Previous Update

Updates Index

(if there are any to speak of)

October 23 - 29, 2018

Tea for the Tillerman Tyes to Burton Cummings
Herods of France
More Real Physics from Yours Truly
The Sayok False Flag

Late this week, the following was added to the last update in which Astakos was a topic, where I trace Hagels and Eagle's (use link below to load any other surname):
After this update was put online, a Quikrete representative named Terry called to say that I was being gifted with a few bags of white stucco from another brand, BROMix. There is a Bromick surname listed with Burnys/Birnys, who share the colors and format of French Terrys, but if they don't apply to Astakos elements, the German Brome's look like they should because they not only share the Hagel lion, but both surnames were first found in Wurtemberg.

[See next update for when I realize that it's "Bomix," not "Bromix," but I'm keeping this update due to the value of Brome's.]

French Terrys were first found in Champagne with Sauvage's while Savage's use the eagle lion in colors reversed. The last update claimed that I had stucco problems as God's pointers to "Astakos," and a story about the Laevi and the priest killers of Jesus issued forth from those pointers.

English Brome's/Brooms have a write-up claiming that counts of Anjou, in connection to Geoffrey Plantagenet, took on the Broome surname. The earliest, or one of the earliest of this family is said to have been Eustace de la Brome in Kent. Their Coat uses "sprigs of broom," and Spriggs happen to use leaves that I always trace to the Laevi. The Spriggs happen to use the double pale bars in the Arms of Vilaine, and Vilaine is where Plunketts were first found who are from Plancia Magna, wife of Tertullus, the name also for the ancestor of the Anjou Fulks. These Fulks included Geoffrey Plantagenet.

"Villain" can be trace to "Vilnius," which is the Lithuanian home of the Astikas', who were in the last update as per their origin at Astakos. This line goes to the snake-with-mirror in Sire/Siron Coat (mythical Sirens were at the Astakos area), which is the symbol of the Melusine mermaid because the Mire's/MIREUX's were first found in Anjou while a satanic Vere family traces her to the first counts of Anjou. The PERGa location of Tertullus became suspect with "Perkunas," a Lithuanian god.

The Sprigg leaves look like the "rose leaves" of Sobers, while Subers use a giant leaf the design of which is showing for French House's (Sober colors and format) who call it a, cabbage leaf. This is perfect because cabbages are used by French Plants/PLANQUE's, the latter obviously from "PLANCia / Plunketts." Therefore, "SPRigg" looks like a Suber / Sober / Super / Spur branch. [Update, end of the week: I have had the scaffold ready to do this stucco job for weeks, and the wood PLANKs have been upon it all that time! There are two Plank surnames, and the English Planks/Planque's share the STOCK/Stoke Coat!!! Amazing. The latter's lion, in the colors of the Tail/Tailor lion, has two tails, as does the Montfort lion that is in the colors of the Stake lion, as well as the Grey lion (all giant lions). The problem with the first stucco is that the white turned out GREY! The wood planks did not come to mind as I wrote on the Planque's above, earlier in the week. End update]

The human leg is shared by House-like Hose's and Bromicks, and the latter's Super-like "Sapere" motto term seems to suggest that the Bromix stucco was a pointer to both Bromicks and Brome's. Amazing. The human leg is used also by Prime's while Primo's use another mirror. Primo's were first found in Burgundy with Loches', which, if I recall correctly, if the surname of the mother of Fulk II of Anjou. Loches' and Primo's use nearly the same three flowers, in Lyon / Lannoy colors.

The Primard branch of Primo's was in Brittany as a Limoges entity, evoking the father of Berthe (big topic last update), from Limoges. Berth married the line of some Lyon noble's, and the Primo write-up even mentions Mr. Primat of Lyon. One Lannoy Coat share's the feathered helmet with German Brome's. The other Lannoy surname shares the fleur of the Brittany Maurels, suspect from "MauriLION," Berthe's husband.

As the middleman company which relayed the Bromix stucco to me is named, Simcoe BLOCK, by what coincidence do Italian Maurels share the Simcoe colors and format? As Italian Maurels share the eight-pointed stars of Batti's (beside Maurels) and Stelli's, while Battistelli's share the pyramid with Tulls/Tolle's, by what coincidence do Battistelli's share the billets of German Blocks?

Until now, I have not known the Limoges surname (except perhaps in passing), first found in Brittany (and in Dol too), and sharing the Sinclair cross, which recalls that French Clairs were first found at Limousin, the Limoges theater! That proves a Sinclair-viking trace to the Maurilion family, important because I claim (see last update) that Berthe (predated vikings by centuries) married the Ruricus > Rusticus line to the Varangian Rus. And the engrailed Sinclair cross is used in red by Rhodes' whom I link to Manders, note that Berthe's father-in-law was MUNDERic! Excellent, and Munderic's ancestry was at CLERmont-Ferrand. The last update convinced me that Badon (probably Berthe's grandson) was the line to Baths, who use the Rhodes cross-with-lions in colors reversed.

There's more, for the Bromix stucco was given to me by Terry while English Terrys use the version of a Bird/Burd Coat that has the Bouillon cross in colors reversed. Clermont-Ferrand is in Auvergne...where Bouillons were first found. The last update found Birds/Burds suspect from "Berthe." French Terrys use the Bird/Burd martlets in colors reversed, which tends to indicate to me that Berthe was an Astakos element as per Terry and the stucco.

Fulk V of Anjou sat on the throne of Templar Jerusalem, the first king of which was a brother of Godfrey-de-Bouillon, sons of Eustace II of Boulogne. We just saw Eustace Brome. As Taddei's share the Bouillon cross, it's notable that Taddei's were first found in Florence with Brome-like Barone's and Bruno's, while Italian Fulks, who share the checks of both Italian Ferrands and Tulls/Tolle's, were first found in in Florence, or nearby. Bromans (Broom/Brome colors) are also Brunmans.

Brone's (BROWN lion) are listed with Browns ("FLOReat"), who use nearly the English Lannoy Coat, the one sharing the feathered helmet with German Brome's. These Lannoys (possible Alans of Dol merged with Tullia's Lyon elements) are said to be from BLETsoe while Bleds/Blets use the Clare triple chevrons in colors reversed. As Bleds are suspect with Bleda, Attila's brother, let me remention that Attila was from the House of Dulo while "TULLia" of Lyon and Clermont-Ferrand is suspect exactly with "Dulo / Dol," for her descendant, MUNDeric above, smacks of MUNDzuk, father of Bleda and Attila. Bleds/Blets use a "tous" motto term while Tous'/Tosini's (eight-pointed star) were first found in Florence.

Brone's/Browns were first found in Cumberland with Burns, which can explain the Bromick variation of Burnys as a Brome merger with Burns, and thus the Brone's do look like a Brome branch. Irish Brone's look linkable to both Strongbow Clare of Pembroke and the Clermonts'/Clements of Wales.

I know my heraldry. One cannot make all the links made above, so expressly, based solely on Terry, the Bromix stucco, and Simcoe Block, and coupled with all the links in the last update on the same topic, unless God sets up a multitude of things to work out heraldically. Why bother? It must be important, but if He told me the purposes, I'd be prone to telling you, which might spoil what He has planned, depending on who you are. One day, he might start giving some word on what He plans to do, unless he's already done it by exposing the Steele-dossier scandal. However, this latest stucco event signals more to come in the future.

On the last day of this update, I awoke after certain terms seemed to be in my dreams all night long, both "Guelder" and terms such as "Quint." This was after four or five days of not doing any heraldry at all. I instinctively knew that God wanted me back to heraldry while I was tackling science topics (below), and so this Guelder dream, or sets of dreams, may be a continuation of His stucco pointers. Just now, I lit the wood stove because I plan to apply the Bromix stucco to the four corners of the windows. This was in the plans since testing a piece of stucco yesterday, to see if it would dry white. It is amazing therefore that I had linked Corners/Garners to GUELDERs/GELDerland. Plus, terms such as "Gueld" and "Celt" are, I think, traceable to "CALYDon," which was the name of the country around Astakos.

As Blade's/Blate's became a topic in the Herod section below, it's conspicuous that Teems/Tiems, said to be from Gelderland, use a "blade." I am writing this days after writing the Herod section, and while Gelderland is in Holland, so were the Dutch Coopers that share the Blade/Blate saltire. The Blade's/Blate's throw in white pheons, the symbol of Blate-like Pilate's, and Pontius Pilate's mother was reportedly a Pict of Perthshire, which checks out because Perthshire is where Calydon-like Celts/Cults were first found who use the Pilate pheon in colors reversed. The Picts had a CALEDONian tribe. One peak of Mont Pilat, near the home of Herod Archelaus, is PERDrix, like "Perth."

Celts/COLTs share the stag head with German Tromps/Trumps, the latter first found near the fist-known German Gelders. Dutch Gelders (Trump-stag colors) share the fleur-de-lys of Corners/Garners who in-turn share the ACORN with Dutch Tromps. Corners/Garners are said to be of GARDners, which checks out because Val Trompia is beside lake Garda. The Teem/Tiem "blade" is called a "plow" by a surname I always forget, which checks out where Plows use the same fleur-de-lys as Gelders. Plow-like Pillows are listed with English Pilotte's (Plow colors), said to have had a branch in Burgundy, where French Pilote's (cups) were first found, and in/beside Mont Pilat. Whatever I've said about the Plows in the past, they are now looking like a line from Pontius Pilate.

German Gelders share the bend of Biggars, and the latter are in a motto term of the Shetland Arms while Yell in Shetland (see last update) links to the Calydon entity. Biggars were first found in Lanarkshire with same-colored COLTers. "SHETland" is suspect with Sheds or Scheds / Sheets / Skits / Schutz's, and the blade-using Teems/Tiems use eSCUTcheons. Lanark is beside GLASgow, explaining why Biggars share the Glass stars, but then the Lords/LAUDs share the Pilate pheons while "Lord" is a motto term of the Glasgow surname. Ladys/LAUDYmans were first found in NorthAMPTON with Quint-suspect Quince's, and Amptons apparently use the cinquefoils of Lords/Lauds. Lords/Lauds were first found in Suffolk beside the first-known Bags, both using the blue cinquefoil, suggesting that Bags are a Biggar branch. Biggs share the red leopard head with Pilate-like Plate's, and the latter's Coat is that also of the Mars of Burgundy, in Pilate colors.

Recall the Planks above, for while Blanks are now said to have been first found in Northamptonshire, I have it recorded for years that they were previously said to have been first found in Shetland. Northamptonshire is where Cabbage's were first found (share the tail/Tailer lion) while French Plants/Planque's use cabbages. German Blanks can be using the Sforza lion because the latter's holds a quince.

Skits are also Scythe's, and the Scythes'/Side's share the GENT/Ghent Chief, which have eagles in the colors of the Tromp eagle, suggesting that Ghent/Gaunt was named after a line of Quintus Caepio. It's known that he named the Caepionis surname, and Capone's use the colors and format of Quicks/Quiggs while the first brand of stucco, that would no longer produce the pure white I'm after, is QUIKrete. "QuikRETE" is now looking like part-code for Rieds/Reeds (branch of Rede's/Rieds/Riets), for they share the Celt/Colt stag head.

Relatives of the Herods of France

At the end of the last update, I was inserting Herod material into the update. I want to re-visit the discussion to see what more can be learned. As Burton Commings entered the discussion late in the last update, I'd like to take a stronger look at that part, because I suspect that he was God's entry. I'm repeating much from that discussion here, starting with: "The Cheshire Birds are highly suspect from Berthe and Mummolin, for they use the cross of the Bouillons in colors reversed." Mummolin descended from Tullia of Auvergne's Clermont-Ferrand, and Bouillons were first found in Auvergne. It's not far from Comminges, home of Herod Antipas, from Israel's Herods, and while his brother, Herod, Archelaus was at Vienne, near Lyon, Tullia married Decimus Rusticus of Lyon. If that's not enough, Tulls/Tolle's share the Tool lion while TOULouse is across the river from Comminges.

All of that was in the last update with "TEA for the Tillerman," when, near the end of the week, the song line, "no sugar tonight in my TEA" came to mind. It was by the band, the Guess Who, and I did check the Guess and Hoo/Who surnames, but had nothing to say. Then, when I was speaking on the Bird-Berthe link to the COMMINGes area, BURTon COMMINGs came to mind, because he was Guess Who's lead singer. The Birds are also BURTs.

But there is more to indicate that God was in all that, for Drago de Bewere is in both the Burton and Blate/Blade write-up, which I didn't have time to get into until now. In the Herod discussion, I had said the following:

Dutch Coopers are colors reversed from the Henry eagle, and happen to share the Blate/Blade saltire while German Blate's/Plate's use the vineyard, a symbol on one side of a coin of Herod Archelaus. I read this myself at his Wikipedia article, but Wikipedia removed that coin from the article, after I wrote about it, though at least one other website still had it a few months ago. On the reverse of the same coin, there was a helmet with feathers, a symbol seen on the rider in the Caffery/Caffertys Coat, which is in the colors of the Coffee/Coffer fesse, half in the colors of the Herod/Herault fesse.

It therefore appears that Burton Cummings, who sang "No Sugar Tonight," is God's code for Herods.

I trace Julius AVITus to the Cetina/TILURius river, and have been doing so for a lot longer than I've recognized that cat-using Cetins/Cattans trace there. The last update featured CAT Stevens' album cover, Tea for the TILLERman, and English Tillers share the Tail/Tailor/TAYLOR lion while Elizabeth Taylor married Richard BURTON (!), which is a thing I missed in the last update. It appears that God set the Burton-Cummings song in the last update to at least trace Tilurius elements to Berthe. And here I can add that I trace such motto terms as "vitae," in the Burton motto, to Julius Avitus, excellent because I suggested, due to the two songs with "tea," that Tilurius elements connected with Comminges / Herods. And it just so happens that while Herod Agrippa entered the discussion with the Berta griffin, Julius Avitus (about 150 AD, very near Herod Agrippa's time) married the daughter of Julius Agrippa's nephew! Zinger.

