a sermon, and remembered why God took the punishment that Jesus did. Yes, it was the Father Himself who took the punishment, not the Son alone, to send a message to you and me: this is how much I want us to work out in love for each other; this is what I want, so badly. Incredible. Can you grasp this with the heart? I know you can. Aren't you glad that the only God is just like that, instead of some monster?

The Etching

There are videos that try to make a comparison with light-etchings of the Hiroshima bomb. The latter involved great distances between the etchings and the light source. With the shroud, one inch of distance made a great deal of difference in the amount of etching. Hiroshima shows us that the atomic nature of struck surfaces changed permanently; the color changed when struck by intense light, and the color remained. The Light of God changed the color of the exterior fibers of the cloth. I fail to understand why many insist that the normal view of the shroud is a "photo negative." I've not heard anyone trying to explain the reason. This confuses the issue. The original, non-photographed image has the darker areas as those more-etched.

At this site of many shroud images, find one with the face. The ridge of the nose, a bony area, is very etched. It seems that light reflecting off the sides of the nose create less etching simply because light reflects more away from the shroud. It seems that simple, yet the experts seem to have missed this, for I haven't yet heard anyone speak of light reflecting off of Jesus. Instead, they assumed that Light radiates from within Jesus' body. The upper rounds of the eyes created more etching, as would be expected with reflected light.

Some explain the too-long fingers as a sort of x-ray image of the hand bones. The finger bones actually continue into the palm so that, in an x-ray, fingers are twice as long as what we normally consider fingers; see this image. We could say that the arm bones, for example, are not visible because they are deeper in flesh, weakening light due to passage through more material. A forger would neither have made the fingers unusually wrong-long, nor would he have thought to paint the skeletal parts of the fingers.

The belly and breasts are more etched, because, I think, they are closer to the cloth. Or, perhaps, because there is hair on those parts, for the mustache is very etched. The front part of the beard expected to reflect more Light (due to straight-on angle) toward the cloth are also more etched, as expected yet again.

If reflected light is correct, fakery becomes possible because any artist understood how to form shading due to reflected light. However, an artist produces a lighter color where light is reflected, yet the shroud has a darker color where Light was reflected. In a fake job, the artist might have consciously decided (schemed) that he was going to make the cloth appear etched from the Light of God bouncing off the flesh. But why didn't the artist chose a color lighter than the shroud for this purpose? Instead, the faker chose a darker color than the cloth. Did he/she try to feign burn marks on the shroud? How did an ancient artist know that light could "burn" the cloth, for the etching is likely a slight burning/scorching (of a sort) of the material.

Sunlight changes the color of wood / paper, but doesn't it cause a lighter / yellowed color? Not necessarily. Light makes pine darker; I've witnessed this with my own pine, and every wood specialist knows it. Okay, but how would a faker etch the cloth, since it isn't paint? How did the faker transform the color of the cloth? Well, chemicals can do that too, yet there are chemists the world over today who have not solved the etching on the shroud from a chemical reaction. Shouldn't the chemical be left on the cloth? Yes, and scientists today are trained in finding the most-miniscule amounts of chemicals on any material. There's the reason that the shroud is a miracle. No chemicals, just the etching, and only on the outer layers of the outer fibers of the cloth; there is no color change deep into the fibers/cloth.

It's known that when light strikes a material on any angle other than straight-on, there is less light striking per unit area. The greater the angle, the less volume of light per unit area. So, I assume that, in combination with distance between flesh and cloth, the extent of etching also had to do with the angle differences between the flesh and cloth. This can explain why the side of the hair on one side of the head is well-etched, if the cloth was parallel with the hair there. The question is: which way did the Light come from? Was it dead on to the face, as it seems to be when looking at the face, or did Light "attack" Jesus from every direction evenly? Perhaps the light was only straight down, penetrating the entire body to the slab upon which he lay, thus creating an image on the back of the shroud too.

I suggest that Light etched the cloth most where it bounced 180 degrees off of flesh / hair, and when the cloth was parallel with the flesh/hair. There was less etching depending on how unparallel the flesh/hair and cloth. In this case, a machine built to create a 3-D image from the specific light-darkness differences in a 2-D image should create a remarkable 3-D image of Jesus' face.

The non-etched area between the etched hair and the etched cheek can be explained by the greater distance of the cloth, for with the cloth resting on the cheek and outer hair, the inner hair and the face nearest to would be slightly further from the cloth. The hair with the etching has much blood, which would make the hair line hard, as when an over-abundance of hair spray is used. In this way, the hair remained at a distance from the cheek, more-so than if the hair was normal / soft. Thus, it allowed a sizable space between the cheek nearest the ear, and the cloth, not to mention that the angle of that part of the face to the cloth was not parallel due to the hardened hair (keeping the cloth from become parallel with the face).

