Previous Update: July 19 - 25

Updates Index

July 26 - August 1, 2011

The Nearly-Invisible Dot that will become NASA's Nightmare
There's No Evidence of Life at NASA
NASA's Lunar Landing Hoax -- No Guff This Time
The Toronto MayPole Leafs
I Give You the True Atom that Evolutionists and satanists Don't Want

In the last update, it was concluded that the Frank Ley / Lys entity was in the Poitiers peoples, the evolution of Butteri Ligurians. It was also shown that one Charles Coat used a white eagle while the personal Arms of Charlemagne was a black eagle. Therefore, see the split-colored, white and blacks eagle of the Putter/Pouter Coat. The surname also evolved into "Pewter" (as in pewter silver), very interesting because the Poitiers peoples (said by Wikipedia to be Pictones) were traced to the Lemnos metal-making Boiotians. I had traced Hephaestus of Lemnos to the "Halybes," which I ventured to trace (see last update) to "alba"=white and to "silver," a white metal as compared to Hephaestus' copper wife. Pewter is about the color, if not officially the color, of the "white" of heraldry.

You may be hard pressed to find Boiotians in Lemnos, but they were there as the Argo-ship crew. And to prove it, mythical Aedon of Thebes, in Boiotia, was married to a king of Ephesus, the latter smacking of "Hephaestus." In this picture, it looks like the Butteri were from a silver-making Boiotian peoples. It just so happens that I trace Aedon to the Merovingians because she was a granddaughter of Merovee-like Merops. For new readers, Aedon is traced to the Aedui peoples of Autun. Hephaestus wife, NEFERtiti>Aphrodite, is smack beside Autun at NEVERs. Nearby are the Poitiers peoples.

The Putter/Pewter write-up: "First found in Cornwall where they held a family seat as Lords of the Manor of Basustowe." First, the Putters/Pewters ate the Puters that I've mentioned often, linking them to the same-colored Puttins and Putins, whom, we have seen, were branches of the Biden/Button/Buddin clan, a Butteri branch for certain in my mind. Secondly, entering "Basus" brings up a Basil clan using black-on-white roundels="pellets." The same pellets are used by the Pottels (magpies), first found in Somerset, where the Bath and Wells location of the Bidens/Buttons were enjoying titles. Moreover, the Poitou surname, using the same term as the Poitiers people, show a Potelle variation.

Next, the Puttens use the same black on white, but with gold roundels="besants." Besants are then seen in the Arms of Poitiers, and so we start to see that there is in fact a link of these clans to Poitiers. Note that the fleur-de-lys used in the Arms of Poitiers use the fish-tail like design. You can see that the side petals are not aligned with the "fish-tail," so that the tail can be viewed as part of the central "fish body." The lines of the fish body do not line up with the fish tail either, but if they did, it would be too obvious. The point is: why were the side petals not lined up with the parts below the ring?

Then, as the last update traced the Poitiers Butteri rather solidly to Ligurians of the Ley/Legh clan, which uses a red lion, ditto with the Arms of Poitiers. Both the Poitiers and Ley lions are "unarmed" ("armed" in heraldry refers to colored claws).

It was mentioned in the last update that the Poitiers-branch Butteri were linked to Speers of Lusignan (who were in-turn allied to Fulks of Anjou), and so see the spear tip in the Ley/Lech Crest, for it's the same tip as in the Fulkes Crest (and in the Shakespeare Coat). Note how the side petals of the Fulkes fleur-de-lys look like dolphin heads. For readers jumping in here, the Fulks are being traced to the Vulcan-like Velch location in the Butteri-of-Italy theater, one of the main arguments for tracing Butteri to Poitiers.

Fulk I of Anjou was the son of a mother "of Amboise," smacking too much like "Boiotia" to be ignored. There is no Amboise surname showing, but the Boise/Boyse Coat looks like a version of the Sales Coat and the Carreys/Cary Coat (Somerset).

There has been lots of tracing of Butteri lines to pharaoh Apachnas=Khyan, and so let's look at this very interesting next bitty along those lines. The Boise clan, which of course smacks of the Boii-branch Boiotians that founded the Bessin, was first found in Apachnas-like BUCKINGham. The Bucking(ham) surname uses, not only the colors of the Payens/Pagans (that have already been traced to "Apachnas"), but besants (symbol of the Bessin) as with the Puttens. The Bucking besants are on a bar/bend, smacking of the gold cinquefoils likewise on a bend of the Boise's of Buckingham. If that's not enough, there is the Ley/Legh red-on-gold lion below the Bucking bend. Cinquefoils are used by the Potters.

If you're trying to recall where else you saw gold symbols on a blue bend, it was with the Talls (shows the Bessin bees) and related Talbots, terms that I identify with "Sales" = Salyes Ligurians. The early Talbots were "TailleBOIS," if that helps to make both the Talbot and Salyes link to the Boise's of Buckingham. Welsh Bachs use a "talbot" dog in Crest. I could go on and on down this track (not exaggerating) but suffice it to say that the Poitiers-like clans do appear linked to Apachnas-related Hyksos out of the Nile delta, Butteri carriers of the Uat/Buto cult to the Merovingians via the Poitiers peoples. This Poitiers element included in the holy grail Merovingians is no small thing.

The Potters were linked (last update) to the Porters, especially as the English Ports and Potters were both first found in Hampshire. The point here is that French Porters use the gold-on-blue bend again. And these Porters were first found in Berry. The Arms of Berry, first off, use the "fish tail" design of the fleur, as with the Arms of Poitiers. Secondly, Berry is smack beside Poitiers. THIRDLY, T

Let's go back to the wife of Fulk I, of Amboise. "Today [Amboise is] a small market town, it was once home of the French royal court. The town of Amboise is...situated on the Cher River near the small village of Chenonceaux." "Cheno" was not the point, but well taken, especially here. The point is that Berry/Bourges is the capital of the Cher department (where the Cher river flows). Nevers is smack beside Cher, by the way.

NOW BEHOLD THE REVELATION (I just love to say that; it's the only reward we contributors get for this job): "The name of the city [of Berry/Bourges] is either derived from the BITURiges [caps mine!!], the name of the original inhabitants, or from the Germanic Burg (French: Bourg. Spanish: Burgos...Its Celtic name was Avaricon and its Latin name was Avaricum." There you have your Butteri of the Poitiers theater (meaning that Pictones may or may not be the Butteri)! Now what about that Buttery-Khyan equation maintained from update to update recently...where the Cheno term seems to apply so well? Didn't Hyksos rule at Avaris, a term too much like Avaricum to be coincidentalized away (this is my book, I can make up words if I want to).

Keep your sights on the Burgos term, for that was linked entertainingly in the last update to a Lamia human-sacrifice cult, and that topic is about to come up again right in Poitiers. In the Poitiers article: "The name [of Lemonum] is said to have come from the Celtic word for elm, Lemo." When Lemnos was being entertained in the last update as part of a Lamia entity, it of course came to mind that "Lem(nos)" traces back to "Elam." I don't know whether the elm tree was named after Elam>Lemnos somehow, or whether the writer of the above article is way-off base with his "Lemonum" derivation in "elm." The writer fails to give the Celtic word for "elm," and I think it's obvious to Masons that Lemovices and neighboring Santones were the Lemnians and Sintians of Lemnos.

There are some indications that this Poitiers topic traces to Lake Van, as it should without surprise by now. In the last update, the Lam entity was emphasized and traced to DeyLAMites at Lake Van. The Butteri were also traced to Lake Van. We now find that Poitiers is in the Vienne department.

In the last update, the red eagle=phoenix was traced to Lake Van. I recall seeing red eagles called "allerions" in the Crest of a clan I can't recall, and I proposed an Allerion link to the Allier department, beside Cher/Berry. My best recollection for the surname with allerion was "Hagen" or "Hay," and checking those two, what did I find but a the light-blue-on-white fish (Hagen Coat) and a rising eagle in the Hay Crest. The Hagen Coat, moreover, uses a boot! Then I tried the Hoyers, to find that they use Keon-like variations. Recalling that Pendragons were identified as Khyan-Hyksos linked to dolphin-using Tippers and Tipperary, it should be important that Hoyers were first found in Tipperary.

Keons use the same fish as Hagens, and it's the same fish again as the one in the Carling/Caroline Coat. As I claimed that the Keon fish was the makings of the fleur-de-lys some weeks ago, it's important (perhaps of utmost importance) that the same fish is in the Carling Coat, for it begins to link the fish to Carolingian Franks...that honored the fleur-de-lys. The Keon fish was traced to the fish of the Saracas in Laus>Ragusa, and afterward it was found that the Arms of Ragusa uses a so-called "barry" design of stripes, as various Berry-like clans do too...probably because the barry stripes were named after the Berry bloodline.

As was shown several times, German Berrys use fish heads that were linked to mythical Perdix' invention of the saw from the teeth of a fish. Perdix is Freemason-central because he was the inventor of the square and compass too. I had found that the Char(d) surname uses partridges, the ancient symbol of mythical Perdix, wherefore it made sense to link the Cher department and its Berry capital to "PERdix." I concluded that "Perdix" was myth code for "pirate"...and possibly the "parrot" symbols of pirates. In this Perdix picture, it's not conducive for naming Berry after "Bourges/Burgos," though that doesn't mean that Burgos, from Burgundy for example, didn't move into Berry to change the name their way.

Entering "Barry" brings up a French Barrete clan from Charente. It shows a Barre variation, and that's the surname that used two curved fish (in the Arms of Bar-le-Duc) that I thought was the makings of, or code for, the two side petals of the fleur-de-lys (I happened to find the Baar fish in the 3rd update of July just as the fish>lys theory was developing).

The Barry Coat above uses a horse, an apt symbol of the Butteri, and yet the Bituriges-branch Butteri who lived in Berry need to be distinguished from those who named Berry. The alliance between them may have been long-standing before they got to Berry. Perdix was a craftsman of Cretan elements, and Hephaestus was not only the Greek craftsman, but was on Crete too. The Butteri must always trace to Hephaestus' island of Lemnos, and that in itself suggests a Butteri alliance with Perdix as far back as Crete.

The "bien" motto term of the Barrys above may be code for the Biaini of Lake Van. Recalling the trace of "Bonnie" to the Biaini, so the list of locations in the Arrondissement of Poitiers includes one Bonnes and one Biard, the latter being like the Barret variations of the Barrys. Entering "Biard" brings black eagles (eagles are symbols of the Biaini, says me) of a clan first found in Picardy (Artois theater), and that might just be the black Charlemagne eagle. The clan is shown as Bihard, Bicard, and Bigard too, smacking of the Flemish Biggars that use the Dallas Coat exactly with Botter-colored stars.

It may not be coincidental that both Bonnes (from Manche) and English Biards were first found in Sussex, next to Kent, where the Belgian elements (i.e. where Charlemagne blood was from) of Louvains and Brabants merged with the Massins/Masons, the English ground zero of the Freemasons. Unbelievers and sleepy heads harken: both the Bonnes and Italian Botters use a white-on-blue bend, very good evidence that the English Bonnes' were from Bonnes of Poitiers (the Bonnes here are the ones I've traced to "Skull and Bones").

Moreover, English Botters (an eagle "perched") were first found in Hampshire, on the west side of Sussex.

It's amazing that the Beards/Bearts (Brittany) use the same red bull as the Borgias (the Bosons use it too). Julie asked what I knew of a certain Borgia family, and so I've had that on my mind for a week or more. Had she not asked, I wouldn't have known that the Borgias use the Beard/Beart bull. It's important because the Borgias are in the red and gold colors of the French Borgias, who are shown properly as Bourges. That's the name of Berry, France.

I can add that the Bourges/Borgias appear linked to Rockefellers in that the Bourges cross (called a moline and used by Molines), has the same ends as the rooks in the Rook Coat. The Rooks are Rockefellers from the Roquefeuils of Languedoc, where the Bourges/Borgia clan was first found. Note that the Rock Coat uses both the rook and the TreFOIL (what I claim is a RoqueFEUIL code).

Found it: the allerion is used by the Holden Crest; the Coat uses red eagles. The Hays (in Perthshire, where Hagars were first found) entered the picture because the Allier surname uses what I thought (and claimed) was the small red Holden and Hay Shield. At the time, I may not have equated the rising Hay eagle to the allerion, but now it seems too logical. I'll add that I trace the Da-Vinci "cult" (used loosely) to the Merit/Merrey surname, for French Hays/LaHayes use the Merit Coat (in different colors) while Holdens use the "timere" motto term that is code for Meres and DeMeres, the same family as the Merits.

Hagar(d)s and Hays of Perthshire had been identified here as Nahorites, and so I trace the same Nahorites to Lake Van. I did suggest that "Berry" (France) should trace to "Perth." With that in mind, I'll add part of the Hay write-up: "...the Castle and Barony of La Hai-du-puits in Coutances..." I'm not sure what the "puits" refers to, but it smacks of the Pewters and the Poitiers region. Entering "Puits" (in the colors of multiple Burg Coats) brings up the White-style eagle in the Crest of the Pons/Pond clan (Burgundy).

Assuming that Poitiers and Berry held the Butteri that need to link with Cork's Muskerry "cult," what of the Irish Berry clan, first found in Cork?

As Lusignan is in Poitiers, and as that was a Butteri domain (I don't need more convincing), shouldn't Lusignan have been named after the Latins of Lazio? The Butteri lived on a river flowing to Velch in Lazio, and as Fulks of Anjou trace to Velch, so nearby Lusignan should trace to Latins. This was the Biblical dragon bloodline, the harlot, Mys. Babylon. One Guy Lusignan was even on the throne of Templar Jerusalem (spit), after Fulk V of Anjou made it to the same throne (spit). Guy's wife had first been married to a MontFerrat (spit). The article tells that Lusignans were eventually of the Guiscard bloodline (spit). The Israeli flag today is in the colors of Lusignan perhaps for a Lusignan reason.

Back to the Amboise woman that was mother to Fulk I. Was "Boise" a Poitier=Butteri entity? In the Amboise article: "The city [of Amboise] is famous for the Clos Luce [as in Mona LISA?] manor house where Leonardo da Vinci lived (and ultimately died) at the invitation of King Francis I of France, whose Chateau d'Amboise, which dominates the town, is located just 500 meters away." It is so SUSPICIOUS to find the object of the modern "Da-Vinci-Code" holy-grail cult there in the very place that I'm now seeing as French ground zero for the Merovingian grail cult. BUT, the grail has not to do with Mary Magdalene, but with a Lisa-like Lys entity. And that "Luce" we see above? It smacks of Lucca, home of the Italian Botters=Butteri.

The Luce/Lucy Coat use fish too, in Speer colors, and the surname was first found in Norfolk, where the Fulkes were first found, and where some Speers/Sprees (of Lusignan I'm assuming) ended up (at Sparham and Sprowston). French Luces were first in Picardy, where the Biards (of Biard in Poitiers) were first found. The latter Luce Coat looks like it could be the Arms of Perche, for the English Botters use "an eagle standing on a perch." That is, if the Luces are Butteri, they linked up, not surprisingly, with Bellamys of Perche.

Perhaps the Luces were of LUXembourg, which apparently uses the Arms of LUSignan, red Cyprus lion and all (was Luxembourg therefore named in-part after the city of Berry/Bourges?). Or, did Lusignan get it's red lion from where Luxembourg got there's? The link above tells that the two-tailed Luxembourg lion was the Limburg (Belgium) lion. The Limburg Arms were connected with Borgloon, what the French call, Looz. As the Arms of Limburg uses barry stripes, perhaps Limburg should connect with Lemonum.