But there is something absolutely fantastic that was missed in the last update. I failed to load Tillers to see that they are also TYlors, while Tea's are also TYE's!!! Astounding, especially as the TYson/Tesson lion is colors reversed from the Lyon lion!!! It is simply undeniable that God set these items up in pointing to Herod lines that almost-certainly act as root to Freemasonry and end-time anti-Christian programs.

The trace of Avitus elements to the Tilurius is on three counts, one being the sharing of the same annulet between German Tillers and Vito's, and another where the Tilurius is in Dalmatia while I read that Julius Bassianus (the said nephew of Julius Agrippa) was stationed in Dalmatia by the Roman emperor (whose mother was Bassianus' daughter).

The Burgos' were first found in Castile, which is at least beside the city of Burgos in the land of Basques. The latter lived also across the mountains in Comminges, likely. The point is, the Basques had a snake god, Sugaar. "No sugar tonight in my tea." It's as though God chose the words for that song, waiting for me to write as I am right now for to make a link of my own Masci/Massey line to Herod of Comminges.

You saw the Herod/Herault surname above. There is an Herault area (Languedoc) beside Languedoc's Rennes-le-Chateau area that was part of the Comminges discussion, and Comminges was probably part of Languedoc too. While Narbonne is in Herault, the Italian Narbonne/Denardo Coat shares the tower of Auvergne's, to no great surprise because Auvergne touched upon Languedoc too, if only politically. But what I missed was to add that Herods/Heraults are also Hurls while Cummings/Commings are expected with HERLuin de Conteville of a Comines location in Artois. The Hurls/Herls, who share a gold fesse with Herods/Heraults/Hurls, use the colors and format of Tillers/Tylors.

The Tillers use their giant annulet colors reversed from that of Vito's, and while the Tiller annulet is white, as is the giant Burgos annulet, John de Burgo of Conteville and Comines was father to Herluin de Conteville. The latter's daughter was the grandmother of the first-known Meschin, from the BESSIN, highly suspect from Julia Maesa BASSIANus, wife of Julius Avitus. The sister (Julia Domna) of Avitus' wife was the wife of emperor SEPTIMius, who can explain why SEPTIMania was part of Languedoc.

With the entry of Narbonne's/Denardo's into this picture, I need to go to Mike Denardo, whom God used for an event in a Knob-Hill-Farms parking lot with Allison Bauer, my teen girlfriend at the time (I was 17). They were my fellow workers at Knob Hill Farms, and Knobs have a white-tipped arrow that could be the white Tiller arrow, for Tillers were first found in Austria while Knobs were first found in Bavaria, while Bewere-like Bauers (branch of arrow-using Bowers) were first found in Bewere-like Bavaria and Austria. Mayer Bauer changed his surname to "Rothschild," and the Rothschild/Rottenstein surname shares the Tiller arrow. The five, bunched arrows in the Arms of Rothschild are in the Bower Coat. Bewere's were first found in Rhineland, where the first Rothschild above lived, namely at FRANKfurt, and one Frank surname shares the saltire of Blade's/Blate's, which is one of the two surnames having Drago de Bewere in its write-up.

The other surname with Mr. Beware (spelled "Drogo de Beuvriere") is the BURTons, who share the dog with Allisons having the same birds as Hoods, important because I was sitting on the hood of my car, in the parking lot, while Allison was getting into Denardo's car. She wouldn't come out when I went over to her, and she left me for him at that very time. This sharing of the same bird design tended to nail the event as one from God. I can't recall which surname calls the birds Cornish choughs, but the other surname calls them, "black BIRDs." If that's not enough to allow Burd-like Burtons into this picture, they share "Lux" with Blacks suspect in "black birds"! Zikers, that's a hit job if I ever saw one.

So, as Denardo's share the Auvergne tower, one can spot the link of Birds/Burds and Burtons to Berthe, for she married the line of the rulers out of Auvergne. Berthe's husband was a great-grandson of another Rusticus of Lyon, and so let's go to the Tysons again, who use the Coat of Lyon-branch Lannoys in colors reversed, for the other Lannoys use a helmet with feathers, symbol on a coin of Herod Archelaus. The latter lived in Vienne-Isere while Vienne's share the giant eagle with Irish Henrys (Lyon colors), while the Brittany Henrys share the RED Bird/Burd martlets. I told (last update) why Henrys can trace to Henry IV of Rodez, at the Auvergne theater. I told why Mea's/Mee's were smack where the Brittany Henrys lived, but I missed that fact that Mea's are also My's while the Burton song says, "No sugar tonight in MY tea." Amazing.

Mea's are said to be from a My location in Flanders, which area covered Comines and was home to Flemings. Tea's/Tease's are also Tyes' while Thigh's/Tye's' share the giant wolf with Flemings and Quillans, the latter suspect from Quillan, beside Roquefeuil. Can we believe it: Tea's/Tease's (Annas star) were first found in Nottinghamshire with Annas' and Mea's, and the Quillan Coat is a version of the Annas Coat. The Arniss variation of Annas' is like the Arnissa location (lower-left side on this dark map) of the Genusus river, one major river north of the Apsus, origin of the Herods according to my findings (from the line of Antipater of Macedonia as it birthed the queen Nysa's of Cappadocia and the Pontus).

Archelaus-suspect Tysons/Tessons were first found in Northumberland with Herls/Hurls, and beside the Agrippa-suspect Bernice's of Cumberland. The latter is where Daggers were first found while Cummings/Comine's use the dagger in Crest. This is most excellent because Daggers were from Dexaroi on the Apsus river through Antipatria/Antipater, to which I trace "Antipater," father of the first king Herod. The Apsus flows through Fier county, where Kuman is located that is an obvious origin of the Comyn variation of Cummings. It can also be mentioned that Siward of Northumberland is the line to Swords, who use swords, the symbol also of Aude's expected in the "aude" motto term of Bromicks/Burnys. Roquefeuil is in Aude. Septimania is part of mysteries surrounding Rennes-le-Chateau, which is in Aude too.

To really nail this Henry trace to Henri of Rodez, there is an Aubin location beside Rodez, where I trace Aubins/Albins, who happen to share the blue fitchee of Mea's/My's. Italian Albino's are even suspect with the ROD and ROCK trefoil, and one can glean that Rods and Rocks are from the marriage of Henry IV of RODez to a lady of ROQUEfeuil, for Roque's (Languedoc) are also, Rocks. German Rods/Roads (Rhineland) use another giant eagle, half in the colors of the giant Vienne eagle. Rods/Roads are said to have included HENRICH Roder of Rusticus-suspect Rostock. The Brittany Henrys lived at Mott, and MODENs/Modeys, first found in BERKshire with Arks/ARCH's, share the fretty of Henry-liner Enrico's. MODANE is on the ARC river that pours into the Isere river to the land of Herod ARCHelaus. We can't help but being impressed. Albino's were first found in MODENa, how about that.

Berkshire is suspect from the Burghs/Berks, the line of John de Burgo, father of HERLuin, a Herod suspect from his surname alone, yet he also ruled at Comminges-suspect Comines. There is interplay here between the French regions of both Herods, and it even includes the Agrippa family, apparently. The Motts come up as "Morte," and "ReGARDez mort" is the Barnstaple motto term. This is where Cat Stevens can come in again (Berks use the cat) due to the Barnstaple bend-with-trefoils being a version of the Stevenson bend with leopard FACE's (Mea's share the Fessy/Face cross).

Aubins/Albins are said to have been at Barnstaple, which checks out where Barnstaple's share the trefoils of Albino's, but then the BARNstaple's can be suspect with the Burns that were first found in Cumberland with Bernice's, and both share the black hunting horns. Albino's were first found in Modena with Cassano's, and, be amazed, for the Antipatria / AntiPATER line of Pattersons are said to be "Cassane's"! The Cassano's share the fesse of Bernice's even, and, be amazed some more, Cassano's come up as "Cassandra" while the line between Antipater and queen Nysa included his son, king Cassander.

German Albini's share blue wings with Bauers, both first found in Bavaria. Albini's share the fleur of Burns, and the latter's "Ever Ready" motto can be for Reed liners that include Rodez-possible Roets (share GORD boar head), both of whom share the book. I trace Roets and Books (Berwickshire, same as GORDs) to Beefs/Boeufs of PeriGORD, not very far from Rodez. Perigord is where the French Faux's were first found that have variations to be gleaned from Saunier's/Salnier's, and the mysteries at Rennes-le-Chateau include Mr. Saunier(e), who is in code in the fictional book, Da Vinci Code.

Books (same place as Hume's/Home's with the Lyon lion in colors reversed) share the RED stag head of Reeds and Celts/Colts, the latter first found in Perthshire with Lyons and Wings/Winks. The Vinci surname is likely of the Vince's/Finch's, and of the Wings/Winks in the Albini Crest, for the Winks were from Vinkovci, birthplace of Valentinian I, while Valentins (VICENZa) share a version of the Barnstaple Coat (same treFOILs as Albino's/Albini's, part-code for RoqueFEUIL). The last update showed why Vincents (English version of "Vicenzo") can apply, as they use a border colors reversed from the border in the Arms of Rennes-le-Chateau.

The Mea/My surname is from the Meu river into Mott (Brittany), and this river passes near Rennes. Peter Pollock at Rothes castle (near the Reeds of Aberdeenshire) is the root of Rothschilds, and the Pollock saltire (Herod/Herault colors) is used by one of the Frank surnames sharing the motto of the Frank surname with the saltire of Herod-suspect Blate's/Blade's and Coopers. Pollocks share the green Shield with Bowers and Bauers, and one could read online -- at one time, anyway, before David Rockefeller indicated that he would change the Internet to block/hide/bury the works of certain writers -- that the first Rothschild called his Frankfurt home, "Green Shield." The Rennes-suspect Reines' (comet) were first found in Bavaria with Rothes'/Rothchilds (no 's' as in "Rothschild") and Bauers. The Northumberland Reeds are also Reds, and the Rieti-like Rieds/Reeds have spread eagles colors reversed from the Rod/Road eagle.

Both Reeds and Roets share the book with Darlene's. Immediately before being with Allison Bauer of Knob Hill Farms, I was dating Darlene Ray of that same grocery store. RayBURNs use a "ROBur" motto term while Darlene's use a "female figure" said to be wearing a robe. Robe's share the stag with Rays, Rayburns, Hurts/Horts, Hortons and Necks/Neckers, and the Rayburn stag design (has an item at the neck) is that of Eustace's and Hurts (share the Herl/Hurl fesse). Heraldic hurts (blue roundels) are used by Arthurs, namers of Artois, home of Eustace II.

There's no telling from the symbols whether Wrays are a Ray branch. Wrays share the Henry martlets (both colors), but so do many others. However, Wrays were at Wray-with-Botton, and Bottons/Buttons (Hampshire, same as Caplans and Joseph Henry / Henry Joseph) use the "chapeau" cap of Capelli's, highly suspect as a branch of Joseph-related Caplans and Chaplains. In the 11th century, Wrays were at a Werei location held by GodWINE, and Wine's/Winns use only eagles half in the colors of the Henry eagle. Aha! Godwine's ("VIRTute", see Bertys below) share the red lion head of both Farmers (Essex, same as Vere's) and Luffs (Oxfordshire, same as Vere rulers of Oxford), and as I've said, Ray Luff died in a car accident while Darlene Ray (Knob Hill FARMs) was in a car accident (no injury) while I was her boyfriend. I had speculated on this in the past, that God arranged her car accident for a link to "Ray Luff," and here it pops up. The Godwine Coat looks like a version of the Luff-related MUScat Coat (Luffs, until now, were said to be first found in Suffolk with Muscats), and Were's use a "FiuMUS" motto term indicative of the Vere/Massey relationship.

It just so happens that Werei of the Wrays was in Devon, where the Vere-branch Were's/Wears were first found, highly-possible Varangian liners. The Were write-up claims that Were's were not a Vere branch, but I discovered otherwise. Were's are said to have been on the Axe river (two such rivers touch upon Somerset), which is what the axe of Badens/Battins (Somerset) is symbol for, suggesting that Were's were from Veringers of Baden, and also from Badon, whom I'll assume was Berthe's grandson. One Crozier surname uses the Arms of Chalons-sur-Marne (Chalons-en-Champagne), and while Were's/Wears use croziers (!), Berthe's husband was at Chalons-sur-Marne! Amazingly, the Wrays have just led us to Berthe.

Necks/Neckers are important suddenly, for if it can thus appear above that God named Darlene Ray's first name because Darlene's (Devon, share red crosslets with Were's) linked us to Rayburns, it's interesting that Rays were first found in Cumberland with Daggers who share the Bardy Coat, for Berthe-like Bardys were first found in Perigord, right beside the home of Berthe's father. Darlene's put drops on their Shield while the Drop/Trope Chief is also the Tull/Tolle/Tulle Chief.

The vikings (Rus assumed) who were named, Stout, trace to the Neckar river's Stuttgart, which has a horse in its Arms in the colors of the Berty/Barty horse!! This is huge (I'm not familiar with Bertys). The latter surname was first found in Baden with Varangian-suspect Veringers! Baden is now suspect from "Badon," a grandson of Mummolin, husband of Berty-like Berthe!! This is absolutely fantastic with what's yet to come shortly, and it already looks as though the Neretva's Vardaei elements trace to Berthe's very name. Couple this with the Fiers/Fere's/FEARs, said to be a Vere branch, who trace to the Apsus river, origin, I am sure, of Herods. Wrays use a "juste" motto term, almost the "just" motto term of the Peacocks who throw in "FEAR."

There is a chance that Rod-like versions of "Hros / Horus" named "Herod," which is why I suspected that Rodez elements named Herods. However, HERODotus, predated Herods by a few centuries; he lived in Caria's Bodrum, near Rhodes, and later moved to Sybaris. Wikipedia says that peoples of Sybaris founded Laus to which the Carian-suspect Manders trace by their motto, who use a version of the Rhodes Coat, and the letter's is a Coat version of the Baths, first found in Somerset with Badens/Battons. As so much HERALDry traces to the bay of Laus, it's a good bet that Herodotus' own line was the proto-Herod, especially as the Carian Sea Peoples, the Masa/Maso (I forget which is the correct spelling), trace to Massa-Carrara, home of Masseys that are expected with Agrippa's. BODRum-like Botters were first found beside Massa-Carrara, in Lucca, same as Massai's/Massars. Herods/Heraults are also HERALDs, highly suspect from Harald, father of king Maccus.