I feel a lot odd speaking on the technicalities of this image when the Great Importance is what Jesus had done for the human race. But I'm making these points to add my two cents to the evidence that this was indeed Jesus.

If Light starts inside the body, and penetrates the skin, it's hard to see why shroud areas merely a quarter-inch from the skin should not be etched roughly as much as areas in contact with the skin. I don't think that light changes in intensity much over that small distance. The Light intensity should be roughly equal for both areas. It can make more sense if the emission was from electrons freed from the skin atoms, an idea that cropped up later in this update. Emitted electrons cause light, but are a separate aspect. Emitted electrons do not travel far from where they are set free, whereas light does travel far. So, maybe the Light was not reflected after all.

The only etching is in the image of the body, not in the rest of the cloth. Therefore, my argument that Light originated from the outside the cloth, seems fallible, unless there is an explanation as to why Light passing through the shroud should not etch it while Light reflecting back off the body did etch it. That doesn't seem logical. An alternative is that the Energy had its source at a tiny distance from the skin, between the skin and the cloth.

The video below features an honest skeptic (John Johnson) who will not believe in Jesus, apparently. He says, not necessarily correctly, that the darker the etching, the closer to the shroud was that part of the body. But this doesn't take into consideration the angle of Light. He says (4th minute) that the 3-D image is the result of the dark-versus-light etchings only, but then this 3-D image is not as deep (or high up) as a real human face, and, perhaps, the face would be deeper if the 3-D machine were able to combine expectations from angle-of-light considerations. The dark-versus-light hues should be a combined product of shroud distance from, and angle to, skin. Adjust the machine to consider angle too, and a better 3-D image may pop up.

The speaker in the video above adds that every part of the etching contains "dots," as it were, of the same color. That is, the lighter-colored areas have fewer dots per square inch, yet the color there is identical to the color where there are more dots per square inch. He says that this sort of product is impossible for a forger to produce. Sounds reasonable.

Take this flat plate, |, and strike it with light straight on, and say the plate is one foot square. The light striking the plate is one foot high (the rest of the light misses the plate and carries on past it). Now tilt the plate like this, /, and keep the light shining upon it from the same spot. The slanted plate will receive less light because some of a ray of light one foot high will miss it. You can grasp that, the greater the slant of the plate, the fewer the light waves that strike the plate per square area of the plate. In other words, the light rays (and emitted electrons too) will land further apart on the plate, same as when one shoots a ray of bullets while tilting a plate.

If the Light originated under the shroud, then I cannot see the source from a single spot, but rather from an energy that first covered the entire body. The greater the angle of the skin away from a straight-down direction, the less the volume of the original light intensity each square area receives and reflects. It's not until the side of the face curves drastically away from the plane of the cloth that etchings fail to appear on the shroud. If His face looks too thin, it's because some of it isn't showing.

Consider how there are dark lines below the light eyebrows on the negative image. In the negative, white represents the etched parts. The brows were both close to the cloth and parallel with it, and so we expect the brows (and forehead) to get etched. But the unetched, dark lines below the brows is where the skin starts to slant away from the angle of the cloth, at the inset of the eyes. That skin was closer to the cloth than the eyelids, yet the eyelids are lighter colored, meaning that the lids are more etched. This variation in color for skin at roughly the same distance from the cloth can be explained due to the slope between the brows and the lids. The slope's sizable angle results in weaker Light on the shroud, does it not?

In the negative, there is a dark, vertical line at the base of the beard, which cannot be blood because blood shows white in the negative. This dark line is a non-etched part of the image, which can be explained by the absence of beard there. Someone likely pulled it out there. On the original image, it's a little to our left of the center of the chin, where I would expect hair between someone's thumb and forefinger if he grabbed the very center of the beard with his right hand.

The beard is so visible that one would need to claim that Light coming from within Jesus also radiated from the hairs of the beard, which I do not find logical. This beard, and especially the long hair streaming from his head, is a good argument for reflected Light coming from the outside.

The center of his breasts are, unexpectedly, non-etched. We can distinctly see a straight and horizontal line across each breast. If the tips of his breasts were fatty, the angle of the skin would change from straight-on to the shroud to slightly angled. This is a good way to show the importance of angle to the cloth, for we all expect the breasts to have been in direct contact with the shroud so that distance plays no/little part for explaining the lack of etching. If the breasts were fatty, I would expect a small distance between skin and cloth beneath each breast.

There is no etching (or very little) all around the upper sides of the arms, where the shroud could be expected one to two inches away from the belly. This shows the importance of distance alone, for the belly was at least roughly parallel with the shroud.

