Late on Monday, after last week's update was uploaded to the Internet, the following was added to the BURN-bag discussion that points to Kash Patel, Trump's FBI director. To make the best sense of this, one should read the entire first section of the last update (click link at top of this page), because it really is some compelling evidence that God is pointing to Patel's burn bags.

You can click Brunels now, which loads them on another tab in order to load other surnames, to better follow the heraldic links.

:

Brunels/BURNells have a "lion's paw" in Crest, as do Crews/Creuse's, and the latter's Coat is the Brunel Coat in colors reversed. The English-version motto of Brunels (share a Brennan Coat) is, "Charity BEARs fruit." Perhaps it's off-topic, maybe not, but Jean-Luc Brunel reportedly hung himself in a French jail awaiting trial on assisting Jeffrey Epstein's pedophilia business.

The Burnell motto has "Caritas," the word translated "Charity," and as the Burnells share the Bruce Coat, it's likely the Charity's (Yorkshire with Bruce's), who almost share the Irish Casey Coat, were from Marjory Carrick, mother of the royal Bruce's. Caritas-like Carrots/Carews, definitely a Carrick branch, are first known in Cornwall with Jeans who in turn share the Burnell/Brunel / Bruce lion. JEAN-Luc Brunel. The Caseys are extremely important here in a pointer to Kash Patel.

When the report came out that Epstein hung himself, I had the inkling that Trump was involved with the murder, or in allowing Epstein to go free under the pretence of his death. I don't rule the latter out to this day. In his last phone call, hours before his reported death, Epstein called Belarus, and told the man in that country that the jail he was in is "keeping me safe." That phrase is worded by me to the best of my recollection from a video I saw. It struck me as though he was allowed to call his buddy to say, in code, they are releasing me, I'll see you soon.'"

In the Sleeping Beauty dream upon Epstein's island, I had only my JEANs on while walking to Beauty's CAR. The Arms of Carrick is just a red-on-white chevron, and so Cars almost have the Arms of Carrick. Shirts/SHARDs, whom I trace to SARDinia, where Bondi's are first known, have the Arms-of-Carrick chevron, and are in Charity colors and near format. English Kerricks are first known in Cheshire with Bello's and Shirts/Shards. Kash Patel's current boss in Trump's government is Pam Biondi.

Note that Charitys (Yorkshire with Keppochs and Wagers) are in Keppoch colors and format while Keppe's are first known in Hampshire with Casey-like Chase's, tending to confirm that Charity's incorporate the Irish Casey Coat. Stove-branch English Stevensons are first known in Essex with Chase-branch Chance's (might share Bath cross). Chase's (might share Bath cross) are first known in Hampshire with the BIDENs/Buttons who share the Charity fesse, and the Bittons/Buttons in the Biden write-up are said to have furnished a bishop of Bath and Wells in 1274 while Burnells tell that "Robert Burnell (1239-1292) was Bishop of Bath and Wells in 1275." Buttons/Bidens have "horns" in Crest while Bruns are first known in Middlesex with Horns/Orne's.

I'm repeating this here because, in the past, I had found a potential way to get John Ratcliffe, Trump's CIA director, into Sleeping Beauty's hovering and hold scenes. She was hovering asleep in the car, when I touched her leg at the knee, a double pointer to Trump. She then instantly popped into my arms, and we rose up into the SKY. The embrace can be viewed as holding each fast other because McLeods/CLOUDs of SKYE have a "Hold fast" motto. It's important that Stove's/Steinsons and their Stain branch use a cloud, but we can add that Stains are first known in Middlesex with Bruns.

McLeods/Clouds share the castle of German CASSels while Scottish Caseys list Kash's for a solid pointer to Kash Patel. Scottish Cassels were kin of Scottish Kennedys (Ayrshire with Carricks) who were in turn Carrick kin.

More to the point, Holdings/Holdens and Holds/Holts are first known in Lancashire, but Holds/Holts are first known in Bury of Lancashire with RatCLIFFs, and with the first-known FORDs. Bury was in Old Salford while SalFORDs (Cliff colors and format) have a wolf in CLIFF wolf-head colors. Ratcliffs happen to share the same black bull head in Crest with Holgate's. The latter are new to me as per the Burnells said to have held a Holgate location...in Shropshire with Sleap and the first-known Cliffs. The Holgate write-up has: "The name Holgate was originally derived from a family having lived in HOLDgate, a parish, in the union of Ludlow, hundred of Munslow, in Shropshire."

Holds/Holts have a squirrel "CRACKing a nut." Cracks/Cricks are first known in Yorkshire with Craggs who in turn share the black dog with Carricks. The latter's Kerrick variation is like "Kick," and Kicks are in the colors and format of Craggs if the latter's dogs are removed. English Kerricks are first known in Cheshire with Sale's who could have named Salfords. English Kerricks use the "calTRAP" while Trapps share the "BUStard" with Bustards who in turn were a branch of English Bush's (Yorkshire with Cracks and Craggs) in turn in Salford / Cliff colors and format. Bustard-like Bastards, with the Kick chevron in colors reversed, are first known in Devon with Burys. Bury was in Salford (according to the Hold/Holt and Ratcliff write-ups).

Salfords are first known in Bedfordshire with Luton and LUTTons. The "Hold FAST" motto of McLeods/Clouds gets to Fasts (Norfolk with McLeod-beloved Flags) sharing the LUTT/Lute quadrants while McLeods come up as "Lutt." I've see a McLeod Crest with a black bull head, same as Ratcliffs. Rats are also Raids and Raiders, perhaps pointing to FBI raids of deep-state goons. When I first saw Sleeping Beauty, she was at the hood of the car, directly in front of the RAD.

Thus, one can glean that Ratcliffs had been a Cliff relation in merger with Hold elements in Shropshire. Cliffs are said to have been at Mortone-SAY of Shropshire, and while Says (Shropshire with Leightons) share the Leighton/LEYton quadrants, the neighboring leg-like Leghs are also Leigh's/Leys. Miss Hicks fulfilled Sleeping Beauty, and while Hicksons have eagle legs, the Hicks are said to have been at a Low Leighton location. Beautys have black bulls to go with the black bull heads of Hol(d)gate's and Ratcliffs. Rats are in Holdgate colors.

Therefore, I expect and hope that John Ratcliff will undo the Epstein crime ring, and that Kash and Pam Bondi will punish the ring leaders and the associated pedophiles. Joe Biden is a known pedophile even with his own daughter.

With Car's first known in Lancashire with Holds and Ratcliffs, we can go back to Carricks and even same-colored Carrots/Carews (share "bien" motto term with Carricks), for Holdgate's have bull heads in the colors of Carricks who in turn are in the colors and format of Hows while Holdgate's are also HOWgate's. Hows share black wolf heads with Cliffs (Shropshire with Holdgate), and the Cliff Coat, minus the wolf heads, looks like it incorporates the Hoo/Whoo Coat, which can explain why a Hoo location (Kent with Sleeps/Sleaps) is in the How write-up. The How write-up also has a Hose location, interesting where Hose's show human legs.

The last update's burn-bag section was centered on legs, probably because I was kicking the crow with my legs. The Holdgate's look related to Mails/Meoles' (Cheshire with Leghs/Leys and some Cliffs and Leghs) while Mule's, with almost the WAKE Coat, are first known in Cornwall with Carrots/Carews and Cole's/Colds. I was told to WAKE Sleeping Beauty, and did so by touching her leg at the knee. The giant black bull of Cole's/Colds is in the colors of the Holdgate bull heads. The Holdgate bull head wears a COLLar, and the Collar(d)/CALLard Moor heads are in Holdgate / Cole/Cold colors. Calls use trumpets.

Cole's are suspect in the STOVE/Stevenson motto, "coelum," and while Kash Patel was pointed to by a crow that I was kicking away from a STOVE BURNer, English Stevensons are first known in Essex with COLchester and Low Leighton. Colchester was once CAMULodunum, and Crows have a CAMEL head.

The Hows have a Hough location in their write-up while Hough's/Hoffs, who share the black wolf head in Crest with Cliffs, are first known in Cheshire with some Cliffs and HOUGHtons/HOTTens (bull head). Sleeping Beauty was at the HOOD of her car just before she was HOVERing in it, and while Hovers share the Hoff variation with Hough's, Hoods/HOOTs are first known in Devon with Gate's. HoldGATE's. Bill Gates was Jeffrey Epstein's buddy. HOOVERs use eagle LEGs. The Lee variation of Leghs/Leys is probably in code with the "le" motto term of Houghtons/Hottens.

To help show that Holdgate's were a Hold-Gates merger, Gates' are first known in Devon with Powers (share green Shield with German Bauers, and Bourleys) and Poors while Danish Pauers/Bauers have double bends in colors reversed from the same in the Holdgate collar. HALTons almost have the gates Coat, and Poors share the HOLTon fesse. While Holds/Holts/Halts are first known in Lancashire with Cowes', the Isle of Wight, where Holtons are first known, has a Cowes location.

Hovers/Hoffs are first known in Westphalia with Holding-related Allers. Holdings use "ALLERions," which are BEAKless eagles, and they happen to be in the colors of the eagle heads of Irish Caseys and Charity's, and the full eagles of HOTTs. Beaks (Dorset with black-bull Beautys) almost have the Houghton/Hotten Coat.

We saw the Charitys in the quote above, suspect with the Carrot-like "Caritas" motto term of Burnells/Brunels. Holdings (Lancashire with Cars and Holds/Holts) share the motto of Buckleys (Cheshire with Houghtons/Hottens) who in turn share the white bull head in Crest with Houghtons/Hottens (Cheshire with Crews/Creuse's). The McLeod/Cloud Crest bull head shows nearly white, and McLeods/Clouds are the ones with a "Hold" motto term.

The Carots/Carou's (not "Carrot/Carew") are said to have been from Cruelly while Crow-branch Crowells come up as "Crawl." Buckleys are in the colors and format of Case-beloved Buckle's.

While Beauty was hovering, I heard a voice from behind me that I took for God's voice, saying, "What are you waiting for, it's you she LOVES, go wake her." I had noted that Lovicks, kin of Lancashire's Towers, have black bull heads such that they can be the bull head also of Lancashire's Ratcliffs, especially as Cliffs are first known in Shropshire (beside Cheshire) with Luffkins while Love's are also Luffs. Luffkins share the stars of Cheshire's Gamels.

I've never noted the "Luuken" term in the Luffkin write-up until now, but it just caused me to find the Luckens/Lufkins/Lovekins, first known in Shropshire with Luffkins. As I've explained many times, Miss Hicks as Sleeping Beauty and I were RISING into the sky because the Sleep-like Selepitanoi Illyrians were near Rhizon, and here I find the "rising eagles" of Luckens/Lovekins. I can glean that Luckens/Lovekins had become kin of Edons (Coat similar to Lucken/Lovekin Coat) while Eatons (Cheshire) look related by their Coat to HYKES'/Hacks (Devon with Hicks-branch Hooks) who in turn share the Lucken/Lovekin scallops! Edons are first known in Suffolk, beside the Diss location of Dice's/Diss' (Norfolk with Hyke's/Hake's, Higgs and Deeds/Dade's) who in turn nearly have the Lucken/Lovekin Coat.

Edons have a Coat looking very related to Deeds/Dade's (Norfolk with Risings. Rise's/Rye's, Crows and Case's) while Daddys/Douds almost have the Rising Coat. "Deed" is a motto term of Scottish Flemings, the latter first known on Lanarkshire with Crow-loving and Case-like Kash's/Caseys, but also with LUCKs/Locks. Buckleys are in the colors and format of Case-beloved Buckle's, the latter first known in Suffolk with Edons.

I'll show below how God pointed to Love liners with Sleeping Beauty's wake scene such that it can now draw in LUCKens/Lovekins, very interesting as per Jean-LUC Brunel, Epstein's partner in crime. Brunels share the Jean/Jane lion. The "CariTAS motto term of Brunels could be for the Tass'/Tache's who happen to share the red scallop with Jeans/Jane's. The latter were once said to be first known in Worcestershire with Tume's/Tombs, and Brunels have a "frucTUM" motto term. The Brunel / Jean/Jane lion is highly suspect as the Bruce lion, and Bruce-branch Brush's are first known in Suffolk with Tass'/Tache's. I brushed her knee with my hand, and Beauty woke up.

French Jeans share the combattant lions of Mossbergs/MOSERs, and Brunel's Wikipedia article tells that "Brunel began his career in the late 1970s, working as a modeling scout for Karin Mossberg's agency, Karin Models in Paris." Luckens/Lovekins and Luffkins are first known in Shropshire with Moses'! Moss' are also Mose's. I've not know this Brunel character before, but, suddenly, the dream is pointing to him.

Love's/Luffs share the triple fesses of Fullers, the latter suspect from Fulbert, father of Peter Pollock of Rothes', and vassal of the Shropshire Alans. The English Rothes' were once said to be first known in Shropshire too, along with Corbetts ("corvos" motto term ' "crow" in Greek) who in turn share the giant "raven" (a crow) of German Rothes'/Rothchilds. The Corbett Crest shares an elephant with the Arms of Oxford while Love's/Luffs are first known in Oxfordshire.

For years I've been suggesting that Foot-like Futters/Fotys are in the Fuller motto, and while this picture looks connectable to my feet kicking the crow at the stove, a branch of the Stove's/Stevensons/Stephensons are suspect in the "maSTIFF" dog of Futters/Fotys. Stiffs (Gloucestershire with Stevens/Stephens) share a solid-white chevron with Stevens/Stephens, and moreover Stiffs share white SPEARs in saltire with Scottish Line's ("viriSCIT"), first known in Ayrshire with Skits suspect in the "paSCIT" motto term of Corbetts. English Line's are first known in Oxfordshire with what I expect is the Corbett elephant. The Line spears in saltire are in colors reversed with Spear-related Pasi's expected in the "PAScit" motto term of Corbetts. Scottish Line's share the Stove fleur-de-lys, and Stove's share the Chief of Moray's Douglas' while Rothes is in Moray.

Spears/SPEYers (same place as Pollocks and Scottish Pasleys) use spears in saltire too while Rothes is on the Spey river. Scottish Pasleys share the anchor of Packs, the latter first known in Sussex with the Mascals who share the Corbett-Crest elephant. The Vires' variation of Varona's can be in the "VIREScit" motto term of Scottish Line's (Ayrshire with Barrs and Varns), and crows/ravens (but called "birds") are showing for Varenne's/Verone's who share the French Corbin/Corbette Coat. Vere's (share lone star of Scottish Line's), first known in Essex with English Chance's, ruled Oxfordshire for centuries, and French Chance's are first known in Touraine with Corbins/CorBETTE's/CorBELs (Savoy with CorBEILs/CorBAILs). Beils/Bails were a branch of Moray's Bellys, Baileys and Baliols. The latter two are first known in Northumberland with BETTys/Beautys, Betts are suspect in the Brunel/Burnell motto.

For what it's worth, Vires'/Varona's, incorporating the Coat of Bothwells, are first known in Ile-de-France with French Caseys while Bothwells are first known in Lanarkshire with Kash's/Caseys. I can trace the "laurel" branches" of French Caseys to Maria of the Kiev , VARANgians.

I had only my jeans on, and no shirt. I was bare-breasted, and Bare's are listed with Barrs while Bill Barr's father is highly suspect in elevating Epstein to a math-teacher position in a Dalton high school. Daltons/ALTons can be linked to Scottish Alda's (Ayrshire with Barrs/Bare's) because Italian Alda's share the Dalton/Alton fesse. Tous'/Tosino's, first known in Florence with Italian Alda's, have a man ""WEARING a red shirt with gold BUTTONs"." Wearings are first known in Devon with Wears who share the Bruce motto, with Darts/Dards who essentially share the Crowford/Crawford and Dalton/Alton Coat, and with the Gates' who share the vertically-split Shield colors of Italian Alda's. It looks like a pointer to Bill Gates. While Shirts/Shards are suspect as Sardinians, Bondi's, first known in Sardinia, almost have the Tous/Tosini Chief.

[Later in this update, I find CrowFOOTs, first known in Suffolk with Blonds and Blondville's!!!!!!! Incredible, because the crow in my dream was pointing to Kash, who's direct boss is Pam Bondi!]

The red shirt of Tous'/Tosini's takes us to Reds/Reeds because Scottish Reeds share the "book" with Scottish Roets while German Roets share the sleeping crescent moon of Karens. Jean-Luc Brunel owned Karin Models.

A few weeks ago, in the 3rd update of July, I repeated the following story concerning Mr. Casey, husband of Miss Hicks' aunt:

On the morning that Mr. Casey was at my place to confirm a contract to put my property up for sale, I went to town to shop, and when returning home that afternoon, there was Mr. Casey at the front GATE of Miss Hicks's ranch. I honked. I TOOTed the horn, and Touts/Toots, in the Hicks motto, are first known in Yorkshire with Hicks. Tuits/Tute's are first known in Norfolk with Hyke's/Hake's, Higgs, and Case's. As I drove by, she was walking out to speak with Mr. Casey, or to let him in the gate.

I thought that event should point to Bill Gates.

When Mr. Casey was at my place that morning, he told me that he had listed the property of Miss Hicks and her husband, Mr. Kilpatrick. When the place sold, they moved to KAUFman county, Texas, to a home roughly ten miles from the home of John Ratcliffe in Heath (I assume he still lives there).

In the July update above, I went on to write: "They are the pheons also of RATcliff-related Tipps'/Tippins, both first known in Lancashire with Fittons..." I kid you not, Fittons are in Kick colors and format, and share the wheat sheaves of Comyns (share dagger with Kilpatricks), first known in Norfolk with the Deed's/Dade's who almost have the Comyn Coat, and the latter share the Fitton wheat sheaves in both colors.