Why does the Poitou surname use the same cross, in the same colors, as the Irish Burgh/Bourk Coat? Compare with the French Bourges/Burgs. Then, the Crest of the latter is not only a cat -- a symbol of the Lucca Coat -- but it's a "cat-a-mountain," the very same phrase used by the Carling Crest (thought the Carling Coat here doesn't show the cat).

The Burgh/Bourke cat is "chained gold," and then the (Khyan-like) Chain/Cheyne Coat also uses the "fat" Crusader cross. There is yet another fat cross in the Italian Felis/Felice/Felix Coat (location of the family not provided), with white-on-blue stars in the colors of the Carling Coat, mentioned because Carlings use a "Felis" motto term. Moreover, Chains were first found in County Kerry while Carlings were first found in Limerick, much like "LimBURG."

I'm thinking Philistines as per ancient Felix names. There is an English Felix Coat (in the red and blue of the Italian Felix') with surname first found in Sussex, where the Bonnes and Biards from Poitiers were first found. As you know by now that I trace the Butteri, who were in the Botters and Buttons of neighboring Hampshire, to proto-Baathists, how is it that I trace the co-founder of the Baathists, with Aflaq surname, to the Fleck/Flack surname -- with a "fat" cross in the colors of the Chain/Cheyne cross -- while English-Felix variations include, "Felicks"??? Overwhelmingly, everything that I trace proto-Baathists to has a Butteri ghost beside it.

Again, the Samson Coat uses a flag-like motto term, while "Flag" brings up the Fleck/Flack Coat, which like the Samson Coat, uses white-on-black scallops. THE POINT: Samson was given (by myth writers) alliances with Philistines. His wife and girlfriend (Delilah) were Philistines. And shouldn't "Delilah" be a Deylamite entity if Samson traces to Armenia's Sames cult? THEREFORE, the Flecks and Felix' were named in honor of Samson-related Philistines, and just as I traced Khyan to the Samson cult, so we now find the Cheyne surname in relation to the Felix/Fleck bloodline. DICK CHEYNE WAS THE BLOODLINE OF THE EXODUS PHARAOH!

Didn't I suggest that the Samson cult had meshed with Hebron elements, in particular with the line to Dionysus from grapevined Eschol? How is it that, above, we find the Felix clan where the Bonnes clan was first found, which clan was identified, many months ago before arriving to this point, as an integral part of the "Skull and Bones," where "Skull" is code for the Skull surname (Coat like the Bonnes Coat but in Hebron-surname colors) from "Eschol."

It was then argued that the skull and bones cross used by pirates translated to a black-on-white saltire, though we then imagine very correctly that some pirate families, for example the Sinclairs, would use the black-and-white saltire in upright fashion...the way that Aflecks/Aflacks, Bitars/Buttars, and Chains/Cheynes use it.

There is a good argument to be made that "Perdix=pirate" is a consonant reversal of the same entity as "Patter" / "Patrick" / "Peter." "Petris" was just entered as per "Perdix," and up came red roses on gold, what the English Majors/Magors/Mayers use along with an anchor. I make the Petris link to Majors confidently because English Peters use a "major" motto term. . a Burg/Berg like surname. I'm keeping in mind that while the Peters use mascles, the Majors were first found in Meschin-suspect Guernsey. Checking the other major Coats, they are in Patrick colors, and one of them, the Spanish one, uses a Shield filled with black and white checks.

It just so happens that one English Peter Coat uses a raven centrally, which is the raven that the Rook Crest calls a "rook." Then, because the Rock Coat uses the same rook as the Rooks, and because I trace these clans to Roques and Rockelfellers out of Languedoc, I conclude that Peters blood was in Languedoc because "Peter" means, "rock." In this picture, Rockefellers had been Butteri-based and/or pirates. As it was shown from an online source that Roquefeuils had married a Rodes clan in Languedoc, the "sol" motto term of the Rock Coat must be code for Sol=Helios.

Rocks were first in Yorkshire, where the rook-using Rockby/Rokesby clan was first found, and like the French Majors (first found in Provence = Languedoc theater), the Rokesbys and Rooks use a black-on-white chevron. Then, because the Rodes clan should trace to the Lincolnshire Rhodes', so we find the English Peters first found in Lincolnshire. Therefore, Rockefellers and Peters were the same bloodline, though any talk that these lines trace to holy men with a Peter name is rejected by me as typical Rosicrucian facade.

I know now that KilPatricks had branches in Surrey, and that's where we find the mascles used by the Peters clan, for the same mascles are used by Mitchells/Michaels (who use the archangel, Michael, in Crest). The English Mitchell Coat uses gold scallops, the color of the scallops in one Peters Coat, and the same Mitchell Coat has a chevron in colors reversed from the chevrons above. Obama's man in Israel, George Mitchell, is therefore a Butteri and a Hyksos, and frankly, we should find virtually all Freemasonic men and woman in high places to be from the same Butteri-Hyksos family.

We could say that modern Hyksos have made slaves of the rest of us. We could also say that there is a second Moses coming to set us free.

By what coincidence is it that BITURIges were in the Poitiers theater while the Bellovesus Gauls were led by Bituriges? As was said, the Porters use bells in colors reversed from the bells of one Bell Coat, while the other Bell Coat uses the Bellamy Shield. The Perche location of the Bellamys is in Normandy, and then we find stars in the colors of the (Italian) Botter star used by Pittards/Pitous of Normandy. AND, to remind you, the English Botters use an eagle of a "perch."

Wikipedia tells that "Poitou" is pronounced, pwatu, similar to the Pawter variation of the Potters. Poitou was the inclusion of Poitiers but stretching west to the sea in the Biscay theater. Wikipedia mentions the Louisiana Cajuns as stemming from Poitou, and that "Cajun is a variation of "Cadie/Arcadia." It then tells that "Acadia" was a shortened from of "Arcadia" in Greece, where Hermes was born, meaning that the Cadusii of Arcadia may just be the root of Cajuns. It's known that Louisiana was/is (before the flood, anyway) infested by Freemasons, and it is they who likely sponsor and/or relish the annual Louisiana bash. Let's not forget the Caddi of east Texas (i.e. smack beside Louisiana) who are likewise being traced (independently) to Butteri.

As we saw that Harry-like surnames are all over the Bellamy and Muskerry entities, is it coincidental that "Harry Potter" was chosen to represent the witchcraft of that book series? Irish Harrys (using the same spear as Singletarys and Dunhams) were first found in KilKenny / Chill CHAINnigh (the Chain/Cheyne surname was first found nearby, in Kerry). The Arms of Chill Chainnigh use garbs in the colors of the Meschin scallops, as well as "frets" (having mascles at their center) that I view as code for Fertes (of Ferte-Mace where, as an historical fact, the Perche Bellamys stretched into).

I didn't know some months ago, when I suggested that "KIL"(patrick) links to the Chill/Child surname, that "KIL(kenny)" is also "Chill." To repeat, the Hebron surname, using the same chevron as the Chills/Childs, was from Hebburn of CHILLingham (in the next update, we'll ask about the Hubbard surname of satanic Scientology). Possibly, all Kil terms in Ireland link to the Chill/Child surname. As I read Revelation 20, the Second Moses is coming with a chain sized to satan's ankle bones. I also read in the Bible that the Second Moses will crush the serpent's skull. There are some writers in fairyland having the audacity to suggest that the skull and bones of the pirate flag were symbols of the bones of Mary Magdalene, wife of Jesus Christ, that Templars had uncovered and kept. We realize what the rats are up to, hoping to turn Jesus into a non-messiah / false-messiah, just another Joe with standard sex needs.

Do you recall the pomegranates of the Carl/Carley Coat? The same Coat comes up when entering "Carlow," the name of the county that Kilkenny is meshed with. This speaks to the Massey-Carolingian link as well as to the Massey-Khyan link. In the last update, we saw that the Carys/Carreys of Somerset were also in Guernsey, and that Carreys and Harrys show signs of being the same basic bloodline. In fact, the Irish Harrys of Kilkenny are listed firstly as "Carrie." The importance of the Carreys is MusKerry, found to be a key location of the Lake Van phoenix, from Mus of Lake Van, which I suggested was named after the same Hyksos elements that named Moses/Musa/Mouses.

The Guernsey location that is linked to the Gernon Coat (two red-on-gold lions) must be the one off of Normandy, using three red-on-gold lions. The Guernsey capital is Saint Peter Port. The Peters used Burg/berg colors, and in fact one Peter Coat (the one with mascles) uses the same black lion as the Irish/Kilkenny Burgh/Bourke Coat. Then, the Flag of Guernsey looks like the Bourges Coat. AND, the lion in the Gernon Crest is collared gold, as is the Burgh/Bourke-Crest Cat-a-mountain. AND MORE, the collared Gernon lion is likewise black...even like the lion in the Collar(d) Crest.

The Collar(d)s (Moor heads) were first found in Essex and Sussex, the latter location being where the Bonnes and Felix' (= Philistines) were first found. The Philistines were pirates, wherefore they are now suspect as the root of Skull and Bones. The Meschins were of the Samson surname that use the flag-like term as code for the Fleck-branch Philistines, and the first-known Meschin's son was, Ranulph de Gernon. Could it be said that only pirates would want to live way out at sea, in Guernsey, smack in the trade route between Normandy and the Cornwall peninsula.

In the 3rd update of July, KilPatricks (using the skull and bones saltire) were traced (as per their "make sure" motto phrase) to the Philistine area of Makkedah (there was more to it than merely a similarity between "make" and "Makkedah"). The trace of the "sure" term to "Surrey" was made (also in the 3rd update) in-part using evidence from the Sark/Surrey Coat, and now we find that Guernsey was near Sark: "The Bailiwick of Guernsey also administers some aspects of two nearby crown dependencies (Alderney and Sark), and the island of Brecqhou." Hmm, le Meschin's father was Briquessart.

Sark is a very special place, but why: "Sark (French: Sercq; Sercquiais: Sèr or Cerq) is a small island in the Channel Islands in southwestern English Channel, off the French coast of Normandy. It is a Royal Fief, geographically located in the Channel Islands in the Bailiwick of Guernsey, with its own set of laws based on Norman law and its own parliament. It has a population of about 600." The Arms of Sark are, like the Gernon Coat, two red-on-gold lions. Could we suspect that the Brit royals took Sark because they know there are buried pirate treasures there, yet to be uncovered? How else could a place with just 600 people get it's own country?

Now, keeping the pomeGRANate in mind:

The name of the [Guernsey] Channel Island is of Viking [= pirates] origin, as is its neighbouring island Jersey. The second element of Guernsey 'ey' is Old Norse for Island, the first element is uncertain, traditionally meaning 'green,' but perhaps rather representing a Viking personal name, possibly Grani's.

Hmm, I traced "green" to "Cyrene," where there is a Green mountain, and where the Meshwesh lived (I suspect that green mounds of heraldry are code for lines from Cyrene and Libya; the latter's flag is very green). This made me recall that the Grenon surname (from Normandy) uses a Jerusalem-Templar cross on green Shield, wherefore the green in the Guernsey article may be deliberate clue by a writer having some fun while unwilling to give up the goods in straight fashion.

Entering the "make" motto term of Kilpatricks brings up the Mack surname of Bernicians, who I say were named after "Varangi" vikings. As the founding of Varingians is traced easily to Wieringen of Holland, what can we make of the gold-on-red crowns in the Dutch Mack/Mackay Coat (Massey Shield) as they might link to the same-colored crowns in the Gran-like Grant Coat? Could we suppose that Gran, the viking proposed above as the namer of Guernsey, led to the Grant surname too? Grants were first found in Inverness-shire, a location owned and visited repeatedly by vikings. It was emailed Patterson that alerted us to the Grant relationship with Hall(and)s, and that Norwegian Hallands were granted titles/holdings in the Inverness theater.

In the Grant motto and in the "Big" of the Grant write-up, I see links to the Hungarians/Transylvanians of Shetland (off the Inverness-theater coast), whom in the past were revealed as the Drummond line. In the Arms of Shetland, we see a viking ship with raven in the mast, but also a "Bygger" motto term, no doubt symbol for the Flemish Biggars...that I traced to "Bihar(ia)" on the Hungary-Transylvania border. Then, in the Grant Crest, flames are used as symbol for Flemings. You can run, but you can't hide from tribwatch.

The Grant motto, "Stand Fast," is like the Leslie motto, "Grip Fast," said to be words spoken in relation to the ship that the first Drummond, Maurice Drummond (grandson of king Andrew I of Hungary), piloted to Scotland when carrying a crew of Hungarians, including the proto-Leslies.

The Leslies were first found in Aberdeen, where the pomegranate-using Carls/Carleys/Carlows were first found. It just so happens that the Gyula Kabars/Khazars, who lived in the Biharia region, are known to be part of Hungarian ancestry. I claim that "Aberdeen" was named after "Kabar" or even "Kabardino," but the bigger point is that the Gyulas were descended from a Carold/Karold and/or Sarolt name so that the Carlys/Carlows of Aberdeen are now discovered as the Gyula Kabars! Isn't that grand?

And remember, the Biggar Flemings use the Dallas Coat and should therefore be a branch of Butteri. As we saw that Carolingian Franks had some early ties or even origins about the Butteri of Poitiers, chances are, the Gyulas were merged maritally with Carolingians. The Carls/Carlows should therefore prove to be Carolingian blood from the Gyulas, and yet that blood is suspect in Guernsey too if I'm correct in tracing the Carl pomegranate there. In any case, recalling the white-on-blue fish of the Carlings/Karolans, that it's suspect as the Saraca fish that morphed into the fleur-de-lys, read here:

During their migration to Brittany, the Britons occupied the Lenur Islands (former name of the Channel Islands including Sarnia or Lisia (Guernsey) and Angia (Jersey). It was formerly thought that the island's original name was Sarnia, but recent research indicates that might have been the Latin name for Sark; although Sarnia remains the island's traditional designation. Coming from the Kingdom of Gwent, Saint Sampson (abbot of Dol, in Brittany) is credited with the introduction of Christianity to Guernsey.

Guernsey was also "Lisia"??? Are we not down the Lys alley here? As the Ragusa home of the Saracas was also, "Laus," what of that Saraca-like name of "Sark" or "Sarnia"? And why was there a Sampson term in Dol??? His Gwent location of origin is, I think, the Vannes location in Brittany. The former name of Guernsey, Lenur, smacks of the Alans/Allens. It also smacks of "Lennard/Leonard," and so I should show the flames (= Flemings) in the French Lenard Coat. Irish Lenards have a stag (symbol of Hungarians and of Hannibal-Carthaginians) on a mound (= Libya/Cyrene here).

I would suggest that the pomeGRANate was symbol for "Cyrene" elements, the same that named "Guernsey." I did trace the Saracas to an alliance of Lohengrin-branch Ligurians with Carthaginians, and I identified Lohengrin's father, Percival, with the Perche Bellamys. Thus, when we find the Guernsey link to Carries, while MusKerry elements (i.e. the MacCARHTYs) were traced to Carthaginians already, and also because Masseys have been traced in different ways to Carthaginians, I'd conclude that the child-sacrifice cults were in Guernsey, Normandish prize of the Brit royals.