Germany's Baden is beside Bavaria so that Grimoald of Bavaria can now link to Grimo, Badon's second cousin.

Was Darlene's Ray's car accident God's pointer to Carians? Rays use an "OMNia" motto term suspect in the past with Omans, and now suspect from "Ommance," the mother-in-law of Hiberie, wife of Rusticus of Lyon. Berthe married his great-grandson. Just look at how Rays brought us to the same line as had Wrays. I can't make these things up if the evidence isn't there. AMAZINGLY, I noticed just now that Darlene's share red fitchees with a surname mentioned in the last update, but I could not recall the surname. I recalled only that I linked it to Cravens, and, finding "Craven" in the last update just brought me to the mystery surname: the Berth's/Brets!!!! Astounding. The fitchees of Berth's/Brets (Somerset, beside Darlene's) are in both colors of the Darlene fitchees. I should add here the Bret is the name of a son of a BRADy family I knew.

Berthe suddenly becomes suspect as the namer of Brittany / Britain, or, at least, the entity that named her could have done so. Bruttium is at the Laus / Sybaris border, and is suspect from "Aprutium," the Abruzzo capital (home of the Abruzzi) at one time. It just so happens that while I trace the royal Brusi/Bruce's to "Abrussi," the Bruce's share the Were/Wear motto, which is the surname to which the Darlene's are seemingly linking to.

The Samford/Saunford location of Berth's/Brets is a SANDford line, suspect with the Santones who are well-connectable to the Limoge's location of Berthe's father, for the two entities trace to Lemnos. Sandfords use "Nec" as code, I think, of the Neckar-river Rus ("nec" is used also by Rutherfords and Roddens).

Rusticus is suspect, along with his father, RURICus, as the proto-Varangian Rus (founded from RURIK), who are from the "Varni" of Rusticus-like ROSTock, and it just so happens that while Darlene Ray was given an ICE-cream symbol (mentioned many times in the past), Ice's (more trefoils) were first found at Rostock. Varni worshiped Nerthus with the Angles and LomBARDs, and Hangers with Angers share the escarbuncle with French Rays. Angle's/Angels use a Badon-like baton. Florentinus married Rusticus' daughter, ARTEMia, and Artems/Aitons (Berwickshire, same as Arthurs) happen to use a ROSE version of the Rhodes cross-with-lions, tending to trace Rhodes' to Rodez.

Hurt-loving Arthurs were of the Rus, and I had traced them to Redones of the Rodez theater. The Hurt Coat shares the fesse of Tillers (Meschin colors and format, expected as per Julia Maesa), and the Tilurius is beside the Neretva river of the Ardiaei/Vardaei. That can begin to show why Tilurius elements should have been at Comminges' Herods. Vardys/Virtys share the Fier moline to indicate a Fier-county link to Arthur elements, and the Vardy line to Ferte-Mace (home of Masseys/Maceys) is the one to Meschins (same fesse as Hurts), who descended from Conteville's of Artois' Comines (from Kuman in Fier county). The first-known Meschin, as ruler of Cheshire, was permitted to own the garbs in the Arms of Cheshire, which are the Comine garbs. Macey-like Mackays share the dagger with Comine's/Cummings.

The "un deo" motto phrase of Rayburns is like the "Un Dieu" motto of Rush's, the latter now suspect (as of last update) with the Roxolani Rus at Roquefeuil. The Rous'/Roosevelts were linked square to Eustace II's family, thanks much to God's code with Christine Peare. She was given an it-felt-so-good code for FELTs that applied directly to Waistells from the same Buzau river as Roxolani...which helps to explain "RooseVELT." Felts happen to share the flory cross of Birds/Burds, in colors reversed from the same of Bouillon's (Auvergne, speaks to Berthe that married an Auvergne line), and Bouillon's share a "Christi" motto term with Rous'/Roosevelts while Christ's use ROSES. "It felt so good" was recognized as God's pointer to Gothelo, grandfather of the wife of Eustace II, the latter being father to Godfrey de Bouillon. Godfreys use a "liBERTAs" motto term apparently for Berthe.

In fact, wow, I have mentioned my cousin Dino, with a Grimaldi surname that I trace without doubt to Grimo, grandson of Mummolin, and therefore likely Berthe's grandson. The Dino's write "LiBERTAS" in their Chief!!! Zowie, it appears that God named my cousin's first name, whose surname is my mother's maiden name. My mother's mother was Mrs. Masci, and Dine's/Dives', with the Masci wing, are from the Dives river near Ferte-Mace. As Masci's are from the nephew of Julius Agrippa, note that the giant Ferte eagle is colors reversed from the same of Vienne's.

Dino's are important because they can be gleaned with the Taddei write-up, both surnames first found in Florence, which is also called, Firenze. As Ferrands share a version of the Taddei Chief, it's evident that Ferrands are Florence elements, and this should apply also to Auvergne's Clermont-Ferrand (where Tullia, Mummolin's ancestor, lived), for the Taddei's share the flory cross of Auvergne's Bouillons. If that's not enough, Mummolin was a grandson of Florentinus.

I was trying to find a good map of France for you when I saw Tulle on one of them. I haven't known this Tulle location before, and it's smack near Clermont-Ferrand. The Arms of Tulle use rooks (Rook / Rookby symbol) as evidence of their link to Roquefeuil. The Tulle surname is listed with Tulia's. Lyon is on the map beside Clermont-Ferrand. Tulle is beside Perigord and Limoges, the latter being the place of Berthe's father (MauriLION).

I've noted the Tarves-like Tarbes location (on map), to the west side of Comminges' Save river (not shown). Chives'/SHEWAS', suspect with Save's, Sava's, Shaws, and Sheaves', were first found in Tarves. And, zowie, the latter must be from Tarvisium/Treviso, where Vito's were first found. It recalls the expectation from the tea code that Tilurius liners should be at the Comminges area. As the Save river is in Basque country, the Save snake might just be Sugaar. The Sava's/Savage's use six lions in the pattern of the six Tarves fitchees, the Treeby lion is colors reversed from the Sava/Savage lions.

The Sava/Savage Coat is a colors-reversed version of the Eagle Coat, and while Eagle's are from the Achelous river (along with WINK-related Hagels), the location there of Astakos (big topic last update) traces to the Astikas' that married Traby! Bingo. The Levite liners along the Achelous were at Tarbes and/or Comminges. Sheaves' of L'Aquila (eagle) share the key with the Arms of Comines, and "qui" is a motto term of the BERKshire Shaws/Sheaves'. As the latter are in the colors of Derbys/DARBYs (garbs, could be called sheaves), "Traby" suddenly traces excellently to Anatolia's Derbe. Derbe was near Perta (at lake Tatta, off the PONTUS), and Winks were first found in PERTHshire with the mother of PONTIUS Pilate. PERTs/Petts use bulRUSHes!

Yells share the fleur of Astikas-line Sticks, (like "Sithech," Shaw ancestry), and Treebys were at YEALmpton, tending to assure that Treebys are a Traby branch.

At the age of 16, I asked Katrina Hanson if she'd like to go out with me while I was purchasing an ice cream from her. I had never spoken to her before. She agreed to my surprise. The following year, I did the same with Darlene Ray, never having spoken to her, and I was lined up purchasing an ice cream from her too. I've therefore looked up Hansons again, to find that English Hansons use the mascle of English Faux's who in turn use a "rege" motto term perhaps for some Ray branch (Reggio in Bruttium comes to mind). Then, French Faux's/Chaulnes', first found in Perigord with Bardys, share the fleur of both Masci's (that's me asking her for an ice cream) and Danish Hansons. Katrina is Danish. Just compare "Chaulnes" with "Chalons," home of Berthe. Therefore, both ice-cream girls have seemingly traced us easily to Berthe. Welsh Chalons share cherubs with one Saint surname, and Santones had named their Sainte location.

I determined that the ice CREAM was God's pointer to Ananes Gauls at Crema and/or nearby Cremona. I entered the Cremer/Cramer surname into that discussion, which happens to share the Faux/Chaulnes Chief. German Hansons share the LomBARD Coat, making the green Hanson snake suspect with the Visconti's of Lombardy (the Visconti snake was originally green). Crema is, I think, in Lombardy. One of the Hanson fleur is that also of Morinis', suspect with Myrina, a city on Lemnos. The Morinis' were first found in Modena with Morano's, who's Moor head belongs to the one in the Arms of Morano (ancient Murunum) on the Sybaris river. And Morinis' (share the Maurel/Maurino fesse) are evident in the Maurino variation of Milan's Maurels, from Maurilion, Berthe's father. Just look at how neatly the ice cream of Katrina Hanson took us to Berthe, especially as VisCONTI's ruled in Milan. To top it off, the other fleur of Danish Hansons is that also of the Brittany Maurels.

The Italian Conti's even share the Sam lion while I asked Miss Hanson for the ice cream at Sam's restaurant, which goes by that name to this day, in GORMLEY (you can look it up, "Famous Sam's restaurant"). The Gormley surname (Henry / Wray martlets!) is also "Grimes," and we are about to track this picture to Grimo, so unbelievably, via the ice cream. The Conti lion links closely to the Lafin/La FONT lion, and fountains are used by the Custs in the Cramer/Cremer motto, for the Cremer/Cramer Crest has the red rooster of Cush's/Kiss (shares the Cust Shield). The Cremer/Cramer rooster is on a green mound while the red Bibo/Bible rooster is on a green CUSHion, once again suggesting that Bibo's were from Babon, father of Grimo, and then Grimaldi's share a lozengy Shield with the Hansons and Lombards, but in the same colors as the red-rooster Cocks.

To suggest that God had my parents (on a Grimaldi) move to Gormley for this revelation seems over the top, but that's what it looks like. God must have given me the impetus to ask Katrina out at that moment. I took her out in the Valiant of a friend's parents, and Valiants use the only heraldic shark I know of, while Saraka's were out of KATRina-like Kotor, and then into Ragusa, also called "Laus," which connects to the bay of Laus (Bruttium) because it's the location of Saraca-like Saracena.

Babon's brother, BodeGISEL, was named after a Gisel entity, and there is a Gisel surname listed with Grimo-possible Gris', first found in Brittany with same-colored Maurels ("VIRTus"). Gisels/Gris' are said to have been from Mott, home of Henrys who share the Gormley martlets. Perfect, for tracing to Henri of Rodez.

Bad Science

In the video below, the naive science guy removes air from a vacuum inside of which he hangs a thermometer in mid-air by same tape. He's been taught that heat is due purely from the motion of atoms, which is why he can't explain the minimal temperature decrease as he removes the air. He thinks he can explain things, but he clearly cannot. He's happily deceived.

If heat were truly the motion of atoms, then, after he's removed about 99 percent of the air, there should be almost no heat. The temperature should be almost at absolute zero, which is lower than -250 C. He begins with normal air at 17 C inside his air-tight box. After he's removed most air to a near-perfect vacuum, the temperature is, at it's lowest register, 11.1 C. And then the temperature starts to go up, but he doesn't allow us to see how quickly it rises. He cuts out the video section between its showing of 11.3 and 12.1 (pump still running), and after showing 12.1, he cuts out more video, resuming at 14.7 with the pump off. A while later, it's at 15.3, but we don't know what happened after that. He implies that it hovered at a maximum of around 14.9 so long as he maintained the vacuum, which I do not believe. In fact. later in the video, he shows it at 15.9 C, at which time he opens the valve to let air back in...such a dishonest man for not allowing it to go back to 17 before doing so.

In my view, the thermometer should rise to the room temperature outside the box. If he showed that part, he'd be at a loss to explain it as he understands heat. He would be forced to admit that heat enters the vacuum from the air outside the box, a thing he denies, such a dishonest man. I've watched several of his videos; he doesn't think for himself, but apes what the standardized books tell him to think. He is bang-on track with the accepted "science," and proud of it.

In reality, heat is the "gas" of free electrons in the air outside the box, as well as in the atomic spaces of the box's walls. These electrons fairly-easily pass through the box's walls into the vacuum. That's part of the real reason that the temperature started to increase after gas expansion dropped it. But there needs to be more to it than merely the bit of heat in the box's atomic spaces at the time that the experiment begins. It's doubtful that any/much heat from the air got into the vacuum after the mere minute it took to drop the vacuum down to 11.1 degrees. So where did the heat come from while the pump was operating? The pump removes both air and heat particles (free electrons) in "mouthfuls" so that much heat is expected to be lost too.

Notice his explanation for the increase in temperature. He says that the heat in the materials of the thermometer leaked into the part of the thermometer which measures temperature. He simultaneously declares that there is no heat (virtually) in the vacuum, so that the only place where the thermometer can get heat is from itself. This is wrong. Your better senses are telling you that this is wrong. You know that if he placed water in the vacuum, it would not freeze if he stopped the pump at any point between 17 C and 11.1. Your better senses are telling you it's not really cold in that box at any time, and if it were getting cold, water should freeze at some point while there are some atoms remaining.

To explain why the thermometer's temperature-measuring material itself is not getting cold, he says that its heat cannot escape into the vacuum because there are no atoms in there to receive the heat. This is nonsense, and physicists know it. But they vehemently reject the reality that heat is a material. They must have "important" reasons for rejecting what should be obvious to them.

What he needs to do is to repeat the experiment with a thermometer brought down to 11 degrees (or slightly less) before starting the experiment, so that there can be no claim of heat leakage from the thermometer's materials into the material measuring the temperature. He will then see that the temperature of the vacuum, as registered by the thermometer, will rise to the same levels. Yes, a cold thermometer will warm up in a vacuum; the imposters have 100 ways to discover whether things heat up in a vacuum, and they have known it to be true, even as a coffee thermos operating on a vacuum gets the coffee to remain warmer only a little longer than having an air gap. The vacuum does not prevent heat passage, and the one who's making this video has been a dishonest schmuck about this.