I was KICKing the crow away from the stove burner with my Fitton-like feet while Foots share the chevron of Fothes'/Fette's/Fitts. Tom Fitton of Judicial Watch reported early this week that he's secured an election-fraud case to the U.S. supreme court. Fitton is involved in all sorts of government-exposure crusades against government wishes, even against Trump's Pam Bondi (his Attorney General). Like many others, Fitton keeps on calling for top-level prosecutions from Pam Bondi, not one of which has yet been produced. It shouldn't take seven months to arrest Jim Clapper and John Brennan, both guilty of lying to congress no small lies concerning their own roles in sedition against Trump, amounting to obstruction of justice, the same that James Comey is guilty of.

Fittons are said to have been first known in Rufford, and Ruffords (share Flatt Coat) look related to the Coat of Foots (Cheshire with Cliffs). RUFFs/Rolphs (Norfolk with Fitton-connectable Comyns) takes us to Scottish Ralphs, first known in Nairnshire with the Rats/Raids expected in "Ratcliffe." English Ralphs share the raven, a crow species (!), with Ruffs/Rolphs. Comyns were kin of Scottish Shaws (dagger), first known in Perthshire with Ratterys who I assume named Rattery in Devon, where Hoods/Hoots are first known.

Ruffs/Rolph (Norfolk with Reston-branch Risings) use a paw "RESTing on an arch" while Arch's are first known in Berkshire with English Shaws/Sheaves'. Sleeping Beauty was resting when sleeping, we could say, just before she was rising.

I still haven't deciphered, to my satisfaction, why the crow wanted to land on a HOT stove burner all the while that I was kicking it away. The crow would move away from the burner with each jut of my leg and foot toward it, but then return seeking to land upon the burner. HOTTs have eagles in the colors of the Casey eagle heads, strongly suggesting a pointer to Kash Patel. Kicks and Fittons are in the colors of English Burys while Ratcliffs are first known in Bury, in Lancashire with the first-known Spike's/Specks who probably share the Hott eagle, for Lancashire is where Casey-connectable Yealands are first known. Spike's/Specks named Brampton-Speke...in Devon, where English Burys and Speccots are first known.

Scottish Ralphs are first known in Nairnshire with Ged-branch Geddes' while Geds (Perthshire with Shaws and Rolph-connectable Rollo's) have a "DuRAT" motto term. Geddes' and Geds share pike fish with Lucken-like Luce's (Norfolk with Ruffs/Rolphs and Diss) who are said to have been lords of Dice. Dice's/Diss almost have the Coat of Luckens/Lovekins. Lovicks (Lancashire with Ratcliffs), share the bull head of Ratcliffs (to be assumed), and the saltire of Irish Kilpatricks and Hunters (Shropshire with Luckens/Lovekins and Luffkins).

"It's YOU she loves," the voice said to me as Beauty hovered asleep. In the dream, it crossed my mind that I should KISS her awake, Sleeping Beauty style, but as I leaned over to kiss her, my hand inadvertently touched her knee, and she then woke up. Still, Kiss'/Cush's, linkable to the Kilpatrick "cushions", share the CASH/Cass and CUST Coats, you see, and Ewe's/CUISTs play into "it's EWE she loves," I assume, because Hicks' are said to have had a branch at St. Ewe (Cornwall with Carrots/Carews).

Carots/Carou's use fretty in their Chief, and Ferte's share the giant Ewe/Cuist eagle, as do cushion-like Cussons and CUSTers/Constance's. More "cushions" are with Redmaine's, who named Yealand-Redmayne in Lancashire while Yealands (Lancashire) have the Irish Casey Coat in other colors. Custs, who love the Fountains (Norfolk with Risings, Kash-beloved Crows, and early Hookers) along with Kiss' and Cash's, are first known in Lincolnshire with Rising-branch Restons.

"It's you SHEE loves" can take us to Shee's sharing a Shea variation with English Shaws/Sheaves'. Wheat-sheaves-using Comyns (share dagger with Scottish Kilpatricks) are first known in Norfolk with Wheats and Patricks (share Scottish Kilpatrick saltire). Shee's/Shea's share the fleur-de-lys of Irish Kilpatricks and Hicks-branch Hooks. Hookers are said to be from the Vowels, first known in Aberdeenshire with Shaw-beloved Cups.

Cup-loving Coffee's/Coffers, linkable to the "Cornish CHOUGH" (crow species) of Hoods/Hoots, share a "victoria" motto term with Bollons (Northumberland with Stove's) who in turn share the black bull heads of Ratcliff-connectable Walerans who in turn are first known in Devon with Hoods/Hoots. Waleran de Leavell gets us to Levels/Leavells (Somerset with Heffers and Coffers/Coffare's) because Sleeping Beauty was hovering level, and Coughs / Cuffs can get us to the Haugh's (Cheshire with Overs/Offers, Houghtons/Hottens and Hootens) who share a Hoff variation with Hovers/Hoffers/Hoffs (Westphalia with Allers). Hotts have eagles in the colors of the giant eagle of Spike's/Specks (Lancashire with Ratcliffs of Bury) who named a location in Devon, where Speccots and Burys are first known. The Spike/Speck eagle is in the colors of the ALLERion eagles of Holdings, the latter first known in Lancashire with Holds/Holts of Bury.

Houghtons/Hottens look related to the Humbers/HUMBLEtowns while "humble" is in the English-version motto of Holds/Holts. The latter have two of the Holder fesses while Holders are first known in Herefordshire with Humbers/Humbletowns.

Bollons may have been of the Boltons and Bolts, the latter two first known in Lancashire. Bolts are in the colors and format of English Ballons and English Balls/BALDs. French Balls/Ballards are first known in Brittany with the Dol Alans who landed in Shropshire, where Baldwins and Sleeps named Sleap who share the double fesses of Italian Ballons/Ballardi's.

Dol is beside St. Malo on the Rance rivers, and while the Arms of St. Malo uses an ermine mammal, French Balls/Ballards show nothing but giant ermine spots, as do Balas'/Bailiss'. Rance's/Rands/Rynds can be gleaned in the motto of Rinds who in turn share the scallops of English Mallets (Suffolk with Buckle's) while French Mallets, listed with Malo's, show buckles in the colors of the same of Case's (Norfolk with Rance's/Rands/Rynds), beside Suffolk). I see Case's using the Coat of buckle-using Leslie's and Starlincks (Suffolk) who are in turn both in Kick colors and format.

Then, which is perhaps the main point, a millRIND is with Lawyers/LAYerds who in turn share the ermined Coat of Sleeps, both using two ermined chevrons in the colors of the one ermined fesse of Crowfords/Crawfords. The latter almost have the Sleep Coat. See that? Tom Fitton's organization is one of lawyers while Fittons are in Kick colors and format. But why was I kicking Kash Patel away from the hot burner? Who in that dream did I represent?

All I could see was my legs jutting out toward the crow (I was seeing the scene from my own eyes), and Leghs/Leys/LAYs share the giant lion of Rance's/Rands/Rynds, suspect from Ranulph le Meschin. Sleap is in Shropshire with the first-known Meschins (share Irish Judge scallops), yet le Meschin ruled in Cheshire, where Leghs/Leys/Lays are first known. Last I checked, Wikipedia's article on le Meschin gave him the same giant lion as Leghs/Leys/Lays. Layards/Lawyers share the Sleep Coat. Is Sleeping Beauty's sleep symbol pointing to the rising of Tom Fitton, as per surprising victories yet for the future? She was LAYing down while hovering. Fitts/Fitchets (Muschat/Montfitchet kin) look related to English Judge's.

It's interesting that there was evidence that I represented Elon Musk at the first half of the Sleeping Beauty dream. Kicks are in Starlinck colors and format while Elon Musk owns Starlink satellites. Musks/Muscats were kin of Love's/Luffs (Coat similarity with Muschats/Montfitchets). "It's you she loves, go wake her."

Fitton's Judicial Watch was founded by Larry Klayman, and it just so happens that Claymans/Clays/KLEES' look related to Ruffords, Foots and Cliffs/CLEVE's (Cheshire with Foots). Fittons are first known in Rufford. Claymans/Clays/Klees', in Cliff/Cleve / Salford colors and near-format, are first known in Lincolnshire with Fleets and Wake's while Walks/Wachs are first known in Dumfries with CLOSEburn, location of Kilpatrick castle, and then Clover/Clever-like Close's and Clay-like Clows' can be gleaned as Walk/Wach and Wakefield kin. Ruffords share the Flatt/FLETT Coat while Fleetwoods (Lancashire with Salford of Bury) look related to the Coat of Wakefields, and share the green trefoil with German Klees'. Clovers/Cleavers are first known in Norfolk with Patricks and Float-related Flags/Flecks. Wakefields are first known in Yorkshire with Close's, Clows', Walkers, Craggs and Wagers; the latter share the hearts of Patel-like Pattle's. Fleetwoods share the martlets of Craggs, in Kick colors and format.

This reminds me of the story I've told many times. The first and only time I wore my birthday-gift tie with treble-CLEF design was to church on the morning that I walked out of church to find a FLAT tire on my van. In that service, the pastor asked everyone to find someone to pray for, and Miss Hicks came over to pray for me. English Prays/Preters (Lincolnshire with Floats) have triple wolf heads in colors reversed from the same of Cliffs/Cleve's/CLEFFs. See that? The Pray/Preter Chief share's the Carrot/Carew and Quarre/Carre lion, probably the lion of Quarters (Carrick colors), first known in Ayrshire with Carricks and Craigie's.

The Pray/Preter Crest happens to share a black "Pegasus" with Burn-branch Bernice's/Burness, which can point to Patel's burn bags. She was HOLDING both my hands when praying, and Holdings can take us to Holds/Holts with a squirrel CRACKing his nut. Squirrels are listed with Square's/Squire's linkable to both Schere surnames, and while one Schere Coat has a "stick" while Cliffs/Cleffs tell that their Cleve variation married Stick-branch Stiche's, the other Shere's come up as "Scherf" while Scarfs share triple-white wolf heads with Prays/Preters. Plus, while Polish Trabys/Sadowski's use a "scarf", Trebys are first known in Devon (beside Sticks) with Treble's! The treble-clef tie at your service. Wikipedia's Traby article tells that they married Stick-like Astikas'.

The Traby/Sadowski scarf shows a knot while Knots/Cnuts can be of the Nuts/Knutts expected in the Hold/Holt Crest with the squirrel. Nuts/Knutts are first known in Gloucestershire with the Holders having one of the double Hold/Holt fesses. It's also where Letts/Late's are first known whose "ORGAN pipes" are suspect with something in ORKNey, where Flatts/Fletts are first known along with Blaze's/Blazers, a possible pointer to The Blaze youtube channel.

As I've said many times, I wore my blazer once to church that has a green-and-black check pattern. I wore it on the same day as wearing the treble-clef tie. The only surname I know of with green-and-black checks are the LinkLETTers, first known in Orkney. Thus, the LETT organ pipes do look linkable to Linkletters. Blaze's, first known in Yorkshire with Tie's and Close's, look related the Scottish Kilpatricks. Mrs. Kilpatrick prayed for me that morning of the flat tire, and Fleetwoods share the Blaze martlet. Tie variations look related to variations of the Dee's using a "Hic" motto term.

Andrew Bailey and Dan Bongino

It's Tuesday as I write, and the day when there's news that Pierre Poilievre of Canada won his by-election in Crowfoot, Alberta. I've not known CrowFOOTs before, but I was kicking the crow with my foot. I was kicking Kash Patel, Dan Bongino's boss, with my foot.

Instead of the crow, Crowfoots use "A black raven on a mount, holding two serpents entwined on a STAFF," which tends to reveal the double chevrons of Crowfoots as those of Huckabee's (Devon with Rods and Hick-branch Hooks), for the latter have "rod of AEsculapius," which has a snake entwined around a rod. Staffs could easily have been a branch of Stave's, the latter listed with Stove's, first known in Northumberland with Baileys.

The Huckabee-beloved Rods allows us to see Crowfoots as a Crowford/Crawford branch, for the latter has the HalyROD House, now called "Holyrood," of king David I. It was built in honor of his mother, queen Margaret, who had been in exile with prince Andrew, who became the king of Hungary. Andrew's brother, king Bela, is suspect in the "bello" motto term of Bouillons and Bald-branch Bauds, and then Godfrey de Bouillon was the son of count Eustace II. Eustace's, a Stacy branch, and Staggs/Stage's (Devon with Rods), have a cross between antlers, and we read in the Crowford write-up that this symbol was related to Holyrood, but became the symbol also of Crawfords.

Staggs/Stage's (Huckabee / Crowfoot colors), with one of the Crowfoot chevrons, use the stag head, and Hungarian lore traced Hungarian ancestry to a mythical stag, which must have been secret code for the Staggs/Stage's i.e. the bloodline of Eustace II. Staggs/Stage's are first known in Devon with Darts/Dards who in turn essentially share the Crowford/Crawford Coat. The Pollock boar is pierced by an arrow, but Wikipedia's Clan Pollock once called it a "dart."

While king BELA was king ANDREW's brother, let's now go to ANDREW BAILEY, whom Pam Bondi made the co-director of the FBI on Monday of this week. That was Dan Bongino's job alone until now. Mr. Bailey is the attorney general of Missouri. He's either been chosen by Bondi or Trump to curb Bongino's zeal in making arrests, or to sincerely aid Bongino and Patel in making arrests. We shall need to wait and see.

I can well-trace Roets, Reeds and Rita's all the Vespasia Polla of Rieti. Roets were a branch of the namers of Rothes, and so let's add that German Rothes'/Rothchilds use a giant raven for linkage to Crowfoots. English Rothes' are first known in Kent with Bongino-like Bongs, and with Crowford-connectable Sleeps. Crows are first known in Norfolk with BENJamins. Bongs/Bangs are first known in Kent with Crowhurts! Compare Crowhursts to Jewish Pollocks.

The Crowhurst tiger is on a "TILTing spear" while Spears/Speyers are suspect at Rothes on the Spey river, for Spears/Speyers, first known in Renfrewshire with Pollocks, share the Roet boar head. Tigers are first known in Suffolk with Crowfords/Crawfords, crown-using CRAUNs/Crane's, and Towns/Tune's while Tilts are also TileTONE's. Tonys/Tone's are first known in Leicestershire with Tilts/Tiletone's. The latter have a bear's head in a crown, and the latter is often the symbol of the Ceraunii, especially coronet crowns. Tonys named the Stave-like Staffords/Staffs, and Crowfoots have a staff.

Tilts use the common "mural crown" suspect with Muriel, the daughter of Peter Pollock of Rothes. I was kicking the crow with my foot while Kicks are in the colors and format of Leslie's who married the descendant of Muriel Pollock of Rothes. A "murel crown" is in the Crest of Ceraunii- / Coronis-like Crone's (Crow colors and format).

Roets share the motto of Bows/Bough's, and the "curved fesse" of Bongino's may once have been a "bow" in honor of the Bows, until some surname like "curve" became more prominent in Bongino ancestry than the Bows. Rita's (share the giant lion of Polla-like Pools) have a "curved bendlet". Italian Botters/Botini's, first known in Tuscany with Bongino's/Bongi's, have a "curved BEND." German Bauds have a "bello" motto term, share a "Pax" motto term with Reds/Reeds, and Bude's share the bow with Bows/Bough's. Buda became the Hungarian capital.

As curve-like Carvers share the Bank fleur-de-lys while Bongs list Bangs, it appears that Bongino's were a Bank branch. Note how "Carver" is like "Craven," for Banks are first known in Craven. Carvers share the black Moor head with Bellys and Bello-loving Bouillons. The Bongs/Bangs (Kent with Rothes') probably share the Rothes lion, perfect where German Rothes'/Rothchilds have a giant crow called a "raven." Rothschilds/RoddenSTEINs (linkable to Stove's via English Steins) are first known in Speyer while Rothes of the Pollocks is on the Spey river. We're back to Roet-related Spears/Speyers.

ShakeSPEARs, first known in Cumberland with Burns and Bernice's/Burness', share the Coat, almost, of Crabbers/CRAVers.

Thus, Dan Bongino is linking to the crow on burner, especially as German Berners and Berns/Barns share the bear with French Benjamins/Jamme's while Jean-connectable James' are first known in Surrey with Burners/Berners. Bongino's look like a Benjamin branch. The colors of the Burner/Berner quadrants are so unique that I remember their use by Jabesh-like Jebbs. In the book of Judges, Benjamites married women from Jabesh-Gilead. Thus, the crow on the burner is pointing to Dan Bongino too, and maybe even to Andrew Bailey.

Jebbs have a "belled" falcon and a "hawk's lure" while Hawks share "pilgrim's STAVES" with Pilgrims (Norfolk with Benjamins and Fulke's / Flecks)). Lure's look related to Belly-branch Beils/Bails. Browns/Bruns, Burns and Burness' are first known in Cumberland with FALCons. Bruno's are first known in Florence (Tuscany) with Italian Fulks. Baileys have a BROWN boar head.

Hope's, with a "rainBOW" and sharing the Bend besants, are first known in Shropshire (beside Bends), where English Rothes' and Sleeps were once said to be first known, and where BELLamys are first known who look related to the bend Coat. The red roundels of Bends are in the Arms of Boulogne, and Eustace II was count of Boulogne, and father of de-Bouillon.

The Bello's in the Bouillon motto are first known in Cheshire with Bends. Baileys, first known in Northumberland with Reds/Reeds, share the brown boar head with Innis', the latter first known in Moray with Bellys and sharing the Moray, Bailey and German Baud stars. Pollocks have a brown boar. Peter Pollock built the castle at Rothes, in Moray.