I traced Meshwesh of Cyrene to the mythical Graeae hags of north Africa, but don't recall making a Graeae link to "Cyrene"...until now. Hmm, as the Grants use "Stand fast" in coupling to the Drummond ship symbol, and as "Grant" was just proposed as the Gran-viking entity that named (or at least had associations with) Guernsey, note the Gray Crest anchor and the Gray motto: "Anchor fast anchor."

You may be asking what a Gran-named viking has to do with north-Africa, and the typical solution is the Guiscard-related Saracens. Guiscard teamed up with Saracen leaders (Sicily) named Samsam and Timnah, if that helps to identify "Saint Sampson" of Guernsey (he has a locality named after himself) for what he might really be. In the Grey write-up: "...After the [Conqueror's] conquest, Anschatel Groy settled in Chillingham, Northumberland. He was from the department of Haute Saone called Gray [Sicilian Guiscards were from the Hauteville clan], sometimes Groy, or Croy, in Normandy. From this house sprang the Grays of Suffolk, Kent, Tankerville [Guiscards were from Tancards=Tankervilles], and Stamford..."

The Hebrons (Samson-ites were from Hebron of Israel) were from Chillingham too, and the Lenards (brought forth as per "Lenar," the early name of Guernsey) with mound use a "hibernico" motto term. The Gray lion is in the white-on-red of the Hebron chevron, and we need to remember that heraldic lions may nearly-all trace to the lion-and-honey in the "Biblical" Samson account.

Now the Meschins (Samson relatives) were from Calvados, and earlier in the Gray write-up: "As a habitational name, it derived from the place named Graye, in Calvados." Julie would be interested in this: Footes Lane in the Guernsey capital. It smacks of Foetes/Fussen in Bavaria. On the one hand this gives me a problem, and yet on the other it supports the Gernon-surname trace to "Guernsey." The problem is, I had identified the "CyFOETH" motto term of the Gernons as code for Foetes, when now it looks like code for Footes. But, remember, Foetes is on a Lech river, and moreover the Arms of Foetes can be traced to Lug-branch Ligurians, while the Saracas at Laus/Ragusa were linked to Ligurians. Or, if Saracas are suspect at the Sark location beside Lisia=Guernsey, then the Ligurians amongst that Saracas are expected in Guernsey too. I do identify the Gernon lion, and the same-colored lion of Ranulf le Meschin, as the Ley/Legh lion.

I was just about to leave this topic, when about to use the browser open at the Guernsey article to get the news. At that moment, my eyes fell on the list of rulers in present Guernsey, and while the governor has a Walker surname, I checked first of all the Rowland surname of the bailiff. It floored me to find the Ley/Legh Coat exactly as the Scottish Rowland Coat. This lion is the official lion of Scotland.

The English Rowland write-up: "First found in Bedfordshire, where a record in the Domesday Book lists Roland as being a landholder in Beeston (Bistone)." I don't know whether that's the Beeston location in Cheshire, but it's remarkable that I traced the Bessin/Beaston surname to the Bistue location on the Bosna/Basante river, very near to the Ragusa Saracas roughly where (what looks like) "Asamum" is stamped on the lower left of this map.

The only other surname in the Guernsey list is, Trott. Their Coat compares very well with the English Rowland Coat (suggesting that Trott got the job due to love of bloodlines). The Rowland Coat is exactly the French Stur/Estur/Esturmeyer Coat. The latter surname was from CHERburg (Manche), which could suggest that the Stur stripes are the same-colored Berry stripes. That allows the BITURIges of the Cher-Berry region to be in charge at Guernsey.

The Scottish Walker Coat uses a white saltire (like the Kilpatrick Butteri), BUT LOOK UNDER the saltire to see the same three stripes as in the Rowland and Trott Coats!!! What a family sham!!! The best applicants don't get the jobs; it's who you know, not what you know. It's not representation for the people; it's bloodline rulership, and slavery of the rest. As Jesus said, tax collectors don't collect from their sons. The corruption is way at the top under the nose of the duke of Normandy, the chief of Guernsey, and that duke is listed in the Guernsey article as queen Elizabeth II. Perhaps this is her natural way of making lap-dogs out of would-be applicants on all her fronts.

Walkers were half the bloodline of the president Bushes, and one of the Bush Coats uses a lion in Ley/Legh-lion colors too. I had traced the white-on-blue Bush fleur-de-lys to the Saraca fish, but as that link was found to be in the Baars/Barrs, I should show how the Barton Shield (in Bush-Coat colors) reflects the German Walker Shield slightly (for those following the Bush=Scherf topic, here's the Scherf Coat for comparison; best place for that topic is the 4th update in April).

I'm a thinker, not a groupie of wild theories. I don't think the United States made it to the moon with a man. Or, at the least, some lunar landings were stage productions. The reason that this is becoming a topic here is to show how facade is the name of the Illuminati game. I don't have evidence at the moment that faked lunar landings originate in Illuminati circles, but if NASA leaders could (almost) get away with such a hoax, and surely the government was in on it, then why would we expect any less lies, and fun, from the Illuminati? You can bet that those involved in the lunar stage productions had lots of fun crafting and producing the hoax, and there are people who will tell you that NASA is Illuminati-infested.

It's my belief that astronomy and cosmology is a Rosicrucian "science" to destroy faith in a Creator. Here's one recent article from the news. Note the Drake surname and the SETI letters, smacking of ancient Set, the evil Egyptian god that was paired with Horus and whom I trace to "Zedek," the name once of Amorite Jerusalem. Set was right down the Uat/Buto all-seeing-eye cult:

Scientists engaged in the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI) work under the assumption that there is, in fact, intelligent life out there to be found. A new analysis may crush their optimism.

To calculate the likelihood that they'll make radio contact with extraterrestrials, SETI scientists use what's known as the Drake Equation. Formulated in the 1960s by Frank Drake of the SETI Institute in California, it approximates the number of radio-transmitting civilizations in our galaxy at any one time by multiplying a string of factors...[blah blah blah, it's a hoax, a lie, and they know it, but are determined to have us believe that life evolves everywhere naturally and expectedly]...

...Drake and others have plugged in their best guesses, and estimate that there are about 10,000 tech-savvy civilizations in the galaxy currently sending signals our way -- a number that has led some scientists to predict that we'll detect alien signals within two decades.

In my mind, this two-decades prediction signals another hoax, that the Illuminati is considering the production of solid evidence for alien life. But these people are sloppy when producing hoaxes, and have been caught many times, which, fortunately, reduces the number of hoaxes. The moon landings ended because they didn't want to push their luck as word of the hoax was slipping out. Indsider whistle-blowers were murdered to protect the moon-landing hoax. Murder is as Illuminati as bread and butter is to your dinner table:

Bill Kaysing got in touch with his friend, a private investigator from San Francisco called Paul Jacobs, and asked him to help him with his Apollo anomalies investigations. Mr. Jacobs agreed to go and see the head of the US Department of Geology in Washington, as he was travelling there the following week after his discussion with Mr. Kaysing. He asked the geologist, 'Did you examine the Moon rocks, did they really come from the Moon.?' The geologist just laughed. Paul flew back from Washington and told Kaysing that the people in high office of the American Government knew of the cover-up. Paul Jacobs and his wife died from cancer within 90 days!

The article above provides many points for discrediting the moon landings. One of the best in my mind is where the highest any astronaut jumped on the moon was less than 24 inches. If you or I were on the moon, with 1/6 the gravity here, the first thing we would do and say to Earth is: "Watch this guys," and then jump straight up five or six feet. But NASA would give an explanation for emitting such an event, and the peoples would tend to believe NASA rather than the conspiracists. Illuminati hoaxers/liars bank on the peoples who take pride in their scientists and other professionals.

At this webpage, look at the close up of the rock, seen much smaller in the photo of the astronaut. Look at how bright-white the rock is under the red arrow. Then, in the close-up, see that the angle of the rock's face is almost parallel with the shadow of the astronaut. If you understand laws of reflection (which are very easy to understand), you know that the flat face of an object cannot become bright-white from a light source if it merely skims the face at nearly 180 degrees.

You can easily peg the location of the light source that's lighting up that rock. It's not much further away from the camera than the rock itself! The light is NOT coming from millions of miles beyond the "moon."

In relation to the viewer at the camera, the rock is to the left about 10-15 degrees where straight ahead from the camera is taken as 0 degrees. The rock face is at roughly a 45-degree angle. You can draw these lines on paper to find the location of the lighting, which is to the right of 0 degrees at a distance not much more than the distance that the rock is to the left of 0 degrees.

If the rock with 45-degree face were sitting at dead-center (0 degrees) from of the camera, the light would be coming in from the other side of the face at 45 degrees. In relation to the viewer, that last line would be perpendicular to the camera, by which I mean to say at 90 degrees to the 0 degree line. To put it another way, the line of incoming light would never be behind the rock, nor in front of the rock, but straight out from the rock to our right. Draw that line, then draw another line from the astronaut's shadow until it intersects with the first line, and that intersection is where the lighting is propped.

BUT, the rock is not sitting dead-center to the camera, but to the left of dead center. Go ahead and experiment with the lines on paper, and you will realize that, the more to the left of dead center the rock sits, the more the line of in-coming light to the rock face has to have a source IN FRONT of the rock ("front" means closer to the camera, "back/behind" means further from the camera). Yes, under the particulars above, the lighting would be closer to the camera than the rock itself, meaning that light could not be from the sun behind the rock.

Now, study the rock's shadow, and you'll quickly see that its angle is not anywhere near the angle of the astronaut's shadow. The rock's shadow is nearly 90 degrees to the 0-degree line. Granted, the shadow comes a little toward the front of the rock, telling that the light source is a little further from the camera than the rock, but what this reveals is that the rock face is a little more than at 45 degrees. No problem, for a look at the rock's close-up does appear to show a little more than 45 degrees.

In this shot, where you can glean the hot/bright spot of the stage-production lights at Buzz Aldrin's feet area, you can clearly see that the NASA-ites have no recourse for explaining why the shadow of the astronaut is not in line with the shadow of the lander's leg. Yes, there is a dip to the astronaut's right, but the dip is straight out from the astronaut actor (i.e. the dip is not an angle to the astronaut actor) so that the shadow should not bend (much, anyway).

Later in this update, while continuing a lengthy treatment on the NASA hoax, I'll discuss the small bright rock over Aldrin's left shoulder. Note how close it is to the "horizon," and yet the rock looks to be not more than about 100-200 feet away. It's as if the horizon is significantly less than 1000 feet away from the lander, the work of photo doctoring...because the ground prepared by the stage-production had limits on how large it could be. In some cases of photos, the same detail as in the foreground is visible right to the edge of the horizon, as if a touch-up artist put a black finish to the photo to indicate outer space just hundreds of feet from the prop zone.

If the sun were lighting up the moon, shouldn't it be just as light in the photo's background as in the foreground? But if stage lighting were being used, it explains why it gets markedly darker with distance. No matter what NASA-ites tell in order to explain this problem, the arguments are incorrect because the darkening-background problem disappeared in later moon missions.

Another point is that the "dark" side of the astronaut is lit up significantly, unexpected where there is no atmosphere to scatter light. In the close-up of the helmet, the top of the astronaut's helmet is at least darker, though not as dark as would be expected in a non-atmosphere situation. Yet, the astronaut's front side is much lighter than the darkness on his helmet, meaning either one of two things: 1) there is a second lighting system to the front of the astronaut, though either not powerful enough to cast a shadow behind the astronaut, or, perhaps, shadows from the second lighting system were air-brushed out; 2) the astronauts were pasted in to the landscape scene (later we'll see definite proof of pasting).

Go ahead, shine headlights from your car at night onto the back of a person, and, if you are looking into the headlights, the front of that person will not be lit up...if there is nothing to reflect light to the person's front. The person will look black in the car lights.

On a moon-lit night, you can see your shadow. The earth is much larger than the moon, meaning that it would cast an earth light on the moon much brighter than what we get on a moonlit night here. This can be used to explain why astronauts are lit up to their front sides when the sun is to their backsides. But, chances are, there should be some occasions when both sun and earth are behind astronauts, and at those times the astronauts should appear black. If such photos do exist, NASA would have provided them to squelch this argument. I've yet to see a black astronaut, and yet it seems by design that shade-sides of rocks are consistently blacked out. If the earth's light plays any part, as the NASA-ites claim, why does it fail to brighten up shadows as well as in-shade rock faces? Forget it. You will see below undeniable evidence that the moon was not visited by the men of the Apollo program.

There is one photo shown where the sun is near the horizon. Why does the sun look so small there, smaller than we see it on earth? It suggests that the photo was taken when the moon was further from the sun than the earth, at which time the moon phase (as seen from earth) is toward the full moon. But in a full moon position, the earth would be seen, by someone on the moon, near the sun. In that case, the astronaut's front side could not be lit up by the earth, for the earth would then be to the astronaut's back.

The article claims that coke bottles were seen in the lunar shots when viewed from Australia:

...Needless to say, the footage had been edited [by NASA] and the offending Coke bottle had been cut out of the film. But several other viewers had seen the bottle and many articles appeared in The West Australian newspaper.

Western Australia received their coverage in a different way to the rest of the World. They were the only Country where there wasn't a delay to the 'live' transmission. Bill Kaysing says 'NASA and other connected agencies couldn't get to the Moon and back and so went to ARPA (Advanced Research Projects Agency) in Massachusetts and asked them how they could simulate the actual landing and space walks (article above).

[Lots of NASA-hoax proof further below, some of it undeniable]

That ARPA agency smacks of HARP (a science that some say will be the basis of a future hoax) and of Arpad in Syria. There is also DARPA -- Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency -- an arm of the United States Department of Defense. In my books, Arpad (Syria) was the Ares -- god of war -- dragon. Wikipedia: "The Advanced Research Projects Agency Network (ARPANET), was the world's first operational packet switching network and the core network of a set that came to compose the global Internet. The network was funded by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA)..." What??? The same people who produced the fake-moon shots also created the Internet??? Are we in trouble or what? When does the backstab take place? How will we be silenced who use the Internet to shine light on their darkness?

To view an occult logo of a DARPA agency, scroll down a little past half way on this page to the Information Awareness Office."

The first man on the moon had an Armstrong surname, one that I say is a Rothschild clan as per the strongarm symbol used by Rothschilds. The Armstrong Crest uses that symbol in red. The Coat looks like the Arms of Richard Amerike, the New-World explorer with John Cabot whom some suspect as the namer of America. His surname is also "Maurice," and so what about the modern globalist/Illuminatist, Maurice Strong? The Strong Coat not only uses the Ferte eagle in colors reversed, but shows an "est" motto term, smacking of: 1) Aosta, where a Ferrat valley is found, and; 2) Asti (Piedmont, beside Aosta), where Montferrat is found.

The ArmStrong Coat just happens to be three vertical bars/stripes, just like the Coats of the present rulers of Guernsey. The write-up traces "strongarm" to a Fortenbras surname, but that can be undressed as part of the Bras surname, for it too uses a strongarm. In fact, the strongarm in the Coat is identical to the bent arm holding a sword in the Crest. We see many such bent arms in heraldry. Note that the Bras Coat uses a bar called a "bend," for this bend term was traced (by me) to Foetes elements as they link to Lancelot's father, Ban(t).