If the shroud were a piece of art, we would expect other pieces of art to match it. None do. Headline: "An Italian scientist says he has reproduced the Shroud of Turin, a feat that he says proves definitively that the linen some Christians revere as Jesus Christ’s burial cloth is a medieval fake." The scientist is mad. He's a colossal joke. "Garlaschelli reproduced the full-sized shroud using materials and techniques that were available in the middle ages. They placed a linen sheet flat over a volunteer and then rubbed it with a pigment containing traces of acid. A mask was used for the face." But the shroud has no pigments. Any good artist can paint the shroud's image with a paint brush, but that's not a reproduction, stupids.

Besides, we can half-assume that activist anti-Christs will adjust the results of their tests, by doctoring their photos released to the media. They would arrange the photos to look more like the Shroud's image than was the reality in their experimental methods. The only thing they care about is that the world of anti-Christs can rest assured that Jesus was not resurrected.

The article adds: "The Catholic Church does not claim the Shroud is authentic..." Exactly to be expected from an Order of pedophiles and faggots.

It goes on to say that the simple-minded stupid "believes the pigment on the original Shroud faded naturally over the centuries." How, stupid, since the cloth wasn't left out in the rain or sun? There are paints a lot older than the time of Jesus, still not faded away. Let's not pretend to be ignorant of facts, shall we, Mr. Scientists? The stupids will now argue that the paint was a fast-fading, or easy-fading, paint because they simply refuse to believe that God could have caused the etching at the Resurrection...making them doubly stupid.

Another article: "An Italian scientist says he has reproduced the Shroud of Turin...They placed a linen sheet flat over a volunteer and then rubbed it with a pigment containing traces of acid." Again, the image that has been shown to us in the media may not be a true image, because anti-Christs lie about Christ as their favorite sport. Their most-valuable players are those who can act the most-respectable while knowingly lying. But even if it a paint laced with acid can etch a cloth, shouldn't the cloth be etched everywhere where paint was applied. Are we to think that the non-etched parts had no paint?

Actually, "etch" can imply a digging into the material, a removal of material, which is what acid does. When I say, etch, I mean a radiation-based discoloration that removes no fibers. I'm not sure whether "scorch" is the correct word either, because it implies heat, which may not have been the case. A chemical reaction is what took place on the shroud, and they do not require chemicals, for we can fathom light causing chemical reactions by altering the number of electrons in atoms. We know that sunlight alters the color of atoms very slowly without ruining the fibers of a material. I don't expect the Light of God upon Jesus, whatever it was, to be perfectly like sunlight, however, but Energy into a system can cause natural light radiation as a by-product.

I think that scientists in Turin were looking at the acid possibility of the shrouds image, but they did not conclude that acid formed the image. There are ways to detect the effects of acid, and, probably, materials of the acid are expected to remain in the cloth if indeed acid caused the etchings. Did the Italian scientist attack this problem that his experiment had? Did he tell how the acid residue could be completely wiped off the cloth over mere time, without washing the cloth at any point? Did he offer a painting where a paint's acid etched the backing of the painting? I don't know.

In many cases if not most, acid in a paint will eat away at the paint until the acid is fully used up. Where the pigment has more acid, it will eat more, but nobody knowingly puts acids in paints, we may assume. As the shroud's image has non-etched parts, Mr. Anti-Christ needs to explain why. Or, as the beard and hair are highly-etched, we can assume for our entertainment that the dark paint had the acid. We don't think that the artist used light paint for the beard. Yet the nose ridge is as etched as the beard. Did the artist use the same color on the nose and forehead as he did on the beard? These are questions that the activists need to answer if they want to be respected as scientists. Yet I have come across no video by them explaining their acid-in-pigment theories, and I've been loading shroud videos for days.

This page shows the original shroud image (on the right) enhanced with a dark-brown etchings. Most of His hair on his left side is missing. We don't expect this with an acid-in-paint scenario. It seems that wherever the cloth was touching the face or hair, that's where etchings occur. The cloth was not pressed down on his entire face, but rather draped over it so that it flared out, away from the sides of the face. On one side, the cloth touched the hair, but not as much on his left side.

But Mr. Stupid did not make his image in that way. I have yet to find his video showing exactly how he created it. Surely, he took a video of the actual experiment. Where is it, fool? We want to see whether you pressed the entire face with the cloth, and how you got the light-dark variations in colors. I'll bet he pre-arranged it with acid in some pigment, but no acid in the rest, or, if he did not, he altered the images with a computer program. Some one should beg to repeat his experiment who is not an anti-Christ.

How did the forger centuries ago manage to get his acid density just right, in all the spots of the painting, so that his acid-created image spits out a remarkable 3-D image of the face (and body) in a modern machine? Mr. Stupid will not tackle this question, of course, because it ridicules his own theory by which he stands. He would need to argue that the highest elevations of the face got the most acid. But why? If he argues that the highest elevations got the lightest paint color, he would need to assume that the acid was on a light-colored paint, yet the beard has the same etching density, or even more, than the highest levels on the face. It's doubtful a forger would give Jesus the white hair of an old man.