Bends share the blue lion in Crest with Jeans/Jane's (Cornwall with Bude's), and the latter share the scallop of Pullys and Sabine's while Vespasia Polla of Rieti was wife to Flavius Sabinus. Pools are also Pulls, and the Pollets/PAULets in the Pool/Pull motto share the swords of Baliols, a Bailey branch (both first known in Northumberland). If I recall correctly, Paula is Bongino's wife. Andrew Bailey, co-deputy-director with Dan Bongino.

Bongino's/Bongi's share the Bondi Chief, and Pam Bondi is Dan Bongino's boss. Pollets/Paulets have a black-Shield version of the Coat of Aude's in turn suspect in the Pollock motto term, "Audacter." Aude's are first known in Savoy with the French Gays sharing a giant, gold rooster with Paula's. I see Gays from king Gaia/Gala of Numidia, and Paula's, first known in Burgundy with Galli's, share their rooster in both colors. The Galli Chief is essentially the Bongino Chief. English Gays look related to Staggs/Stage's.

The Patria's in the Bailey motto share the Trump and Jump stag head, and the Hungarians were from a mythical stag. Jumps share the Belly roses, and king Andrew I of Hungary marries a Varangian RUS, explaining why the Ross clan descends from an Andrew. Patria's share the Pully / Jean/Jane scallop and are thus suspect from a Latin version of "Peter," and the line to Peter Pollock. "Patria" is in the motto also of Bott-like and pear-using Abotts, the latter first known in Oxfordshire with Pears and their Feet-connectable kin, the Tiens/Thames', explaining why Patria's list Peartree's. Tiens/Thames' share the martlets of Feets and Pavia's while Pierro's/Pero's/Petri's are first known in Pavia. ProFETTs, with a giant leg, are first known in Aberdeenshire with Patria's/Peartree's, and with the Hungarian Leslie's who married Pollocks to become earls of Rothes'.

Finally, to explain the giant stag head of Trumps, Donald Trump is said to descend from Drumpf's while the first Scottish Drummond was a grandson of king Andrew I of Hungary (Bela's brother). Andrew took the throne when king Peter died in 1046 (pre-dated Peter Pollock by a century). Thus, Pollocks become suspect from king Peter of Hungary.

Again, Pollocks share the brown boar with Baileys. Peter Pollock was the son of FULbert, suspect to Fullers who share red-and-white bars with the Arms of Hungary. Scottish Drummonds almost have the Fuller Coat. Fullers share the "beacon" with German Belli's.

I've never checked the Bailey motto after finding that Innis' list the One's about five years ago. The English-version Bailey motto has "One" twice, and the One's/Innis', with the Moray and Handels Coat in colors reversed, are the one's sharing the brown boar head in Crest with Baileys. The Handels are first known in Silesia with German Biens while "Bene" is a Bailey motto term in the Latin-version motto. German Biens use bees while "Be" is a One/Innis motto term, and One-like "ohne" is a Handel motto term.

From my second update in May, 2021:

One's/Innis' share the brown boar head of Baileys (tends to verify that Baileys and Baliols were a Belly / Belli / Below / Billet branch). Baileys and Baliols were first found in Northumberland with Lams/LAMBs and Lorraine's, and Mieszko II Lambert married Richeza of Lorraine. Bar-le-DUC is in Lorraine. The One variation evokes my trace of Mieszko's to the Una river of the Maezaei.

This is amazing because I trace mythical Coronis the CROW to the Ceraunii Illyrians (left-center of map) living on the Urbanus river smack beside the Una/Oeneus. Lamberts, in Crow colors and format, share the lamb with Scottish Lums/Lambs, and the latter are in the motto of STOVE's/Stevensons, first known in Northumberland with Lums/Lambs and Lorraine's. Unbelievably, English Lums/Limbs have the triple eagles of Irish Caseys in colors reversed! Scottish Caseys list Kash's.

Lorraine, my date in my 20's, was responsible, due to her blond hair, for my finding the Blonds with a foot on their sun. Blond's, now a pointer to Pam Bondi, are first known in Suffolk with CrowFOOTs.

Bar-le-DUC is in the quote above because Ducs/LeDucs, first known in Brittany with the Dol Alans to had Peter Pollock's father as a vassal, have an eight-pointed-star version of the Moray / Handel Coat. The latter are first known in Silesia, part of Poland. The Pollocks looked like Hungarians above, yet they named themselves after a Pollok location in Renfrewshire, suggesting merger with the Mieszko Poles. I trace "Pollock" to Vespasia POLLa, which can suggest that her line named Poland.

I trace Alans to "Aulon." at the lower-left of the map above, beside Apollonia at the Ceraunii mountains. In myth, Apollo mated with Coronis to birth Asclepius, whom we saw above in the "Aesculapius rods" of Crowfoot-connectable HuckaBEE's. It's thus a no brainer that the myth writer was encoding the Ceraunii Illyrians with "Coronis."

The "Fide" motto term of Huckabee's can be for the Fido variation of Foot-branch Fothes'/Fette's/Fitts. Hucks have double chevrons colors reversed from the two of Hucks (share blue chevrons with Huckabee's). Aside from the owls, an ancient symbol of Asclepius, Hucks share the Coat of Dexters, first known in Leicestershire with Cash-branch Cush's. "Ascalaphus" means "owl." Thus Huck and Hicks liners are suspect from Coronis-based Croatians.

Years before realizing that the Ceraunii likely named Croatians, I traced the mythical crow to "KRVati," what Croatians called themselves, like "Corvos," the Greek for "crow." Ceraunii live in what is now Croatia, and the neighboring Serbs, said to be from Sorbs of the Silesia theater, were traced, by me, to the Biblical "Gareb" near Jerusalem. I had ventured to predict that "Gareb" became the Greek crow. I can trace Cravens/Gravens with Ricks to Croatia's Rijeka/Rika, at the north side of Istria, and the latter's Pula/Pola location is where one can confidently trace the namers of Pollok in Renfrewshire. Pools share the giant lion of CREWs/Creuse's (Cheshire with Craven-related Actons).

Istria-like Isters are first known in Essex with Stove-branch Stevensons and HOCKeys. The crow on the stove BURNer. Burns share the Crab fleur-de-lys. Berns/Barns, sharing the bear with French Benjamins (Bongino branch?), are first known in Switzerland with Graffs/Gravs.

Cravers are listed with Gripps/Grape's/Crabbers/Grabbers (like "Gareb") while Hungarian Leslie's have a "Grip" motto term. Krebbes'/KREWs/KREVETs, first found near the Krabbs'/Grabbs (Hamburg with Hungarian Drummonds), have a CRAYfish-version of the Casimir Coat, and the latter are from Casimir of Poland without question, son of Mieszko Lambert. Krebbes'/Krews/Krevets are first known in Pomerania with grape-using Teeters/Deeters and Drummond-suspect Trumps. Crays have a reflection of the Craven Coat. Croatians are KRVATi.

I'll repeat from long ago that, when I was in a mall (I think it was in Guelph) waiting for the shop to install a PLOW on my JEEP, I was at the mall's lunch room speaking with a pack of Croatians (had the accent) sitting right beside by table. Plows share the Crab/Crail / Burn fleur-de-lys!!! And Jeepma's list Jappa's, suspect from the Japodes on the north side of Rijeka!!! Plus, I trace "Japode" to "Jabesh," where the 600 Benjamites in the Judges got their 400 wives! Can we believe it?

Japodes can be gleaned as the people group having named Jupiter, husband of Una-like Juno. The Japodes lived up the Sava river from where it meats the Una river. Ina was the wife of the chief Etruscan god (Rome is beside the Etruscans of Tuscany). The Japodes were at Lesce, the Leslie bloodline.

Recall how the CURVed Bongino fesse got the Craven-connectable Carvers to topic, for the latter come up as CARBers. The curbed Bongino fesse is suspect with Bows/Bough's, first known near Craven. The latter almost have the Coat of Balfours in turn first known in Fife with Crail! So, Crab/Crail liners were at Craven. Crabs/Crails are first known in Cambridgeshire with Cash's/Cass' (almost have Carver/Carber Coat), English Papps and Musks/Muscats; the latter are essentially in Craven colors and format. Crow-branch Crowells are also Crail-like Crawls. English Papps are in Cruel/Crial colors and format. Compare Carver Coat and Crest to both of Cash-branch Custs.

I've just found Huckells (Cheshire) from the Hockley variation of Hockeys who in turn share the fesse-with-crescents of Hazels. Huckells, with "OAK LEAVES," essentially have the HAZELton / Hazelwood Coat while Hazels, once said to be first known in Cheshire, are first known in Devon with HuckaBEE's, Hooks, Hykes'/Hacks, and OAKhamptons. Leave's (Norfolk with Hyke's/Hake's and Higgs) use BEES, and Bee's are first known in Oxfordshire with Crowells. Huckells share the chevron of Mole-loving Shake's who could have named Craver-connectable Shakespears.

I showed how Bongino's/Bongi's may have used a "bow" such that they could then have been somewhat related to Bow-related Roets from Rieti, home of Vespasia Polla, mother of three Roman emperors who destroyed and ruled Jerusalem. Was her ancestry from Gareb? Let's not forget in all of this that Andrew Bailey is now Bongino's special workmate.

Bongs list Bangs/BENGs while Banks are first know in Craven. Bongs/Bangs are first known in Kent with Valence's in the motto of Actons (share Crowford Coat!) and with the Axton location of Actons (Cheshire with Ricks and Handel-like Hands). Crowfords are first known in Lanarkshire with Kash's/Caseys! The Mieszko's were Piasts, and the Piast eagle (see google) is in colors reversed from the Casey eagle heads, and in the colors of the Lum/LIMB eagle heads and Lorraine eagles. Note that I was kicking the crow with my legs = my limbs and feet!

Lorraine had gotten a grass STAIN in the shape a long streak from her butt down into her LEG! I get it, for Stains (Middlesex with Bruns) essentially share the Crest of Stove's (Northumberland with Lorraine's)! It's a pointer to Lums/Limbs having eagle heads in the colors of the Lorraine eagles! I'm impressed. Her stain was seen by me on her BALCONy, and Balcons are first known in Crail while Crails are listed with Crabs!

Benjamites lived to the north side of mount Gareb. Crabs/Crails share the Hell Coat while Hellys/Haleys share the boar of Schims and Mole's (share Moray stars) while the Schim Chief is that of Crays suspect in the Krebbes/Krew/Krevet crayfish. Benjamins are first known in Norfolk with Crows. Hells are first known in Kent with Crowhursts.

Actons, with the Craven fesse in colors reversed, are in the "actione" motto term of Cravens. Ricks have the Craven Coat in colors reversed. The Bong/Bang quadrants are colors reversed with the Drive's/Drove's, the latter first known in Hampshire with the Rich's/Richess', from Richeza of Lorraine, wife of Mieszko Lambert. She thus appears named after Rijeka elements.

Actons, Varangian-line Rush's/Rish's (Surrey with Lamberts and Billiards/Hillards), Ricks, Riggs and Rosco's/Risco's all share the Crowford/Crawford fesse. Casimir, Mieszko Lambert's son, married royal Varangian Rus, of Kiev, where prince Andrew was in exile, brother of king Bela I. Billiards/Hillards share the Moray / Handel / Bailey stars, and Bullis' are also Bulliards (share Shirt/Shard roundels).

Some say that "Gareb" means "scorpion," and Apollo, in the 5th Trumpet of Revelation, is given a scorpion symbol. Apollo also had a mouse symbol, and the Mieszko Poles are said to descend from a mouse tower. Apollo was chief of the mythical Muses, nine of them, whom I trace to the nine mythical witches of AVALON. Aulon above, beside Apollonia, was also AVLONa. Baileys have NINE of the Moray / Handel stars.

Aulon is beside Bullis (shown on map above), also called, Byllis, which may have named Bela of Hungary. Billis' are listed with Moray's Bellys sharing the Duc/LeDuc star. Billis'/Bellys share the CARPenter motto, and Hungary is at the CARPathian mountains. Billis'/Bellys and Beils/Bails share the Crowfoot / Huckabee chevron, blue like the Billesdon chevron. Crowhurst-beloved Tilts named Tilton at Billesdon of Leicestershire, a supper way to trace Bullis elements to Ceraunii elements.

Billesdons are said to have been at BILTon (Yorkshire with Craven). Bills, who love Leicestershire's Woods, can be gleaned as Roet kin. Huckabee's are first known in Devon with Bello-branch BILLETs, and Bello's are first known in Cheshire with Craven-related Actons. Billets and Bello's share the Lum/Lamb (and Bus) cinquefoils, and then French Billets/Billiards, with almost the French Lambert Coat, have the Moray / Bailey / Billiard/Hillard stars with six points.

Compare Biltons to Beils/Bails, Copps, Cope's and Cups/Cope's/COLPs (same place as Leslie's), for Japodes were on the COLAPis/Kupa river near Lesce. Crowhursts share the vaired bend of Bless'/Blois, the latter first known in Leicestershire with Billesdon. English Blois', who love the Dragons (Kent with Crowhursts), are first known in Suffolk with Crowhurst-beloved Tigers. The tiger is on a TILting spear while Tile's/Tillys have a giant dragon. German Dragons are first known in Silesia with Belly-connectable Handels while Hands look related to Cops (Hampshire with dragon-using Drake's) and Cope's. Draguignan is in Provence with the first-known Beils/Bails. Dan Bongino is a federal COP.

Tillers, from the Tilurius river of ancient Croatia, are first known in Glamorganshire (anciently MORGANnwg) with Balas'/Bailiss' (Belly / Beil/Bail colors).

I'll even repeat that Mont Velino (like "Avlona") is up from Avezzano while Avezzano's are first known in Sardinia with Bondi's/Blondi's while Crowfoots are first known in Suffolk with Blonds and Blondville's. Blundville's are first known in Cheshire with Balas-like Balls. Sardinia is also the location of Sulcis, at Sant'Antioco, highly suspect from the royal Seleucids who ruled out of Antioch (old Syria). One Seleucid king, Alexander Balas, is suspect by me from Bullis/Byllis, near Avlona.

Billis'/Bellys share the Moor head with Bouillons, and Irish Moors share the giant lion of Morgans (colors reversed from Lorraine lion) while Morgan le Fay was made the chief with of Avalon. Godfrey de Bouillon and his fathers ruled Lower Lorraine.

Mieszko Lambert's half-brother, Bezprym, was the son of a Hungarian princess, Judith. Mieszko III married Elizabeth of Hungary, daughter of Bela II.

There is a possibility that the Israeli Parliament sits on mount Gareb.

Kash Patel Looks Like a Hypocrite

Christian Zionists, do you still support the Netanyahu government as one blessed of God:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0raF8aS6lA

Netanyahu was the Israeli prime minister when both Jeffrey Epstein and Jean-Luc Brunel were given special treatment in prison. Could we imagine what a sting this would be if the guilty Israeli, part of Netanyahu's government, caught seeking a teen in or near Las Vegas, was seeing Kash Patel at the time, since the latter has a home in Las Vegas. Why did the FBI allow the guilty Israeli to go to Israel?

I suppose that Kash will say that local / state police allowed him to fly back home to Israel before the FBI could have a choice. But that doesn't fly because the sting operation included the FBI and Homeland Security. Suddenly, the so-called good guys in Trump's administration are looking like Sewer Rats For Israel, and Trump himself may have made the decision to protect the guilty man, part of cyber security for Israel, what I think can be construed as a spy agency. Trump's State Department is calling him an "Israeli citizen" online, trying to hide his government job, apparently. Mike Huckabee is Trump's ambassador to Israel.

Wikipedia's already got an article on the arrested Israeli man because the Trump administration, by not even bothering to explain this brutal miscarriage of justice, is turning the event into a political weapon against Republicans.

The Wikipedia article claims: "On August 19, 2025, Clark County District Attorney Steve Wolfson described the arrest and bail as 'standard'." WHAT??? He's seeking a 15-year old girl at age 38, and all he's given is a $10,000 bail ticket to fly out of the country??? That is not standard unless the county is demonic.

Epstein was a spy for Israel, as was Ghislaine Maxwell's father. English Maxwells share the black eagle with Russian Alexanders/Aleksandrovich's, and the guilty party is, Tom Artiom Alexandrovich. Maxwells share a giant and two-headed eagle (different color) with French Alex's/Alexandre's/Allesands. While I had only my jeans on, no shirt, "shirt"-using Tous'/Tosini's share the eight-pointed stars of Polish Alex's/Alexandrowicz's. The latter share the wavy fesse of Dols and German Drummonds (near Mecklenburg), and while Trump is said to be from "Drumpf," Dols, in Trump colors, are first known in Mecklenburg with Trumps.

Maxwells love Hollys (Norfolk with Crows and Case's) who in turn share the white dog of Scottish ALLISONs, the latter first known in Lanarkshire with Crow-loving Kash's/Caseys, and with the Roys in the Alex/Alexandre/ALLESANd motto, thus tending to reveal that French Alexanders were an Allison branch. Alex's/Allesands have an eagle in the colors of the eagle heads of Irish Caseys. Italian Casa's list Casino's, an apt pointer to Las Vegas, and they look related to the Coat of Rivers suspect in the Maxwell motto.

French Caseys are first known in Ile-de-France with Deer-loving TRUDeau's while the Truth variation of Trude's/Trots are in the motto of Scottish Allisons. Deerings are said to descend from Morinis', the latter first known in Modena with Casino-branch Cassano's/Cassandra's. English Cassandra's/Cassane's (Hampshire with Chase's) share the triple Epstein chevrons.