There is not only a Langhe region in Piedmont, but it's near Brae of Piedmont. The Brae/Bray Coat is in Bras-Coat colors. Variations of the Bras surname include Brace, Braice, Brayce [Bryce-like] and Brass, while the Armstrong bars are in the blue-on-white of the Yorkshire Bruces. The Armstrongs therefore look like a branch of Bryces=Brians of Briancon on the Durance river. Note that while I trace the Durance-river Salyes to Foetes (and tentatively to Footes on Guernsey), I trace Foetes Ligurians to the Isle of Man, for the Armstrong Coat uses a "maneo" motto term.

As I've become sure that the Butteri trace to the Salyes somehow (I'm expecting to find them on the Durance river but in any case feel I've found them on the Buthier of Aosta), let's go back to the Irish Kilpatrick Coat, which uses a white-on-black saltire, similar and perhaps linked to the white-on-black bend of the Bras' (a bend may actually be intended as half a saltire in some cases). And remember, the Walkers that use the three bars/stripes use a white saltire over them. The point is, the Kilpatrick motto term, "laidir," is found in the Armstrong write-up: "The Armstrong surname is thought to come from the Middle English words 'strong' and 'arm,' and has also been rendered in Gaelic as MacGhillieLAIDER" (caps mine). Kilpatricks were first found in Ossory, and piece of Ireland dedicated to the queen, just like Guernsey. Ossory is now Laois, much like Laus, the name once of Ragusa. "OSSORI" is not far off of the Sheri variations of the "sure"-using Kilpatricks...that I trace to "Surrey/Sark." To the near-south of Ragusa on this map (not shown, but near where "Asamum" or "Epiduarum" is stamped, lower left), we find "Butua," and if per chance the Kilpatricks link to Butua, we should expect Kilpatrick-branch Butteri also in Lisia=Guernsey and neighboring Sark.

Here's an online quote: "Fitzpatrick's of proven descent Ian has a claim to the famous Coat of Arms of Ossory." So famous I can't find the Arms online. But what I did find in the process is that the earls of Ossory started with the Butler surname. Coincidence??? For weeks I've been claiming without batting an eyelash that Patricks were Butteri. The Butlers who ruled Ossory were previously earls of Ormonde, explaining why the two Butler Coats are identical to the Ormonde Coats.

I don't know what to make of the Ormonde/Butler write-up: "First found in Kilkenny. The first on record was Theobald FitzWalter, a distinguished Norman noble who accompanied Strongbow and was created the Chief Butler of Ireland in 1177. They occupied the Castle of Kilkenny." First, the Butlers appear to be Walters (Walkers?), and secondly, I am having trouble believing that the Butlers of Ireland were actually butlers. I rather trace them to Butteri elements. By now, I know that heraldry write-ups cannot be trusted at all times, especially where the families wish to disguise their roots. Did you note STRONGbow (Clare) in that Butler write-up? There's a good chance that he's the Armstrong bloodline of the Bower-rooted Rothschilds.

When we enter "Armes" as per the Armestrong variation, an Amis/Amos Coat comes up looking like a variation of the Sales Coat. The Amis/Amos bend is almost identical to the Carrey-Coat bend. I had traced the Amis/Amos/Hames surname both to the Amazon city of "Amisos" (also "Samsun") and to "Hamo(n)" de Mascy (the Sales were known as "Sales of Mascy"). The Samson Coat is in Amis/Amos colors. The "candida" motto term of the Amis/Amos clan helps to trace them to the Ligurians because the house of Candie/Candida was of Savoy elements.

Were Walkers the Walters=Butlers? Two Walker Coats are in the colors of the two Coats within the Butler Coat. This evokes the Walter given names of the stewards=butlers of the Alan>Stewarts; in fact, it was Walter Stewart that was made the first High Steward of Scotland. We might expect at least one Walter surname from him alone. Note that the Butler Crest is a pelican (I'm pretty sure about that, I recall finding that as fact somehow), used also by Scottish Stewarts.

BUT I'm still having trouble believing that Butlers / Stewarts were from butlers. Remember, Stewarts seized the island of Bute as soon as the first Stewart, Robert Bruce II (son of WALTER Stewart) got on the Scottish throne. Should we think that Bute was named after butlers? The German Butes/Butts, first found in Prussia as with the Butlers/Ormondes, use a fish centrally! Another coincidence, or were these Butes/Butts not from Butua near the Saracas??

Bruce II was born in Paisley, in the Glasgow theater (Stewart-infested) where KilPatrick>Houston elements had been traced. It was the Houstons/Cuistons (depicted by the "cussions" of the Kilpatrick Coat) that were linked solidly to the Surrey/Sark surname. It was easy to figure, as per known Wishart=Guiscard roots in Glasgow, that Houstons/Cuistons were both Guiscards and the Cussane variation of Irish Pattersons, themselves a branch of Patricks. Scottish Pattersons, like the Butlers, also use pelicans. It therefore gives good reason to trace Pattersons and Kilpatricks to Butua, and that tends to identify Butua as a Butteri homefront.

I had no intention of being back on the Kilpatrick topic, but was led here as per the Armstrong topic that started out as the moon-mission topic. What gives?

This is a good place to mention that queen Margaret, mother of the Scottish king who first invited the proto-Stewarts to be High Stewards, was probably a Drummond. It just occurred to me how this works. Robert Stewart/Bruce was the son of a MARjorie, named after her mother's Mar estate. Mar is a region in Scotland that I linked to Drummonds due to KilDrummy castle in Mar, while also the first Drummond to Scotland was MARot/Maurice, the one who piloted the ship that brought MARJORie-like MARGARet to Scotland (from Hungary). The Drummy surname (mascles) was first found in Aberdeen, where the Leslies and other Hungarian-related Kabars were first found. As the Carls/Carlows of Aberdeen were just traced tentatively to Carolingians, I note that the Drummys use a black eagle, which may be that of Charlemagne.

I trace "Drummond" ultimately to "Thermodon," the Amazon theater that included Amisos/Samsun. In fact, the PICtones (and therefore the Butteri of the Poitiers entity) could trace to the PYXites river of the Khaldi-Thermodon theater. There is an argument to be made that the Khaldi and the names of the Pyxites led to the CALEDonian Picts of Scotland, who lived in what became Aberdeen [Aberdeen soon becomes important to NASA].

There has to be a reason why the Mackesy surname is also "Margeson," or why entering "Margy" brings up the Mackie Coat using the same lion as Mackesys/Margesons. We then find the same lion in the German Walter Coat, and this tends to verify that Stewarts and queen Margaret were BOTH Drummonds, explaining why Stewarts were lifted high in the royal court of Margaret's son. On that first High Steward: "Walter fitz Alan (died June 1177) was the 1st hereditary High Steward of Scotland (ca. 1150-1177)...He was the third son of a Breton knight, Alan fitz Flaad, feudal lord of Oswestry..." Oswestry=Ossory??? If so, doesn't that link (Kil)Patricks of Ossory to the Bute elements in the Stewarts?,_1st_High_Steward_of_Scotland

The Steward article also has this, keeping in mind that I was looking at the Leader Coat an hour or so ago as per the "laidir" motto term of Kilpatricks: "Walter acquired directly from the Crown the Berwickshire estates of Birkenside and Legerwood on the eastern or left bank of the Leader Water... and presented to the monks the church of Legerwood [smacks of Ligurians]...The [Legerwood] monastery steadily grew and by 1219 became Paisley Abbey." It sounds like "Leger" and "Leader" are the same entity.

The Birken Coat compares well with the French Leger Coat, and the latter was first found in Burgundy, suggesting that Birkenwood traces to Burghs / Birkes of Burgundy. But more can be gleaned, for the Leger write-up traces to a German "Leodegar", and moreover the Leger Coat looks like a color-reversal of the German Drummond Coat. Then, as "Leod" smacks of "Leo," we find the Scottish Drummonds were from Lennox/Levenax elements, which could link to Lenards/Leonards. In any case, entering "Leod" brings up the white-on-blue of the McLeods, the colors also of the Legers/Leodegars. Keep in mind that McLeods are highly suspects a Clovis-Merovingians and Edomites.

The McLeod motto, "Hold fast," is considered by me to be a play on (or vice-versa) the Leslie motto, "Grip fast," which was itself a phrase in honor of Maurice Drummond's sea voyage with Leslies and Margaret on board. Also on board was Henry Sinclair, Margaret's "cup-bearer" = butler, who was granted titles in Roslin of Edomite-infested Lothian. Sinclairs proper came to own a black-on-white enGRAILed cross, and I think it linked to the (Kil)Patrick saltire.

Evidence that Legers were Ligurians is in the lattice design (in French Leger colors) used by English Legers. I link that design to the Cottians of the Ligurian theater, and yet the lattice was used also by Guiscards (the "Haut" motto term of the Legers suggests the Hautville ancestry of Guiscard, but then Legers also use "bon"). The Legers can also be linked to the Salyes Ligurians by the fact that the Leger page shows Sallinger and Sellinger variations. It also shows a "St. Leger" variation that we may be led to think came first, and only afterward did it modify into "Sallinger." Not necessarily. It's not often that I find the Vince/Vinch dragon, but there's one in the Leger Crest.

If "Sallinger" came first, then one could argue that McLeods and Legers together were Salyes. That jibes with my trace of McClouds to the Clode-like variations of king "Clovis," and where i in-turn traced Clovis' Merovingians to the Salyes. One argument used for the Clovis trace to Salyes is that Merovingians had been Salian Franks, a term smacking of "Sallinger." But I had earlier traced Salians to "Silesia," and so we now find that German Walters, who are to be perfectly expected in the Legerwood/Paisley/Renfrew theater, were first found in Silesia. In fact, Silesia was important to the Piast=Mieszko Poles, and so the Pollock surname, said to derive from king Clovis, by the way, was first found in relatives of the Stewarts there. I did trace "Piast" to "Paisley."

But then Dobys were also first found in Renfrewshire, and they were traced to "Dubrovnik," the alternative name of Ragusa! And so the idea presented above that KilPatrick-branch Butteri, from Butua near Ragusa, were in Renfrewshire (where Glasgow is located), seems to pan out. In case I've lost you in this mess, the "laidir" motto term of Kilpatricks was just traced to the LEADER Water at Legerwood.

Therefore, with Kilpatricks more-solidly traced to Renfrewshire, it helps to trace them to neighboring Bute, solidifying further their Butteri ancestry. And recalling that Italian Botters were at Lucca, what about a "Leger" trace to Lucca? Indeed, the Lucca Coat was found to use a border of the Massar Coat (surname first found in Lucca), but then many months ago I had linked the Massar border to the Mackesy/Margeson border. The Mackesy lion is used also by the Silesian Walters, suggesting that Mackesys were named after "Mieszko." But as we can see that these Silesian Walters trace to the Legerwood theater, let's not forget that Walters entered this discussion from the BUTler write-up, where it seemed that Butlers and Walters were one and the same.

I can now report what I don't think I've ever realized, that the gold-collared black Mackesy lion, in the Crest, is the gold-collared black lion in the Gernon Crest (= Guernsey elements)...and seen without the collar in the Wyatt Crest, a surname that I trace to the Uat/Buto cult. In my mind, the Uat/Buto/Bast lion goddess traces to Budapest's gold lion, and to the gold-on-black lion of the Wittelsbachs, wherefore gold-collars black lions above should link to the Wittelsbachs lion. We can easily imagine a "Wyatt" link to "Wittels," anyway, but in this picture, the Butteri elements in the Hungarian Drummo-Leslie line to Scotland should prove to be from BUDA(pest), Hungary's capital.

If the Wyatt's "Duriora" motto term, and the Gernon's "CyFOETH" motto term, both indicate Ligurians, then as per the Mackesy link to Lucca's Massars, I think we can indeed identify Lucca as a Ligurian settlement, and that jibes with my proposed (but as-yet unfound) trace of Lucca's Butteri clan(s) to the Durance-river Salyes. Certainly, if only the Wyatt motto term signifies the Durance, then the Uat/Buto cult is shown to trace there, and let's not forget the half-gold lion of the Bryces and Brains, for they surely connect to Briancon on the Durance. In case you've forgotten or not read it, I trace "Durance/Durante" to Turan, the Etruscan goddess on the Fiori river where the Butteri lived.

The Mackesy motto term, "lie," should be code for the Ley/Lee/Legh/Ligh surname with Lie variation listed in the data bank. Entering "Leager" brings up the Leaman surname...which I'll assume to be a Ley/Lee branch. Perhaps coincidentally, the Leamans are also shown as "Lemon," which I won't entertain as a Lemnos-honoring name. The Leagers/Leamans use dolphins in the colors of the Butteri lone star.

What significance would it be to have a dolphin and/or Daphne linked to the Butteri? Was the Saraca fish from a dolphin symbol presumably used by the Butua location near Ragusa? The Uat/Buto cult is always linked here to the Hyksos, and it just so happens that Hyksos, long before the Butteri were on my plate, were identified fundamentally with the Everes>Daphne line.

Here's from the Leger write-up: "The surname Leger is derived from the Old German personal name Leodegar, meaning people spear." As Legerwood is in Renfrewshire, where the Speers were first found, I'll bet that Legers were from Lusatia's Spree river, where I trace Speers and relater Sprees. And yes, were Leger entities not just traced to Silesia, which overlaps Lusatia, and don't I trace "Lusatia=Luzica" to Lys / Ley entities, as the Legers were just traced to?

Amazingly, as Legers appear to link to the Leader Water and therefore to the "laidir" motto term, which is not only used by Kilpatricks, but found in the Armstrong write-up, it means that LIDDesdale should apply: "This well known Border surname [Armstrong]...The King [of Scotland, unidentified] then granted [Fairbairn] lands in Liddesdale and bestowed on him the name of Armstrong." What's amazing is that the MacGhillieLAIDIR term in the Armstrong write-up had led to the Leger topic in the first place. The Liddy surname, a Dalcasian sept, may apply.

I now find that Liddesdale is in the Roxburgh border region, and Roxburgh too was infested with Mieszko Poles, namely the Maxwells and Maxtons, and it just so happens that Pollocks of Renfrewshire (i.e. where Legerwood and Leader Water are located) are a Maxwell sept, and moreover, Maxwells, like Kilpatricks, use a black-on-white saltire!!

It should be added that Armstrongs were first found in Cumberland, a place that i trace to Chemmites that honored the Uat-Buto cult. I had traced Cumber-like terms to SiCAMBRIA, an alternative name of Buda(pest) wherein the Sicambrian Franks came forth that merged with Salian Franks to found Merovingians. In case you've forgotten, the French Legers were also Sallingers...who I now think were of the Salian bloodline.

In case you don't know, the topic at hand is very antiChrist-related where I trace Silesians and Salyes to "Seleucus," the Greco-Babylonian king from which the Bible traces the end-time anti-Christ. There is good reason for that Seleucid link to Silesians, and if it's correct, both the Merovingians and Arthurians -- and Masseys and all the rest -- are of the anti-Christ entity. It's our job as members of these bloodlines to resist and oppose the darker members who bring on the anti-Christ empire. We can't fight with weapons, but we can shed the Light of God upon the darkness.

One of the best pieces of evidence found to trace Cumber-like terms to Chemmites is that I identified the latter with Kemuel, son of Nahor, afterwhich I found the Cumberford/CAMELford surname (very Rosicrucian cross, should link to the Sinclair cross). The Cumberford Crest is a peacock, and the Peacock clan (mascles again) is a sept of Pollocks. It suggests that Chemmites were merged with Masseys (there's plenty of evidence for that), and indeed Chemmites worshipped Perseus...traced here to mythical Paris Mysians. It is very likely that the Kemmis-surname bell pattern traces from Bellamys to mythical Belas, code for the Pelusiac river, where Tanis was located, the city ruled by Meshwesh Egyptians.