The best he could argue is that, in a painting of a face, the lightest shades would go on last for the raised parts of the face. A darker flesh tone (without acid) was first applied throughout the face, and then shades of lighter color went on top. The acid was in the lighter paint, he would need to argue, for if it was on the first coat, the entire area of the face would have gotten etched. But if the acid was on the top coat only, it would need to eat through the darker paint before getting as deep as the cloth fibers.

Mr. Stupid, please tell us how you arranged the dark-versus-light colorations in your fraud? How did you manage to get parts of the face without acid? If you got the dark-versus-light differences done without the acid, then it's just by pigment, and your work is therefore a fraud. Any good artist can paint the shroud image with a brush and paint. But in the shroud, there was found zero foreign particles basic to (belonging to) the strands or fibers, not even the glue that holds pigments to a backing. Amongst the particulate matter imported from the air, pollens were found that confirm an Israeli origin. Anyone who fails to sit up and listen is playing the fool with their own eternal destiny. The great suffering of Jesus not only forgives, but also forms a justified fury from God never before witnessed.

We've got to assume that anyone setting out to forge the burial cloth of Jesus, in the distant past, had no intention of etching the cloth with acid in the paint. In the shroud, the etchings are always the same depth: very light upon the one side of the cloth, about one fiber or two deep. I saw a video above telling that the etchings are always that deep, whether there is a high or low concentration of etching in any square area. But with acid in paint, we expect the areas with the most acidic paint to move deeper into the paint or cloth. Acid is probably always soluble in water, and therefore spreads out in a water-based paint.


If the man who forged the shroud had some of the acid unwittingly in his paint, and if it got to the cloth in some spots but not in others, it would not have arrived to the cloth in exactly the same density as to always penetrate one or two fibers deep.

A forger would not bother putting the blood on the cloth before the paint, but the shroud's etchings do not appear wherever there is blood. That is, the blood got to the cloth first. A forger would first apply the paint, and later apply the blood, obviously. Right, Mr. Stupid? Actually, it's completely ridiculous to think that someone would seek to forge the burial cloth using mere paint. How would that fool anyone?

The anti-Christ activist today might say that the forger wittingly knew to use acid because he knew paint would fool no one. But there has got to be a good reason that Mr. Stupid insisted on a paint job with acid-laced paint. We can begin to see that Mr. Stupid knew that the acid could not be applied to the cloth without the paint.

Let's entertain ourselves. The ancient forger got a bright idea from his discovery of a certain mild acid that could create an image on a cloth. He went to work to create a forgery. He drew the outline of the body faintly with something, then applied real blood to the cloth, and finally he applied the acid. There is no way that he could have applied the acid by covering a statue, or a real person, with a cloth because it's impossible to assure that every part of the cloth got exactly the same density of acid. He wouldn't have applied the acid to the cloth without first applying it to the statue or person, then letting it run into the cloth by making contact between the two. There would have been more acid (and etching) in the lowest parts of the insets of the face than on the rounded plains of the face, yet the plains got most of the etching, exactly the opposite of what the acid trick requires.

The eyes are a deep inset upon the face. We expect acid to run to the corners of the eyes, to pool there, yet there is more etching on the very top of the eyelid (directly above the pupil) than at the corners of the lids. How did the acid get thicker on the "peaks" of the eyelids? Well, maybe he went to the trouble of wiping off some excess acid, and wiping on extra acid where he thought best. Fine, but if this was a fraud, why didn't he use more acid throughout so that the viewers of the final product could see a crisper image? One can barely see the image at all in the original shroud, and the forger had no camera equipment by which to form a negative. Surely, if he went to all the trouble and cost of creating a fake, he would have used more acid for a deeper color.

How many cloths did he use up while trying to get his perfect forgery? This would have been no minor undertaking. But this is what the stupids today imagine rather than to simply Believe. These are the same stupids who gave us the big bang, evolution, the orbiting electron, and Christine Blasey Ford. They are all of the same demonic cloth. They all lie, all deceive, while acting respectable.

Did the forger travel to Jerusalem to get a special-to-Jerusalem pollen just in case someone invented the microscope? Yes, say the stupids, because Believing in Jesus is just too hard for them. God and Resurrection is their enemy, not because they are intelligent, but because they are fools, and of a human nature that is rubbed the wrong way by a righteous God. There you have your naked truth. The stupids are experts only in creating doubts, doubts upon doubts, until you begin to doubt. The man on the shroud looks like a Westerner, they might say as experts, and you might doubt. Stop viewing them as experts, for they are first and foremost deceivers. Disrespect them, as they deserve.