He credits the reduction in heat to the decreasing density of air in the container, which is correct. However, he and his fellow physics buffs are missing an important source of the vacuum's heat grab. When a gas or liquid is compressed, heat is squeezed out. That's because compression brings atoms closer together, and so heat particles between the atoms are likewise increased in density, wherefore they inter-repel one another with more force, and thus push out through the container walls, to the outside. This is a loss of heat from within the container. It's how refrigeration works. The fridge pump compresses the freon in tubes, and then heat (obtained from within the fridge) in the freon passes through the tube walls to the outside air.

The squeezed freon liquid is then permitted to expand as a gas in tubes within the fridge, and once expanded, it regains what heat was squeezed out. It now gets the heat from inside the fridge. The heat passes through the tubes into the gaseous freon. It's that simple. Why do you think that expanded gases absorb heat?

When pressurized butane is released into the air, the butane molecules inter-repel from one another, open up more room between themselves thereby, and so heat particles in the air rush in under their own-inter-repulsion forces because the space between expanding atoms is less dense in heat particles = colder. Heat particles are absorbed or lost from between atoms as the atomic spaces are more or less dense than a neighboring environment. But there's something else to it. There's got to be, otherwise the removal of air from a box should turn the inside ice cold.

A pump works by taking fast mouthfuls of space out of a box. There is a mixture of heat particles and air in every mouthful. Aside from what heat particles leak in from the container walls, it predicts that all the heat should be gone when all the air is gone...unless the atoms are able to form heat. And this is where the God haters have allowed themselves to get fooled, for they have maintained theories on atoms that are untrue, because the falsities benefit their evolutionary formation of the cosmos by fat-chance, big-bang theory. "My" view of heat (was claimed by science before evolutionists hi-jacked science) is the death of their big-bang creation, which is why they opted for the kinetic theory of heat.

The reality is: heat is a substance of negatively-charged particles always seeking equa-distance from one another due to their repulsion of one another (I call it, inter-repulsion). Gas atoms operate in exactly the same way, under repulsion for one another. It is my opinion that the heat particles between gas atoms causes atoms to become negatively charged, which is where they derive their inter-repulsion. The more heat between gas atoms, the stronger they repel. Imagine just one atom, covered with captured electrons (they do not orbit, get real) all around, and surrounded by free electrons (heat) that the atom cannot capture because it is fully loaded with captured one. It is fully loaded when the outgoing positive charge of the protonic core equals the outgoing charge of captured electrons. easy enough. At that point, any heat particles floating around are neither attracted nor repelled.

You need to imagine the captured electrons hovering over the proton, and hovering further apart from one another the higher up they are from the proton. They hover because they resist coming into contact. Easy enough to figure. Electrons always want to get away from one another. The very outer captured electrons are barely hung on to the protonic influence of power because the negative charge of electrons under the outer layer nearly equals the attractive charge of the protonic core. Down at the bottom, on the surface of the proton, the electrons may be in contact, if the protonic force is strong enough to make that happen.

Now that you have a picture, enter free-electron heat. The more heat that is added to the atom's environment, the more the free electrons want to crush in on the captured electrons. That's because the free electrons want to spread further apart too, and so they push in on the atom, from all around, upon the outer layers of the captured electrons. The free and the captured mesh together, and as the outer layers of the captured electrons are thus forced closer to the proton, some of the free electrons become captured, because they are now within the protonic sphere of influence. The atom thus gains in captured electrons, and therefore gains in negative charge by which to repel other atoms. In short: added heat increases gas pressure.

If we then reduce the temperature around an atom, it looses the new captured electrons, and they revert back to heat, of course. Captured electrons can never register as heat, because heat is defined, not as electrons alone, but as electrons that enter a substance's atomic pores. If they do not enter any space, neither can they be regarded as heat particles. When you touch your pen, you are touching captured electrons, yet they do not enter your skin because they are held to protons. If they enter your skin, they are classified as heat. That's how it works. Rub your pen with a finger, and some of the captured electrons will escape into your finger as warmth. The atomic spaces of the thermometer in the box cannot be filled with captured electrons for to measure temperature, yet captured electrons are always in contact with the entire thermometer.

So, when air is taken from a vacuum, the atoms are spread thinner, and due to less heat particles crushing in around atoms, some outer captured electrons are automatically released into the vacuum as heat. True, the larger atomic spaces in the developing vacuum absorb heat, but the atoms simultaneously release some heat. The physicist is fooled into thinking that atoms are absorbing heat, when in fact they are releasing it. Only the atomic spaces are absorbing heat. As the creation of a vacuum was shown in the video above with a net heat loss, it's only because the atomic-space factor absorbs more heat than the atoms release.

This release of heat from atoms explains only why a vacuum does not go down to very frigid levels. To explain why the video shows an increase in temperature after it drops to 11.1 C, it's got to be from heat particles pouring in from the container walls.

He does some shady talk when he says that outer space is neither hot nor cold because "it's nothing." That's his way of explaining that the vacuum is not cold. It's nothing, and therefore not cold. Heat cannot be absorbed by nothing, and nothing cannot release heat; that's how he thinks, because the buffoons have taught him so, and he naively trusts them, even though he and they can see that a vacuum has heat. The heat from a light filament in a vacuum readily passes through the vacuum to the top of the container. The buffoons know this.

They also know that space is not nothing. They know that space is filled with solar electrons, and that they fill our atmosphere. The idea of free electrons in our air is not strange, or fanciful.

When showing the internal temperature at 15.9 C, he allows air to re-enter the box, and the temperature then goes up above 20, beyond the 17 at which he started. He has no explanation for this. If removing air goes from 17 to 11, then replacing the very same air should bring it back up to 17, by his view of how it works. His explanation is: "we put in air so that what was inside of there got compressed, and that heated it up and made the temperature go up." That's false. The air was not compressed when allowed to go back into the box. It was not pumped in. He simply took some air in the room, and put it into the box. We assume that the air in the room was at 17, or his experiment becomes dishonorable.

The real reason that the temperature went up to beyond 20 is that heat leaked in while he was talking, and when later filling the vacuum with normal-pressure air again, he added almost as much heat as was in there from the start. As we expect that he allowed the vacuum to be refilled with air at 17 C, then some of the free electrons in the incoming air would find resistance to coming in, due to the temperature inside the box going above 17 (the true temperature in the box is not what the thermometer registers at any one point, because it does not absorb heat instantly; it takes time). Therefore, he could not get back in what he took out, in the way of free electrons. When some resisted coming in, they didn't come in. They were resisted by the higher heat-particle pressure in the box.

The Prism Rainbow's Mechanics

In the video below, our science guy mixes colored light in a lesson on colors. He claims falsely that adding yellow to blue light never gives a yellow-blue combination, and he shows it resulting in a white light. But what he's really doing to get white is adding red, green and blue, for his yellow was formed in the first place with red and green on the white wall. Later, he says that yellow and blue pigments makes green, which, of course, is a yellow-blue. Obviously. So what's his problem? Deception is his problem, because the science guru's have lied to him, and he apparently hasn't the sense enough to question them at every claim.

Later in the video, he shows that blue light mixed with red, on a white wall, gets magenta (light purple). In paints, blue and red gives purple, and so it seems evident that magenta is produced due to the addition of the white wall. Makes sense.

What he's really doing to get white is mixing red, green and blue on a white wall, for the yellow he starts off with is shown to be obtained from red and green on the white wall. he could just as well start off with a mix of blue and red to get magenta, and then shine green in addition to get white again. So, yellow and blue get the white result, but so does magenta and green. The question is, what does mixing these three pigments equally result in. I doubt that it's white. Why not? If I recall correctly from school, mixing all colors in pigments gets "black" (hard to believe, it may be more of a dark grey), and mixing all colors in light gets white. But hold on a minute. It's possible that mixing all colors in light gets dark grey while the white wall they are shone upon makes it a light grey, which they call, white.

He shows that blue added to yellow light goes white, and he thinks this is correct even though he can see them shining on a white wall. If he shines the same colors on a red wall, I don't think he'll get white. In other words, white is the color result when red, green and blue is mixed with a white reflective surface. He leaves the latter item out of his discussion. He probably thinks that, because the white wall is reflecting all colors, it will reflect all colors exactly as they land. Not necessarily so. The white wall is expected to lighten all colors landing upon it so that when red, green and blue are lightened together at one spot upon it, the result can be significantly lighter than the true result of the three-color combo.

As a mix of yellow and blue pigment gets green, we could expect that yellow and blue light shone on a green wall will get green. That would tend to prove that yellow and blue light do not make white, but rather green. Actually, this is confusing, and I always give up when trying to explain color mixes. Without my own experimental equipment, I can't make good progress. What I would like to see is whether a yellow light by itself, mixed with a blue light, still gets white on the white wall. After all, he's got yellow formed, not from a yellow bulb, but from the red and green bulbs mixed upon the white wall.

He shows that green and red light on a white wall gets yellow. But if the white wall was not part of the mix, we'd expect green and red bulbs to get more of an orange or tan. If yellow is produced on a white wall, the more-accurate result would be obtained by shining green and red on a yellow surface, which I predict to be a darkened yellow. It seems to me that when pigments are mixed 50-50 that don't react chemically with one another (to change the atomic nature), it reveals the true result of a two-color mix. Green with red pigment might get a mud color, I would know better if I were a painter.

I understand light mechanics better than science wackos, because they have a wacky view of it, but they are far ahead of me on the knowledge from colors experiments, for I haven't delved into this much. I've tried to explain the different colors from a mechanical view of light, but am unsure if I am getting anywhere toward a breakthrough.

The frequency of one light wave does not exist. You can't have frequency with one jolt. Nor can there be frequency from the same jolting electron. Frequency requires different electrons coming out, and as such, it is not a wave, but a number of waves. There is no such literal thing as yellow light, or blue light, or green or red, etc. These colors have got to be from a mix of different jolt forces and/or frequencies. It can't be true that something in the sun produces yellow waves exclusively, or red waves exclusively, as the dopes expect us to believe. When they see red light moving through a prism, they think the light source is putting out that distinct red light as an entity all its own. Silly dillies. And they say that certain substances reflecting yellow light are absorbing all the blue light, reflecting only green and orange. Not necessarily so. There may be different ways -- different combinations of wave forces and frequencies -- to get the same color. That's one question I've struggled with, and it's complicated.

I'm disregarding his entire conversation on eye cones, because I don't trust science guru's who like to pretend they know it all. They love to act the gods. Sure, they know lots, but they also provide plenty of false information as fact, otherwise they would show vulnerability, human-like disabilities, and would need to come down from their perches way above our heads. Thus, they become the ass in the end, instead of the head. They sit on their own heads. It would go much better for mankind if it questioned everything science guru's, and their followers, tell us.

The electrons emitted from the sun come out randomly, chaotically, because the sun is a ceaseless explosion. Yellow light, for example, is simply how our eyes register a mix of waves at certain frequencies coupled with a certain combination of forces. There is no yellow light. It is a combination of different lights waves. The eye of another creature might see our yellow as something else. Color is in the eye, not in the mechanics of light. Color is always light, and never emits through a medium as a colored thing. If you see a ray of red light, it's red only in your head. It's not really red as it moves through space. Light is all invisible until it lands on something. If you can't see the wave-medium electrons in the air, then light is invisible too, for light is merely a wave motion through those free, solar electrons.

Added light-wave frequency should, I gather, strengthen the total force of the light. The question is: does added frequency merely brighten a color, or evolve it to another shade / color? If we shine two red lights on a white wall, we get brighter red rather than a different color. But this is probably due to the added white of the wall as compared to one red bulb upon it. What do we get when mixing red with red apart from the white wall? Paints tell us that we get the same red. Ahh, but wait, there's a trick happening there. Mixing red with red is only half of the first red with half of the second red, which of course gets the original red. But what would a red light shone through another red light become, when both wholes are mixed? You see, when we do that, we are increasing the frequency of light shining on a surface. We've doubled the number of "red" light waves.

If we get a piece of equipment that can turn up the electrical power to a lamp, then turning the power up to the red bulb gets an increase if electron jolts too, as they pop out of the filament. They pop out at a greater rate, but also at a more-forceful speed. This is different, mechanically, than combining two equal red lights from two equal filaments. I can tell you that a filament with low voltage makes a white bulb look more to the red / orange / yellow, depending on the specific voltage. The bulb never becomes blue or green or magenta. It goes from low-glow red to higher-glow orange to higher-still-glow yellow to sparkling white, all without blue or green registering in our eyes. I've never done the experiment, but that's how I understand it.

What happens to the color of the filament when we decrease the amps but leave the voltage the same? The filament goes more dim, to our surprise, but only due to the nature of a filament to produce light. The way to increase the amps to a bulb is to increase the thickness of the filament, which of course makes for dimmer light because the light is produced, in the first place, exactly due to a thin filament. The idea is to crowd electrons across a filament with added voltage, not with added amps. The voltage creates the added brightness. One can increase brightness with added amps only if the voltage is increased too.

Amps are the electron volume across the filament, and voltage is the force by which the electrons push through the wire. Why do you think that pushing the electrons more forcefully gets a brighter, more-to-the-white light?

If one mixes red and yellow, the total force and frequency together becomes orange. The question: is orange the stronger of the three light waves, since after all it's the sum of red and yellow, or is orange intermediate in force between yellow and red? Good question. I've always assumed, from the color wheel the science gurus give us, that orange is intermediate. It even looks like it should be in the middle of red and yellow, but maybe not. I'm open. Mixing two pigments/material is half of one color and half the other, but if we mix a full stream of red light with a whole stream of yellow, isn't the result more wave force than either the red alone or the yellow alone? Seems logical.

But wait. Why does orange come before yellow in a bulb that has its electrical voltage turned up? It now seems that orange is weaker than yellow. What's going on? Where am I getting this wrong? Orange is produced by the lower voltage, meaning that the captured electrons in the filament are jiggling less forceful. But there is a question here as to whether the color changes due to increasing jolt force or something else? I thought it might have to do with the electrical amps. It just so happens that amps are defined as the frequency of incoming electrons. Might the colors of light be due to frequency alone, while voltage causes the brightness alone?