At the top of this webpage: "...(pronounced Kemmis), lying, too, in close proximity to the Cumbrae Isles..." The writer of the article is a Beaumont, a surname with a BELLmont variation. Beaumonts are known to be from Harcourt DANES, and Chemmites were Danaans (i.e. as was Perseus). Chemmis was also "Akhmim" and "Panopolis," a city in southern Egypt, and yet I read that there was a Chemmis or a Chemmis settlement in the Nile delta too. It was the city of Yuyu. There's plenty of online evidence of a Chemmis at the city of Buto:

Buto, Butus, or Butosus was an ancient city located 95 km east of Alexandria in the Nile Delta of Egypt. The city stood on the Sebennytic arm of the Nile, near its mouth, and on the southern shore of the Butic Lake. It is the modern Kem Kasir...The goddess Wadjet [like "Uat"] was its local goddess...closely associated in the Egyptian pantheon with Bast the fierce goddess depicted as a lioness warrior and protector, a sun goddess whose eye later became the eye of Horus or the eye of Ra, the Lady of Flame...Being called Buto by the Greeks during Ptolemaic Egypt...which Herodotus (l. c. ) calls the Chemmite nome...whom the Greeks identified with Leto or Latona.

Some webpages cite a floating island (myth code, we can be sure) of Chemmis near Buto.

What can we think when leaders from the top down deceive the public with the manned moon mission? There is simply no way that the presidents of the United States were not in full cahoots with the scams. NASA would never attempt such a fraud otherwise. And the only way to explain a government alliance to such a fraud is by Illuminati colors. The Illuminati lies by nature to the world. The entire Western world, and more, is caught in a false ideology, with false science and now false events, all for political purposes that do favors to the money-grabbers. You don't want to know how bad it is, unless you want to be extremely depressed. You don't want to know how they mock us who know exactly what they're doing, because they're going to do it anyway, no matter that we oppose.

But God is about to send Pandora's box to the mockers, and they will kick each other's teeth in, at which time their voices won't be appreciated anymore. It's pretty hard to mock when you don't have a good set of teeth with your ho-ho-ho. Don't try to convince me that God loves these people, that God loves everyone.

If they were only liars, we might be able to forgive them, but they kill to cover their lies. But if they didn't go to the moon, then they are not as powerful as they have made us believe. If they didn't go to the moon, all they have is big firecrackers. Just a bunch of murderous kids with big firecrackers. There's no power in that, just Condemnation. They are dreaming a dream.

These laughing-stick Freemasons, who faked the moon landing, will always use codes to reveal themselves, even while they hope to disguise themselves. You've heard, "one giant leap for mankind." The Leap Coat shows just Melusine, symbol of the Lusignan>Lusatian grail cult. You've heard, "one small step for man." The Stepp surname is also the Stephenton surname, first found in Shropshire, and Stephentons link to Steufers, who use a cup because "Steufen/Steufer" is said by Wikipedia to mean, "grail bearer."

You can bet your moon rocks that the Armstrong link to Rothschilds is akin to the Rothschild link to the Khazar bloodline of Cohens and HohenSTAUFENs. You can bet your blue blood that the Stepps/Stephentons of Shropshire are Stewarts, for the pelicans in the Stephen Coat prove it: "First found in Gloucestershire where they were descended from FitzStephen, a Breton knight who was conjecturally descended from Count Stephen of Brittany and accompanied William the Conqueror into England and fought at the Battle of Hastings in 1066...".

The German Stephen/Steven Coat uses the same three vertical bars/stripes as do the three present rulers of Guernsey (listed above). If "giant" was a code, then I would suggest the Gant surname. The English Gants/Gaunts (wolf in Crest, a known Stewart symbol of old times) use bars in the horizontal direction, and in the colors of the horizontal Stout/Stow bars. The Gaunts were the Walt-like Fleming Norsemen with whom Hohens made alliances. Ask the black-on-gold lion in the Arms of Flanders.

If "man" is also a code, then I'll add the German Man Coat uses the Levi lion while the English Man surname was first found in Aberdeenshire, the place I say was named after Kabars/Khazars. It's easy to figure that Stewarts, from their blue and white checks, were Cohen/Kagan Khazars, and it just so happens that I traced Cohen Khazars to historical Melissena Rangabe, the Byzantine noble with royal-Khazar blood. I identified her as mythical Melusine, whose glass mirror is code for Glass elements of Glasgow elements. Again, the Glass Crest uses Melusine, and the Glass surname uses the Botter red-on-white star, and was first found in Buteshire, prize of the Stewarts for a reason.

There was a Bean surname that also landed on the "moon," and the Bean clan (this is the Bane/Bain/Vain sept of MacKays) was also first found in Aberdeenshire. Bean landed on the moon with a Conrad surname, one I trace to "Red Cohen" = Hohens. Khazarincidence?

Melusine was also made the line from Lusatia, where the Spree river is found, explaining why Melusine is also in the Crest of the "spero" using Massins/Masons. There is no hope for a people like this, for in due time they will kill one another off.

George Armstrong was the captain of the Toronto Maple Leafs. I've been planning to write on this for a few weeks, but here I find it commencing after talk on Neil Armstrong. I wanted to link the Toronto Maple Leafs to the Bavarian Illuminati using George Armstrong as only one argument, as per the link I make of his surname to Rothschilds, who are easily linked to the Bavarian Illuminati.

The next captain of the Leafs was Davy Keon. In the Armstrong Keon era, the popular, fabulous Leaf goalie was Johnny Bower. Bowincidence? I think snot. Later, another Leaf captain had a Gilmore surname, the surname also of the leader of an official Baphomet cult.

LG once read my theory that the Toronto Maple Leafs were not , but blue and white because they linked to the white-on-blue Arms of Taranto, a region in Apulia that was given Taras as symbol, a white rider on a white dolphin on a blue background. In fact, now that I think of it, the original Leaf uniform was blue, not white, meaning that the club used a white leaf on blue. In the 2nd update of July, it was shown that a founder of the Leafs, Eddie Livingstone, has a surname (shows a Leah variation and from an ancient Leuiggestun variation) smacking of the Laevi Ligurians...who I trace to the white-on-blue Leaf/Leif surname. (The border in the Livingstone Coat likely links to the same in the Seaton Coat.)

LG emailed to say that "maple" sounds like "May pole," and at first I passed on this "coincidence." Later, I learned that, in paganism's May-1 celebrations to their god, Bel, they often used a pole made from a maple tree. The term, "May pole," comes from that May-1 celebration, and the Bavarian Illuminati was officially founded on May 1, 1776. By that time, I was sure that the Toronto Maple Leafs were somehow linked to Bavaria, but it then suggests a Bavaria link back to Taranto, and it's alliance with a Satyrion location/entity (mythically the mother of Taras), quite apparently a Pan-goat entity (if you don't know, mythical Satyrs were goats).

For a too-long era, the Toronto Maple Leafs were ruled by a Ballard surname, with Belard variation, smacking of Bel.

It wasn't until years later, in the past month, that I learned of Turan and the Butteri. I learned that Turan was part of a Roman cult of human-sacrifice deities, and while investigating this, I was simultaneously learning more about the Boofima/Baphomet cult. The first time that I set out to find where the Baphomet goat cult traced to over a year ago), it was from Bavaria back to Africa. Julie later writes in to say there was a Boofima goat cult in Africa. Taranto (in Apulia) is near Africa, and in fact I trace parts of Apulia to Crete. I even trace Apulia to "Pollux"=Apollo, while in my investigations into the root of Boofima, I was led to Marsyas the Satyr, skinned alive by Apollo.

In the last update, it dawned on me that the Bauers/Bowers were a variation of "Boof(ima)." The peoples of Bavaria, which is "Bayern" to Germans, should link to "Bauer/Bower." And so there we have the mystery solved to that point. Thank you LG and Julie.

The Keon surname comes in where I traced its fish to Ragusa, which I say was named after Rhea of Crete. Look at how well this works. Mythical Daedalus of Crete was the father of Iapyg, symbol of the Iapyges of Apulia that gave that place it's alternative name, Puglia (Pollux was a pugilist, which is why I trace him to Puglia). Then, as Daedalus was given a labyrinth symbol, I found him/it in "Libernia," the Illyrian theater where we find Ragusa too. Thus, the same Taranto entity that named Toronto (surely, no matter what anyone says) was in Libernia, where the Keon fish was derived, explaining (somewhat, anyway) why the bloodline-nutty Toronto Maple Leafs chose Davy Keon as captain.

But even before discovering the similarity between "labyrinth" and "Libernia," I had traced Daedalus to the Ragusa theater, though I can't recall the details. Perhaps it included the "dalus" similarity with "Dalmatia." Ragusa is in Dalmatia.

It should be re-stated here, as per my trace of mythical Perdix fundamentally to the Masonic founders of the United States, that, as I traced him to "Berry" in France, so it made sense to trace him to "Bari" in Apulia, for Perdix was portrayed in myth as a sort of Daedalus twin, and in fact Perdix was given the alternative name of "Talus," same as the ending on "Daedalus."

In other words, Perdix was the founder of Bari, explaining why he had branches in Berry. And when we enter "Bari," the German Barry Coat comes up with fish heads, a symbol of Perdix. But the fish was then used by the Keons, and that now suggests rather strongly that the Perdix fish was spread about in the Ragusa region, whereafter the Keons somehow obtained it, and that has to do with my trace of pharaoh Khyan to the Illyrian theater.

It dawned on me that the Iapyges should have evolved into/from the Japodes, beside/in Libernia, who were the cause of mythical Jupiter (for new readers, Japodes (left side of map) lived in/beside the Una/Oeneus river, and that was Jupiter's wife, Juno, as well as Uni, the chief goddess of the Etruscans). And so what we are dealing with here are the rulers of Europe, no small organizations, no poverty-struck entities. These guys had the money bags of Europe by which to gain even more through war and other forms of pillaging. They were just "great," weren't they? You wouldn't have gotten the be part of the rulers of a fledgling United States unless you had the money bags behind you to make it happen.

At first, the Toronto Maple Leafs were going to be , and that just happens to be the color of the Bauer and Bower Shields. There was an internal conflict as to which of the peoples involved would run the Maple Leaf show, and so the blue was chosen instead. Both the Keon and Armstrong Coats are blue and white, and it just so happens that Toronto was at first called, York. Now, the York Coat uses a blue-on-white, and I know this to be the colors of the Bruces of York, adopted also by the Hallands=Alans of York, and that once again brings us to the Stewart bloodline, which also uses blue and white. The Blue Blood. Toronto was traditionally the largest Canadian city outside of the Frank zone, and so we just know that the British, controlled largely by Stewart blue blood, would have interests in controlling York/Toronto.

I could repeat that the French Alan Coat uses Bauer-colored stars, if that helps to link Stewarts to the Bavaria=Boofima bloodline. Or, as dragonline Veres worship Stewarts because Veres were Stewarts, what about the fact the dragonline Veres honor the Baphomet cult?

You may have laughed or scratched your head when I suggested that Baphomet was a double code, with Met being one. I identified the code with the Gorgon Medusa, and eventually found some good pieces of heraldic proof for that idea. I can now add that "York" traces to the Parisii GORGons, who apparently named it. You won't read anywhere else (much, anyway) that the Parisii Celts were Gorgons, but I saw a Parisii coin where the ruler was given snakes/worms for hair, a Gorgon symbol. And then the Parion/Parium Mysians are known to have been Gorgons, and they obviously became mythical Priam, father of Paris.

All that repeated to say that the York Coat uses the motto term, "METuas." I think that's a subtle piece of evidence linking the Stewarts, and the Toronto Maple Leafs, to the Baphomet cult. Aside from that proof, was not the Taranto location just linked in with the Boofima cult to Bavaria??? Didn't we see a goat cult at Taranto?

Now if we want to seek a clan that may have been named after elements, what if the Seatons turn out to be one clan? Didn't we learn above that the double-border of the Seatons/Seton is used by the Livingstone Coat??? And both clans were first found in Lothian.

Peebleshire is on the south side of Lothian, and not only is Peebleshire the place where the Bowers/Beauers were first found, but please do laugh all you want at the "METum" motto term of the Bowers. Then ask why the rulers of Oxford, who were Veres, use a Bavaria-like beaver. Isn't the Bauer and Bower Shield ?

I could even speculate that Dalmatia is to be understood as Dal-Medusa because it's clear to me that "Medusa" was initially a code for Medea, the Colchian witch and symbol of the magic-obsessed and demented Medes. Gorgons, the real peoples, lived in the Mede theater, and only made the people there more insane. Anytime you encounter witchcraft, you can be sure that the peoples are fruity and nutty, and some even dangerously so.

Witches/warlocks don't want to work, but would rather collect welfare, steal, sell drugs, prostitute, invent things, or run super corporations from their tropical sea-side resorts. They don't fall in love with evil because they are good, and evil has to do with using people un-rightly, by breaking the natural laws. Never mind what comes out of the mouth of a witch, for any honey there is just lie, a sticky trap. She's in the witch business to mislead those she talks to, and many witches and warlocks have huge media platforms to talk to the masses, compliments of the money-stroking Illuminati. Many nobodys are made "somebodys" by Illuminati money bags, and so long as they do what they were "hired" to do, the benefits will keep coming in. But when Pandora's Box falls out of the sky at the Appointed Time, the Masonic pawns will rise up against the money-strokers, and rip the lining right out of their purses. Watch your big arses too.

By now you may have picked up on the mead that is a honey drink, and that the Rus bear symbol comes from this Mede-like term. A Medvedev bear-and-honey surname was put in charge of present Russia by Putin, and I've just got to believe that his surname is from the Georgian/Gorgon Bats. We found the Bats is Bath and Wells of Somerset, and that's also where the Mead surname was first found. One could get the impression that the Rothschilds who set Communist Russia up eventually raised Putin and Medvedev too. The Meads appear to be Butteri too because they use pelicans in both Coat and Crest, as do the Pattersons of ROSS-shire. And Bute was initially ROTHEsay. I get it. The Butteri were amongst the proto-Rus out of Georgian Bats. That explains why Pattersons were also of the Guiscard Rus.

My point is that, supposing it to be true that some Russians leaders were from English clans, plucked and transplanted by English Rothschilds into their Communist Russia, it's possible that Medvedev is from a BaphoMET line to the Mead family. It would mean that Russia today is led by Medusa-Gorgons, who I think are Gogi. In that picture, Medvedev is a Gog, chief of Rosh(ia), and linked back to the Massey=Meshech bloodline that was the Rothschilds (I think the Bauer-crest wings are the Masci wings).

At this point, I become lost for words, which doesn't happen often. So I tried finding some Bauer variations that I've not seen before, and entered "Boor." I couldn't believe my eyes because, while entering "Boor," it was running through my head that "Bauer" was a form of "Butter," and yet I said to myself, "naw, can't be." Then, the "cooking pots" of the Dutch Boors appeared, and that's the symbol of the German Potters. Potincidence?