Skeptic: "For instance, two short rivulets of the blood on the back of the left hand of the shroud are only consistent with a person standing with their arms held at a 45-degree angle. In contrast, the forearm bloodstains found on the shroud match a person standing with their arms held nearly vertically. A person couldn't be in these two positions at once." Well, actually, the forearms may have been nearly vertical upon the cross, depending on how far from the center the hands were pinned. Blood probably issued from the hands while removing the nails from the wood, and some more thereafter. It would be hard to guess the angle of flow at those times. When the arms were folded over his body, blood could have issued yet again.

And that reminds me. Why do some suggest that Jesus was in the shroud with one knee higher than the other. The etchings don't suggest this to me. Knees slightly bent would be his position on the cross, but if the body was yet soft enough to get the arms over his belly in the tomb, why wouldn't the legs have flattened out? Surely, the disciples would have flattened out the legs, especially if they wiped the body clean of most blood.

There's an article from a source at the University of Pavia suggesting that Jesus' arms were way up high so that his body formed a Y-shape. But the shroud's blood shows blood, so far as I can see, only below the elbows. Therefore, the upper arms could have been horizontal while the forearms were vertical.

"'If you look at the bloodstains as a whole, just as you would when working at a crime scene, you realize they contradict each other,' Borrini said. 'That points to the artificial origin of these stains.'" Hmm, no elaboration, just a planting of doubt by someone who may be merely posing as an honest broker of the anti-Christs. How does the blood contradict itself? When doing a Google search for " turin shroud ", six pages on fakery are on the first-page result. But, believe it or not, Jesus is stronger than mere Google.

In the 11th minute of the video below, the speaker (Russ Breault) says that the color of the shroud image was reproduced, for the first time in 2011, with a short burst (40 nanoseconds) of ultra-violet, excimer laser light (see ENEA). Why didn't the Italian stupid think of this? Because he was on the wrong track, the juvenile's track. The video's speaker says that the depth of the excimer-formed coloration matches the depth of coloration on the shroud, excellent evidence that Light formed the shroud's image. Forget the toxic acid, thou spiritual delinquents, and look to Light. I know all about risking my eternal destiny, when I played the fool.

The speaker of another video above says that the type of weaving has never been found in European cloth of the middle ages, which is the time that the faulty C-14 dating system arrived to. However, that type of weaving was in Israel. Other dating methods produced dates acceptable to the first century AD. What exactly is the problem with anti-Christs that they first of all choose any option that obliterates Jesus when good options exist to support Him? Why so closed?

One conclusion is that the vatican was sorely disappointed in the staggering results to prove that this was Jesus, for if the vatican was thrilled, it would have quickly permitted further tests. Period. The vatican has been a sly false-Christian organization, using Christ to make money, derive political powers, and bring faggots / molesters together in a secret "brotherhood." I cannot understand how Mormons and Catholics bring superstitions and fables into their Christian teaching. Anyone can grasp forgiveness of sins through the Crucifixion, but that alone doesn't make the Christian. The Christian bases his views on sensible things, and is not fooled by vatican garbage. Why then, are Catholics fooled? Good question. "Mother of God, forgive our sins," is typical vatican garbage. It's not Jesus that the vatican pushes, except that it needs to, in order to continue the hoax.

In the video below, something I find impossible. The man says that he snapped a picture of the shroud (the one where the image is barely visible), and the photo he got was the one with the crisp image, with black background, what I've been calling the negative. Is someone messing with our heads? How could that happen?

If this is correct, how on earth could the Italian stupid have ignored this amazing thing? Did his finished product come out in colors reversed upon his photo? Of course not. I've not heard of anything like this, and cannot imagine how it could be true, but the speaker above insists again that this is true at 4:25. It's taken me this long to hear of this. It's now better understood by me as to why the shroud is said to be a negative.

What happens when one photographs a negative photo? Does it come out positive? If so, I didn't know it.

The man in the video is telling us that the dark / etched areas on the shroud come out white in a photo, yet this photo is the one that resembles a negative to me. But how can areas that appear dark to our eyes come out white in a photo? It makes no sense. A good photo is supposed to come out exactly as we see it. Plus, the man is claiming that Jesus' left side comes out on the right side of the photo. I just can't grasp this.

The best image I've seen so far of the lepton coin on Jesus' eye is shown at 11 minutes, and this time, for the first time, I can see the entire staff, curve and all. Most excellent, for this coin places the man at Jerusalem in 29 AD. However, the letters on the other coin, not on Jesus, were not indicated in the video with an outline, and I could not verify that the letters were at the same spots on the two coins. This omission / failure persists each time that someone presents this aspect, making me suspicious.