However, as I don't expect Kash Patel to do anything about Alexandrovich, we can ask whether this heraldry is God's pointer to a sex-trade cover-up by Kash Patel on Trump's behalf, coming after Patel lied to the people about Epstein's death.

I've recently re-told the story of Mr. Casey listing my house in Texas on the day I TOOTed my horn at him when driving past him at the GATE of Miss Hicks. I told that Touts/TOOTs are in the Hicks motto, but "Tout" is a motto term also of English Belows (Yorkshire with Hicks, Touts/Toots and English Maxwells) while German Belows share a two-headed black eagle with Maxwells. Tuits/Tute's and Twitts/Thwaits are both first known in Norfolk, and Twitts/Thwaits share the fretty of English Belows. German Belows are first known in Pomerania with Trumps, and these Belows almost have the giant eagle of Dutch Tromps. English Belows have a "chalice" while Chalice's/Challes' look like a branch of trumpet-using Calles'. We got here from my tooting a horn at Mr. Casey and Miss Hicks (she was walking to the gate at the time.)

Bello's/Bellows have the cinquefoils, in colors reversed, of Rosco's/Risco's (Cornwall with Brunel-connectable Jeans/Jane's) suspect with Resco's that could be in the "RiveRESCO" motto term of Maxwells. Wasn't Obama a buddy of a Tony Resco? Didn't they buy homes next to each other during Obama's presidency? Bello's/Bellows share the Coat of English Billets, first known in Devon with Gates'.

This recalls that the Sleeping Beauty dream on Epstein's island is now pointing to Jean-Luc Brunel even while the latter surname can point to the burner-bag affair from Kash Patel. I'll remind that the Charity's in the English-version motto of BURNells/Brunels (share Jean/Jane lion) share the triple eagle heads of Irish Caseys. What I missed until now is as per the lion "paw" in the Burnell/Brunel Crest, for German Paws/Pauers come up as "Pair" while Cash's/Cass' have a "pair of scales", which, in this case can be assumed to be scales of justice.

Paws/Pauers are in the colors and format of CHARlie's, first known in Lancashire with Cars. Ignoring the Charlie "bottle's, they have the Arms of Carrick, which Cars almost have. I was walking to Beauty's car without my jeans on. Danish Bauers/Pauers have the Carrot/Carew and Quarre/Carre lion in colors reversed. Carols share that lion upright, as do Quarters (Ayrshire with Carricks), and English Charles' have an eagle in colors reversed from the Casey / Charity eagle. The Charles eagle is also the one of Childs, the latter first known in Hertfordshire with Cash-beloved Scale's.

For what it's worth, Charles-like Carlsons are first known in Suffolk with Charles', Babe's and Chickens, and have the Child Coat in green. Carlsons (share Chicken chevron) are in the colors and format of Huckells and Hazeltons while Hazels share the crescents of Huckell-like Hockleys (Essex with Chicks and Isters/ESTERs) while Hooks and Hazels are first known in Devon with Pauer-like Powers, Poors, and ChichESTERs. Hockleys and Hazels share the crescents of Kicks, and the latter are in the format, and in two of three colors, of Children. Chickens have the COCKatrice's while Cocks share the Bag Shield. Will Kash Patel reveal FBI-protected pedophiles from the burn-bag discoveries? Or is Kash part of the problem?

Did Dan Bongino show some disgust toward Patel for letting Alexandrovich free, and is that why Bondi announced that Bongino was getting a co-deputy i.e. as part of phasing Bongino out? Elon Musk's X is censoring talk against Alexandrovich at the request of the Israeli government. See "Shaune King" for that story. Musk has the power to reverse the deleting of hundreds of King's "tweets." Pro-Trump media are rather on the silent side on this story, what a shameful dereliction of duty. As of Friday, there's no word from Bondi or Patel.

Kash appeared on Fox Business Wednesday for at least 14 minutes, but he was not asked about the Las-Vegas sting, likely because Fox is a sly poodle of the Israelis.

President Macron of France, who married a male pedophile when he, Macron, was a teen, was the president when Jean-Luc Brunel supposedly killed himself in prison. Although Macrons may be listed wrongly with Scottish Crone's/MacCrons, the latter happen to come up as "CROWen." English Crone's share the fleur-de-lys of MACRon-like Macers/Masseys, from the Maezaei Illyrians, beside the Ceraunii. Macrons/Crone's share the LOZENGy of Beetle's, first known in Berkshire, where Croms/Crums (Crone/Croom and Crow colors and format) were once said to be first known. I trace lozenges to Croatia's Losinj, near the Cetina (Tilurius) river of cat-using Cetins/Cattans (Norfolk with Crows). There's a black cat in the Crom Crest, and the source of the Cetina was in the land of Ceraunii. Black cats are with Keats, first known in Norfolk. English Crone's/Crooms are first known in Yorkshire with the Caddy's in turn having a Chief in the colors and format of the Keath Catti. The Massey-branch Meschins married Skiptons of Craven.

The island of ISSA is roughly off the coast from the mouth of the Cetina, and Macrons/Crone's have a fish "ISSuing."

Beetle's, first known in Berkshire with Beeters, are said to have named Beetley in DEREham while Bedwells, sharing the Beetle Coat, are first known in Bedfordshire with Dere's/Deers. Thus, Dere's probably named Dereham(s). Beeters share th Stagg/Stage chevron while beetle-using German Stocks can take us to the Stoge variation of English Stocks. Stogeys/Starkeys (stork) are first known in Cheshire with Stocktons. Stork-using Store's/Sturys have a six-sectioned Shield colors reversed from the same of Dere's/Dears. Tate's, suspect in the Stogey/Starkey motto, have a six-sectioned Shield.

Asters/Isters/Sturs are first known in Essex with English Stevensons. The Starkey variation looks like it's in honor of crane-using Sharks because the latter share the Stogey/Starkey motto. The Sleeping Beauty dream opened with a shark, but I'm not sure whether I should apply it to the new-to-me-now Stogeys/Starkeys. Shark-like Saraca's were at Croatia's Ragusa. The Asters suspect in the "astra" motto term of Fiscs help to trace to Istria because Fiscs share the checks in the Arms of Croatia. The FISC, which is the FISA court, is suspect as part of the deep-state shark that half-swallowed Trump in the Beauty dream.

The Saracen surname is first known in Cumberland with Burns and Bruns/Browns, and English Stevensons can link to the burn bags at the stove-burner-with-crow because they are in the colors and format of BARNstaple's, first known in Devon with Staggs/Stage's and Cornish's. This section was birthed on the possibility that president Macron is in cahoots with Jean-Luc BRUNel.

The giant stork of Stogeys/Starkeys is in the colors of the giant crane of English Crane's, and of the giant dragon of Tile's/Tillys (Dorset with Caens) who could have named the Tiletone's expected in the motto of Crowhursts (Suffolk with Crauns/Crane's). Tile's/Tillys are said to be from near Caen, same as a Stock location of the Stogeys/Stocks. The latter are first known in Wales with Tail-branch Tillers from Croatia's Tilurius/Cetina river. It can explain why the Stoge/Stock lion has two tails, as does the Montfort lion (suspect with crown-using Stake's/Stacks). Montfort is near Raines-like Rennes (Brittany with French Sarasins), and Raines' (Essex with Sarah's/Sayers) share the Stoge/Sock lion.

Storks/Sturys (same place as Stove's/Stevensons), expected from Croatia's Istria, can start to reveal the Crane-line Ceraunii at the Una river (Croatia) because I trace a family at the Una to One's/Innis' suspect in the "INSon" motto term of Stoge's/Stocks. The Tate's suspect in the motto of Stogeys/Starkeys (Cheshire with Masseys from the Una-river Maezaei) have a "Cornish chough" species of crow, and are first known in Suffolk with Ceraunii-like Crauns/Crane's. Add this to the Beetle's and Bedwells sharing the Crone/CROWen lozengy.

As One's/Innis' were Moray kin while Rothes of PETER Pollock is in Moray, the Peter Stokes in the Stogey/Stock motto looks related because the Stogey/Stock lion is the one of Rothes too. Staggs/Stage's share the chevron of Moray's Bellys.

This Arms of Saraca looks related to the Burness fesse-with-water-bouget. I can't recall whether I mentioned that Bruns are first known in Middlesex with Stove-branch Stains and Burn- / Burness-beloved Horns/Orne's. The latter's Heron branch is first known in Northumberland with Stove's. The latter share the Chief of Moray's Douglas', and Moray was the capital of king MacBETH, the line to Beetons/Beths. MacBeth was killed by Malcolm III, suspect with the Malcolms/COLUMNs in the Stockton "column."

God may have arranged the "haBET" motto term of Burnels/Brunels as a pointer to Macron. The Beetle-like Betts share a brown Crest with Browns/Bruns (same place as Burns). And then there's CorBETTs, with a raven species of crow, first known in Shropshire with Burnels/Burnells.

Betts, BAGs and Crows are first known in Norfolk with Hawk-beloved and Bag-related PilGRIMs, and Habs, expected in "habet," use "hawks" and share a white tiger with Crowhursts. Bags share the lozengy Shield of GRIMaldi's, and it's almost the lozengy Shield of Macrons/Crowens. Beetle-like Bettle's are in Monk colors and near format. Crows are in the colors and format of Monks, from "Monaco," home of "royal" Grimaldi's. The latter are said to have used a monk as symbol, with a sword under his "frock," and Frocks are listed with Froggs, first known in Shropshire with Moses'/MOYs while Monks come up as "Moyne."

The three frogs of Revelation which give support to the anti-Christ at Armageddon may be God's code for France at the leading charge of the defence of the anti-Christ. France values Syria, and Israel is being a pest in Syria as we speak. Monaco is in France. Something happened in France to allow the Monaco Grimaldi's to hold a princely title, and they chose a purple throne suspect with the Purple's/PurPULs (Norfolk). Pullys share the Jean/Jane scallops. Pulls/Pools share the giant Crew lion, and the Crew Crest looks very related to the Brunel/Burnell Crest.

The Grimaldi and Crone/Crowen lozengy came to be called, "fusils / fussily," code for "lozenge"-using Fusils/Fusie's who almost share the Beeton/Beth Coat (same lozenges). The same lozenges are with Launays who share the leopard with Betts (Norfolk again), though the Bett leopard is brown. Norfolk is where Leave's/Leve's are first known whose bees can explain the MacBee variation of Beetons/Beths.

I suspect that the French were called "frogs" from their descent from Phrygians, also called Brigians/Briges. Macron's male wife opted to name himself, Brigitte. Candace Owens has videos showing that he's a male without doubt. The Macrons are now in the act of suing Candace for the accusation that he's a male, but Candace isn't backing off.

According to Candace Owens, the Israeli caught in Las Vegas seeking to abuse a teen was reportedly interviewed by the NSA (U.S. spy agency) prior to flying back to Israel. Ms. Owens also claims that Trump's acting attorney general for Nevada, a woman born in Israel, "released" the criminal. There's many disgusting, rich Jews in Las Vegas and Hollywood, where Jews get their worst reputations. When the Trump administration puts politics with Netanyahu before protecting American children, all the excitement from Trump, Bondi and Patel, about keeping America safe, suddenly goes jaded.

General Relativity Lunatics

There's a slew of videos online claiming that gravity is not a force. The proponents of this idea are as bad as flat-earthers for willful blindness to the obvious, people who become easily deceived who should know better, or people willing to become deceitful for a cause. That cause may just be to guard against the truth, that gravity is a negative charge of the electromagnetic kind. The lunatics in the establishment may be seeing that Newtonian gravity is at its end, but rather than go to electromagnetic gravity, they want to resurrect Einstein's gravity theory, where he envisions a time-space warping, where he was in denial of common sense.

We can't grab gravity, yet it exists as an invisible force. Time does not exist, but gravity does. Time is just a way to express that Event A happens before Event B, but there is no time substance in either event, whereas the force of gravity actually exists.

In the video below, the goof tries to convince us that a man floating in gravity-less space is identical to a man falling to earth gravity just because the man FEELs the same in both scenarios. Only a moron speaks this way in an effort to eradicate gravity force altogether:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRr1kaXKBsU

The video owner than leaps instantly into curved space-time as if there's nothing too unusual about it, as if only super-intelligent people can grasp what he's talking about when in fact it's nonsense. As you can see, the speaker has the man in space curving toward a gravity source, because of the gravity source, but then denies the gravity force in favor of curved space. In other wards, he's turning the curved path of the man into curved space-time, which is why he has the man curving in outer space rather than falling straight down. Hahaha, a dope. The man in rocket is curving toward the gravity source only because the rocket was not initially travelling straight toward it, and just because he doesn't feel the curvature of the path doesn't mean he's going straight to the gravity source. The curved path has nothing to do with curved space.

He then has two people walking "straight" toward earth's north pole while curving around the earth sphere, and he's trying to trick the viewer into thinking that this has something to do with curved space verses a straight line in space, but of course it does not. A straight path in space is not curved, and a curved path in space is not straight; that's how a normal person thinks. A path in space has nothing to do with time. The path of an object in space is not affected by time. The path of an object in space is not curved by time, but by gravity force.

In reality, the two people walking toward the north pole are walking at an angle to each other such that they meet at the same place, same as two lines not parallel that eventually meet. The people are not walking parallel to each other. So what? What's that got to do with gravity or a curved path in space? NOTHING on both counts. How do two people walking on angles from each other prove that space-time exists or that it's curved? It's a trick of a stupid person seeking to breed stupid people, to recruit stupid people into the Relativity cult.

The video owner says, without looking embarrassed or ashamed, that: "it just so happens that space-time is curved around massive objects [planets]." HAHAHA, just because planetary gravity curves the path of a space rock coming toward it doesn't mean that space is somehow curved. The video owner then acts like he's light-years ahead of us in intelligence.

For another illustration, he has a man falling to the floor of the rocket as the rocket accelerates. The goofball than says that "this situation FEELS [what's feelings got to do with anything?] exactly the same as being at rest on the surface of Earth," by which he means to say that we are not at rest on the ground due to gravity. HAHAHA, this goof, clearly the underdog having no chance of winning, is now insinuating that we stand on the ground because the earth is moving in the direction that our heads are pointing when we are standing on the ground.

No kidding, this video speaker actually says that you standing on the ground is exactly the same -- it doesn't only feel the same -- as you standing on the rocket floor in a gravity-less situation. His video is a comedy show, and he's the stupid clown not realizing that he's stupid. He's literally implying that someone in China is standing on the ground because the earth is moving through space eastward, and that someone stands on the ground in the USA because earth moves away through space westward.

The goof is intent of making his viewers believe that the ground exerts an upward force on our feet just because our feet are planted on the ground. That is false. The only way for earth to exert a force on our feet is for the earth to be moving in a direction toward our bodies. But the earth cannot be moving in space in every direction simultaneously, which would be required by the theory because everyone on earth can stand on it no matter where on earth they are.

In the 11th minute of the video, it shows a math trick in an attempt to explain why all objects fall to gravity at the same accelerating speed. However, a proper explanation is not given because there cannot be one, aside from the fact that all atoms weigh the same. I explained the reason concisely in the last update:

I've proven that gravity arranges all atoms to weigh the same. It's not even up to debate because all materials of all weights/densities fall to gravity at the same speed of acceleration, because gravity pulls atoms individually, duh. It doesn't matter how many atoms are in any object, all objects fall to gravity with the same pull of attraction because gravity pulls all atoms with the same pull force of attraction, which is the definition of weight. ALL ATOMS WEIGH THE SAME.

Gravity arranges all atoms to weigh the same by forbidding all atoms to load with captured electrons held to the proton by the force of gravity or lower. That is, there cannot be electrons at the outer edge of any atom that are held tight to the protonic core with less than the force of gravity coming against that atom. That's because gravity is strong enough, in negative force, to repel those electrons off of the atom. Therefore, every atom, at it's outer edge, has captured electrons held to the proton by exactly the force of earth gravity upon that atom, in which case every atom has the same level of net-positive force, and as gravity attracts that net-positive force, all atoms end up weighing the same (if they are at the same distance from the gravity source).

The math in the video's 11th minute is false math because it's based on Newtonian gravity, where gravity is defined proportional to atomic mass. That's false. Gravity is the negative force of free electrons in the earth's molten core.

In the 13th minute, the stupid goof (have no mercy) tries to convince the viewer that a beam of light in a rocket bends just because the rocket is moving. To help deceive the viewer, the light beam is shown curved, yet the reality is that the light beam does not curve at all. The goof tricks you into thinking that, just because the beam hits the rocket's wall at a spot not expected due to the motion of the rocket, that the beam has been curved. He's either not smart enough to realize his error, or he and his cult members are being deliberately deceptive.

The beam hits the rocket "a little lower," as he says, not because the beam curves, but because the rocket is moving, duh. Besides, as light is a wave through the electron aether in the rocket, the beam will not strike the rocket wall "a little lower" at all, because the aether, in this case the free electrons trapped in the space/air of the rocket), is moving with the rocket. Light is not a photon bullet, as the goof believes it is, as Einstein believed it is. Where the aether moves with the rocket, the light wave passing through it will remain on a straight line in spite of the rocket's motion.

Where the video claims that the sun can bend starlight passing close to it by a space-time warp, the goofs fool themselves as if they had never heard of light refraction. Some say that stellar gravity bends the starlight, as if they had never heard of light refraction as it passes through a material. Light passing near a stellar surface passes though the stellar atmosphere. Last I heard, an atmosphere is made of matter.

Asking google, its AI says: "Yes, the Earth's atmosphere can refract, or bend, light..." Science-cult deceivers wish to turn us all into lunatics.