The "cooking" didn't need to be added into the description unless it's code for Cooks, and what do we find there but a horseshoe, and apt Butteri-cowboy symbol. The Cook Crest is an ostrich, symbol (I think) of the German form of Austria, and Bauers happen to be from Austria before coming to Bavaria. But if Bauers/Bowers were from "Boof," then I find it difficult to trace them also to Butt-like terms. The Cooks (use purple), from an early "Coc," could of course have been Gogi.

Perhaps the following can shed some light. It started with my desperation in explaining the naked rider on a dolphin in the Coffey Crest (the Taras rider of Taranto is also naked). The derivation of the Coffeys is said to be in "Oghy," and as per that term we find a Gaughey variation (pronounced, Gofi, I gather) listed firstly, which again smacks of "Gog." Asking how "Gaughey" might possibly link to "Boof," I entered "Boughie" to find an interesting possibility with stag heads, the same sort that I've traced to Hannibal Carthaginians. That's probably as Boofima as one can get. And then the Boughies/Buffies/Boffeys use a "quarere" motto term, smacking of "MelQART," Carthage's god of child sacrifices.

Also, I had traced Bauers of Bavaria to Bogens of Bavaria, and just so you know, the blue and white lozenges in the Arms of Bavaria were owned by both the Bogens (meaning "bow man") and the Wittelsbachs, the latter tracing back to the Uat/Buto cult. I now find that the Baughies use hard-g Boughie and Boghey variations. This trace of Bavarian roots to a Boof-like term is of course very welcome.

The Boughie surname was found hours ago, but just moments ago, after entering "boor," I entered "Bow" to find a "Quaerere" motto term (and bows like the Bower-Coat bows), assuring Bow linkage with the Boughies/Boghies. In fact, Bow variations include Bough, pronounced bowff or boff, I assume. The Bow/Bough Crest is a lion holding five bunched arrows (a Rothschild symbol) pointing down.

None of this proves that Boughies were Gaugheys, but the finds were very welcome, anyway. Besides, I am sure that Rothschilds are a Gogi peoples.

But "Boughie" is with an 'o' while "Gaughey" is with an 'a', wherefore "Baugh" was find the Welsh Bach Coat! It's very likely that Bachs/Baughs here were of the WittelsBACHS, especially as the Bachs use the bell pattern used also by Whites and Kemmis'. We may be keeping in mind that Welsh are from Cimmerians=Gomerians, though they call themselves by a Cumber-like term...that I trace to Chemmis of the Buto cult. The Bachs/Baughs use stars in colors reversed to the Botter lone star, and they were first found in DENbighshire, which could be named after the Danaans that were the Chemmites. It may even be that the location is to be understood, Den-Bach-shire.

German Bachs use a calf and what are nearly the blue Bauer wings. Moreover, entering "Calf brings up more calves and a Cauf(e) surname (Lincolnshire).

Then "Cough" was entered to try to make more sense of this exercise, and what was found but a sort-of strongarm holding an arrow-like object. It got be to thinking that Coughs and Gaugheys were indeed linked to Boughies and Baughs so that the Coughs and Gaugheys were likewise from the Boofima cult. I wanted to believe that just because the Gaugheys use the naked rider on the dolphin, and because I think the same sort of rider of Taranto links to the Boofima cult. However, the arrow in the Cough Crest turned out to be a baton. Still, that's a Butt/Bat-like term. Besides, a fuller description shows a bow term: "An armed man embowed holding a red baton."

Boughies/Bogheys were first found in Steuffer-like Staffordshire. There is a Stafford surname said to derive from a Toeni surname (had titles in Leicestershire), and that might itself be from the Anthony surname that was shown in the last update to be a Carthaginian line, and moreover it uses two Boofima symbols, the goat and the leopard. I can also report now that the Stafford Coat (surname first found in Staffordshire) is in the color scheme of the Austrian Anthony/Antony Coat. AND, while Bauers were from Austria, so we see that the Italian Anthony/Toni Coat uses stars in Bauer-star colors.

Both the Stafford Crest and the Lester/Leicester/Leinster Crest use swans. The Toenis were granted BELvoir, and the Lester/Leicester Coat uses the Bell / Bellamy Shield. It all looks so May-1ish, especially where the Lester swan has blood drops.

The Coughs are also Cuff, Couffe, and Cuffey, and were first found in KilKenny. The Gaugheys/Coffeys were first found in Cork, and these two places were linked to the Carthaginian MacCarthys of Muskerry.

WOWWIE!! The Cough Coat: "...a black bend dancette, cotised blue, each charged with three bezants." Entering "Cotis," another dancette, a little like the Butler dancette (Butlers were first found in Kilkenny too), and the Cotis' are listed properly as CURTis', like "Carth(age)," but the full WOWWIE is not yet. Reading the Curtis-Crest description: "A farmer holding over his shoulder a plowshare," we enter both "Plow" and "Share" to find the Sheares/Sheers/Shires surname first found in Share-like Surrey! That's where the KilPatrick Butteri were!! (Irish Kilpatricks show Shera and Sheera variations).

Shares use the black crosslet seen also in the Hanna Crest, and I trace the latter to Hannibal Carthaginians. The crosslet looks much like a stake or sword to be used in bloody sacrifices. The Hanna stag is collared gold (with a bell), and the Collar surname uses Moor heads. It always comes back to Africa.

The Plow surname uses the same sort of dancette as the Cotis/Curtis clan (that uses a plowshare code), and in the Plow Crest is yet another stag that I would link to Hannibals. The Plow Coat also uses the fish-tail style fleur-de-lys, in white on blue.

The Plows reminded of the Blows/Bloors, and they use the goat-head design of the Anthonys. Moreover, Blowers/Bloors were first found in Staffordshire, and we just saw that Staffords and Anthonys appear related. Remember, the Boof-like Boughies were first found in Staffordshire, and for me, this clinches a Boofima trace to the Stafford-related Anthonys.

It's hard to know whether the dancette refers to the Dance/Danse surname, but one thing I can say is that an impression just struck me that the dancette traced to Carthaginians. It was then found that the English Dance Crest shows the same black horse head used by the Butts/Butes/Bottes. Hmm, as I also found that horse head in the Est/East surname, traced to Asti of Piedmont, perhaps it's not coincidental that Italian Dances/Danese/Danais were first found in Piedmont.

I was ecstatic (well maybe not that happy) to find the English-Dance fesse because I recognized that type as one used in the Putten Coat!!! (I'm happy enough for three marks). This helps greatly in the Butteri trace to the Danaan Buto cult. Note that the Dance/Danse fesse is red, an apt color for the Rus. Danaans were on Rhodes, and of course they are suspect as the proto-Danish Rus.

Perhaps supporting a Cough trace to Bavaria, the surname is said to derive, curiously, in "Duirnin." Entering "Duir" brings up a Duirn-like surname said to have roots in Bavaria. Then, like the Duirs/Deurens, the Goghs/Googes/Gooches use a red rose.

Another argument for linking the Gaugheys/Coffeys to both Butteri and the Turan>Durance entity, is that there is a Kaufman county on the east side of Dallas. I have little doubt that the Dallas surname links to the Butteri, and just days ago I found a Tarrant county on the west side of Dallas. But I'm kicking myself because days ago I had seen exactly the same anchor and rope as per the Kaufman/Kofman Crest in another surname that I didn't record. I desperately want to know how the Kaufs and Caugheys/Coffeys link to the Boofima cult, and am not yet satisfied with the circumstantial evidence toward Bauer>Bavaria bloodline links. I'd like to clinch their Gogi nature on the one hand, not forgetting that the BaphoMET term traces to African Gorgons, and I'd like to know who exactly they come from.

A recent leader of the United Nations was, Kofi Annan, a black man from Ghana. The previous UN leader was Boutros Boutros-Ghali (Egyptian). There's just too many boots around here not to kick up a fuss. Are Rothschilds -- suspect as inner-circle UNers -- in love with the Butteri bloodline? Are the Butteri trying through the UN to re-vamp the world? Just asking.

There is a bozo online, one of many, claiming that intelligent life is on Mars and that NASA is hiding the fact. I'd like to quote him to make for a short discussion:

We are in the midst of a slow, scientific disclosure that started with our early space probes and is increasing in velocity at an ever-increasing rate. Under our watchful and frequently enthralled eyes we have been presented with a growing escalation of new discoveries every few weeks. The public knows these revelations as Martian meteorites with fossilized primitive life forms, water on Mars, and the Moon, Titian maybe harboring life in its oceans, Mars anomalies, and, recently, planets found around other stars. Without a doubt, the discovery of earth-like planets will be found any day now. Closer to home and in recent weeks, there has been a recent renewing of the argument over the results from the Viking "search for life" experiments in the late 1970s...

It's not coincidental that there has been rapid discovery made in these departments that give spirit to evolutionists/atheists. Before these rapid discoveries, the cosmic reality looked completely bleak. Therefore, lies were advanced, and perhaps you'll believe it more now that the moon missions are easily debunked. I'm talking bold-faced lies from the top, not merely a few mistaken scientists leading the way into these "discoveries." There is just no way to "discover" planets around other stars, but the method to do so has been advanced "scientifically," and therefore who are the lower-level scientists to disagree?

The same applies with water on the moon and on mars (isn't it idolatry to capitalize the moon and planets?). The white polar caps on mars have been "discovered" to be water because astronomy was looking very bleak otherwise. And water just below the martian surface makes for a great reason to enlarge the tax dollars going to NASA. If you understand that there must be a Creator of living things, then you also understand that the highest-level scientists, and even our schools, have been lying to the world an uncountable number of lies for several decades. It's not all by chance, but a well-calculated Illuminati plot. The satanists of the world created their own methods of scientific investigations, and surely you realize that satanists are lunatics.

Try to imagine what goes on in the head of someone conducting a human sacrifice. Does he really think that satan will empower him if he goes through with it? Yes. But why would he want anything from a god that wants a human sacrifice? How could he trust such a god, let alone admire him? Because, the man is a lunatic. There is no rational or acceptable explanation. The man has simply lost grip on all good senses.

The same applies for satanists who don't go as far as human or animal sacrifices. They yet look to satan for empowerment, for some sort of reliable return, some reward, even though they know that satan is evil. For the rest of us, how can some of us be so naive as to think that these types would not want to control the science? If it looks like a duck, it is. If you're told that blind-chance evolution created a very complicated thing such as the programmed instincts and special abilities of all the millions of species, then you must know that this is a satanic duck...because no one but a lunatic would believe such a thing and then get it taught in our schools.

But you'll say to me, "David Suzuki is not a lunatic. He's smart, and real cool too." These types don't come across as lunatics because they really believe their evolution to be true. A satanist knows that he's lying, and lies to promote satanism in his life. He's nothing but a lunatic, and his goal is to make the David Suzuki's of the world, and if he can get some Christians promoting the same lies, he's got some big-bonus points to chalk up under his belt.

So, there are those who realize that an ongoing conspiracy is taking place to destroy Christianity and God, who love to partake in it, and then there are the many who are rather stupid and blind, and become the willing pawns of the satanists while not seeking satanic promotion. They are convinced that fundamentalist God-toters are the lunatics to be avoided, shunned, and discredited. When Christians score political victories, satanists come out to motivate their pawns into action, and to pass on the strategies with which to do so. In the worst-case scenario, when their pawns start to lean Christian-right, satanists need to re-educate them with scathing accusations leveled against the right.

God is allowing a deception of his own to take place, to make satanists believe that they are more powerful than the Christian team. And so satanists have been in the throes of showing their truest colors while having the political throne secured along with the educational throne. That's why they feel confident in lying about water on Mars, or earth-like planets around stars, or aliens visiting our planet. They have the many thrones now to keep others from toppling their agendas. It wasn't that way 50 years ago. But rapid progress has been made in that short time.

The only question is, how far will the Creator allow them to go in promoting their filth in order to condemn them and boot them off their thrones? Will there be a return to Christian values for a decade or more before a final "hour of darkness," or will there be multiple returns to Christian values before the final showdown? I wish I knew.

Here's an explanation as to why stars don't show in moon shots:

...the moon's surface reflects sunlight, and that glare would have made stars difficult to see. Also, the astronauts photographed their lunar adventures using fast exposure settings, which would have limited incoming background light.

"They were taking pictures at 1/150th or 1/250th of a second," Bad Astronomy's Plait said. "In that amount of time, stars just don't show up."

Glare? What glare? I don't see any glare in the moon shots, not do I see reason for moon dust to create glare.

Why would NASA use fast-exposure cameras that make pictures darker? Why wouldn't they have sent at least some normal cameras so that the stars could be seen to make for a splendid view? Surely, they wanted to see what stars look like from the lunar surface. But the reality is, if they included stars from their staged productions on earth, they wouldn't have gotten away with their scam. Yet, gamblers or lunatics that they were, they decided to leave out stars, and to manufacture an assortment of "explanations" for their absence.

Then, to explain why the mission debris on the moon cannot be seen from telescopes here on earth: "... no telescope on Earth or in space has that kind of resolving power...'Even with the biggest telescope on Earth, the smallest thing you can see on the surface of moon is something bigger than a house.'" This was spoken by a Plait surname (red Anthony leopards heads, and scallops in Patterson-scallop colors). I linked the Plaits/Blatts to German Platts/Blattens with a grape vine and swan, the same swan design as in the Carrey Crest (that Carrey Coat is the one that looks like the Sales coat, assuring a high possibility of tracing to the Salyes Ligurians).

Phil Plait created "Bad Astronomy" to debunk the debunkers. He is therefore suspect as NASA's man on the task.

How convenient that the biggest telescopes can only see things bigger than a house. Just right for excusing the sightings of the lunar rovers, etc. Simply put, the Illuminatists of the Apollo scam dug the graves for their future generation, just as the evolutionist scam failed by its lies to take the heart of the people away from belief in a Creator. Therefore, as the Bible implies, the Illuminati will force people to comply at the pain of death...when the people rise up against them. There will be two kinds of people in those days, those that rebel, and those that worship blindly. The latter will be in abundance, just as you now witness that more believe in the Apollo scam than doubt it, just as more trust in scientists than doubt them.

Here's a statement from a Buzz Aldrin article: "After the deaths of the original Gemini 9 prime crew, Elliot See and Charles Bassett, Aldrin was promoted with Jim Lovell to back-up crew for the mission." I should repeat here my trace of the Say surname to the Buto-Bast cult, for the See and Basset surnames could certainly apply. And why is Aldrin nicknamed "Buzz," a term he made his legal name? Should we believe his story? We will see below that Buzz is a first-class liar, not to be trusted. At the webpage below, we can see an Aldrin logo of sorts where he shares it with Lovell. On the Lovell/Leavells: "First found in Roxburghshire, where a branch of the Lovels, barons of Castle Cary, Somersetheld lands." The Carreys/Carys were first found in Somerset!!! English Lovells were first found in Somerset. b

The See/Seigh surname, which I hadn't yet entered above, shows the Keon fish in colors reversed!!! The write-up says that the fish is a salmon, a symbol of a fishery, but I doubt that very much. I trace "salmon" to the Salyes (to which the Carreys trace). The Sees/Seighs were first found in Kent, where the LOUVains were first found. Kent is also where the Tooks/Touques were first found who use the same three white griffin heads as the Aldrin/Aldred Coat.