In the 16th minute, new information showing the blood in red upon his face, in his bows, along the nose ridge, and in the beard and mustache. This can enhance the white color in what I call the negative. I am not sure whether the blood in this image is in actual blood upon the cloth, or whether it was detected as blood by other means. The speaker says that the picture was programmed to make red all areas upon the face having the same density of coloration. It may include dried blood on His face not capable of soaking into the cloth. Light reflection off the dried blood may have etched the cloth in a unique way, in other words, and this photo method has picked it out, I'm thinking.

In the 18th minute, he says the blood stains go through the entire cloth. Don't be confused where he says that the etchings are on "both sides," for he doesn't mean the inside and outside, but rather both ends of the shroud. One end covered His front, and the other end was beneath His back.

I'm not convinced that teeth marks appear on the cloth, as is claimed in the 30th minute.

In the 38th minute, he says that the closer the hands are nailed to the head, the less time a man lasts on the cross. Jesus died earlier than most men, suggesting that his hands were indeed close to his head i.e. with forearms nearly vertical.

The anti-Christs come out with darts mainly at the end of the comments section, as of this month. A couple of comments say that it could not be Jesus because the Bible has his head wrapped in a separate cloth. Yes, but if this cloth was wrapped around the outside of the shroud, then it would not be etched, for the etching went only fibers deep.

Another decent comment is that the early disciples didn't mention this image on the shroud. Yes, but it's very faint today, and may have been fainter then. The image may have darkened with time, and, perhaps, no one noticed an image at all until a few hundred years after Jesus. It may have been packed up for long periods by the same family that possessed it. It was apparently a non-issue across Christian-dom, due to a failure in seeing the image, and perhaps God arranged for it to become meaningful only in the last days, when scientists and others deceivers proliferate, weakening Faith. Perhaps it was packed away with the etched side on the inside, non-visible from the outside.

Online diatribe from an arrogant anti-Christ: "The story of Jesus Christ as the son of god is a testimony to the incredible gullibility of much of humanity, even in these 'enlightened' times. We so want to believe this made up nonsense, that we swallow it all whole, even though the direct contraindications abound, and cannot be reconciled. If this nasty, vengeful, conceited entity we call god exists, and he indeed did want to save humanity by sending his only begotten son (they are a dime a dozen, aren't they?) to earth to save us from our sinful ways, why did he do it in a time when the average person never traveled beyond a 20 mile radius, when there were no other forms of mass communication, when almost no one could read or write, when the best he could hope to reach was a few thousand people? Oh, wait... he works in mysterious ways, right?"

This person would rather not tackle his own questions because he's framed them purposefully to damn God as a cruel being. If God sent Jesus to die in the jet-age of the Internet, that same stupid would complain that God sent Jesus way too late. The liberals are experts in picking out problems with everything in Christianity, because their purpose is to spoil. If the Crucifixion is a nasty event, it's because mankind was nasty toward God. He resolved to form a Family, and He would choose from mankind those he wanted in the family. It was not His will to save everyone through Jesus, but to show only his Chosen an example of the greatest love One could have. It's a gruesome way, but that's what He chose. Who is this "enlightened" stupid to disagree? He's too stupid to understand. He would have been Caiaphas before he would have been Peter. He would have chosen the way of Iscariot before the way of John. That's nailed the truth, hasn't it?

The cruelty in the death of Jesus secures a nasty Reaction, in the End, upon the anti-Christs. Watch it, warning to all. Be good, put away your swords. Think harder on the Crucifixion mystery. Don't simple-mindedly call it evidence for a cruel God. Rather, it's a heroic move to show that He would take, not just a minor level of pain in death, but a major, almost-unbearable level. There was much more than just the cross involved in this pain.

If you had wondered what the neckband-like item is on the shroud, this video gives a theory and shows a few pictures:

The neckband, visible in this image, looks to be about two inches wide at the most. It created an etching on the shroud. Why should it create an etching when it's doubtful that the shroud was even close to the throat? The chin and chest acted to keep the cloth away from the throat, didn't it?

I'm very unhappy with the video above for not showing a side-by-side comparison between the alleged letters on the neck band (or whatever it is) and those of the Hebrew / Aramaic alphabet. The speaker is proposing that the letters, yan, are on the band, and that such a word means, "lamb." This is problematic, for, if correct, it tends to show that the shroud is a fake, with the forger throwing in this neckband. However, the proof that such letters exist on this band is not confirmed at all. Other videos do not mention it in the list of evidences or curiosities.