So, just look at that. The bulb is known to progress from red to yellow with increasing voltage, meaning that yellow gets the least frequency in amps. It looks like I could be correct about red having the highest frequency. Less-frequent electrons coming into a filament should produce less-frequent waves because it expects less excitation in the captured filament electrons (less jolting). However, one could then say that the increased voltage causes more excitation to completely counteract the lower excitation from lower amps. Only if one can prove that one in-coming electrical electron creates one wave could it be said that yellow has less-frequent light waves than red.

I will come back to this because, today, I saw a way to serve evidence for the theory that red is the most-frequent light wave. In this theory, the color of light is not necessarily dependent on the electrical amps, but definitely on the amps of light, defined as the frequency of light waves. I realized how increasing electrical voltage decreases the frequency of filament light waves. Clue: if the number of frogs at a pond decreases, doesn't the frequency of croaks go down?

If red is the weakest and blue is the strongest, as the guru's tell us, then mixing the two in pigments to get purple gets the intermediate force. I think I have that correctly guessed. We have the atoms of the red substance emitting its white light (from the sun, for example) as red to our eyes, mixed with the "blue" atoms reflecting sunlight as blue to our eyes, the result being right down the middle as far as wave intensity goes. That is, mixing the strongest and weakest light forces gets an intermediate force. And that middle looks purple to our eyes. It suggests that purple is the middle-force of all the colors. But wait, the middle between red and blue on the color wheel is what I'll call, lime (yellow-green). Does this mean that lime has the same wave force as purple, only in a different form of force, as in speed versus frequency?

If blue has the highest frequency, and red the lowest so that purple might seems to be the middle ground in frequency. Or, if adding blue and red results in the sum of their forces, then purple ought to be more forceful yet if indeed blue is the stronger one as opposed to the red. This is how one can tinker around to find which is the stronger, the blue end or the red end.

When we heat metal with increasing heat, it goes from low-glow red to brighter orange through to yellow and white, never achieving green or blue. Passing electricity through a filament is a method of adding heat to it, for the electrons forced across the suddenly-thinned filament cannot be contained in the captured form upon the filaments's atoms. They go free as heat. But what do they do in the filament before going free? They shake things up.

Adding heat to metal forces free electrons into the atomic spaces, which exit into the air, yet these do not form visible light because they do not exit fast enough. They therefore produce infra-red light. Heat issuing from materials produces infra-red, it's known and it's logical. But when captured electrons are excited upon atoms by the power of electrical voltage, excited sufficient to be freed from the atoms altogether, that's the stronger form of light, stronger than mere jiggling of excitation where the electrons remain captured all the while. Do the powerful, lost electrons produce red or violet light?

We would think that increasing the voltage through a filament increases the force of jolting electrons. If the filament atoms are losing captured electrons completely, then there will be fewer captured electrons to do the jolting, resulting in fewer light waves per second, which is the definition of decreased light-wave frequency. Therefore, as the filament gets brighter due to added voltage, the frequency of light goes down. Are you not impressed? I'm giddy, because this problem perplexed me. It at first appeared hands-down that higher voltage (in the filament) predicted higher light-wave frequency. Not anymore.

In other words, I've just realized a way to explain why red should be of a higher frequency than yellow, which is backward to what the science guru's believe. But is it the increasing voltage that produces the progression from red to yellow, or the decreasing frequency? This is where the prism comes in.

When we heat metal with a torch, for example, we impregnate it with free electrons, which get more dense with added heat, meaning that they will jettison out of the metal (not at the flame, of course) with more force (volts) with increasing temperature. As they spew out of atomic pores, they jiggle captured electrons upon the surface atoms, and here we have the explanation of visible light from red through to white. When the metal is white or yellow, we can assume that more captured electrons are being fully freed from metal atoms than when it's orange, thus predicting again that there are less jolts and waves with increasing temperature. The jolts are stronger, but the frequency goes down.

With purple and blue as the least-frequent color, I can now explain why mixing blue and yellow light gets whitish. As yellow turns next to white light from a filament pressed with more voltage, mixing yellow light with a few extra frequencies of low-frequency blue bumps it up to the next step, white. But if blue is the second-strongest in frequency, then we could expect a mix of yellow and blue light to produce beyond white, into the green. (For all I know, some metals do glow green when they retain their solid form long enough with increasing heat. But tungsten and steel do not go green, perhaps because they melt / evaporate first.)

The question is whether light bends as it does through a prism due to the force of the waves, versus their frequency, or a combination of both. Red light doesn't bend as much when passing through a prism. If it's the weakest light, shouldn't it bend the most? Instead, the purple light bends the most, followed by the blue as the second-most bent. Regardless of the explanation for bent light, let's ask why the purple is "above" the blue. If mixing red and blue pigments gets purple, doesn't that make the purple half way in force? Only if red is the weakest and blue is the strongest. Does the prism inform us that purple is the strongest wave? It depends on what exactly is bending the light. The science "experts" feel sure, as a bloc, that light curves due to slowing down in glass. But what do they know, really?

If people walk through a door slow enough, each allowing it to close fully before the next person exits, all people will need to do work to open the door. When we increase the frequency of people, they each get to the door before it closes all the way, requiring less work per person to get through the wall. If the people are coming fast enough, the door will always be fully open, they need only to hold it open as they pass. This picture defines the boiling point of a liquid. When heat particles are passing through fast enough that there is zero resistance to passing by the "doors" (atomic spaces), no higher density of heat particles can be added to the liquid i.e. no higher temperature can be achieved, even if the heat source is cranked up. If it's cranked up, the electrons will just flow faster through the liquid, for they have achieved the point of zero resistance to passage.

The point is, if light waves have different frequencies, they are expected to pass through glass more easily with increasing frequency. So, which of the colors in the prism are passing more easily? The red is bent the least (it's the straightest), suggesting that red light has the highest frequency.

The science gurus have this backward. The video above has the shortest wave lengths, which they define as the highest frequency, going slowest. First of all, they are completely crackers when they invent "wave length." The true wave length is simply the time between waves. A wave does not have a length, so what are they talking about? If waves are coming in more frequently, there is less time between waves. That's all. Nothing more complicated. That's the proper way to see light-wave propagation. Call it a wave time, not a wave length. The nothing between waves is nothing; don't make into something.

So, maybe they got their brain waves crossed, and wrongly predicted which color has the highest frequency. The problem with most prism pages online is that they have drawings or computer animations rather than real photos, and may not be showing the true colors. The video below has a photo, and seemingly shows white light between yellow and green, which makes sense to me as per the color changes of heated metal going from yellow to white. There's a grayish color between the blue and magenta in this video.

Near the end of the video, there is indeed white light seen clearly between yellow and green! Excellent, and you won't see this in drawings, probably because it upsets their explanations for certain things i.e. probably because they are dishonest when wanting to be our gods when in fact they are the arses, having all sorts of things arse-backward, and sitting on their heads in the meantime.

This white light down the middle of the rainbow, and beside the yellow, tends to suggest that steal / tungsten melts while white, before it has a chance to turn green with higher heat. Yet, let's not rush to conclusions, because things can be tricky.

The conclusion seems to be simply that the red light bends less than blue, but this may be an illusion. The light may not be bending at all. Instead, the light may be it passes glass molecules. Spreading is not the same as bending. If it makes no sense that light should bend only once, only as it enters the glass, then perhaps it's spreading. The science guru's think that the entry itself is the cause of bending, which is why they claim that the cause is due to initial slow down at the glass' entry point. But shouldn't light decelerate throughout it's trip through glass, if it slows at initial contact? In that case, the prism light should not be in straight lines, if it's bending at all, or the bending should be continuous (through the glass) so that it takes a curved path, yet it visibly does not curve.

? Remember, the video above with white light showing in the rainbow effect is expected to be in a straight line with the light contacting the prism. That is, the white light is made (by the human) to strike on such an angle with the glass that it goes straight into the prism, and the colors forming to either side of the white beam can thus be viewed as a spreading, not a bending. Like when a stone is tossed into a lake and waves spread out.

I am assuming that the white beam enters straight into the prism because it goes down the center of all colors. If the white itself bends, there can be a mechanical explanation (having to do with the atomic parts) rather than a change of light velocity. Everything claimed by modern physics needs to be questioned with a waste basket (make it a garbage truck) close by.

The colors we see from the glass may or may not be formed in=part with light interacting with glass molecules. It may be short-sighted to view the light as merely passing through the glass without effects from passing the atoms. I view light energy passing as waves through the captured electrons of glass molecules, in the way Internet / phone waves pass through the captured electrons of metal atoms. The waves retain amazing perfection (unaltered state) when passing through. As the waves pass through the glass, why shouldn't they move and jiggle captured electrons in all directions, sending light in all directions? Yet, the main beam travels mainly straight through because, I assume, a laser beam is sent to the prism. I don't imagine that they use a regular light bulb.

The jiggling of glass electrons (can cause some jiggling of the molecules themselves) can jiggle electrons in neighboring molecules to cause the spread of light. But shouldn't spreading on either side of the central white beam cause the same colors? Yet they are different on either side. I suggest that the light changes velocity the more glass there is to pass. That makes sense, but I do not see logic in a change of velocity causing the bending. If anything, the bending (and light does bend in glass) is caused by the initial crash, on the first layer of glass molecules, as waves are formed in circular paths around the top-most (surface) molecules. It is a crash, after all. And once the wave veers in another direction, there is nothing to curve it, until it leaves the glass, where the surface molecules are the suspects once again for the change in direction there.

It makes sense that the light should exit the glass at the same force level by which it entered, not necessarily meaning that it has the same velocity. For as long as the laser light is kept on, spewing waves, there will be wave voltage (pressure-force) on the ray through the glass. For example, if we take water in a pipe, forcing it to pass through a segment of pipe with built-obstruction such as some sponge material, the water will increase in pressure while passing through the sponge, and may then resume the initial pressure after passing the sponge if the latter is not overly obstructive. But the sponge doesn't slow the water, as we might guess. Physics is full of surprises. The water slows after the sponge, but not in the sponge.

It is known that when water under pressure is forced to pass through a thinner pipe, it goes faster there due to the attack upon it of a volume of water squeezed into its smaller volume of space. In the same way, it would pass through the pores of the sponge faster. After the thinner pipe or sponge, the total volume of water is reduced, and thus the flow is slowed only then. Have light physicists considered this simple principle?

In the same way that water passes the fibers of the sponge faster, simply because the sponge reduces the flow space, the velocity of electrons through a thin filament, after coming to it from a fat wire, is expected to increase, which contributes to the greater jiggling of filament electrons = brighter light. So, the light waves through the prism may be forming due to a faster speed. Makes sense, and it makes the evolutionist, quantum fool look backward.

Whether light slows and speeds up through glass depends on the resistance of the glass to wave travel. Note that sound waves speed up in solid materials as compared to air travel. I think it's time to call the garbage truck. Throw the bums in too. How dare we let these fools teach our children, and us. Shame on the world for trusting them after they lodged their heads firmly into their evolutionary arses. There is no light in there. There are lots of big bangs coming through, though, and more of it as they eat the brains of our children alive. They are to be detested. The anti-Christs.

When material strikes another material pulled by gravity, there is a slowing down due to inertia. Go ahead, science guru, crash dead-on into another car and see how fast you come to a stop. But if that car weighed nothing, there would be no crash. You'd go right through it like crashing into a butterfly. Electrons are repelled by gravity, and repelled also by themselves. You can't have a bird fly in electrons alone, because electrons sport no inertia. Birds need air atoms attracted by gravity in order to fly. The outer-most electrons upon all atoms are barely attracted by the "gravity" of protons because all the captured electrons below them are repelling them outward about as much as the proton is attracting them. That outer realm of the atom is where light waves are predicted to travel. Around the circumferences of all atoms they curve, from one atom to another, all the way through the glass. There is little viscosity there, which is why a light wave is super-fast even though solid glass. Most other materials won't allow this, but glass allows it. There are tracks that glass provides to permit the train complete passage. That's because God is a genius.

If there is no rainbow in glass when light races through a thick flat pane, then it seems that the colors are formed from a differential in the volume of glass passed through. A prism offers exactly this differential. On one side of the beam, less glass to penetrate; on the other side, more glass to penetrate. I'm assuming that, if a rainbow could be produced in a flat pane, they wouldn't be showing it via the use of prisms in every case. Therefore, the total, differing amount of glass passed through seems to cause the different colors, with one half of the spread producing the colors seen in the ordinary heating of metals, and the other half showing colors not evident in the heating of metals. What's going on? What inventions are the greens and blues? Aren't you glad God included them too? Cool.

Try it, you fink evolutionists; try giving your Creator some praise. See what happens. Try that kind of experiment.

What happens to the rainbow if the light is made to enter the side of a prism nearer to its base i.e. where light must now pass through more glass? Will the rainbow still exist? I don't know, but the answer is important when gathering the clues for what's going on. If the formation of the rainbow requires just the right amount of glass length, then I would suggest that too much glass reduces the volume of light to the point where the light is no longer visible to our eyes. The spread of colors may still be occurring, but not visible to us.

As I said, water through a thinner pipe is reduced in volume on the exit side of the thinner pipe. Just imagine water through a one inch pipe forced through a tube 1/8 of an inch. The volume of water reaching that tube will me greater than what comes out the other end of the tube, even though the water speeds faster through the tube. The water will be squirting out forcefully from the exit end, but the volume coming out is less. The longer the tube, the less the volume.

Therefore, the longer the passage though glass, the lower the light-wave volume. Isn't that right? Have evolutionary crackers considered this? No, because they see light as a photon, and they have no idea how photons can cross through glass. All they can know for sure is a lot of photon crashes with glass molecules. If ever you want to listen to a nut, listen to his explanation as per photons penetrating glass. For a photon, glass is mostly space, he says, and he knows this best because space is all there is between his ears. Let me take this piece of glass and break it over his head; then see if he'll still tell us it's mostly space.