Compare the Lovell/Levelle-Coat "piles," black on white, to the same colored piles of the Scottish Young Coat, for below we will see a fraud-job on the moon by an astronaut Young. The Scottish Youngs were first found in the same Roxburghshire theater as the Scottish Lovells. The Lovell write-up also says: "The Lovell surname is derived from the Norman French word 'lou,' meaning 'wolf,' with the diminutive suffix 'el.'" I have doubts, for I'm seeing the Laevi Ligurians, but the point in showing the write-up is that English Youngs use a black wolf in Crest.

Buzz was part German, and then here's the good on Neil Armstrong: "Neil Armstrong was born in Wapakoneta, Ohio, to Stephen Koenig Armstrong and Viola Louise Engel. He is of Scots-Irish and German descent..." While it's his mother that's German (with a "Jewish" surname), note that "Koenig" is Germo-"Jewish" surname. The third man in their Apollo 11 mission was of a Collins surname. Illuminincidence?

At Neils page we discover that NASA had contraced with Bell Aircraft, but then at the Bell_Aircraft page (founded by the Bell surname), we are led to believe that NASA was a product of Bell Aircraft: "Bell went on to design and produce several different experimental aircraft during the 1950s. These helped the U.S. Air Force and the National Advisory Committee on Aeronautics (NACA) explore the boundaries of aircraft design, and paving the way for the founding of NASA and the exploration of outer space."

At the page below, we find other evidence of NASA fraud, including: "...In this clip, Aron Ranen's film Did We Go? exposes NASA as being built from the ground up by war criminals from NAZI's Germany." If true, how could that ever take place without government winks or turned eyes?

The NASA space program has just got to be the main part of the false signs and wonders predicted by Biblical prophecy, and integral to the fire coming down from the sky at the great aspirations of the False Prophet. The picture painted in Revelation 13 seems to be one that the Illuminati aspires to, a self-fulfilling prophecy because the Illuminati is wicked enough to desire fulfillment, but with another outcome: satanists defeating God rather than the other way around. But how can they defeat God with mere firecrackers and faked studio productions? Yet, they will have the victory of deceiving more people than not. They will probably bring on the skincode and all that comes with it when they feel that their time is nearly up due to the work of the rebels. It's not just Christians who are involved in the rebellion, and not just Westerners. There's hot breath coming from China, fiery talk from Arabs, and Russia is as cool as ever waiting for a shot at the Achilles' heel of the West.

The article above tells of one moon rock that was accidentally slipped in as part of the NASA hoax, a rock that turned out to be petrified wood. Oops. It's not just the waving flag, folks. It's not just the shadow lines. Evidence of a faked moon landing is abundant. This has the capacity to re-define our Western leaders as more than just the political liars that we already know them to be. They are now dangerous liars, and we saw just how dangerous in the 9-11 inside job. The idea advanced by an ever-growing number, that the American Illuminati has fundamental ties to Hitler's Nazis, explains it all. But then the more-dangerous Illuminati must be of the Republicans who harbor neo-Nazis, and just look at how those neo-Nazis portray themselves, as "Christians." Don't they want you, Christian, to join their cause? Isn't that what Christianized Freemasonry is all about?

It's the Republicans who run the human-sacrifice cult at California's Bohemian Grove. It's the Republican-toting Fox News that traces to Carthaginian elements. And, yes, Democrats too, but the point is, the Republicans are more dangerous because they use a Christian facade. The Democrats can hardly deceive Christians with their immoral values, though Catholics swarm to the Democratic party for hatred of Protestants amongst the Republicans, just as Catholic priests swarm to the private parts of young boys because they truly hate Christ. It was a Republican Nixon who tapped the conversations of his political enemies; it was president Bush who made phone and Internet tapping a legal activity; it is Rupert Murdock at the helm of Fox News who's now in the news for tapping private citizens; and it's a Gog-like Google that's been caught spying on the people that it claims to serve. We are being watched by Wadjet. Bubastus has her diseased eye on us. The Witch hasn't got any good plans for us.

Yet, every once in a while, I find inconsistencies with my ever-growing rotten view of Fox. For example, Fox aired a moon-landing hoax show, in favor of the hoax theorists. The page sets out to debunk Fox, and I would suggest that anyone wanting to share an Apollo-conspiracy webpage should first read the page above to get a handle on what not to say or share. On the topic of the stars:

The astronauts should have seen a beautiful star-filled sky above them [say the skeptics like me], yet they never mention it [excellent point].

Even though there was a black sky above them [says the pro-NASA tool], the astronauts still had to contend with the glare of a brightly lit lunar surface [that's wrong, there would be no glare, but it's all he's got to choose from on debunking this point]. The bright landscape prevented the astronauts' eyes from becoming dark adapted [an extra stretch there just because his first argument isn't viable], thus making it nearly impossible [that's a very strong word] to see faint stars [what about the bright stars?]. It would be like trying to see stars at night on Earth while someone is shining a flashlight directly into your eyes [ha-ha, a joker]

Nonsense. When looking up, the light from the ground does not shine into the eyes. A camera pointed up would have no problem seeing the stars. Recall the moon shot with sun near the horizon; there wouldn't have been any lunar-surface glare into the eyes at that time, with the sunlight merely skimming the surface, and the skies would have been ripe for seeing stars due to the low sun. Looking away from the low sun, the skies should have been filled with bright stars, much brighter than on earth. And what about a shot of the stars while in deep space, midway between earth and the moon? There's no lunar-surface glare there. So, you see, the debunkers of the debunkers only sound like they're smart and reliable, until someone answers to their "smartness."

Immediately after making the argument above, the very-prepared pro-NASA tool engages the low amount of solar reflection on the lunar surface:

A typical Sun elevation during the Apollo landings was about 20 degrees, thus the illumination per square foot was about 3,400 lumens. Since the Moon's surface reflects about 10% of the light it receives, each square foot of surface reflected about 340 lumens. This is equivalent to the luminosity of a 35-watt light bulb. This amount of light easily explains the illumination observed in the Apollo photographs.

No, it does not explain it because there are many examples of black rock faces not lit up. Liar liar pants on fire, he makes the point earlier in the piece that the white space suits reflect more light than rocks, and though that may be true, it doesn't explain why the rocks are black. He has an argument for that, however, but before getting to it, let's imagine 35 watts of light emitted in all directions, per square foot of ground all around. Imagine 100 35-watt light bulbs in your 10' x 10' room. Shouldn't the rock's shade side show some detail no matter what he says?

He gives a technical explanation using subtends and angular distances (that most readers just passed on) for why shadows are more pronounced when closer to the ground than when waist high on the astronauts, which is a very convenient argument as he offers a photo of an astronaut with darkened legs but bright white above the legs. But then why does his subtends law not apply to other photos where the legs are just as bright as the upper body parts? Only a louse would try to slip an argument like that on the world when it comes to something so important as whether there really was a moon landing.

His angular-distance argument boils down to a claim that the lunar surface doesn't reflect light as much at a sharp angle along the ground as it does at an angle upward toward the sky. It's a very convenient argument for explaining why low-lying rocks are black on their shade sides. In my opinion, the photo above with a dark-legged astronaut is a shot of earth rocks with the astronaut pasted in. The photo may even have been made by NASA-ites exclusively to promote the angular-distance argument. I'm hoping that the better half of humanity will not believe that ground reflection is incapable of lighting up anything below the knees. I'm hoping that we, when scientists use their jargon as weapons against our limited intelligence, to deceive us, will counter by using common sense against them. We will ask, "how come the legs of the lunar landers aren't black below the knees, and white above the knees?"

Did you get that point he made about the average 20-degree sun? It means that in roughly half the missions, the sun would have been less than 20 degrees up (like 6-9 am here), allowing for excellent views of stars as one looks away from the sun. Light bouncing off the ground at less than 20 degrees is not exactly a flashlight pointed in your eyes. And looking away from the sun removes nearly all of the ground reflection into the eyes. The NASA-ites would need to be either unworthy of their jobs, or sheer liars, to contend otherwise. And indeed our tool under investigation at this very time make his case best-as-possible with what he and/or NASA invented for the cause. I kid you not, he/they invented lunar glass that chooses to reflect sunlight backwards:

[Skeptics like me say:] Many Apollo photographs show lighting "hot spots", as well as a darkening of the surface toward the horizon. Sunlight should not produce hot spots, nor should the surface fade in an airless environment [it's a great argument, because while in a desert of sand, people don't see a darkening of the landscape as they look far away, nor do they see round bright spots as though a stage-production flood light were pointing on a location].

[The pro-NASA tool responds:] The "hot spots" are the result of the lunar soil's tendency to reflect light back toward its source [he's not suggesting partly back toward the source, but MAINLY toward the source]. There are many reasons for this [oh really, many?], but it is mostly due to countless tiny glass spheres found in the lunar soil, and formed by meteorite impacts. When you see a photo taken "down sun", away from the Sun, you see what looks like a spotlight around the shadow's head. This is because the light is strongly reflected back toward the Sun [he badly needs to make the backward case here; if he doesn't, NASA has a major problem], so the soil around the head of the shadow looks very bright. This phenomenon also explains why the surface fades so drastically toward the horizon [no it does not explain it, but you are to think that he and NASA knows best]. It is brightest near the foreground due to sunlight being preferentially reflected back toward the camera. Farther away, the sunlight is preferentially reflected away from the camera, making the ground look dark. This Heiligenschein, and is the result of light refraction, reflection, and diffraction on the surface of and inside the glass spheres and/or water droplets. This Apollo 11 photo is very good example {see photo} of Heiligenschein.

It's inconceivable to me that sun falling near a cameraman reflects most of its light backward, toward the sun, while light falling further from the cameraman reflects mainly away from the sun. But it's all these clowns have to explain away what are obviously stage lights.

The more technical they are, and the more above your head they can talk, the more you are apt to simply believe them. It's likely that NASA had this explanation (and/or others) before it released the stage-production photos, for they must have known that people would be asking why the land is darker further away from the astronauts. The argumentation we've just read attempts to explain simultaneously why stars are not seen when looking away from the sun. It is absolutely necessary that they devise a method by which sunlight is "preferentially" reflected backward, into the eyes, and the more like a flashlight they can make you believe the preferential light is, the better for their scam.

One problem is, refraction can only occur in transparent materials. How much of the lunar dust can be made of transparent crystals? The less there are, the less that NASA can depend on this argument to explain what in truth are stage lights. Secondly, all water particles are shaped in the same general, spherical way, causing light to bounce backward at a fairly-predictable angle (about 45 degrees), but not only would crystals in moon dust be of different shapes, but their positions would be at random. Therefore, they are not expected to send light in the backward direction necessarily, nor are the crystals far from the camera expected to send light mainly in the forward direction. The rainbow can only be appealed to for sending light backward because water droplets are just that, roundish droplets.

Moreover, refraction causes different colors, which we don't see on the edges of the space suits. Besides, shouldn't the crystals, said to be from meteorites, be covered in cosmic dust? A thin layer of dust would prevent any refraction completely. Plus, as one website says: "The shiny and lustrous facet surfaces of most crystals reflect light like a mirror," meaning that if there were considerable crystals in the lunar dust, the total reflectivity of the lunar surface should be higher than it is.

In the photo presented above by the pro-NASA tool, you can see the brightness around the shadow of the astronaut's head. You can clearly realize that there is a huge spotlight behind the astronaut, and pointed at his head area, to make his shadow as dark as possible against the light, for effect. You can clearly see that the so-called "halo" on the ground is not near the center of the photo. A close look shows a larger cross hair to the right of the two smaller ones. The larger one is smack in the center of the photo, and because it's larger, we assume correctly that it does represent the photo's center. If a halo is expected at all from refracting crystals, shouldn't the halo be on the photo's vertical center line? But I don't see why a halo or "hot spot" should be formed by crystals, and I'm well read on physics topics.

As the astronaut casting the shadow is taking the photo, why doesn't his chest -- where his camera is said to be mounted -- point toward the larger cross hairs? Because, someone/something else not connected to his chest is taking the photo. It is impossible to take a photo of your own shadow, if you are standing erect, without having the shadow line point backward directly to the center bottom of the photograph. NASA got this wrong multiple times as further evidence of fraud. The feet of the astronaut in the photo above must be in the center of the photo if he is talking that shot, wherefore he did not take the shot as claimed by NASA. Or put it this way, that if the astronaut were taking the picture with the center-crosshairs where they are located in the photo, his shadow would not be straight out, but on an angle toward the left. Unfortunately for NASA, his shadow is angling slightly to the right.

In this photo, the hot spot is behind Buzz Aldrin's leg, exactly where we'd expect stage lighting for this shot. But we then find, in later missions, that moon photos show no bright spots nor darkness graduating into the lunar background. Either the crystals are localized and not universal, or NASA decided to play its game much better.

The writer then says: "Furthermore, the Soviets closely tracked the Apollos all the way to the Moon and back. " No evidence given. It's a powerful statement, but no evidence is given that Russian's tracked the ships. We might all be believers if Russians are willing to admit that they tracked the ships to the moon. Or, NASA may in fact have sent Apollo ships to the moon, but without men. Or, in a way that best deceived most of the NASA employees, Buzz Aldrin and Neil Armstrong did go to the moon, but only orbiting without actually landing. The landing scene was then faked. The men then returned to earth and landed in the ocean, as we all remember.

Here's a photo of astronaut Young jumping less than two feet up (Jack White says 18 inches). You might think that his equipment is the reason that a higher jump was not achieved. Wrong. "Neil Armstrong's fully suited weight on the Moon was 58 lbs." Granted, NASA would say logically that they didn't want to take chances in ruining the equipment or in astronaut injury, and so advised astronauts not to jump or take long strides.

Never mind. Anyone who can jump 18 inches straight up with the cumbersome spacesuit should also be able to take extra-long strides. Why not a nice five-foot long jump while walking along, followed by a six-footer, followed by a spectacular ten-footer. No man having testosterone could resist such a thing on the moon? How could he ever face his grandkids if he didn't at least take a nice gliding ten-footer on the moon?

Look ye. The astronauts weighed some 320 pounds on earth fully suited, but jumping on the moon wouldn't be like trying to lift 320 pounds in 1/6th gravity, but like trying to lift 58 pounds in 1/6 gravity. Double bonus. If I can jump 18 inches straight up on earth, and I just got up about 15 inches without a running start and without being "pumped up," I would be able to jump far higher if I retained the same weight but in a 1/6 gravity situation. But if I weighed a mere 58 pounds in 1/6 gravity, I'd easily do ten feet straight up. No? I think yes.

But they were not on the moon. Young's jump was in earth gravity, and the suit didn't have anything heavy in it to minimize the height achieved. Mankind knows many tricks to fool on-lookers but in this case, wires under the arms of the astronaut would have gotten him a little higher than he could have on his own. Or, there could have been some bounce-enhancing apparatus under the dirt and/or in his suit, and he may even have used some steroid-equivalent dope that day just for the special event. The hoax theory doesn't fall by any means just because this jump took place. To the contrary, where are other jumps by other astronauts trying to beat's Young's jump height?

Did you notice that the flag pole isn't dark below it's knees?

The article says: "Finally, the spacesuits were equipped with a cooling system that utilized water as a medium to carry away excess heat." Water in the space suits to cool the body? How much water could have been in there? A couple of gallons? At what temperature did the water start out, and how long before body heat alone made the water too warm for tolerable comfort? The first moonwalk was 2.5 hours long, then 4 hours in the next trip, and by Apollo 15, up to 7 hours long. Isn't that impossible with water next to the skin?