Asking google, "does a free-falling object emit radiation," it gives the answer, not according to experimental fact, but according to the general theory of relativity. This is not science, but dreamland. AI says: "No, a charged particle in free fall does not emit electromagnetic radiation because, due to the Equivalence Principle, it is equivalent to being in empty space, where acceleration does not radiate [that's spastic]. For a charge to radiate, it needs to experience proper acceleration, which gravity does not provide; instead, gravity accelerates the particle and its associated field lines in the same way." That is the speech of a lunatic seeking to confuse and trick you.

It goes on to say: "In general relativity, free fall is indistinguishable from being in empty space. If a charge is in free fall, it doesn't experience proper acceleration, which is the type of acceleration that causes radiation." What kind of a demonic / backward lunatic teaches that an object falling to gravity does not accelerate? Free fall to gravity is not the same as floating in empty space just because it feels the same to the senses of a person. The response above tells that radiation does emit from a falling object, and I know why. Ask the comet and its tail about it.

When atoms fall toward gravity, the gravity force increases constantly, for which reason gravity can repel the atom's outer electrons continually more as it falls. The emission of electrons from atoms is the fundamental definition of the cause of the light wave. Therefore, as objects fall, such as a comet falling toward the sun, electrons emitted from the atoms cause heat and light. The tail points away from the sun because solar gravity repels the freed electrons away from the sun. Any bits of rock eroded from the comet's surface, when free electrons in the interior make it to the surface and fly out, are pushed by the flow of electrons, away from the sun.

The Electron is the True Photon

The goof in the video above is so useless as a physics teacher that, when he was taught that electricity travels at the speed of light in a wire to a light bulb, or to an electric motor, he believed it without thinking things through himself. He should have resisted that impossibly idea. It even sounds impossible. How could any material fly through the atoms of a solid wire, even three feet long, at such an impossible speed? Does he not realize how many back-to-back atoms are bonded in just three feet of wire such that they become a block wall to any photons or electrons trying to fly through. Does he have a crazy imagination that envisions these particles getting through somehow? That's called a science lunatic who doesn't know how to properly handle physics and matter. Only an establishment's idiot (I'm being frank) succumbs to that teaching.

Surely, there is another explanation for how a light bulb, or a motor, turns on the instant one flips the electrical switch. Do water molecules fly through a water hose at the speed of light just because water starts coming out the hose nozzle the instant the tap is turned on? Yes, if the hose is filled with water before the tap is turned on, water starts to squirt out the hose end as soon as the tap is turned on. Ditto for the captured electrons on the atoms of a metal wire. They are already in the bulb, and in the motor, before the electrical switch is flipped on. The electrons literally flow atom-to-atom. They do not fly through the wire at the speed of light. Flip the switch, and electrons start to flow across the light bulb and motor almost INSTANTLY. It happens so fast that lunatics might get the impression that electrons are flying at the speed of light. But sane people realize that's impossible. Unfortunately, anti-Christ lunatics and deceivers gained insidious control of governments and educational systems.

If a goofball envisions photons flying through an electrical wire, where do they come from? They're not flying in the wire extending from the electrical plant to the switch, when the light switch is turned off. And so how can we expect them to fly when we connect the that wire to the bulb? They tell us that photons are always flying at the speed of light without slowing down at all, breaking the laws of physics, and when they have no choice but to assume that photons are parked on atoms of metal wires, they solve the speed problem by saying that photons orbit protons at roughly the speed of light while piggy-backing on electrons. Do you believe this garbage?

Nobody but a lunatic believes that electrons orbit atomic cores at nearly the speed of light. They would fly out of orbit at even 100 mph hour, if ever they could get into orbit in the first place. But this is the establishment's atom because they opted, or needed, to go with the photon instead of the light wave through an aether. Thus, to keep the photon's speed while not moving atom-to-atom, they needed to make it orbit the atom. But they didn't tell students, victims, how utterly devoid of possibility that picture is. Instead, they dazzled the students, and expected them to just believe. Some of the students grow up to be like the stupid-fied man in the video above who thinks he's above the crowd by becoming more familiar than average with the establishment's craft.

I like to use the old-style bulbs with filaments because it's known that filaments spray electrons when the light switch is turned on, proof that electrons are flowing atom-to-atom in the wire. There's no photons coming from the filament with switch turned off, but, suddenly the goof thinks that photons fly out of the filament when the switch is turned on. Where do they come form, goofers? From upon the electrons??? Do electrons have baseball gloves or big mouths to catch photons? How in tarnation do electrons keep photons for days, weeks, even years while a light switch is turned off? From where do the electrons in the filament get the photons in the first place, that they spray out when the switch is turned on? The electrical wire is covered with a material so that no light can get to its atoms.

WHERE DO THE PHOTONS COME FROM that the filament supposedly sprays out? That's the question I've posed to google. The response: "Photons from an incandescent light bulb's filament come from electrons in the heated tungsten atoms of the filament. The electric current heats the filament to a high temperature, causing electrons in the tungsten atoms to absorb energy and jump to higher energy levels. When these excited electrons fall back to their normal, lower energy levels, they release the extra energy as photons, which are the particles of light we see." It fails to tell us that electrons emit from the filament lest we get the impression that light is formed by the emission of electrons.

The response shows the goofs assuming that photons are on the electrons to begin with, which is impossible. I asked a question worded differently to get some clarification: "In a typical light bulb, the electrons are not directly hit by photons to create light; instead, the flow of electrons through the filament causes it to heat up, and this heat excites the filament's own electrons. When these excited electrons fall back to a lower energy state, they release their excess energy as photons. Thus, photons are emitted by the excited filament atoms, not 'getting onto' the electrons."

It admits that no photons load onto the electrons prior to photons emitting from the electrons. I therefore asked: "How do photons get onto the electrons of a light-bulb filament? Don't tell me how they emit, just tell me how photons get onto the electrons."

The response: "Photons aren't 'getting onto' the electrons; instead, photons are emitted by the electrons when they are energized by the electrical current flowing through the filament. The process begins when heat causes electrons in the filament to jump to a higher energy state. When these energized electrons fall back to a lower, more stable energy state, they release their excess energy as a packet of light – a photon."

By now you realize that the establishment is forced to view the photon, not as a solid particle, but as a flying ghost, nothing more than some fantasy motion-energy formed by a magical process somehow as an electron drops to a lower orbit. We might say, to indicate that the photon is a piece of the electron somehow, that the skin of the electron flies off as a photon. Yet we can't say that "skin" implies material. The photon is less than skin, you see, a true ghost. It therefore cannot be called a particle.

Normally, the motion energy of an item transfers to something else UPON CONTACT, but in the case of the stupids, the photon energy goes upward and out while the electron goes downward and in, and moreover the electron doesn't strike anything when transferring the photon to something else. Do you see any problem here that resembles a retard who willfully breaks the laws of physics, and calls it a fact?

Question: why didn't the retards at least invent a photon sent out when the electron goes upward into a higher orbit? For one thing, it needs to lose motion energy when sending out part of its motion energy, and so the goofs figure they have no choice but claim that it goes downward to a "lower energy state" upon losing a photon. See any problem with this? I do, and so would anyone in the business of flying satellites.

A lower orbit needs a faster satellite to keep the perfect orbit, yet if the electron sends out a fraction of its motion-energy, it's got to become slower as a result. In the final analysis, the picture of an electron sending out a phantom particle fails logic and violates law. But it's all that the desperadoes have when intent on rejecting true waves.

The great news is: the simple light bulb destroyed the photon particle. The light bulb forced the goons to see the photon as a non-particle ghost. The photon became, not a foreign invader upon the electron, but a piece of the electron itself, not a piece of its physical material, but of its, ah, er, I dunno. I can't imagine it, because it's insane. Just try to imagine something flying out from the electron as it collides with nothing. If you see anything, you're nuts. If you're proud of the photon, you've mistaken pure imagination for good science.

We are taught that the electron never needs to load photons because the heat in the filament is the father that gives birth to them. The electron is the mother, and the photon pops out of the womb. As the goofs view heat as nothing but motion, the photon is born from nothing but motion. If you can envision a motion-thingie, you're nuts. If you can envision pure motion flying across the room, you're nuts. The lunatics have invented the impersonation of motion. They give it a body with their artistic pencils, make it look wavy, add some color, and the people swear by it as bowing down to a quantum god. It's not the electron that's unstable.

Another reason that the goofs get into troubled waters by having a photon released with a downward step in the orbital path is because momma electron also catches photons before releasing them. As the photon comes in to momma with energy, they decided that they need to make her go upward a notch in her orbit. And so now you know why they have her go down a notch when she releases a photon, because they only have two choices to pick from in an orbiting electron, up or down.

Is the photon foreign to the electron or not? If it catches photons, then that looks like its foreign to the electron. Solar photons come against a rock, and the rock's electrons catch them only when they physically strikes electrons. Ya-but, if they are not material things, neither can they PHYSICALLY strike electrons. So, the goofs like to have it both ways, with a photon able to give an electron energy when striking it, and then they have the electron throwing a photon away without any collision taking place. It's like the electron just tosses the photon away like a ball, yet it's not a ball. It's nothingness-energy that becomes like a ball when it strikes something, thus transferring its motion-energy to it.

It's easy to see how they define or describe heat from light. A photon strikes an electron, and the physical energy of this non-physical "particle" thus causes the atom to vibrate a little harder. That's right. This is what they teach, because they define a hotter material with atoms vibrating a little harder. So, the photon's physical energy comes into the electron, gives it a jolt upon collision, and the jolt is them transferred to the protonic core because it's supposedly attached to the orbiting electron somehow, by electromagnetic attraction. Does this really work to explain how sunlight makes everything warmer?

If a comet struck the moon with a huge jolt, would that jolt transfer to earth just because the two bodies attract each other? NO. The jolt would transfer only if the earth and moon repelled each other. You can't jolt a magnet with a second magnet if you move one closer to the other when they attract each other. SORRY. You can pull a magnet with magnetic attraction, but a pull is not a jolt. If an electron jumps to a higher orbit such that it pulls the protonic core slightly toward itself, how does that increase the core's vibrational speed? It could just as well slow that speed down. The physics is not working for the orbit model of the atom, and this is on top of the certain fact that the electron orbit is itself impossible.

Google AI is a piece of trash on this matter because it's programmed by piece-of-trash physicists. When we ask how the electron in a bulb's filament gets to the higher orbit to begin with, the response is that heat in the filament knocks the electron to a higher orbit. Ya-but, if the heat knocks the electrons to a higher orbit, how can they go to a lower orbit while the heat is still on? Magic. Just believe.

In this case, the electrons are not catching photons from in-coming light waves. Instead, there's a flow of electrons coming through a bulb's filament, which the goofs regard as heat. The flow causes heat, yes, but the flow is not heat alone. It's also a flow. Like a flood. These electricity-driven electrons have super-high collision energy as compared to a photon strike. They are screaming mad, you don't want to get into their way. They flow so fast and hard that they send captured electrons clear out of the filament, yet the STUPID GOOFS want you to think that electrons only go up a wee-notch in their orbits. They want you to believe this because the electrons are needed for going back downward in orbit in a desperate attempt to explain why the filament sends out light. So long as they follow errors, they naturally bump into problems needing fixes, but instead of admitting the problems, they go silent about them, and of course that doesn't fix anything.

google AI, programmed to fetch establishment data: "In a light-bulb filament, the continuous supply of energy [heat] from the electric current excites electrons, causing them to jump to higher orbits [like when women see a fast mouse, they jump on a chair frantic]. These electrons are unstable in their excited state and quickly fall back to their lower, more stable orbits. As they fall, they release the excess energy as photons of light." But of course, in a cartoon, anything is possible. Just make believe that the mother of the photon falls nicey-nicey back to a lower, quieter orbit even though electric power is on, making electrons blow by her like in the chaos of a tornado on a rickety barn.

? The imposters just go silent on telling the world that the situation in a filament is like a wind tunnel. The imposters bank on the people not thinking things through, on just believing what they are told by the super-intelligent "experts" whom they cannot compete with.

When their higher-orbit error forced them to conclude that the electron goes to a lower orbit to release light, things became backward. In reality, as logic dictates, light is formed when an electron jolts UP AND AWAY from the atomic core, into the aether, but because of their kinetic theory of heat, the goofs were forced to have the electron go toward the core when releasing light. How can that even happen? The people are supposed to imagine that she can no longer hold onto her purse at this upper orbit, and so it slips out of her hand, and flies off at 186,000 miles per hour IN THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION of her simultaneous drop to the lower orbit. How does that drop even happen while free electrons are a wind through her hair, and striking both on her face and on the back of her head, depending where in orbit she is at the time? Shouldn't these strikes make her unstable, demanding a separation and flying the coop?

Besides, if she loses her purse, she's become lighter and should therefore go up in orbit, not lower. But the imposters fool you by saying she's lost energy and thus goes to a LOWER energy state, and they trick you into believing that it's also a LOWER orbit she end up at. They say, no, she doesn't get lighter when letting go of her photon, because the photon weighs nothing. Yet, on the other hand, they say the photon carries motion energy enough to get her to a higher orbit if it strikes her. In that case, a strike by just one free electron should send her to Timbuktu. Verily, verily, the goof is a goof beyond help.

How can a downward electron emit an upward force? They will say that it doesn't emit the upward force while going down, but emits the force and only afterward, as a result of losing the force, will it go down. It doesn't strike anything in order to lose the force; it just can't hang onto the purse anymore at this higher orbit. So long as it's in a slightly lower orbit, the purse is safely hanging off of her shoulder, but once the protonic core gets smacked around by a gang of heat passing by in the form of free electrons, she gets a little wobbly-unstable, a little off-balance, and the purse strap slips off her shoulder even though there's no robber yanking it off. Nobody can explain what this purse is, aside from a ghostly thing not in tune with the rest of Creation, but the quantum quacks swear by it, kneel to it.

These stupids admit that electrons get excited either when struck by light or heat, but haven't the integrity to admit that the electrons are causing the light, no photons needed. Why won't they so much as propose it as a possibility? Why hasn't it been up for debate, to let the people decide which theory they prefer to believe? Why are they being authoritarian?

As the goons wanted the photon particle rather than the aether, their electron sends out light as a piece of its motion-energy, having no mass, just a flying, ghostly, wave-like creature that mimics a wave through an aether. A true wave travelling though a wave medium is exactly, and purely, massless motion-energy, nothing insane about this view. A wave through water is nothing but pure motion-energy without mass, but it needs the water to travel through. It can't travel across nothingness because pure motion-energy has no body. It's not a material. The light bulb killed the photon particle. The light bulb denies that light has a material body. The bulb demands a wave, but the nutbars invented a new kind of wave nodody has ever known before. Are you going to buy that? You can deny it as simply as acknowledging that the sun's electrons fill the earth's atmosphere, thus proving an aether everywhere.

If you are sane, you should view the birth of light from the motion-energy of atom-captured electrons transferring through the wave medium of free electrons that fill both the cosmos and the earth's atmosphere. The medium allows the energy to cut across itself. That's why the photon was originally a particle, because a particle can fly through empty space.

The particle theory of light failed even with zealous and deceptive cartoonists. Not even activist fantasizers could keep it looking sane. They now call it a wave even though it's not a true wave. Shouldn't they call it something else? They call it a massless particle that is also a wave only because the particle concept failed. During the long period in which the wave-particle duality seemed insane, and even after solar-wind electrons were discovered, the goons were not good enough to admit that light needs the aether, but instead pushed the "duality" as a fun toy to marvel over. This bull-nosed performance will be their shameful legacy.

I asked: "how can an electron throw a photon outward when the electron falls downward to a lower orbit?" The response is futile, and moreover reveals one of the fixes needed in attempts to save the orbital theory. The response:

"The photon is 'thrown outward' as a result of the electron's rapid movement and the fundamental electromagnetic interaction between the electron and the photon field."

It sounds like they're inventing repulsion force between the wave starter and the wave to help explain why the purse flies off. Yet, they don't claim that an electron repels a photon, and so what are they talking about with "electromagnetic interaction" or "photon field." When it trouble, they appeal to a "field" because people are easily confused by it. The people throw up their hands in confusion and go, "whatever".

In the establishment view, the photon has no electromagnetic charge. In reality, the true photon travels across electromagnetic particles, the aether particles, all under inter-repulsion to form a single-body grid, but these goofs say that the photon is itself the electromagnetic thingie. See the difference? Can you spot the feverish desperation to keep the lights out on an aether by inventing an electromagnetic creature, with wings, that has no electromagnetic charge? They call it "electromagnetic radiation" even though they deny electromagnetism for the photon. They try their best to mimic an aether wave while keeping the aether tied down to the grave. The electromagnetic thingie flies without an electromagnetic "air." It begs the question: why call it electromagnetic in the first place? How is it electromagnetic? What forced them to use that term against their will?

We are to believe that the speed of the orbiting electron is what causes a photon to be released, as if circling at a zillion RPMs in a lower orbit is not fast enough to release one, but going a zillion RPMs in a wee-wee-wee-wee-bit higher orbit is apt to releasing one. Doesn't that come across as the invention of a feverish nut? How would anyone even know that this is really going on?

I asked the google robot: "How is a photon electromagnetic?". It fetched the following: "A photon is electromagnetic because it is a fundamental particle -- a "quantum" -- of the electromagnetic field, which consists of oscillating electric and magnetic fields that travel together as a wave." It's voodoo in an effort to kill your mind, shut it off, make you throw up your hands and say, "whatever." The people had better things to do than try to understand that quackery; they paid it no attention, but that's what allowed this snake to slither into the text books.