Don't get me wrong here. Water is sped up through a thinner pipe, yet the faster speed is reduced with distance down that pipe. When slowed, the water in every part of the thinner pipe moves at the same velocity; the water at the start of the thinner pipe is not moving faster than the water at the other end. In the same way, light speeds up through the prism as compared to its speed in the approach to the prism, and I see each color through the glass representing a stream of different speeds, yet each color maintains its peculiar speed throughout passage in the glass. It's telling me that the specific velocity determines the color. Where the velocity changes, the color changes because velocity determines wave frequency.

We can put aside the water analogy, and just say that the waves penetrating the most glass will get their waves squeezed closer together while at the same time being slowed. It is the same as water in a longer tube getting more compressed and slower due to friction (of the moving water on the sides of the pipe). On the contrary, faster waves cruising along at an easier clip (less friction) come out the glass with a higher frequency and less compression. They tell us that ultra-violet light is more destructive, more penetrating than the other colors. That gives us a clue. It sounds as though the ultraviolet is the one with the longest tube, coming out with less volume, but more squirt power.

Yes, if it's under more pressure as it comes out the pipe, it will squirt harder, even though there is less volume. The pipe with the harder squirt is dangerous, able to pierce skin and give skin cancer. Are you with me? I am proposing that ultraviolet is not higher in frequency. It is, however, more like a needle.

I realize that if the ultraviolet has the greatest squirt, someone could get the idea that it moves the fastest when exiting the glass, and thus should have the greatest frequency. But light waves are intermittent, not continuous like water from a hose. This is where the analogy breaks down. The better analogy here is intermittent squirts of water more forceful than the red water (symbolizes red light), but with squirts at a lower frequency than the softer, red water.

The better analogy than wide-to-thin pipes is pipes of the same diameter, but with longer or shorter sponge material within them. The sponge material represents the passage of light through the prism. The ultraviolet has the longest piece of sponge. The ultraviolet has the more trouble getting through the prism than the red, squeezing waves closer together, increasing their pressure.

I propose that white light approaching the prism is not made up of distinct colors, as we are taught so fancifully, upon which entire theories of light are based. I propose that colored light is formed initially by the prism. A second prism positioned just right, receiving the colored rays of the first prism, causes them to merge again into a single, white ray, but this is not necessarily proof that colors are fundamental within original white ray.

Does the pressure of water get reduced the longer it is forced to pass through a thin tube? I'd say, yes, for as the water slows due to friction, the forward force behind the flow is impeded. The friction both slows the flow, and compresses it. To put it another way, the forward force (water pressure) is absorbed by friction, the energy of the pressure going into the pipe's atoms, and then out the pipe into the air. Similarly, it's known that, the longer or thinner the electrical wire, the lower the voltage (pressure) with distance through it. Can't the same apply with light through glass? Isn't glass to be regarded as a conductor of light? In the same way that heated copper impedes electrical flow, probably due to heat particles between atoms, there is friction to light passage in glass due to heat particles between the glass molecules. It's known that super-conductors are formed in metals at extremely-low temperatures. Heat impedes waves through captured electrons.

So, if the different colors are ultimately due to more, or less, friction through the glass, then it seems that the colors are formed in the glass; they are not inherent in the white light that enters the prism. There are no pipe walls in the glass to take the frictional energy from light waves. Where does the frictional energy get absorbed after the free electrons (in the atomic spaces) have received it? It's bound to be transferred to neighboring atoms, which can explain the spreading-out of each color in the first place.

It's absolutely true that more-excited atoms will jolt more frequently in a filament, but only if the number of excited electrons remains the same. If some are escaping from the tungsten (this was the important realization today), the frequency of the jolts / waves goes down even while the force (voltage) of jolting goes up. In fact, the frequency goes down precisely due to the increase of jolting force. Do you get this? Mere sunlight is strong enough to knock captured electrons clear from some materials (temporarily, anyway).

This theory suggests that if the electrical amps (frequency) are increased high enough to begin with, before turning the power to the bulb on, the filament will not glow red at all due to the frequency being already too high to form that color. And this is what we find, instant white light, with our household power. I happen to have a pack of solar batteries at 24 volts hooked up to a couple of house circuits for lighting, and am going right now to put a regular bulb into the 24-volt light fixture...

I'm back. An LED bulb didn't light at all, and a 60-watt, old-type filament bulb had a very-low red-orange glow. The room would be very dark under this bulb. A decrease in electrical voltage thus changes the color of filament's light. The electrons in the filament are jolting with low force, and there are probably no electrons escaping the atoms at this low glow, meaning that the frequency of light waves is at its maximum. When the voltage is increased, and some electrons begin to fly higher before returning to an atom, the number of jolting electrons per unit time goes down. When electrons escape wholly as heat into the bulb, the frequency goes down still more. They said that a filament bulb produces 90 percent heat and 10 percent light. That means a large loss of captured electrons.

When plugging in this bulb into the 24-volt circuit, the amps (2.5 A) are higher than in the regular 120-volt circuit (.5 A), for decreasing the volts proportionately increases the amps. So, with more amps in the 24-volt situation, the same bulb is yet dimmer as well as red. The thickness of the 24-volt filament has got to be smaller than the 120-volt filament, for it blows when screwing it into a 120-volt socket.

I declare a new theory: green, which is directly beside the central white beam, is exactly the yellow on the other direct side of the white beam, only slowed more due to passage through more glass. The green is not only slower than its yellow counterpart, but more compressed. Doesn't the look of green look like a compressed yellow? Maybe I'm crazy.

To prove or disprove this theory, one needs to cut a prism. The glass through which the green and blue move needs to be removed midway through their paths to see if their colors change due to less glass traversed. I'm sure the scientists have conducted that experiment. But I've never seen or heard its results, perhaps because it destroys their explanation for the reason behind the prism's rainbow. Just look at how dishonest they are when leaving white out of their prism drawings. I suppose that they prefer to view it as a bright form of the yellow, yet as the white is right down the middle of the colors, it's obviously the original beam sent to the prism.

In this theory, the blue ray is in actuality an orange ray, but slower than orange, even as the green is the yellow but slower. An explanation as to why the blue looks nothing like orange while green looks a little like yellow, is that the blue takes on the color of green, next to it, more than it does the orange. That is, the yellow that has become the green has already started to take on some blue, which is completed next to the green thanks to more glass there than the green needs to pass through.

Next, as the glass gets thicker yet, the blue goes to violet, a reddish hue we may assume. As we saw in the video earlier, mixing red and blue light upon a white surface produced magenta / purple, and perhaps mixing blue with orange light (without the white background) gets the similar violet. Wouldn't that be a hoot? It would agree with this claim that blue is the orange.

Don't get me wrong. Blue is not the orange as our eye sees it. My theory is that blue would be orange if the amount of glass it passed through were the same as the orange passes through. The additional glass makes the orange look blue. There is no reddish appearance in blue, yet I'm saying it is a slowed-down orange. It's tricky because the blue is also an evolved green beside it. The blue is also the green with more glass to penetrate. When we slow the blue more, by allowing it to spread into the part of the glass with a longer route to the outside air, it loses some green that made it blue in the first place, and becomes the reddish violet, which is some evidence that the blue is inherently a compressed orange.

In the white laser light to the glass prism, I feel that there exists all sorts of light waves with of all sorts of frequencies and forces, without end, each wave depending on how forceful an electron jolt happens to be. The frequencies of the jolts are random, ever-changing, chaotic, and I suppose if we were to ask God, he could fish out a combination of waves that together register as yellow or blue to our eyes. But this doesn't prove that the prism separates these colors, for the prism could be creating its own sets of colors by another method. The science gurus prefer to have all the different frequencies within the prism originating in, and existing, in the original white beam.

I now go back to the realization that, as electrical electrons flood past a thin wire called a filament, they force captured electrons off the filament atoms, amounting to less frequency of light waves due to fewer jolting electrons. The light becomes lower in frequency as it brightens from red to orange to yellow to white, which, to my surprise, tends to define color solely by frequency. At least, the prism is telling me so. Previously, I would have guessed that specific color is a combination of frequency and force, but, surely, as more electrical voltage is added to the filament, the jolts from electron excitation become more forceful = higher light voltage. Increases in electrical voltage increases light-wave force but decrease light-wave frequency. I just think this is a key clue to the whole mystery.

The electrical voltage increases while light frequency (in the filament) decreases with the progression from red to white. I can't get over it. Could it be that this explains brightness verses color in a nutshell? Electrical amps are defined as the frequency of amps, per unit time. Ditto for light amps; the latter are nothing more than the frequency of waves. If we double the number of light waves falling upon a surface or an atom, we double the amps and the frequency together. To accomplish this perfect doubling, we would get two identical bulbs, of the same color and wattage, beside one another. If they were different colors, we would not be doubling the frequency.

What happens when we shine two red bulbs upon a red or white surface? They get more red than one bulb. They do not change color, for a change in color from red needs less frequency. As less frequency, I am learning, produces orange or yellow from red, increased frequency, beginning with red, should get a deeper red, which is what I think one gets with two or more red bulbs. I don't think it's correct to shine colored bulbs on white, as this can brighten the colors, producing a false result. If we are shining two red bulbs, it would be best to shine them on red to see the more-correct result. I see a deeper red with two or more red bulbs on a red surface, than one red bulb.

It should also be said that a colored light from colored glass over a filament may not be the same as true colored light from the emitted electrons direct.

Mixing a yellow light with red should get a frequency midway between them, and the filament tells us that this result is orange. I see a yellow filament as having more volts (force) than a red one due to more-forceful jolting tungsten electrons, and I see the yellow in the prism as having more force, and less frequency, than the prism's red. The two systems are in agreement, as I've explained them. Shouldn't physicists agree with that agreement? The colors formed by tungsten are formed by a different method than the colors of a prism, yet both systems have the red with the most frequent waves and the least jolting force, while ultraviolet has the least frequency and most forceful waves.

So, when the frequency is doubled or tripled upon a surface from the same color, the color does not change. The atoms in the surface can only reflect the same color whether there shines one, two or three times that color. But there ought to be different colors that mix to achieve their total frequency in yet another color, which is apparently what we get when blue and yellow are mixed to get white, for example. It's telling me that the total frequency of blue and yellow is equal to the frequency of white. I think this gives an idea of how it all works.

As red mixed with blue gets purple, I've got to assume that purple is not a version of violet if the latter is the color in the prism further to the side than blue. One would think that mixing blue with red should get a color between the two within the prism, yet violet is not between them. It looks like I'm missing something.

The video had said that yellow and blue get white whereas yellow and blue paint gets green. Now that I know white to be beside the green on the prism, this can make sense, especially as white is between blue and yellow. I'm wondering whether violet mixed with yellow gets green. I wish I had my own system to test, but I have other priorities in life at this time. Maybe you have the time and the desire to crack this mystery.

Get the Garbage Truck for Quantum Freaks

In his video below, the science guy tries to explain the wacky wave-particle duality of light.

At about 1:30 of the video, this young zealot shows his lack of understanding of light waves by aping his professors, who taught him the problem with the light wave. They expect it to go out equally in all directions like sounds waves do. Are they nuts? Are they blind? Can't they see that light moves in straight lines? So why do they try to invent an impossible wave-particle duality when it's obvious that light waves move only straight ahead. We need only to figure out why. Or how.

To answer that, we need to first ask why sound waves go around corners, but not as well as going straight ahead. You see, sound waves are almost like light in going best straight ahead. I'm sure that the nutcase scientists realize that the fantastic speed of light waves can have something to do with the fully-straight direction. You can kind of feel it even if you're a kid, but these seasoned wackos, almost all of them, walk lock-step into the insanity taught to them by their superiors. It's like they are too stupid to ask if maybe the superiors could be wrong. Maybe we should find a better theory if it looks like garbage laying at our feet.

He goes on to talk like he's really smart on higher energy levels of light, which he may be too ashamed to expose as higher electron orbits, because he doesn't show the higher and lower levels as orbits. But that's what his superiors teach him, and he bites, lock, stock and barrel, shooting himself in the brain. He's trying to explain fluorescent materials as per electrons remaining in higher orbits longer than usual. Any wacko can front that garbage, but where's the logic in orbiting electrons? There are no electron orbits, stupid.

A fluorescent material shines light after the light source is removed because the captured electrons remain jolting longer than upon most-other materials. There is logic in jolting electrons; there is impossibility with orbiting electrons. Slap yourself before you go entirely mad.

What do you suppose knocks his orbiting electron to a higher "energy level" (he's too ashamed to say, "higher orbit")? The photon particle. This is now a hopeless case. Lunatics have robbed the good senses of all humanity. The photon strikes the orbiting electron, and rather than sending it to oblivion, the electron neatly takes a higher orbit. It's a cartoon, like Daffy Duck. We are dealing with quacks.

When he shines red light on the fluorescent material, it won't light up at all, but blue light does the trick. He assumes that blue light is stronger, and maybe it is in the way of voltage force. That's what I'm now believing, tentatively, anyway. He then says that the failure of "high amplitude" red light to cause a glow "disproves that light is a wave." If only he properly understood light. My reasoning above concluded that red is the weakest wave, and as such, it can't cause much jiggle of the electrons in the fluorescent material. It can't jiggle them hard enough to cause visible light. Is this any reason to deny the entire light wave? I don't see why. If one red light wave can't perform the necessary jiggle, then maybe countless red light waves (what he calls "high amplitude") are also incapable.

He insists that just because red light can't cause the glow, light cannot be a wave. Is this the best the goons have for "proving" the existence of the photon? They have no idea how electrons are captured upon atoms. God may have invented many forms of capture, as we can expect, to dazzle our minds with His powers. Some atoms jiggle like the one-two step, and others do the polka; what does this zealot know about it? Nothing. Some do the cartwheel, and others the trapeze swing and flips. Others don't know when to stop jiggling; they emit light after the light source is pulled away. Some are stubborn, and won't dance with just any wave. Others can't wait to dance even if some red shady wave should come along. This is not very hard to understand, but why don't the gurus want to understand it? Why are they tied to their orbiting electron like a sadistic stripper to her pimp?