I can't quickly find verification that "yan" means "lamb." "Yan" is generally translated online as the Hebrew for, John, but, again, I have not been convinced at all that there are letters on that band-like item. Until I find a good video on this item, there's not much more I can say. Why would Romans give Jesus a neck band? Identification? Perhaps it indicated something specific for the soldiers who conducted the crucifixion. Perhaps it was a metal ring that earlier had a chain, and they moved him around like a dog on a leash. The Jews or Romans would not have written, "lamb," on a metal arrest ring.

When blood hardens in the veins, it doesn't dry in the normal sense of the word. I don't know for sure, but I assume that the water content of the blood remains even in hardened blood, if the blood is in the veins. The clotting process doesn't necessarily remove the water, but may rather transform it, or hold it in suspension. My point is, the Light of God may have liquefied the blood while starting the heart, yet even more was required. For example, if the spear pierced the heart, heart surgery was needed. The spear wound needed to be healed instantly, for it was added to Him while his body was dead, unable to heal itself. Can God actually do such things at a distance? Ahh, there is the stumbling block of evolutionists, who refuse to entertain such things just because they can't do it, or because they have never witnessed it done in any known event or laboratory test. Which is easier, to create the body from scratch, or to revive it from death?

The first ten minutes or more of the video below gets into material you may already know, but at 20:04, there is a close-up of one eye with what some claim to be a coin (over the closed eye), because four letters appearing on a coin of Israel can be seen. Pause it at 20:04 and study those letters to determine whether they are actually there, or whether they are coincidental from random markings of the close-up. It seems to me that those are engraved letters, and they can be found on a coin that was minted in Israel only between 29-36 AD, such perfect timing that, it would appear, because it looks like something God arranged. If He did arrange this, note how the existence and specific identification of the coin is debatable, allowing His enemies some wiggle room for happily ignoring the evidence.

Do continue to watch after the coin because it gets into the faulty scientific dating of the shroud. It appears that the scientists who received small pieces to date were in cahoots with some vatican slime(s) who knew where the newer pieces of the shroud (sewed on as repair work) were located i.e. it was a conspiracy to trick the public by using cloth known to be a few hundred years old.

This video has plenty of shroud details not mentioned in videos above, including some forgeries and hokey explanations by activist anti-Christs:

In the 55th minute, the speaker (William Guy) says that electron emissions from atoms can make the sorts of scorches seen on the shroud. This caused me to wonder whether every skin cell in Jesus' body started to emit electrons, which is my definition of light waves/rays. The speaker doesn't elaborate on the electrons or what sort of scorch they form. Mechanically, this form of light emission is identical with reflected light in that both go out toward the shroud in all directions from skin atom. But first, before entertaining the emission of electrons from skin atoms, there needs to be an explanation as to why. Did God transform the flesh body into a spirit body at that time??? What is a spirit body? Inexplicable at this time. I cannot fathom atoms walking through walls.

The way to view the Crucifixion is like a husband whose wife was wayward, insincere, blockheaded, cold, devious, and all the rest of what we read about Old-Testament Israel. God then receives her punishment, on her behalf, before her eyes, but if she is still unwilling to be His good wife, it's game over for her; she will receive the punishment that she deserves; she will be raped and burned and forever killed without mercy. God was hoping to stir feelings in his wayward wife, for God wants us to have a feeling of love for Him. Instead, the anti-Christs mock the Crucifixion. If they understood the fury of God, they would not have gone that far.

"Grace" is more than a word or the concept of forgiveness. When we appreciate Jesus, when we cross our hands in prayer, giving thanks, talking, or reflecting on Step One of Eternity -- the Cross - God returns appreciation in the form of a grace that we can FEEL within us. It could be immediate, or in the coming days as we retain our consciousness of Jesus. You can't pray once, then forget Jesus, and expect to receive the sense of grace. Paul tried to put this into words: peace that surpasses understanding. Perhaps he meant peace that surpasses explanation. It's more than mere peace; it's a feeling. We can feel it. Fear flees; love replaces. God is reciprocal, whether you offer your angriness or your appreciation. When people begin to follow the Word, seeking to understand it, allowing it to open the eyes, the past troubles that God handed us vanish, and are replaced with various gifts.

Conspiracy Updates

I hope things can move on from Kavanaugh and back to the declassification. Let's make the Democrats cry some more, show no mercy, for they refuse to become decent people, and will plot again to do the criminal. Greater pain awaits them. The FBI lawyer, James Baker, was behind closed door mid-week in congress, and there are reports that he squealed on his fellow FBI conspirators. Rosenstein meets congress next week, and, hopefully, Trump will bury him soon so that the truth of the conspiracy can come glaringly into the open. John Solomon:

Baker was interviewed by lawmakers behind closed doors on Wednesday. Sources declined to divulge much about his testimony, other than to say it confirmed other evidence about the contact between the Perkins Coie law firm and the FBI.