Where is the electromagnetic field they speak of if there is no aether? From where to where does that field spread out? Oh, it turns out to be the photon particle itself, the smallest field ever. The photon itself is the field, have you ever heard of anything more insane? The aether field has been reduced to the wee-wee itself. It's a magical field, just trust the experts, "oscillating electric and magnetic fields that travel together." Baby! That sounds alive. It sounds like energy.

But wait. Where does the photon, devoid of electromagnetism, get its electric and magnetic nature? Why don't they just claim that the photon has electromagnetism rather than advance a contradiction? Because, by assigning it an electromagnetic charge, it creates all sorts of problems. For one, they would need to say that it would swerve and miss the electrons, if electrons themselves miss electrons due to their electromagnetism.

But it gets worse because, in being massless, how can it possess electromagnetism? Who ever heard of a massless magnet? Plus, by assigning it magnetic charge, it could not keep the same speed, because it would be attracted to one thing or the other, and attraction slows things to a dead stop...unless it's in orbit, explaining why they put the electron in orbit, that they might be able to salvage its kinetic energy for their kinetic theory of atoms.

A flying thingie with electromagnetism would be slowed by attraction forces, or sped up by repulsive forces, and so the goofs decided, we better not assign it a charge. Let's leave this toy neutral so that it can fly at the magical speed of light. The people will love it. We can tell them things like, it goes seven times around the earth in one second. They'll be hooked. They'll become our happy puppets.

I'm rubbing the happy puppets the wrong way here, I know, and I'm having fun doing it. Tell us, puppets, where does the photon get its electromagnetic "field." Why did the inventors decide that it needs to oscillate while flying though the vacuum of space? What sort of obsession do kineticists have with vibrations? AI apes its masters:

"A photon 'oscillates' because it is an electromagnetic wave, a quantum of energy in the electromagnetic field, where the electric and magnetic fields change in strength and direction in a sinusoidal pattern as the wave propagates through space. This oscillation is not the physical movement of the photon itself, but rather the rhythmic change in the electromagnetic field's values at each point in space over time."

Throw up your hands, you have better things to do than to figure out what's going on in that picture. You know that you don't feel like arguing with those who propose this nonsense, but there are happy puppets who love to push this dope on willing dopes. The cult desires recruits. The threats are everywhere seeking to trash this fanciful trash, and so propaganda is badly needed to popularize it, to make you think that anyone who argues against it lacks knowledge, understanding, and love. Best of all, the goofs wish to be loved, because love is the glue that keeps the cult bonded.

The photon is being framed as an electromagnetic "wave" flying in its own electromagnetic "field" that it carries like a back-pack. Wherever the photon flies, the back-pack is there to assure that you envision the photon as electromagnetic, even though the photon is not said to be electromagnetic. The back-pack is what gives it its electromagnetic property. It begs the question: why do the goofs need it to be electromagnetic at all? Why the contradiction? I asked google, and got this:

Light must be "electromagnetic" because its existence as a wave with self-perpetuating electric and magnetic fields is the only model that accurately explains its observed properties and propagation. This phenomenon...is not a mechanical wave requiring a medium, but an oscillating disturbance that can travel through a vacuum.

A self-perpetuation electromagnetic field? How can that happen if the photon is not electromagnetic? How can the photon make it's own electromagnet shadow? And why did they frame this creature in this way where the photon is neutral yet has an electric skin or shadow or something? The only answer I can now give is that they wanted it to mimic an aether travel as best as possible without the aether. They were safeguarding their theory against a possible revolt by the aetherists, but it looks more like a backfire in waiting.

It's known that light has some kinetic energy because it can turn a light (not heavy) material object when fixed upon the center of a swivel. But there is no need to have it possess electromagnetism to produce that material motion. A light wave is motion energy, and imputes some minute negative charge to every item it enters, though the goofs deny it because they define heat as kinetic motion. A light wave always pushes an aether electron against a light-struck surface, and as that surface increases in temperature, it's conclusive evidence that those electrons enter the light-struck surface.

When a wave carries as motion-energy through an electromagnetic aether, that electromagnetism is in no way adopted by the wave, because the wave itself -- call it a photon if you wish -- is nothingness, describing only the result of material motion. Like when you tap a finger on a table, the energy goes through the table but is not the table material itself. The light wave causes a material motion as per electron-to-electron bumps that domino across the aether. For the goofs to actually pin electromagnetism to the photon shows ignorance. The wave itself is not electromagnetic, the aether is. As the goofs want no aether, they feel compelled to make the wave an electromagnetic entity. But why? I don't see the logic.

Asking google: "does the electromagnetic field of a photon repel the electromagnetic field of another photon?" The answer: "No, photons do not directly repel or attract other photons because photons are electrically neutral and do not carry charge themselves, so they do not interact via the electromagnetic force." There's the contradiction bald-faced that the jugglers need to juggle. There photon only travels through an electromagnetic field, but it's not an aether. Best advice: ignore the goofs.

To show that the electromagnetic field of a photon is not some vast field from earth or solar magnetic fields, I asked: "where does the electromagnetic field come from that photons fly through?" The response assures that the inventors invented the field as part of the electrons that toss out the photons:

The electromagnetic field that photons travel through originates from accelerating charged particles, such as electrons. When a charged particle moves and vibrates [like in a filament], it creates a changing electric field [I don't see why], which in turn generates a changing magnetic field [I don't see why], and these two fields then propagate as self-sustaining electromagnetic waves (photons) through space, even in a vacuum, at the speed of light.

There you have it, the electromagnetic field IS the photon, or the photon's shadow, or aura, or something. We are told that the field originates in momma electron, when poppa heat makes her vibrate, and the vibrating field then gets tossed out with her purse, or in her purse, or as the skin of her purse, or something about her purse. But why did the goofs invent this picture? Why did they want the photon to vibrate as it screeches along at the speed of light?

Because, they wanted to invent wide light waves. "Yes, electromagnetic field oscillation is directly related to wavelength...a higher oscillation frequency corresponds to a shorter wavelength, [and vice-versa]...If the oscillation is very fast (high frequency), the wavelength will be short [and vice-versa]. " I don't expect everyone in physics to go for this junk heap, but the establishment worships it. Some of the more-sane physicists prefer to view frequency in the normal sense, waves striking per unit time, not the widths of waves, but the pressure is upon them to conform. In my opinion, light waves carry longitudinally (in straight lines forward) and widen slightly and progressively only with distance from the light source, same as how a sound wave widens from the source, but not nearly as much for light waves.

The bigger goofs envision various light waves moving as different distances of width, and this width is their "wavelength," a most-stupid addition to the light wave. This is the wicked fruit of those who reject the aether. The weaker a light wave, the more it can spread out laterally, but it spreads progressively wider. It does not have an solid (unchanging) width that maintains itself from light source to light target, as the goofs portray it. The wave spreads out because it travels through a medium of inter-repelling electrons which allow the forward force of wave energy to "grow" a little in all directions from the straight-line path.

For short distances such as in your home, visible-light wave spreading is about zero. Visible light waves go only straight ahead and remain about one electron in width from source to target, unless they originate from as far as the sun. The wave spreads out as a long-cone shape, with the "spine" of the wave, it's strongest part, extending along the dead-center of the cone shape.

Liars have programmed google AI to answer my next question with, "No, electrons do not 'spray' out of a light bulb filament; instead, high-energy [free] electrons move through the filament, collide with its atoms, and transfer their energy, heating the filament to a high temperature." Ya see, they even admit that there's "hurricane winds" inside the filament, as free electrons blow past atoms, yet the goofs still maintain that while whole electrons (a zillion times more potent than a photon's collision force) strike orbiting electrons, the latter manage to go up and down a little in orbit instead of being knocked right out of orbit. This is how badly the imposters treat their own physics just to keep good appearances for their model, so that they don't lose cult followers. Anyone who cherishes the orbit model and its kinetic instruments is a cult follower, or a cult leader, take your pick.

The response above admits that free electrons collide with the "atoms" in order to give them more heat, but it's silent on electron-to-electron collisions because they spoil the entire invention. Still, even when there is admission of electron-to-electron collisions, the goofs don't see it as killing the model, but pretend that the collisions merely send orbiting electrons to higher orbits for the release of more photons. This is a denial of the expected physics, the expected destruction of the filament.

What do you suppose happens when orbiting electrons collide with orbiting electrons? Do you envision the survival of the universe, for longer than one second, in that picture? I don't. In one second, electrons of all atoms are supposedly circling zillions of times, meaning they cannot help but knock each other out of orbits, causing irreparable damage, in less than a second, if indeed all atoms NEED orbiting electrons in order for the universe to tick on normally.

Asking: "what happens when orbiting electrons collide with each other?" The answer is a laugh, a denial of the expected damage, what else? But of course they will deny the damage by inventing a fine-sounding reason:

"When electrons approach each other, they experience a strong repulsive electromagnetic force due to their shared negative charge, causing them to 'bounce off' each other without ever physically touching."

HAHAHAHAH. At the speed they are circling, and with the wee-wee charge-force they possess, there will exist exactly zero potential to swerve away from head-on collisions, as they see each others' headlights "at the last second," such that they merely rub shoulders as they pass each other. HAHAHAHAH. The cult of the gullible.

The problem of electron collisions is so problematic that the imposters have needed to quasi-deny even the physicality of the electron. The response goes on to say: "The concept of 'orbiting' electrons colliding is a simplification; instead, electrons exist as fields, and their interactions are better described as field interactions rather than direct physical impacts." Ya-ya-sure-sure. Sounds like they are ready to turn electrons into ghosts too, that go right through each other. MAGIC.

The desperations shows as the response continues: "Electrons are fundamental particles with no internal structure, so they don't collide like solid objects." What's "internal structure" got to do with whether they crash? Do cars avoid crashes because they have leopard-skin seat covers? Sure-sure-ya-ya, internal structure saves the theory.

The response gets blatant: "Because electrons are negatively charged, they exert a strong repulsive force on each other. This force prevents them from ever getting close enough to touch." DESPERATION. You don't need to slide two inter-repelling magnets very fast toward each other to see that even they haven't the ability to swerve enough to avoid contact, because natural swerving due to repulsion force happens only at the last instant of time, only when the magnets get near enough to "feel" their repulsion forces. When electrons are circling at the near-speed of light, there is exactly zero time to avoid collision by swerving. But the goofs refuse to handle physics properly if it spoils the orbit model.

Electrons do spray out of a filament, but the deceivers wish not to use "spray" because it looks too much like light formation by sprayed electrons. Instead, they use "boil" out of the filament.

Instead of asking whether they spray out, I asked google: "do electrons boil out of a light-bulb filament?" The response now is: "Yes, electrons are effectively 'boiled off' the filament of a light bulb due to its intense heat, a process called thermionic emission." Ya see, it lied to me when asking if they spray out. "Boiling out" gives the impression that the electrons slowly come forth as evaporation, less conducive to forming the sparkling light that we see from a filament.

Plus, they call the emitting electrons, "THERMionic emission," as if the heat is responsible for emission when in fact the electrons create/define the heat. That phrase better allows them to portray electrons as merely evaporating mildly. But the electrons do not emit primarily due to the heat within the filament, but due to the physical pressure formed by the magnet(s) at the electrical power plant. That physical force impregnates the filament with heat because it impregnates the filament with an excess of electrons, more than the filament's atoms can hold, and thus the excess forms FREED ELECTRONS from atoms, which defines heat.

Now you know why they don't prefer atoms of liquids and solids to consist of merged atoms, for that situation requires the orbital paths of neighboring atoms to cross paths. It creates many intersections, and the electron cars are moving so fast as to have no chance of stopping for red lights even if atoms had built-in traffic lights. So, the imposters are apt to an atomic design in which the outer edges of liquid and solid atoms are only near to each other, because this avoids collisions. However, this needs a fix for how atoms can be bonded, when not merged. Best thing, trash the imposters, adopt merged atoms with many "stationary" electrons hovering above the protonic core (stationary unless moved).

The situation across a filament is like a herd of cows forced to run across a thin bridge such that many fall off for lack of room. In a water pipe that suddenly turns into a much-thinner stretch of pipe, the water is known to travel much faster across the thinner stretch due to the physics of the situation. Ditto for the flow of electrons. Thus, electrons flowing across a filament are not boiling off, but spraying out.

What causes the light, the captured electrons in the filament that spray out photons when falling to lower orbits, or the spraying of freed electrons into the room's air that's already filled with free electrons acting as the light-wave medium? Those are your choices. Only a physics lunatic or a deceiver thinks that electrons orbit atoms. What choice will you make?

If you leave a light bulb on for a month straight inside of a small box, the box will become filled with free electrons. They go through the glass of a light bulb because heat penetrates all materials. After the month is up, you can put a hole in the box, and stick your finger in to find that free electrons do your finger no harm. You can open the box and breath its air to find that breathing free electrons feels just like breathing normal air. That's because we all breath free electrons with every breath we take. In low concentrations, they do no harm in the body. In high concentrations, they burn the body, but are not toxic / poisonous. The body releases them as body heat through chemical reactions ordained by the Father of Jesus. The body heat is needed to "oil" the body parts so that we can move. Electron repulsion is the best "grease" in the universe.

Color is Electron Force?

When I put 24-volt battery power through a typical bulb, the filament shone reddish. This teaches us that the red color is weaker light than white, orange and yellow. Lower voltage in the wire means that both fewer and slower electrons spray out of the filament. The light waves are thus accurately described as weaker in energy level, and less dense in numbers.

The reason that weaker waves "travel" at the same speed as stronger ones is because waves do not travel at the so-called "speed of light." There is no such thing. When electrons spray from the filament, electrons beside your eyes start to move almost instantly into your eye, and your brain registers that physical energy as the bulb's light. The effect is instantaneous because there's a body of free electrons filling the room, all inter-repelling each other such as to be in literal contact with each other by that repulsion force. When electrons at the filament are sprayed toward your eyes, they immediately set into motion the free electrons at your eyes such they they enter your eyes.

By "density" of light waves is meant the actual / true frequency. It is not the sort of "frequency" that the quantum nutbars invent. Light waves have frequency in the normal sense of waves per unit time. When there's more electrons coming out the filament per unit time, the frequency of waves is higher, duh, because every electron jolt into the aether makes one wave, the true definition of one light quanta.

The filament light does not go from reddish to yellow to green and blue when the voltage is raised in steps. Instead, it goes from reddish to yellow to white to more-brilliant white. This gives me a clue as to how blue, green and violet light form in the eye: by light that has the same force of jolts but of lower or higher frequency. That is, when we raise the voltage in a wire, the electrons emit both in stronger force and higher frequency, but if the same level of force could be maintained while decreasing or increasing the frequency, that's what predicts the formation of the other colors on the opposite side of the color wheel from red.

When the sun shines on red or blue objects, the force of the excited, jolting electrons is the same for both because the sunlight hits the atoms of both with the same force, and with the same frequency of waves per unit time. The same sunlight results in many colors of reflected light, indicating that the colors differences depend on the nature of the atoms.

Captured electrons form a "sea" around the atomic core. Waves from the sun are "stones" thrown into the sea, and reflected light is from the literal splashing. The numbers of jolting electrons, i.e. the frequency of reflected light, probably depends on how "thick" (dense) the electron sea is for any type of atom, and/or of how strongly/tightly the electrons are held to toward the core. Contrary to what the goofs teach, the atoms sending out the higher frequency of waves are predicted to be in the red-orange-yellow belt. Let me explain.

It took me a long time to come to terms with the light-deflection situation. One can predict that the atoms sending out the most electron jolts are also sending out weaker jolts, for the incoming sunlight is identical in force and frequency upon objects of all colors. Therefore, the higher number of electron jolts made by sunlight, the more its total energy is distributed such that each jolt must become weaker as compared to other atoms having fewer jolts per unit time. The specific combination of force level and frequency, produced by sunlight waves splashing into per atom, is what must determine specific color. The red-glowing light bulb (pure light, not colored by pigments) is teaching me this.

Red or blue light from a flashlight is not pure light, but reflected. The glass or plastic in such a flashlight has colored pigments that turn the original white light, from the bulb, into colored light. I imagine that, when a sufficient number of red flashlights shine on the same spot of a wall, it turns white...because higher numbers of flashlights increases the frequency of splashes on the wall's atoms. This is like saying that the accumulation of red lights gives the wall atoms more amps but not higher voltage, for each flashlight shines the same voltage.

We can also say that the original white light from the flashlight is decreased in voltage when shone through / across the red pigment in the glass/plastic. The red material distributes the white light to a number of jolting electrons higher than the number of electrons emitting at the bulb, such that each jolt comes with a force level weaker than the electrons emitting at the bulb. But if the distribution from the white-light emission is to a relatively low number of jolts per atom, those atoms should appear green, blue or violet, is my prediction, because the fewer jolts each come with a higher force level than with red, orange or yellow light waves.

A complication sets in which is a door to a potential insight or discovery. The complication is that red light, either from a red filament or a red-colored glass, turns a white wall red. The white color is from sunlight distributing its waves to create a certain number of wall-atoms jolts that look white to the eye, and so, if we add red light to the white wall, we are increasing the number of jolts in the wall's atoms. Shouldn't that make the white wall more white instead of red?

Or, if we shine a white light on a white wall, where we are apparently doing nothing but increasing the number of jolts in the wall's atoms, the wall will become brighter white, not red. What is it, then, that makes the wall atoms red when we combine sunlight waves with red-light waves upon the wall? I suppose that the red light added to the sunlight on a wall makes more jolts but converts them to weaker jolts while shining white light on a white object makes more jolts but not weaker jolts.

Increasing the frequency of jolts while not increasing their force levels therefore defines brightness. The wall gets brighter white rather than changing color. It could signal that colors are due to force levels alone. However, brighter colors are also different colors, as if there's more white involved.