Next, the guy gets very excited to shine his high-intensity red laser light onto the fluorescent material, but he doesn't show it with the laser beam full upon it. Instead, he shines it through the slits he made earlier, because the slits is what the light waves can be shown to shine through. He admits that there are waves in light through the slits, then says there can be no light waves, which is what a turkey thinks like, not a man. Instead of realizing that there is something wrong with his thinking, or with his theories on light, he says there is, but there is not, a light wave. And he with his superiors love to impress his audience with this here-it-is, now-its-gone, trick.

The laser may be intense, but when he shines it through the slits, it has broken up into several waves so that any one of them alone on the fluorescent material is very weak by comparison to the full, unobstructed laser beam. He doesn't tell this to his audience. He only repeats that red is not strong enough, even with a laser, to cause the material to glow. Okay, so what? What does he have against weak light waves? How does he explain it? Well, he would say that intense photons of the red color are insufficient to cause the material to glow. And I would say to him as he treats the light wave: if you can't get the thing to glow with intense photons shot at it, there must be no such thing as photons. What he's showing here is really-bad science.

Around the 9th minute, he tries to disprove the light wave by telling that the same wave-created interference pattern caused by the slit can be accomplished by shooting raw electrons (particles) at a photographic surface. Therefore, particles can cause wave-like properties, he says, so who needs the wave?. But what he doesn't realize, because his superiors have failed him, is that shooting electrons is exactly what causes light waves. Hee-hee.

The remainder of the video is garbage based on ignorance of the simple facts. He finally shows the electron orbit, but is apologetic, because his superiors are changing their tune, saying that the electron doesn't really orbit, we just imagined it that way because it helped us to figure things out? What? An impossibility helped to figure things out? That's sounds nutso.

Did you see all those dots that he placed around the proton? That's exactly what my atom looks like, electrons by the scores hovering over the proton surface. They will not move until something like sunlight comes along to make them dance the jiggle. You see, the fools are slowly correcting their orbital buffoonery, trying to save face in the meantime, yet coveting out respect, yet wanting to play the gods. There's got to be a higher level in a garbage dump into which they can jump.

After a little struggle to figure out the mystery, I think I have it solved by the new realization this week that red consists of the highest-frequency light. Recall the open-door analogy: the more frequent the light waves, the easier the waves can penetrate the atomic spaces into a medium. Therefore, the red waves go deep into electron atmosphere, wherefore they have their energies absorbed deeper, and thus cause less splashing (jolting) at the electron surface. Excellent, I feel very comfortable with this. On the other hand, blue light is less frequent, and causes more splash. The green glow is a splashing about...that doesn't stop instantly after the wave projectiles stop coming in.

In another video, below, we find that, with wave projectiles of various colors shot after the material is already set to a green glow, the latter changes to white. In the 5th and 6th minutes, he does get a fluorescent glow with his full-power red laser. He doesn't admit to us that the red laser changes the green glow to white; he says only "brighter," leading us to think it's a brighter green. Left on long enough, the red laser gets a white glow, but, apparently, only if it's applied after the green-glow mechanism has already been activated. I haven't seen him show the application of the red laser to the non-glowing material, I wonder why.

He shines the red laser on already-glowing material, and gets a white glow, yet seconds later, the spot where the red activated the glow goes blackish, even though the material is still glowing green elsewhere. This suggests that the red waves alter the mechanism causing fluorescence. It appears as though the laser was able to bump-up the total excitement (but did it really?), but soon after the removal of the laser, the glow is spoiled by what we might call the after-effect of the red.

The question is, is that white glow stronger or weaker than the green glow? In the prism, green looks stronger than white, meaning that the red laser may have not bumped things up, but rather down. A theory here is that due to a head-on bombardment of the green waves, they are made weaker and therefore no longer able to sustain the fluorescence mechanism. We might even say that the red waves canceled some of the full potential of all green waves, weakening them all to white. We could then say further that this material cannot glow when the frequency of jolts is at the white level. Only when the jolts have achieved the green frequency is some special situation set up that maintains a glow.

The glow doesn't go from green to yellow to red as it dies out, but stays green to the end, suggesting that the same frequency of waves is issued throughout the period of glow die-out. That's hard to imagine, which may explain why most materials don't after-glow from light bombardment alone.

Again, why don't the jolts produce a different color as the protons bring jolting electrons back "down to earth"? After all, as they are brought back to stability, they must get weaker all the while in their jolts, and a pool of weaker jolts expects slower jiggling and therefore less-frequent jolts. But I can imagine the waves of the Atlantic ocean becoming milder but not necessarily producing fewer waves per unit time in the meantime. If color is due to frequency of jolts, then I suppose that this fluorescent material has progressively weaker jolts while maintaining roughly the same number of jolts.

How can one fathom that a jolting event -- a random process with electrons expected to have countless jolt forces, one jolt after the other -- should produce only one color? It's as though jolters fall back into the electron "sea" (or atmosphere) in the same numbers that others go up to re-jolt, the atom thus maintaining the same number of waves per unit time. It seems highly unlikely to me, but, you know, God is a genius. He can even make flies light up. For convenience sake, I always imagine protons in a spherical shape, but, chances are, God made them in many shapes, each one causing a different kind of electron jiggling / jolting.

Jiggles are not jolts. The electrons deeper within an atmosphere only jiggle, and the ones furthest from their proton jolt out toward space (we're dealing only with atoms on the very surface of a material). In between the jigglers and jolters, they both jiggle and jolt. The greater the height that jolters achieve, the harder they come down for a dive into the electron atmosphere, causing random jiggling amongst others. Some electron atmospheres are larger than others, and may therefore produce more-numerous types of currents, beautiful whirls or chaotic frenzy. That's how I see it in its rudimentary form. All sorts of surprises are possible with some tweaking and refinement by the One who is absolutely spectacular.

The zealot has another video where he says that light has no mass. How can a photon have no mass? How can a photon knock a zippy electron into a higher orbit unless it has some umph? Who's the wise guy that claimed no mass for the photon? The same wacko who wanted to retain the orbiting electron, because a photon at 186,000 mph is surely going to knock that electron into oblivion at the first crashing, unless it has almost no mass. And by what coincidence was the big bang able get the photon's combination of mass and speed just right, along with the sensitive orbit of the electron, to make all atoms work just right to produce everything we see? Evolutionists are mad dogs, you need to stay away from them. They rob the glory of God and appoint it to themselves.

Just ignore all of what you suspect is a loony-tunes show on relative mass, in the video above, and tolerate until he gets to the coin on a sensitive weight scale. He tries to make the coin heavier by shining a heavy-duty flashlight upon it, but as it heats up, the coin gets lighter. He says that the air under the coin has created some updrafts, and is picking the coin up a little from its edges. Bonk. Wrong again. Heat is repelled by gravity, and anything hotter gets a little lighter therefore.

Light is able to move light objects, and to erode materials slightly over time, because it does have the physical force of jolting or ejecting electrons. The physical energy becomes the light wave.

My science enemies are more than wrong, more than neglectful, they are outright demonic. I can give you example after example. Another one is where they insist that all atoms attract one another, including gas atoms. They purposefully ignore the fact (if it didn't have a cause, why would they ignore it?) that there can be no such thing as sound waves if atoms attract one another. They need to create a fabricated means of making sound waves appear to work under their kinetic view of gas atoms. First of all, it's impossible for atoms to be constantly colliding with one another because it's known that collisions always bring objects to a stop. I don't care to know how they try to explain that atoms are under different physics laws than the laws of physics-governing motion, for they are mad dogs who fill our minds with endless nonsense while sounding as though they know what they are talking about.

Sound waves through air require air atoms repelling one another. As the vibration of any object sends even one air atom moving, it bumps the neighboring atoms and forces them to move in a wave of energy that is picked up as sound by our ears. The air atoms carry the wave whether there is physical contact or not between them, for they are in quasi-physical contact by their inter-repulsion forces. It is this repulsion-contact / repulsion-push that allows sound waves to carry for much-longer distances than would be the case if they need to go all the way and make physical contact. The repulsion-push occurs even when an atom moves ever so slightly toward another one.

In their view, sound waves propagate air atom to air atom only by knocking them against one another, even while they move and collide about endlessly. The obvious problem is that they have the atoms flying about in all directions equally (and randomly), meaning that half the atoms will constantly tend to send the wave backward. Plus, there is no reason to expect that sound should go in a straight direction more than it curves around corners. If you're talking to someone at the corner of a block building, and you then both go off along a different wall, you won't be able to hear one another unless you talk quite loud. The sound won't turn the corner very well. This is inexplicable with atoms flying in all directions equally. They need to conjure up their voodoo jargon in an effort to find an fine-sounding explanation, and that's when you become their victim, the receiver of more garbage.

Light travels in a straight line partly because free electrons in the air inter-repel, and partly because the jolting electrons (that start the waves) are moving fast enough to keep sideways-directed waves from propagating. This is the obvious fact whether we know how to explain it or not. There is no other way to explain straight-ahead waves but to conclude that sideways-directed waves are not happening. We need only figure out why and how. And I think I have it solved with magnets.

Our zealot has some videos using a very-powerful magnet, and so he'll be able to test what I'm talking about. If he were to roll a metal ball near the magnet, the magnet would either bring it to itself, or, if the ball were rolling fast enough, the magnet would only curve its path as it came by. Zealot would then discover that, the faster he rolls the ball, the less the magnet gets to curve it, and he would make a law: the specific curvature of the ball's path depends on the TIME spent near the magnet. he would then get a bright idea: what would happen if we rolled the ball fast enough? Would it maintain a perfectly straight line? Yup, that's why light travels in a straight line. The jolting electrons that begin the wave are jolting fast enough that they do not repel electrons to their sides.

And due to electrons having no inertia, all electrons moved forward by the initial jolt likewise move as fast as the initial jolter, and therefore likewise fail to move electrons to their sides. The wave goes only forward.

Now that science experts are starting to read my material, they have no excuse not to notify the biggies at the top that they are telling lies to the world. Now that they can understand what a light wave is, they can also conform their sound wave to the inter-repulsion of gas atoms. But they are demons who will not give up their fantasy-physics system which they set up for themselves, for it compliments and supports their evolutionary creation via the big bang. For these demons, that's what science was created for, to kill God by it, by convincing massive victims that their science is the real truth when in fact it's just clever demonism. Half the trick is to devise false explanations of things, and the other half is the delivery.

This young man repeats what his superiors tell him, a sign that he's brainwashed due to trusting them. Any science buff who gets into it all is brainwashed. If they were not brainwashed, they wouldn't get along with them, because they'd be thinking for themselves. This guy calls a photon a "wave-like particle," and he pretends he understands what such a thing is. It's a contradiction, yet he pretends to be superior than you by pretending to understand it. Call your photon anything, but not a wave. A wave cannot be a particle, and he knows it. If he were to call it a particle-like wave, in the sense that the wave goes straight ahead, he would be correct, but he calls it a wave-like particle because he's sold on the photon theory of light while admitted that there is evidence that light is a wave. In that case, throw the photon to the scrap heap, and view light as a straight-ahead wave. You can't have straight-ahead waves in liquids, but the light medium is not a liquid, so there is no use comparing them.

Take the typical electric-stove heating element that all stove tops once showed (some are now buries out of view). These elements are in the shape of a spiral, I'm sure you know what I'm talking about. They are made of semi-conductor material, which is to say they are poor conductors of electricity. The wizards of dopiness would have us believe that, when they emit heat, it's because the electricity run through them has caused the atoms to jiggle more wildly. Duh, it should be obvious to them that the elements loose heat in the same was as running too many electrons down a wire; the electrons come out as heat, as is the case of the light-bulb filament. So, never mind the jiggling atoms, because the heat is in the emitted electrons. And there are so many emitted that the heating element glows red or orange. You see, where electrons are emitted, there is light and heat together. It should be so obvious to these fools, yet they need jiggling atoms in their big-bang theory as a matter of happiness or deep depression. They must convince the world that the big bang created it.

A semi-conductor is chosen precisely because it doesn't allow a smooth flow of electrons, for if it did, few would come out to your pots and pans. And when the electrons go through your pots and pans, that's the material that heats your food. Yes, you always make a stir fry with electrons inside, and you eat lots of electrons every day as warmed food. They are not toxic; they feel good, they are dangerous only if there are too many all at once.

The question is, why do stove elements turn red instead of white? The better way to ask is: why didn't they choose for us elements that turn white instead of red? If they turned white, they would be hotter, and could therefore be made smaller. But if red glow has a higher frequency so that it penetrates materials more efficiently, then perhaps they chose red elements for that reason. That is, they discovered that red heat goes through pots faster than white light, making the red element cheaper to operate. But they did not discover that red is the higher-frequency light. Or, if they did, they didn't want to announce it.

I have a wood stove. It's used all winter as virtually my only home heater. It has two types of heat, one from the free electrons coming out the wood, and the other what they call, radiant heat. I feel the radiant heat come out the glass on the front door when the stove is hot inside. I'm sure that this radiant heat is from the hot coals, the REDDISH coals, that is. It even feels as though it's penetrating deep into my skin.

Sayoc it Isn't True

The bombs sent to Obama and Hillary didn't go off, nor did the one sent to Soros or CNN. That looks like an inside fake job, and the purpose could be to assassinate Trump, with a future bomb, blaming it on ISIS. An alternative theory is that the CIA hopes to spur Democrats after the elections to beef up the war on ISIS, for it was heard very recently that ISIS has started up again in terrorization ways, as before, when Obama was the president. Why else would ISIS target Democrats at this time instead of the Trump team??? I don't see any answer. None of the bombs went off; that doesn't look like reality.

In no time at all, the addresses receiving bombs increased to 10 -- make that 12 --, but, still, not one bomb went off. I have not heard that they were all fake bombs, intended for scare "value" only.