The sources said Baker identified lawyer Michael Sussman, a former DOJ lawyer, as the Perkins Coie attorney who reached out to him and said the firm gave him documents and a thumb drive related to Russian interference in the election, hacking and possible Trump connections.

There we have it, the Clinton crime ring (Perkins Coie) contacting the FBI for to slip it the dossier garbage. Only weeks later, the FBI put together the first FISA warrant, with the excuse that the dossier was suspicious, without telling the judge that Perkin Coie i.e. Hillary Clinton was behind the creation of the dossier. Them's pretty-big potatoes. The spotlight suddenly jumps from Steele, leap-frogging over Fusion GPS, to Perkins Coie. But the light must also go to the FISA judges because they have not come out to condemn the FBI. It seems the judges are in cahoots with the FBI, hoping this storm will blow over. Just look at how many different but high-level players there are on this criminal effort. Who taught them how to play this game?

A headline: "Perkins Coie Lawyer Michael Sussmann’s Coordinated Leaks to Media and FBI’s James Baker..." We are not supposed to know about Sussmann; his name was in the closed-door meeting with Baker, and it's been leaked, oh goodie. Leaking the criminal acts is a good thing. Leaking done by the criminals is a bad thing. "Both Jordan and Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) told Fox News that the source [Sussmann, I gather] who provided information to the FBI in its Russia case was not previously known to congressional investigators." Ahh, so this is both a goodie and a biggie. This is roughly tantamount to undressing Hillary herself. She's got to be feeling a little cold now, even if she has no conscience. I know what she'll say, that Perkins Coie had every right to inform the FBI about Trump's collusion with Russia.

Same article: "Sussmann was also the lawyer who spearheaded the handling of the alleged hack of the DNC servers...Sussmann contacted Shawn Henry, CSO and president of CrowdStrike." Ahh, that was when the Democrats blamed Russia for hacking its computers, but instead of giving this major, federal case to the FBI, it gave it to Crowdstrike. Crowdwho? The DNC refused to let the FBI look at its server, because the DNC had everything to hide. ""

From "Moreover, information provided by Baker, who gave extensive testimony Wednesday to lawmakers behind closed doors, coincides with the House Intelligence Committee’s final Russia report that suggests Sussmann was also leaking unverified information on the Trump campaign to journalists around the same time he met with Baker, according to the report and sources close the investigation." In other words, Baker's testimony verified the previous Republican hunch or discovery that Sussmann had been leaking Clinton's dirty work against Trump. What good is political dirty work if the public doesn't hear of it? Somebody needs to leak it; Hillary has accomplices for this, but it is she who must be jailed. Trump promised that if he was president, she'd be in jail. Unless she is punished hard, the same will re-occur in the near future. For the sake of the sanity of the nation, this demented bird must be jailed. Lawlessness is gripping the nation, and that's insanity. To this day, Hillary contributes to the general conspiracy to commit insanity.

Here's a video showing that the CIA was using news media to tell what it wanted to tell the American people. We want to ask why the CIA would want to air foreign matters inside the U.S., because it appears as though the CIA is trying to curb / cement the will of the people. The start of this video goes back to when George Bush Sr. was a CIA leader:

It's plain to me that the media outlets do not get to verify whether the CIA news is true or otherwise. The CIA needs only to portray itself as trustworthy, and it works on this as part of its game, which includes deceiving the people. The security situation for a nation becomes dangerous when no one trusts the watchman anymore. The CIA is no longer the watchman, but the agent of treason, when needed, against its own elected officials. It's a free-radical problem. Judging from what we've seen in this one generation, we can't imagine how furious will be the Fury of God upon this "leader of the free world." Put away patriotism; serve the Invisible Country of Jesus instead. He is the Only Resurrection of Anything, and, best of all, He's not trying to drive people nuts in lies and deception, as is the staple of the CIA and its fellow bodies.

In the video below, the woman at Fiamengo File looks like Blasey Ford. Compare their double-neck lines. Even the voices sound similar, though Fiamengo's is more upbeat, more intelligent, because Blasey was staging an act, and sounding childish or even dumb / slow. At 2:12, there's a frontal of both women; they seem to have the same brows and eyes too, and identical hair lengths. Their lips look identical. Was the Blasey testimony a sick joke? Is the media trying to stir controversy by playing games with the public?

Fiamengo has videos featuring feminism. In the video here, her hair part is off-center, at the same place where Blasey has her hair part. She seems to take the male side (looking older here) of false-rape accusations. Is this to start a war between the sexes? That's why feminists scare us, because they are pushing for such a war that spoils the family unit.

Here's a who-created-God video:

Truly, the most mysterious mystery is the origin of God. I can fathom a realm without time, where something just is, forever, but I still cannot fathom how it had no beginning. How can something be, I am? It's just incredible. But it's also true, we are witnesses.


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