If ever I did, I don't now think that white color is the strongest-jolting color. I think that cyan has stronger jolts. Shining green and blue light on the same spot of a white wall produces the cyan color. We can call green a mid-level jolter, while blue is a strong jolter. Added together, they cannot form white jolts, but by simply adding the jolts of the weak-jolting red light to the cyan color makes the latter turn white. On the other hand, one needs a lot of cyan on top of cyan to make it white. That is, lots of green and blue light are needed to make white light, but just a little red light added to cyan makes it white. What's going on?

There has got to be two different ways for the eyes to make white, one by ordinary color, and the other by extreme brightness of any color. Sunlight and light-bulb white must be of the brightness kind. No matter what color each electron emitted from the sun or bulb make, the sheer accumulation of jolts makes them all look white. Light-bulb white is not color, but a high number of jolts per unit time that the eyes sees as white. Shine light-bulb white on any color, and it becomes a brighter color due to increased jolt power in the colored atoms.

Ordinary white color, on the other hand, can be very dim, like in a dim room, the white object looks only darker white. It's not the same as white from direct light. The white color produced by mixing red, green and blue light, on a white surface, is not brightness white, but colored light. It seems that cyan color has stronger jolts than white color because the low-force red light needs to quell/weaken the jolts of cyan to make it a white color.

White sunlight does not make white color. It's an illusion to think so from the fact that pure-sparkling light looks white. White light only brighten colors, gives them stronger and more-numerous jolts. The red glow of a light bulb teaches us that, adding more jolts and more-powerful jolts combined, by increasing electrical voltage to the bulb, makes for a white glow. Therefore, the white light from a bulb or sun gives every object more jolts combined with more-powerful jolts.

When sunlight weakens by travelling through air, it can make clouds reddish. The number of sunlight waves has not been reduced. That is, the frequency or amps (defines as waves per second) of the waves remains the same. The only think that changes is the force level, or volts, of the light waves. Less voltage turns white-sparkling light to red.

We have now stumbled upon a mystery that I've not heard anyone deal with. Why are stars not red, as the sun is, when low to the horizon? Following the law of physics, the answer ought to be: all normal stars shine with more voltage than the sun. In that case, they must be burning hotter, emitting electrons harder such that starlight remains white across maximum atmospheric travel (i.e. when stars are seen at the horizon).

As I believe that astronomers and cosmologists are out to lunch with their red-shift science, and because they cannot therefore know the distances they claim to know to the most-distant stars, I've proposed the theory that "galaxies" are nothing but single, exploded stars in the one "galaxy" alone that exists, the full universe. Our galaxy is not a galaxy proper, but is the entire universe.

There is probably no conclusive evidence that the blobs of materials seen in "galaxies" are single stars. They could just as well be blobs of material exploded from a single star. The only way to prove it one way or the other is know how far the "galaxy" is from earth, but if red-shift science cannot correctly give them those distances, then astronomers could be, not surprisingly, out to lunch in a fantasy world in this matter.

When asking google whether stars are red at the horizon, it gave this response:

Stars don't intrinsically turn red near the horizon, but atmospheric scattering and turbulence can cause bright stars to appear redder [I've never seen a red star] and more colorful, similar to how the sun appears reddish at sunset. The red shift you might be thinking of actually applies to very distant galaxies, not stars near the horizon. While some stars are naturally red because they are cooler, like Betelgeuse, this color is their inherent property and isn't caused by their position on the horizon.

Sorry, but I've never seen a red star, what is AI talking about? It seems to be lying to the people because astronomers can't explain why ALL stars are not red like the sun at the horizon. Where the response above was given, google shows a reddish galaxy in the midst of white stars. google is pushing its point that distant galaxies are red. Why are distant galaxies red? Not because they are the most distant. That's the crackpot idea of the crackpot astronomers.

You see, they use red-shift of stars and red colors of "galaxies" to prove that those stars and galaxies are moving away from earth. They claim it's the Doppler effect weakening the light waves coming toward earth. But the sun goes red at the horizon but nobody says it's moving away from earth to explain the red color. Isn't it likely true that some exploded stars would dim in colors toward reddish? Beware astronomer photos of galaxies where the camera shutter is left open for a long time to brighten the light to something not true in color, and beware also NASA's computerized photos that are sheer fantasy. The cosmic nebulae we see in photos are from shutters opened for hours, otherwise we wouldn't see cosmic "dust."

google AI:
"In 2002, Karl Glazebrook and Ivan Baldry determined that the average color of the universe was a greenish white, but they soon corrected their analysis in a 2003 paper in which they reported that their survey of the light from over 200,000 galaxies averaged to a slightly beigeish white." Beige is a dark yellow, on the red side of the color wheel. Darkish yellow could be expected of exploded stars.

As sunlight is weakened when traversing earth's atmosphere, we gather that starlight is weakened when traversing a stellar atmosphere. The brightest stars are predicted to have the thickest atmospheres, wherefore that concept could conceivable cause the greatest red shifts (shifts of the white toward the red end of the spectrum). And blue shifts could then be re-defined as small stars with thin atmospheres.

If the goofs argue my point here, by claiming they know many huge stars with blue shift, or many small stars with red shift, know first that they cannot size stars unless they know how far they are from earth. Secondly, the way they determine star distances is via guesswork based on the amount of red- or blue-shift. The more red-shift, the faster they think the star / galaxy is sailing away from earth, and so, based on the big-bang history they have devised from mental trauma, they estimate how far stellar bodies ought to as per the amount of time they've been sailing. NUTCRACKERS thought / think they have stars and galaxies perfectly mapped in the universe.

In other words, they appeal merely to circular reasoning to nail down distances to stars and galaxies, which is a perfectly-expected tactic of people given to big-bang-toting fantasies.

I asked google: "does sunlight shift spectroscopically toward the red end when the sun is at the horizon??" The response: "Yes, sunlight shifts toward the red end of the spectrum when the sun is at the horizon,..." To make sure that this shift is spectroscopical, I also asked about the sun's hydrogen spectroscopy, and received this:

The Sun's atmosphere, being primarily hydrogen, produces absorption lines unique to hydrogen, revealing its composition. At sunrise or sunset, the Sun's light is filtered by Earth's atmosphere, causing the visible Fraunhofer absorption lines to shift and change intensity due to scattering and absorption. While special spectrographs can capture this detailed spectral information, the lower angle of the Sun on the horizon can also affect observations by causing atmospheric extinction and potential redshift/blueshift from atmospheric turbulence.

There we go, folks, the admission by AI (a snitch job) what the clowns in astronomy would never admit to us. Red and blue shifts occur even with the sun, meaning that red- and blue-shifted starlight may have NOTHING to do with the direction of star travel. If the sun can have blue shifts from "turbulence" in earth's atmosphere, imagine the level of turbulence in a stellar atmosphere.

Sunspots prove that visible stars cannot travel away from earth as fast as the big-bang goons claim. Sunspots exhibit a literal Doppler effect by being black. Unknown to the goofs who claim goofily without blushing that sunspots are black due to being "cool" regions, sunspots are in reality black because HOT solar material exploded upward is falling back toward the solar surface. When it falls, it moves away from earth. See yet? It's got Doppler potential.

If it falls faster than its atoms are spraying or jolting electrons toward the earth, zero light forms toward earth because those electrons cannot strike the aether, in the upward direction toward earth. The aether is the solar wind moving toward earth, and thus its electrons are moving away from solar material falling toward the sun. This is easily grasped. It's logical. I follow logic. It works to explain mysteries. But the big-bang crackpots are cracked pots that don't hold water.

The sun cannot be cold enough at any location to appear black; only a crazy lunatic makes such a claim. They fool you into believing that the relative "coolness" makes extreme-hot material shine black toward the earth. PURE NONSENSE. If the solar-wind electrons are moving so-so-fast away from the sun, and the electrons emitting from the falling hot material emit toward earth at a speed of so-so-fast minus 1 mph, the emitted electrons cannot strike even one of the solar wind electrons, wherefore the emission of these electrons go without producing light waves. They form a "slow" batch of solar wind. They do move toward earth, just not fast enough to catch up to the solar-wind electrons to their front. NO LIGHT WAVES ARE EXPECTED. Black is the word.

Therefore, the sunspot is proof that light waves are ordinary waves through a light-wave medium. I win, the goofs lose. Throw the bums out of the schools. Trash their reputations because they have lied to humanity, knowing better, and because they refuse to repent, to get off of the science thrones they have made for themselves. Just like the American Democrats, they prefer to lie and scratch and punch rather than to give up any throne to Biblical Creationists.

Google AI lies the lies of the unrepentant: "Air at ground level contains a vast 'ocean' of free electrons from various sources, such as static electricity and everyday interactions between molecules." No, donkeys, atmospheric electrons are not merely from friction, don't be jackasses. They so-obviously come from the sun because there's not enough friction from wind, rain, and animal movements to produce the vast sea of atmospheric electrons. Besides, any electrons given off by friction or sunlight are re-captured by the atoms that lose them. Atoms naturally re-load. As soon as sunlight ceases to strike a solar panel, the panel's atoms re-load with atmospheric electrons so that there's no further electrical flow until the sun shines again.

The goofs don't even know how solar panels produce electrical flow. The sun makes the solar panel's atoms positively charged by bouncing some of their outer captured electrons. That's what creates the so-called "electrical potential" i.e. that causes a wire's captured electrons to flow. When electrons are lost from a wire due to running electricity, the wire atoms re-load from atmospheric electrons, duh. They are everywhere.

No matter where your electrical wire is, its surrounded by atmospheric free electrons that penetrate the wire's jacket...because free electrons define heat, and heat penetrates all materials. Right now, in the atomic spaces of your electrical wires, there are free electrons. They fill every material, every rock, every mountain, and fill all the air and even above the air, yet the in-denial monkeys tell you that they are sourced merely in particle interactions (= friction of various sorts).

The stinkers refuse to acknowledge to obvious, that atmospheric electrons MUST BY FORCE enter all materials. It's plain as day because electrons repel one another, and thus they motivate each other against all materials, and when doing so, they also move into the materials. When asking the monkeys, "are free electrons inside rock's atomic spaces," google AI responds, "No." Ya-see? In denial.

First, to support their orbiting-electron model, they claim that solid materials consist of 99-percent space, and, second, they deny the possibility that wee-wee electrons can move into and fill those spaces. They argue this way because they are rotting and stinking souls. When they refuse to admit the obvious because it harms their big-bang science, and when they forge weapons against God's realities in order to protect their big-bang science, they are self-preparing themselves for the maggots of Hell. Look at this hellish response from AI from asking whether free electrons in air can move into materials:

No, free electrons in air cannot simply move into the atomic spaces of materials because they quickly collide with air molecules, lose their energy, and become absorbed [captured by protons], forming negative ions.

What a piece-of-trash excuse for denying the reality, all because it makes heat look like free electrons. It doesn't matter if electrons lose their energy i.e. their speeds, because, even when motionless in air, which they are when sitting in a sealed container, they can repel each other into atomic spaces. WHY NOT? There's nothing that can stop them.

Atoms DO NOT capture free electrons in air if the atoms are already as fully loaded with them as possible. All atoms in contact with air become fully loaded within minutes if rubbed to become net-positive. Therefore, it's a cheap shot to say that free electrons in air can only be captured by atoms, that the electrons cannot worm into the atomic pores to remain there as free electrons. But the fools don't want a material like electrons moving into materials because they are expected to expand materials by their inter-repulsion, exactly what heat does! FOOLS AND LIARS.

The electrical plant does not add electrons into the wire that comes to your home. The electric wire is not like a water pipe that needs to be fed water if water is being used at your home. The electrical factory merely pushes the captured electrons in the wire. As they move, some leak out of the wire as heat, and many electrical loads (end uses) lose electrons such that the wire needs to refill with them. But the electric factory does not refill the wire. If, therefore, a metal wire can be filled from the outside with free electrons, what ails the sick-twisted souls who sit enthroned on science thrones, who control our science knowledge as best they can, that they won't admit the obvious: free electrons invade EVERYTHING ON EARTH.

The electrons sent into a stove element have a hard time getting through it. It's a semi-conductor, meaning that electricity doesn't flow well within it. Therefore, the electrons are forced out of the element as heat. If they can get in, they can get out. But the jackasses say that the heat from a stove element in not leaked-out electrons, because they don't want the world to believe that electrons are the material of heat.

They are too stingy to allow debate, and insist on controlling the science narrative to the point of calling me the wacko for replacing their wacko ideas with logical, sensible, and easy-go ideas.

The Rutherford Goof

Consider the following statement that has zero logic, especially in the context of science knowing almost nothing about the atom at the time, when things were mere guess work. This comes as per my question to google, "how or why was the hydrogen atom first understood as one proton and one electron?":

The hydrogen atom was understood to be a proton and an electron due to experiments by Ernest Rutherford, who discovered the atomic nucleus and proposed that the hydrogen nucleus was a fundamental particle named the proton. As the hydrogen atom must be electrically neutral, the discovery that each proton has an equal and opposite positive charge to an electron's negative charge meant that a single proton needed a single electron to form a neutral hydrogen atom.

Did google AI explain anything in that statement as to why an H atom needs to be one proton versus one electron? Do you see any logic at in the claim that one proton can attract only one electron? Then what was the motivation or need for devising the H atom in this way? It's important because the goofs then went on to invent every atom as a multiple of one H atom, with some neutrons thrown in where needed for their weights.

The AI response goes on to say: "Rutherford PROVED in 1917 that all nuclei contain hydrogen nuclei. He proposed that the hydrogen nucleus was a fundamental building block of all atoms, and he named this particle the proton." Proved? Impossible. He knew almost nothing of atoms at the time, wherefore there must have been a conspiracy amongst his fellow science cultists to invent the H atom that way, which has remained the H atom to this day without debate. It is impossible for a proton to have only one electron, and more impossible to have it in orbit. The founders of the atom were lunatics serving the big-bang. At the right time, they unveiled the big bang publicly.

The same response gives us the following "logic," which is so monstrously debatable that the absence of debate or rebellion proves that there was a cult of dictatorial lunatics driving and ruling atomic physics. Their job was to silence the rebels, give them no platform. "A core principle of the time was that atoms are electrically neutral. This meant that the total positive charge must equal the total negative charge." Ya, so? How does that mean that every atom needs one proton per one electron? In that scenario, one proton has as much positive force as an electron has negative force, but where was the proof of that cosmic-sized coincidence? There has never been proof, which reveals that the lunatics badly needed the H atom to be as they invented it, for a cause.

Although the big bang wasn't publicized at the time we are discussing, shortly before 1920, it's not a stretch to assume that the idea of a Creator-less creation was floated around in private circles for some time prior to Rutherford's shot-in-the-dark theory on atom configuration. Same as with Darwinian evolution, it would work to their benefit if they could simplify the evolution of the cosmos, to simplify the formation of stars such that a Creator God is not needed. The next logical step, after introducing Darwinism on earth, was forming a palatable way to have the cosmos evolve from random-chance processes. It's a no-brainer that the Darwinian cult was working on that challenge through Rutherford's lifetime.

One thing I know without being told by those who control the science narrative today: there were scientists asking why there could not be many electrons per proton where electrons have far less negative force than the positive force of the proton. The latter idea is far more likely for the real atom than the one-proton-per-one-electron theory. Wouldn't you agree?

Who in their right mind would claim that a magnet can pull and capture only one iron ball bearing? If someone "discovered" and announced this idea, you would reject it for obvious reason, meaning that there must have been a science cult around Rutherford that badly needed the one-proton-per-one-electron theory. What was their game, therefore? What were they up to?

Similarly, there were scientists thinking that protons could attract atoms in the ordinary way such that electrons tended to a stationary position upon protons. But I have never heard that there was any such debating going on, tending to prove that the cult, enthroning itself on atomic-physics thrones, censored and ignored, even mocked, the opposition...same as how political leftists operate, because they are of the same cloth, evolutionists / atheists / apostates both in science and in politics.

It wasn't a big leap from the plum-pudding model of the atom to "my" model. Surely, my model was envisioned by thousands upon thousands of atomic physicists over the decades. But where do we hear of them speaking out? Where do we hear of a rebellion against Rutherford's "facts." Silenced.

If you would not bet a dime on the concept that one tiny electron has the same electromagnetic force level as one giant proton, then you should not believe that an H atom is one proton having only one electron. In that case, you can clearly see where I'm coming from to mock and deride the established atomic model as a stepping stone to some nefarious cause. Nobody who respects the quest for truth fronts the H atom as the establishment did, advanced even before anyone knew much about atoms and their chemistry mechanics, unless there was a dire need for such an atom. I can glean that this atomic model serves the Creator-less evolution of stars.

: The stars, they will tell us, created all the different atoms as a multiple of the H atom, a picture that the public can swallow without too much trouble. No God needed to create the 90-100 different atoms, just the one H atom replicating itself. In order to make this work, they needed to invent the "strong nuclear force" that kept protons clustered in contact with each other. All opposition needed to be quelled. The pioneers of the movement needed to be honored and lifted up as superior to the opposition. That's how things went down to the present day.

Rutherford is credited with the discovery of a hard atomic core that blocked or deflected the "bullets" has fired at atoms. Okay, I can accept a hard atomic core, but how does it then follow that, if all atoms have such cores, all atoms must have H atoms at their core? That's not science. It's not even good guess work. It clearly exposes a master plan for some nefarious cause that the cult would not reveal. They wanted to make their "science" look authentic, genuine, along truthful paths, but instead it was motivated by a secret cause. Google: "Rutherford proved that hydrogen nuclei were present in all other nuclei..." Are you kidding me? Is this a joke? He finds a hard core in atoms, and then takes a wild leap to the concept that all atoms have H atoms at their core? ARE YOU KIDDING ME?