What good is sending out ten or more bombs that show evidence of being purposeful fakes? How can that scare anyone more than hours? Why go through all that trouble for a mere joke? Surely, if this were a true event, rather than a government operation to divide the people, or as a stepping stone to yet another fake job with an end goal, there would have been a better attempt to make it appear as though real bombs were the purpose. There would have been less bombs, about two only so that no one gets the impression that the bombs were planned as fakes to begin with.

There can be multiple purposes for this act. Perhaps the Democrats are using this (as their own scheme) in multiple ways, another reason to calm / tone down the country in the midst of Republicans having the upper hand on things worthy of serious complaints, and in the meantime to make Republicans appear as the major aggressors. It comes as Democrats are sure they will not score as large as they had hoped in a couple of weeks, and their media is even blaming Trump for these bombs, you see. This story gets the news off of the migrant issue, which has reduced Democrat voters. It looks like a Democrat trick with perhaps an FBI person, now in trouble, playing a hand. Why should that be less believable than a rogue Republican causing it all? We have seen how the deep state goes to a far reach of conspired trickery to put down a presidential candidate. In a way, Trump is responsible because he's refusing to properly punish the guilty, so that they feel less fear, and can continue their tricks sensing less risk of getting caught.

When Steve Scalise was shot by a democrat, Democrats didn't put out their long, pointed, crooked fingers blaming a host of Democrat names in open, media reports, but now, suddenly, all sorts of Republicans are being named as the indirect, responsible parties. So, this can be a tactic to make Republicans such as Nunes / Jordan to cease their animosities toward the deep state, especially if someone starts to target Republicans soon with real bombs.

Below is a video claiming a false-flag operation, which we would do well to consider. He shows some problems with the packages, asking rightfully whether a photograph an unopen bomb package makes sense, before knowing that it was a fake bomb??? Very good question. The answer is, no, of course not. Yet there are shown three unopen packages, as though this was for media value only. In a real event, everyone would be kept far from the bomb until defused, and, of course, the packages would be opened to defuse the bombs. Who called for the packages to be photographed before opening them? What would be the point in doing so? Couldn't the photos of merely the front of the packages wait until later? There was no danger in simply removing the envelopes, as people had handled the packages already. Why are we not shown all 12 bombs out of their packages? Were there really 12 fake bombs -- make it 14 now --, or were some of the addressees part of the hoax? Probably.

He also points out that a timer on a mail bomb (duh) makes no sense because a mail bomb is intended to go off not by a timer, of course. Instead, it needs a trigger at the very opening of the package. Perhaps the government added the timers to get people off their track, because the government should know better. But so should any adult of normal intelligence...which is the big problem with the timers. They appear used by the government experts to get the evidence pointed away from itself.

Then, in this video, a bomb expert says that it's silly to use such a large timer for a pipe bomb, which assumes that he's not recognizing or advertising that it's WRONG to have a timer on a pipe bomb. What kind of a bomb expert is this Tom Sauer? He calls himself a "former bomb disposal officer." He says the timer is best placed "inside the pipe." Hmm, why didn't he tell us that it's wrong to have a timer in a pipe bomb? Are we to think that a timer starts to click after the box is opened? That makes no sense.

Surely, the Trump supporter who will now be made public knew better than to send the bombs just two weeks before the election. Surely, a real, avid Trump supporter would have cared that the caravan story was inspiring more voters (to choose Trump) so that he wouldn't want to spoil that surge. Therefore, this bomb hoax has the motive of helping Democrats, a great reason to assume that Democrats are behind it. Just think of it. Just think of it. Somebodies are out there on the loose with police-winking powers to carry on such a vast hoax as this, under Trump's nose, with or without the Secret Service's wink (we know not which).

It appears that to explain why the stamps are not showing the regular evidence of being run through the post-office, the perpetrators claimed that the packages went by courier. Ahh, it's ridiculous to think that any bad guy committing a major crime would hand the packages to a person of a courier company that receives his name, sees his face, and knows the pick-up address. If this were a real event, the perp would have used the mail, without question. This is how we can know that the government and/or deep state is behind this, meaning that Hannity and the others at Fox are acting the screwballs to take and report the government storyline as real.

A good way to check whether a false-flag is in the works is where Fox news doesn't even make the slightest comment on whether it could be a hoax event, even if they suggest that blame is on a non-government group. I watched Fox fume closely on anti-Trump conspiracies; these same people should now have no bones for investigating a possible conspiracy with this mail-bombing farce. If they don't even suggest the obvious problems, then it appears to me that they have gotten the word that this story comes from a group whom the Fox boss fears too much to go against it.

I'm hearing that the man they are pinning this on was arrested in the same Florida county (Broward) as hails Debbie Wasserman Schultz. This could indicate that the arrested man is an Obama insider, and that his court case and prison sentence will be a sham. He will get paid well for his troubles, if I correctly understand how this trick works. They have him portrayed as a loony Trump radical. Chances are, this last-minute trick will backfire on the Democrats, if most people are wise to the media's deceptive play upon this event. By now, most people are wise to these sorts of tricks from the liberal media.

Note how nothing much of this story is being kept secret. This is typical of a false flag hoax, where media stories are pre-planned by the perps.

From the Guardian: "World's billionaires became 20% richer in 2017, report reveals". This is what Trump is truly guilty of. The rich took in what the poor needed badly. Figure out a way to get money-flow to the poor, and then God will agree that America is a better nation. But the Trump way is the selfish way, because he gave his own corporations a huge tax break. It forced the workers to pick up the slack in increased product prices i.e. sales taxes, and with more borrowing i.e. higher taxes soon to pay the interest.

The Canadian prime minister has done what the global scammers have been wanting to do, increase taxes to combat the global warming that isn't worthy of mere mention:

A $20/ton carbon tax translates into a 16.6 cent per gallon surcharge on gasoline. So, in 2022, the $50/ton carbon tax will increase Canadian gasoline prices by about 42 cents per gallon (11 cents per liter) [wow, that is a huge rip-off, stealing our money on a sham]...

The price of coal would more than double [incredible rip-off, a government not lifting a finger to provide coal, get's more than half the profits of the coal industry], with a carbon tax surcharge of about $100 per ton in 2022.

There is a tricky re-distribution of these taxes to certain families, and the report is that the government skims 10 percent off the top. In other words, as it all pans out, some Canadians will pay the remaining 90 percent of the carbon taxes while others who don't deserve it get it back in rebates on their income-tax forms. And then there is all the cost and headaches of collecting and redistributing the taxes. Trudeau needs to be replaced and punished as a thief. The article adds: "The remaining 10% of the tax revenue will provide support to particularly affected sectors like schools, hospitals, small businesses, colleges, and indigenous communities." Ahh, a money redistribution system, but look. It doesn't tell us that any money goes to fighting global warming. That's because it isn't any issue at all, and the thieves know it.

If the taxes are intended as an incentive to get companies to spew less chimney smoke, it won't work. They will just increase their product prices to pay the increased taxes. Lest you are fooled by this scheme purporting to give all the money back to Canadians, don't forget to work in the higher prices for coal, gasoline, and manufacturing costs, because, when people pay the higher costs at the retail level, the government cash register goes bing-bing in a great bonanza everywhere in sales taxes. So, increased prices due to taxes increase the tax intake, we are not fooled. The deception is in the Liberal party trying to make us believe that all tax intakes goes back to Canadians, end of story. But it is not the whole story. And this is how liberals in the Unites States operate too.

Friday: "Authorities haven't said whether the devices were built to explode and kill or simply sow fear." Why not? If all the bombs turn out to be fakes, then I would deem this slowness to inform the public to be evidence that the deep state is orchestrating a scaaary story to get more readers to read up, to give the story more crap than it deserves. All the photos I've seen with police have really-big and scary men, muscles bulging, which is more evidence that this story involves "press releases" from small-minded, FBI / Intelligence goons.

They already had a suspect arrested by Friday, who might be guilty of sending real bombs in coordination with an undercover Intelligence officer(s), only Intelligence changed them into duds en-route through the delivery services. This guy's himself a muscleman, hmmm. This guy has been caught very fast, in the height of the media story, and still at election time. I'd like to know how he was suspect so fast, and why. What was the evidence? Did he leave a bomb part in his van or home? I would consider that fake evidence, for a true event would expect the bomb maker to clear all evidence from his realm, for this is a serious crime. Yet, they have this guy making stupid mistakes, which is to say that the deep state is using what they claim as his stupidity to explain how they caught him so fast, and why no bombs went off.

The FBI director (Wray) has the audacity to claim that these bombs were not intended as hoaxes. Spit! It tells me that the FBI is complicit with this crime. They are now trying to convince us that the alleged bomber's stupidity caused him to goof-up his bombs so that none of them could explode. That's laughable. Wray is a Democrat's puppet. Trump needs to blow him away as one does unwanted snot up his nose, but even Trump is playing along with this hoax as the deep state wants of him. The Republicans are afraid to publicly declare this thing for what it is. We have entered the Twilight Zone.

James Clapper, a former Intelligence chief, was the one to receive the 12th package. He should be integral to this plot, trying to save his own skin from the threat of Republicans retaining the House and Senate.

The alleged bomber, Cesar Sayoc, apparently doesn't have his own home, which plays well to a hoax. Can anyone prove that his van existed more than a month ago with all of its pro-Trump stickers? I say the insiders created that van recently. He's reportedly been staying with his mother, maybe off and on, so that they don't need to give him an address where neighbors can prove that this van didn't exist more than a month ago. By portraying him as a bit of a vagabond, they can get away with that part of the story.

I have heard from a police officer in Florida, in his official update, that the FBI evacuated neighbors while it conducts an investigation into Sayoc's mother's house. This to me looks like a ploy to get rid of too many eyes for the FBI's comfort in conducting this part of the hoax.

There are videos showing that he (goes as Cesar Altieri / Cesar Altieri Randazzo too) has a businessman past, was a sort of pimp, which suggests street smart, not expected to make the dummy mistakes that the FBI claims for him. Unless some the conspiracy group fabricated one version, the video below (about 4:00 minutes) exposes that there are two official versions of the van's rear windows:

Someone commented that the alleged bomber claimed to be a Democrat on his Twitter account, but that it was changed to republican. The video above (about 9:00 minutes) shows him listed as a Democrat at his own page. Big problem there, FBI and friends. I had been expecting something big before the elections from the deep state, but is this the best it has??? Pretty weak hand, wouldn't you say?

Inevitably, I come back again to thinking that both parties, both sides of the major media, are orchestrating news with the purpose of dividing the people, preoccupying their news times so that the deep state continues to stay secure, to rob the people all the while. It's not a rare theory. It comes to mind repeatedly. Perhaps God wants some of this to backfire, to expose it. Bring on the pleasure. We crave it. We love to see God's Hand of Justice.

The video below shows more than one package with stamps not run through the postal system. The first is the package to New York, and the second to Florida. The packages were either hand delivered, therefore, or, if the people named on the envelopes were part of the hoax, the packages didn't need to be sent at all. The video goes on to show two more sets of stamps not run through a post office, for a total of four. If we choose to believe that Sayoc alone was responsible, how did a single man hand-deliver four packages, on the same day, in locations so far away from one another?

The truth may be that Sayoc did deliver working bombs with his accomplices, at least one being a government operator who tricked him into doing it. The government then intercepted the real bombs, replacing them with fake ones not sent through the postal service. To top off this twilight-zone picture, Fox news closes all eyes to this vivid problem, a dropping of the ball on behalf of the people, helping the deep state to pull this trick off, even as they had railed against the deep state for past months. Shame, Hannity, shame Ingraham, shame Fox and Friends.

How could deep-state operatives so-sloppily disseminate these photos country-wide -- knowing that there are many closely watching their every, little trick -- without marking the stamps in some way? Are they that dumb? Or did they want to get half-caught? In every false flag, there are such obvious, dumb things to expose the fraud. What could this game be all about? Or, did they act sloppily / lazily because even Fox news was sure to follow the script? Are they happy to fool the regular 90 percent, unworried about the rest of us 10 percent? There is not one photo showing proper stamps, at least not so far. Will Rush Limbaugh save us? Will Levin save us? Who will have the courage to start a crusade against this monster? Jesus. The glory is His. And he knows how best to pay them back what they deserve. The end of them is near. Their pits of torment are calling out to them, it's almost time.

What would happen if the packages went through the postal service? Wouldn't the post office discover at least one bomb before they arrived to their destinations? Doesn't Homeland Security demand that postal services send packages through special machines to x-ray their interior? Yet, Sayoc's packages got through, they claim. Only the FBI may have changed its tune, saying that the packages went by courier...but no one at Fox isn't stupid enough to believe that excuse. Will Fox not address the unnecessary timers? Will Fox not ask the FBI whether the bombs came with triggers? Is Fox really doing its job? What a vast disappointment. What a farce Fox is.

The way I see it, Fox won't even mention these problems you're reading here, even to say that they exist. It suggests that the deep state is a mobster organization, and mobsters are sick people with small minds, unable to rise to the level of respectability. If we can't trust Fox to help expose and fix this, how will this end up in five years? American law and justice departments aren't prepared to fix it because they are the criminal minds conducting fakery daily. They specialize in fakery, imagery.

In the 8th minute of the video below, we find that, out of Sayoc's 32 Twitter followers, not one is a Republican. Will Fox speak out about this? Fox won't even try to correct the "conspiracy theorists." Fox is not permitted to point out these problems, even if only to "correct" them, because Fox is an agent of the mobsters. That's my new take, and it may be final. All of its animosities against the deep state in relation to the dossier is now looking like fakery on Fox's part. Theater. To divide the nation, to get juicy stories that keep the money rolling in, but not to catch the mobsters.

The so-called caravan in Central America looks like a sham. Everyone's clothes came out of the dryer that morning. No one has a single crease in his/her shirt. They are all dressed tidy and clean. No one appears weary from walking hundreds of miles without the niceties of home; long-haul walkers have a certain look, but these people look fresh every time I see a bunch. No man looks like he missed a shave in the morning, beards are nicely trimmed. Where does such a group stay the nights, night after night? Where can there be enough motel room? It doesn't look real, doesn't smell real, and totally unexpected. It must be a political stunt paid for by either the Republicans or Democrats. There's a lot of youth involved because they do it for less money.


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