It appears that they had decided beforehand how the atom's build should be fed to the public, and they therefore sought any experimentation whatsoever, even if fraudulent or weak, to prove that their vision of the atom was the real atom. That's exactly how things went down to the present day, telling lies repeatedly until the public believed them for facts.

There's no use asking google, "why can't the atom have many electrons per proton?" It's not going to answer the question in the way you asked for it. The question wants to know why a proton cannot capture electrons that have less force than protons. But google AI responds with the pre-enthroned "fact" that electrons have the same force as protons: "Too many electrons would lead to an unstable, highly negative charge..." That answer is true only if one electron had as much charge as one proton.

Therefore, I asked and received a response on the level of jibber-jabber: "An electron cannot have less charge than a proton because charge is quantized, meaning it comes in discrete units, and the fundamental unit of charge, known as the elementary charge, is defined by the magnitude of the electron's (or proton's) charge. Both electrons and protons carry this same elementary charge, but with opposite signs (negative for the electron, positive for the proton)."

Let me clear the air from the foggy jibber-jabber in "discrete units." Never mind "discrete units," because that's a red herring. 100 electrons can have a discrete unit of electromagnetism when they are combined. Whatever the imposters envision as the discrete unit of positive charge for a proton can be matched by 100, 1000, or 10,000 electrons, whatever the case happens to be in reality. There is no justification to implore a "discrete unit" phrase in an attempt to hammer out a "logical" one-proton-one-electron concept.

There is no reason that a giant magnet having 100 units of force cannot attract and capture 1000 magnets each with far less than 100 units of force. If that's the reality in real life, where we can prove it, why can't it be the reality at the protonic level? Why did the cult demand only one electron per proton? What was their game? In my mind, the game was to simplify the construction of all atoms such that random processes could build them, no need for a God. On the other hand, if all atoms had a unique build, it tends to favor the Creator model of the universe simply by making it complicated for random processes to build so many unique atoms.

For example, it's easier to believe that the big bang spit out nothing by identical protons and identical electrons that then became all the atoms with just some super glue at the cores, than to believe that the big bang spit out 90-100 different atoms, each type perfectly replicated zillions of times. The latter looks too much like a Creator done it. In order to convince you that each electron has identical charge level as each proton, they were banking on your stupidity. Are you going to let them get away with treating you that way? The establishment is a giant error in the shape of a high mountain easily visible, yet the people take it for a monument.

Although the establishment once taught that protons are not divisible, and are indestructible too, they now teach what is easily seen an error devised in pure imagination. Surely, you can see that imagination is all there is in the following from the AI data bank:

Yes, a proton can be broken apart by applying enough energy in high-energy collisions, but you cannot isolate its constituent quarks. Instead of observing individual quarks, the immense energy breaks the bonds between them, creating new quark-antiquark pairs, resulting in a shower of other subatomic particles called hadrons. It is impossible to split a proton and get free quarks because of a phenomenon called quark confinement, where the strong nuclear force that binds quarks grows stronger with distance.

You're not going to believe what you just read as fact, are you? Surely, you can see that this is all theory on paper, having nothing to do with reality, but rather it's invention as the need or whim arises when the goofs need to make repairs, or desire to make advancements, to their previous theories-on-paper.

I'll serve some evidence that hydrogen protons can be split into at least six parts, resulting in one of the six rare gases in the earth's air. Where's my evidence? I just told you: six rare gases in the air, at least six parts per proton. It's not overwhelming evidence, but it's evidence as a starter. In this theory, the sun's solar wind pushes these protonic parts to earth, and some enter the air. The upper air is a shield that forces most of the protonic pieces to deviate around the planet, then continue on their merry way into deeper space. They don't all enter the air just because they collide with the air. As the rare gases are so rare, it suggests that the sun does no produce many protons that survive in pieces i.e. most get fully destroyed such as to have zero positive force left, and they therefore possess zero captured electrons. I predict that the soil is laced with dead, bare protons, part of the sun's exhaust.

Evidence number two: it doesn't make much sense that the rare gases had origins in the earth because we'd expect a lot more of it in that picture. But if they originate at the sun, it's got some logic to it.

Where electrons define heat, and where the sun was intended by God to be a heat-making machine, it has no logic wherein He would choose H atoms for the sun's main fuel if H atoms have only one electron each. But as hydrogen gas is known to produce the most heat when combusted, the H atom must have more electrons than any other atom. See the logic?

It's okay to make mistakes when seeking to know atomic truths, but it's not dandy to advance illogical ideas with jargon-filled jibber-jabber. When they start talking quark-antiquark pairs to explain why the pieces of protons cannot be isolated, that's the bare-naked but unashamed definition of jibber-jabber. Beware the fool who does not blush when advancing ridiculous notions. If a proton is made of pieces of something, then the proton can be broken into pieces, full stop. Why do the goons want it to be impossible to break up a proton in an ordinary way such that the pieces remain? What scares or threatens them about these pieces?

If protons can be broken into pieces, and if protons have positive forces, how logical is it to propose that protons, split apart in the sun's furnace of affliction, became special atoms all their own? All pieces are then expected to become smaller than one H atom.

Part of the lofty error-mountain that is the establishment is where one-proton-per-electron forced the goofs to assign H atoms the smallest size of all atoms. They had no choice. Stars are filled with H atoms, and the goofs therefore wanted all atoms to be multiples of H atoms, meaning they had no choice but to assign H atoms the smallest atomic size. That's the only reason they claim that H atoms are the smallest, not because they have grabbed one to measure it on their lab table.

You can expect them to defraud you with faulty / fraudulent experiments, and with misinterpretations of the experiments, that "prove" H atoms to be the smallest. They will do this because they want to rope you in, to make you one of their disciples, that they might sit on a science throne forever, that you might believe with them that there is no God. To make themselves appear superior in knowledge, they even claim to know the exact diameter, in real distance, of the H atom, and who are lowly you to disagree or contest? Knowing that you cannot contest, they make such bold claims unafraid. However, there is much evidence that H atoms are the largest, and sooner or later, especially in the Millennium of Jesus-Rule, they will be booted off the science throne, and tossed into the Pit.

Google: "Scientists measure atomic diameters indirectly by determining the distances between nuclei...They then divide this internuclear distance by two to find the atomic radius,..." What this reveals is that the goofs do not have atoms of solids merged into each other. The only way that the radius of an atom can equal half the distance between the centers of two, bonded atoms is if the atoms are merely in contact at their outer edges, meaning that one atom is not merged into the other. As this is illogical, they do not have the correct atomic diameters even if they could measure the distances between atomic cores, which they cannot do, for it they could do it, they would know that metal atoms are amongst the smallest while the H atom is the largest of all. PROFESSIONAL FRAUDSTERS.

I can glean that the people who take atomic diameters to task would feel dismally challenged if atoms are all merged to different depths when found in solid materials. In that picture, nobody could discover atomic diameters even if they really could find the nucleus-to-nucleus distance. Therefore, the people tasked with finding atomic diameters, but only those who are friends of the Big Cause, will claim that atoms are not merged when bonded.

I asked Google, "are atoms of solids merged?" The response is a stern, "No, atoms in a solid are not merged but are instead held tightly together by strong intermolecular forces, which allows them to vibrate at fixed positions rather than move freely." That doesn't explain why bonded atoms are not merged, nor does it explain how they can attract each other if not merged. These illogical nutcrackers hold to the belief that atoms attract each other at a distance even though they want equal positive force versus negative force per atom.

They micro-manage their imaginary atom, but not just anyone can get their inputs accepted by the micro-management office. Only those who are sufficiently obedient to the established cult get to input their findings for the advancement of the Big Cause.

When you try to cut a piece of steel with a kitchen knife, you learn that atoms are not neutrally charged toward one another when bonded. They stick together pretty tight. But how can they stick together if they aren't even merged into one another? How can the protonic core of one atom attract the other atom's electrons, and vice-versa, unless the two atoms are merged?

We are first told that atoms are 99.9-percent space, but then told that the atoms of metals refuse to enter each others' empty spaces even if you repeatedly slam a piece of steel with a sledge hammer or a 10,000-pound bomb. My atomic model could have as much as 80-percent material and 20-percent space. It's more logical. The many electrons surrounding the proton, per bonded atom, have the "material" of repulsion between them. Although there is space between the captured electrons, that space is filled with repulsion force, which is equivalent to stuff when it comes to compressing the electrons i.e. trying to make them come closer to each other by use of a sledge hammer.

You can easily imagine how much empty space there is in an H atom having one orbiting wee-wee, and one proton at the core. Yet, when asking, "are atoms of solid hydrogen merged," a stern google fact-checker, AI, says: "No, atoms in solid hydrogen are not merged; rather, they are bound...through covalent bonds..." What a covalent bond? "A covalent bond is...atoms share electrons..." But how can they share electrons if the atoms are not merged? Do the fraudsters have things arranged both ways, depending on what, in particular, they are trying to fool us with?

With an orbiting electron never at the same place continually, it's average position, in relation to a neighboring H atom, is dead-center of the H atom. And the average position of the orbiting electron of the neighboring H atom is likewise at its dead-center. In that picture, the proton of one atom cannot attract the electron of the other because the repulsion from the dead center of the atom counters that attraction exactly, because the goofs have the electron's force equal to the proton's force. There's no way for H atoms to bond into solid form.

The one-proton-one-electron model of the atom turns all atoms into neutral bodies. It's identical to an atom being one proton imbedded with one electron at its core. The proton's charge fully counters the electron's charge. Nothing can be attracted to it, nor can it repel anything. If the goofs try to tweak (micro-manage) this situation by assigning all atoms a little more positive charge than negative, or vice versa, they're stuck with the fact that negative repels negative while positive repels positive, yet they are deathly afraid of atoms repelling atoms. The big bang needs some attraction between atoms, or stars can't form without a Creator.

Gas pressure became such a drastic threat to the natural formation of stars that the evolutionists are suspect in toppling the caloric model of heat by replacing it with the kinetic theory of atoms, where gas pressure could then be explained / defined as dizzy atoms bombarding everything, including each other, without slowing down. All facets and details in atomic science had to be invented, reformed and refixed such that every tenet and law possible became conducive or friendly to evolutionary (fat-chance) formation of stars and planets, no Intelligent design permitted.

The evolutionists toppled the caloric model exactly when the electron was being discovered that was itself the caloric material. That's a great way to portray the evolutionists as boneheads, but it may not be the best way. Perhaps numero uno is when they toppled and discarded the aether during the discovery period of the electron, the aether particle. It was a double whammy, trashing two important truths simultaneously, and replacing them with never-ending problems needing never-ending repairs. The saboteurs have had their days of glory by feeding dung and more dung to the world.

Where Are the Dead Solar Protons?

I can prove to you that there are no bare, but otherwise normal, protons in the solar wind. Fact: there are no bare protons in the earth's air. On your behalf, I've asked google: "can a proton exist without electrons in typical air at ground level?" The response: "...However, a collection of bare protons in isolation would be unstable in normal conditions because their strong positive charge is highly attractive to the abundant free electrons in the air." No, bare protons cannot exist in Earth's air.

This discussion is yet another way to show that modern science lies bald-faced to humanity. For if bare protons cannot exist in earth air, how can the goofs claim that protons get through the solar atmosphere -- far thicker than our air, filled with far more free electrons than our air -- while remaining bare-naked without electrons? It's not that these jackasses don't understand this argument, but that they lie for a cause. They want humanity to believe (who are they to dictate what you believe?) that protons cannot be destroyed, and because they know that the solar wind has free electrons, they claim what their theory requires under that free-electron circumstance: normal but bare protons that once held the free electrons are in the solar wind too.

Can you see how stubbornly stupid they are? The protons once held the electrons now free, but the protons are NORMAL while bare, still able to attract electrons, yet they don't attract them. They supposedly make it bare-naked all the way to earth and beyond.

The logical conclusion is that most of the protons passing the earth had been destroyed by powerful forces in the sun. The goofballs cannot admit that, however, because their claim is that protons survived the big bang. The latter is their god, and so they create "realities" that uplift and give life to that false god. Fiction: protons cannot be destroyed.

And, by the way, where are the protons that load electrons without orbits? Surely, even goofballs can grasp such a situation. But shouldn't it be the rule? Shouldn't a zillion protons attract electrons apart from orbits for every one proton than manages to attract one into orbit? Why not? What in big-bang tarnation could prevent that logical situation? But, the brainwashers don't want even to mention the idea of ordinary electron capture because they want you to believe only in the orbiting captured electron. To these science imposters, protons cannot attract and capture stationary electrons. At least, I've never heard one of them mention that expected proton-electron combination.

If the sun were spewing bare protons in some internal regions, they could never get past the solar atmosphere without re-dressing with electrons. A no brainer. But if true that the sun is spewing some three or four times as may protons as free electrons, as we are taught by the brainwashers, then the solar wind should be filled with all sorts of atoms when the protons re-dress on the way out of the sun. This is ludicrous. There cannot be slews of hydrogen atoms in the solar wind, or they would invade our air profusely.

Therefore, the solar wind may consist of destroyed / crippled protons either unable to attract any electrons, or able to attract few electrons (if merely crippled). Yes, they can be bare, but inoperable, DEAD without positive charge. Or, they may have some charge left such that they become mini-hydrogen atoms that fool scientists by pretending to be argon, neon, krypton and fluorine atoms, the rare gases in our air.

As dead protons no longer have positive charge, they can not be attracted to the sun, and thus, logically, they would be constantly bumped further away from the sun by the streams of outgoing electrons. They become cosmic dust, logically. I'm therefore wondering what these dead particles are when in the air, and when in the soil as rain carries them down to the ground.

The moon and solid planets must be covered in dead protons directly on the surface, having no agency to carry them deep because there's no rain there to wash them into rock crevices. What might a batch of dead protons look like? How can they be discovered if they don't react electromagnetically with other atoms? How can they be separated from soil if they have no electromagnetic charge? Even the rare gases refuse to bond with other atoms.

Fiction: protons cannot be destroyed. If they could not be ruined, there could not exist a solar wind of free electrons. We are not talking a small entity when talking solar wind. That many electrons flying from the sun, millennium after millennium, PROVES THAT PROTONS ARE RUINED. Duh. I follow logic. It works.

If these protons were bare and in good working order, as we are told, then they would become H atoms as soon as NASA catches a few in a box (a small compressor can be used to thicken the material), and brings them into the space ship where there's free electrons to reload them. Or, if the excuse is used that there's not enough free electrons in the box itself, or in the ship, then the bare protons should turn to H atoms when brought down into the earth's atmosphere. When have we ever heard that a box of solar wind has turned to H gas? Never. That's because they lie; half of the solar wind is not made up of bare protons. It's a claim based only on their wrong theoretical expectations.

NASA claims that solar-wind protons become H atoms at the lunar surface, but at this time I can't know whether this is based on first-hand witness or theoretical expectations. NASA cannot be trusted with its claims. NASA, an evolution activist, wants the world to believe that there's life on Mars, if it can trick humanity into it. This is why I never trust NASA claims, because it's easy to deceive us on outer-space matters. NASA wants people to think that the H atoms from the solar wind make water on the moon, you see, by mixing with O atoms that it claims are in the lunar minerals. NASA never stops pushing the notion that there's plenty of water on some other planets. The repeated notion has evolved into a "fact" by now in the minds of many.

FACT: there's just no way for bare protons not to reload immediately where they are formed in the sun, or as they pass through the solar atmosphere, if indeed they are normal protons. Nobody can argue that the heat in the solar atmosphere strips H atoms of all its electrons, because H atoms can exist just dandy in the hotter solar body itself. Once the protons pass into space re-loaded with most of their electrons, there's nothing to make them bare out there. Therefore, trust your senses: NASA outright lies.

NEWS

John Campbell shows a massive study from Japan showing that, when mRNA-vaccinated people died within a few months of their last vaccination, those who had previously had the most vaccinations died in fewer months after their last vaccination, tending to prove that they died from a direct result of vaccines. This "slow" death rate, after several vaccinations, is to be expected in a mass-murder program under global "population control" in efforts to hide the cause of death. Hell awaits these dark souls.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABxekx2Rp3Y

The following video again suggests that God manipulated the translation of a King James Version without the translators knowing, but it makes me suspect that He would have done the same with original manuscripts:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTXP1bTRIVA

Mercy Health, in the mid-west USA, has had to pay $54M and counting to anti-vax employees fired or otherwise abused in the forced-vaccination era. These types of end results bode well for guarding against goons of the next pandemic.

The video below notes a suspicious move by Robert Kennedy, the MAHA czar. Perhaps he's facilitating another vaccine scam, because he believes in a "universal vaccine" that is supposed to kill all viruses. It sounds perfect for making vaccine scams as cheap as possible because, not needing to provide vaccines for each virus means that much-less fuss and testing needs to be done.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ams9l8CzMm4

Del Bigtree of the Highwire has so shown love for Kennedy's work at Health that there may be no criticisms against him when warranted. This week, Del tells that 40 percent of American parents are still willing to give their children mRNA "vaccines." That looks like a false poll from the pro-vaccine goons seeking to re-popularize the shots. Last I heard, fewer than 40 percent of adults wanted booster shots.

The Trump administration gets credit for cutting nearly $800M in grants to the NIH, the corrupt health department that employed Fauci.

This is what happens in an anti-Christ country:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pk783LnO70A

---

NEXT UPDATE

Here's all four Gospels wrapped into one story.

For Some Prophetic Proof for Jesus as the Predicted Son of God.
Also, you might like this related video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W3EjmxJYHvM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efl7EpwmYUs

Pre-Tribulation Preparation for a Post-Tribulation Rapture

---