The only way for the astronauts to survive that situation was to have radiators in their suits. Here's a fine-sounding description by our friendly tool:

The cooling system consisted of a cooling garment worn by the astronaut, a heat exchanger, and a porous plate sublimator. Water was circulated through tubes in the cooling garment where it absorbed heat from the astronaut's body and then carried it to the heat exchanger in the backpack. As water passed through the heat exchanger, heat was transferred to a layer of ice on the surface of the porous plate sublimator causing the ice to sublimate and the resulting gas carried away the unwanted heat. The ice was replaced by continually seeping a small amount of water through holes in the metal plate of the sublimator. When the water was exposed to the vacuum of space, the sudden drop in pressure caused it to immediately freeze onto the plate's surface.

There looks to be a false statement by our friendly tool. He realizes that there wouldn't be enough ice to begin with to remove all that body heat, and as he/NASA therefore require a means to create more ice, all they have to work with in creating that fantasy is the vacuum of space. They can't appeal to the cold temperature for creating ice because they teach and believe that heat from any substance -- including the water in the space suit -- cannot transfer into the vacuum of space no matter how cold the vacuum. And so they only have one recourse, to suggest that the vacuum itself causes water to turn into ice. But that's not correct.

They are implying that water freezes due only to going from a higher pressure inside the suit to a lower pressure outside, yet it's the other way around: a vacuum allows water to evaporate easier. To turn a gas into a liquid, one can pressurize the gas; further pressure will turn the liquid into a solid. One cannot form a solid, therefore, by putting a liquid into contact with a vacuum alone. Water in a vacuum evaporates wildly, and if it's cold enough in a low-pressure situation (such as on the moon), ice can sublimate (the latter term is defined as a solid becoming a gas without first going through the liquid phase). In fact, you just heard the tool say that the ice sublimates in the vacuum, which is correct. But he can't then have it the other way around, with water turning to ice in the same vacuum. The man seems to be lying through his teeth.

Put it this way: if the ice in the vacuum of space turns to a gas when the heat of the water in the suit contacts the ice, how could the water in the suit, which is itself hotter than the ice, freeze? If the colder ice turns to gas, the warmer water will too.

Just so that the tech-savvy readers get this, let me put it another way. The only way to have ice sublimate at any significant rate (in the above scenario) is to have the warm water pass, in tubes, along the surface of the ice. According to the scientists, the water's heat can't get efficiently to the ice through the vacuum. The problem is, with the water tubes contacting the ice, the ice nearest the tubes will sublimate first, and if the heat of the water causes the ice there to sublimate, how can ice form again at those spots where the ice is being diminished? It can't. The mechanism that NASA claims will maintain the astronauts alive on the moon, if our pro-NASA tool is correctly describing it, is a sham.

The tool reports his name as Robert A. Braeunig. That would tend to make him of the Braun=Brown bloodline, which I link to the Bellamy-Massey line.

Mr. Braeunig states that the weight of the lunar module, as it landed, was about 2700 pounds in lunar gravity. That's about the weight of your car or pick-up truck. Try to imagine the thrust needed to keep that sucker up in the moon's "air" as it came down. Mr. Braeunig claims that the rocket thrust of the module was reduced to 3,000 pounds as it came down, and while I have no technical idea what that sort of thrust should do to the moon dust underneath it, I can tell you this, that we don't need to be experts to realize that trying to land a pick-up truck on your driveway is going to blow more than an inch of light and dry moon dust off the driveway.

Did NASA really believe that the lander would not blow moon dust away? I don't think so. But then why did they have dust in the set? To make it possible to show Armstrong's boot print, and all the excitement that goes along with it? I don't think so. If they decided to provide a landing site with dust blown away, then they would need a location on earth with solid rock. But down there in Houston, all they have is sedimentary rock, and you can't have that on the moon. Sedimentary rock is formed by oceans. They either needed to find a site with solid igneous rock near the ground, or to devise arguments to explain away why there is dust below the lander. They apparently chose the latter.

But there may have been more to it. Perhaps they couldn't create a scene to look authentically like a patch of bald rock with dust blown to the sides. Perhaps they couldn't find an area with solid igneous rock and dusty soil too. Perhaps they couldn't find a place safe enough to conduct this fraud where there was solid igneous rock. Perhaps the leader(s) of the fraud stipulated that he/they wanted to live near his/their family homes during the production, and there just wasn't any accessible igneous rock in that area.

Now the NASA tools say that when the engines blew dust away as the ship came down for a soft landing, the dust just fell back to the moon without forming dust clouds. Granted, no dust clouds can form where there is no atmosphere, but that doesn't mean that dust can't be propelled onto the pads by the sheer force of the engine thrust. The bottom of the engine is about three feet, so far as I can guestimate, off the lunar surface. We never see dust on the pads.

BUT, we would at least expect some dust piled up against the inner sides of the pads because the engines would have been left running until AFTER the pads touched down. One could argue that all the dust was blown clear off the tops of the pads by the last seconds of the running engine, but I don't even see dust up against the sides of the pads, and there should even be some dust circling round half the circumference of every pad, and then accumulating a ways beyond the pads in straight lines. This absence therefore smells to me of a production team that didn't have the time and/or the will to finish the nitty-gritty details.

The skeptics are absolutely justified in pointing out that the "dust" under the lander appears TOTALLY undisturbed. In this point alone, the skeptics are winners. The skeptics are telling the truth. The moonshot is a fake. (See the underside of the lander about half way down the article above, and don't assume I agree with everything said in that article.)

Did you notice the pits in the lunar landscape? If it was made with rakes, shovels and hoes -- a logical deduction -- human foot prints would have been covered over to some degree with your typical large fans blowing the dry dirt along. In some scenes, one can see striations (see beside the one pad in the article above) or waves in the dirt like those expected from fan/wind-blown dirt.

In some cases, it looks as though some clustered debris was tossed in over the raked and otherwise-prepared dirt. The debris formed smaller pits from an inch to several inches wide. We don't always see rocks that could have made the pits, but heavier clumps of dirt would have formed them just fine. If one looks closely, and realizes the photos have been given an artificial grey hue, it can be seen that the moon "dust" is really organic dirt, and not dust at all. There is a common substance in the building trade, called "dirty sand" where I I've ordered some for my driveway; it's a mix of organic soil with sand. It allows for footprints to hold their shape just like the ones we see "on the moon."

The size of the prop "field" is large enough to warrant a desert location where rain is less apt to ruin the ground preparation. And of course a desert location can also be one where people don't live for to witness the site. There's plenty desert region in central-to-western Texas.

The several photos at the link closest-above include some wherein the cross hairs (or reticules) have been either brushed out, or where objects are pasted in front of cross hairs. The debunkers of the debunkers that I've read don't touch this one. It tends to prove that NASA doctored at least some photos, For example, the American flag was pasted over one set of cross hairs, and the people who did this were so fatigued, apparently, in performing so many frauds, that they didn't even bother to fix the cross hairs. Actually, their sub-consciences may have been seeking ways to expose the people that paid them.

It's the flag that appears repeatedly pasted in. For a great example of this, see the three shots at this page of the Apollo 17 site. No matter that the three photos are taken at significantly different angles, the flag always appears flat to the viewer. And the shadows and bright spots on the flag don't change throughout the three shots. Now you know that the flag was pasted in. Does that prove that the lander wasn't on the moon? Not necessarily. But it shows that pasting did occur, and it therefore indicates that anyone who has seen this, including the Braeunig tool, and yet labels the skeptics with any demeaning term, is himself/herself short-coming on intelligence and wisdom. There is definite multi-faceted cause for suspecting a complete hoax.

There's more to that story than the pasted flag. At the link above, you can see the same landscape, one with the lunar module and the other without it!!! And so we can ask, after reading those fine-sounding arguments by the Braeunig tool, why didn't he tackle this problem??? The lunar lander is missing in the same landscape as the one where we see the three images showing the pasted flag, and yet the image is now much darker as though the sun has gone down in the lunar sky. But the sun doesn't go down much in the lunar sky in a single day because it takes 29 days for the moon to revolve once around its axis. Therefore, the darker image was computer-made or photo-doctor made.

Who were these NASA-ites to deceive us in these ways? What other hoaxes have they foisted upon a naive peoples? Those bombings we saw in the Middle East starting with the Bush presidency, where smart bombs went down chimney shafts if that's where the pilots wanted them? Were they real? Or computerized fakes? We may never know. Was it all faked to scare the Russians? Is this what Revelation 13 means when it says the False Prophet will deceive mankind with fire from the sky. Does it mean that the fire from the sky -- that puts the world in awe -- is largely faked?

One can see in the photo-comparison above that the shot without the lander is pristine while the top one with lander has a chewed-up ground not altered merely by the astronaut's feet. We can assume the shot without lander was taken before the stage production started, and it may even be that it was evening on earth at the time. It's hard to sat whether the ground in the shot without lander was prepared by human tools, or natural ground. It looks natural, and yet not rained on. Problem is, I can't fully convince myself that the two landscapes are of the same place (though the article makes that claim), for the markings on the ground are difficult to match between shots. I do see how some key markings can match, however, and so if the two shots are of the same location, the appearances of the markings indicate that the shot without the lander is taken to the left (by about 20-30 feet, my guess) of the shot with lander.

Moreover, as the shot without lander is lower down to the ground (because the mountain to the right is lower/shorter, and because the shot with lander is above human height), it appears that the photo was taken by someone low to the the very spot where the depression is found in other shots. There is not much indication of a depression in the shot without lander, but if there was one, the photographer appears to be standing inside it.

In the lower left photo of the one with lander, there is a depression visible, which appears to be part of the depression that an astronaut's shadow sunk into (shown above) that didn't match the lander's leg shadow. That may have been where the rear wheels of the truck, with crane, had been located when the lander was lowered onto the stage. Instead of trying to make the landscape match the original after the truck left, they just dug a depression to make it appear as natural as possible while hiding the truck's tracks.

The article says: "But it is clear, as we have stated before, that the same locations and the same backdrops enjoyed multiple re-use [over different Apollo mission]." Bank on it. Become a "rebel," declare your own independence day, and uphold God's constitution. Just look at the next page of the same website, and ask why tool Braeunig didn't tackle this one. It shows the same mountains in the backdrop, but with so-called "split rock" now in the foreground, and with the Apollo-17 lunar lander not showing where it is supposed to sitting (between lines A and B), but exposed as a small dot (we were not supposed to know about this dot) some two miles away from where it supposedly landed!!! Obviously, the lander was trucked away at some point. FAKES FAKES FAKES, NASA is ruled by FAKES. The U.S. government winked at FAKES, and may even have given the order to hire the FAKERS.

Regardless of the reason(s) for moving the Apollo-17 craft some two miles, the article assures that the dot is the Apollo-17 craft because NASA admitted it before anyone had discovered the "dot." In the close-up shot (about half way down the page) of the "dot" provided by Jack Schmitt, wherein it's said that the dot is the lunar lander, the mountain looks very real (as opposed to a fake back-drop) and even very earth-mountain like. The article points out what I think is absolutely correct, that the close-ups of the Apollo-17 lander are way too large in comparison with the mountains in the background, suggesting either: 1) that the close-ups of the landers and astronauts were pasted in to a natural landscape, or 2) that the mountains were reduced in size and pasted in to a staged-production scene. A pasting in of the landers can explain the absence of engine-blown dust (this would not necessarily indicate that all shots of all landers and lander parts were paste jobs).

My take is that there is evidence of stage lighting so that I opt for 2) above. In fact, in the shots at the first page, you can see the faked horizon line all across the pasted mountains.

Back to the second page, the same mountains are used again in yet another scene, with astronaut in the foreground, and the lander in the background but not positioned where it was positioned in the close-ups. It now appears to be positioned roughly where it was seen as a dot. In these shots, one can see that the darkening-background effect is no longer in play. As stage lights cannot reach as far back as the mountains, the background in this case may have been created or touched-up by an artist (the large mountain looks touched-up to appear unearthly, and to blend into the sands where no fake horizon line appears). On the other hand, there is an absence of hot spots on the foreground, wherefore lighting may be from earth sunlight rather than from stage lighting.

Mr Braeunig does not agree that a staged production was slowed down to about half normal speed. He says: "If the Apollo footage is viewed in its entirety it becomes clear the 2X speed explanation cannot account for the observed motion." What he implies by this simpleton statement is that he has a closed and shut case against us because, when the moon-landing footage is sped up by two times, some of the motions of the astronauts are too fast and wild to be natural. But it's merely a simplification when people like me suggest that the original production was cut to half it's speed. First of all, the speeds would have been cut to whatever was deemed best by the editor, and then some parts may not have required any slowing down at all. Some parts may even have benefited the fraud by being sped up.

Moreover, the actors may have been directed to adhere to certain slowed motions in the original normal-speed production to best give the effect of sailing through their strides upon slowing of the footage.

On moon rocks, the tool bases his argument on "lunar meteorites," an impossibility that must have been devised by scientists to prove some erroneous thing. A lunar meteorites is a rock originating from the moon. Only in the world of wild satanic astronomy could such a thing take place. In 1982, the first lunar rock was found in Antarctica, and because it resembled the rocks brought back by the Apollo missions, the clowns determined that moon rocks jumped ship and came to live here instead. Look at the surnames involved in this scam: "...Shortly [after the 1982 discovery], the meteorite now called Allan Hills 81005 was sent to Washington, DC, where Smithsonian Institution geochemist Brian Mason recognized that the sample was unlike any other known meteorite and resembled some rocks brought back from the Moon by the Apollo program." Possibly, someone who knew where the lunar rocks were collected here on earth -- and Antarctica would be a logical choice for fooling the common geologist -- went out with the idea of finding the same rocks in order to make a little side-money by claiming to find moon rocks. This is not unlike the Vatican and it's claim to numerous holy relics.

Put it this way, that if scientists are capable of identifying earth rocks as "lunar meteorites," NASA is capable of passing off earth rocks as Apollo-mission moon rocks. Some say that moon rocks are totally different than earth rocks, but here we just proved above that scientists equate certain earth rocks with moon rocks. I can now claim as fact that the same rocks brought back from the moon have been found here on earth. And as we know, Rothschilds and family are miners all over the world, having access to the weirdest of rocks seen by no others.

I guarantee you that enjoying the process of realizing the truth of the fraud was more exciting than the moon landing itself. If you can spend as much time as I have in this, some three or four full days, even if you can't do it but over two or three weeks, you may achieve the joy I feel too. It is liberating to know one way or the other what the NASA-ites have accomplished, and it turns out to be less than zero when one thinks about it. No need for sadness, just a need for kicking these guys in the butts and sending them packing. Jail terms would be welcome, and would add to my joy. I've got to be honest with you, I hate these people, and that's where my joy comes from. I don't have a hatred that one could cut through with a knife; I don't feed the hatred; I don't dwell on it; I don't practice the hatred...because God wouldn't want it to get in the way of what we are to be as Christians. But these people are worthy of being despised, especially those who fight to keep them from becoming exposed.

Mr. Braeunig says: "To me, the idea of a hoax makes absolutely no sense." If the world were filled with decent rulers and level-headed scientists, I'd probably agree. But things like evolution, parallel universes, and lunar meteorites give it away that science is filled with dangerous fiends more than capable of fraud; it comes naturally to them. Our friendly tool says that Americans would not risk such a moon fraud, but then he doesn't consider that the Mafia lives for risk, and that satanists risk all to make the world go their way. Risk is nothing but delight to evil men. Ask your local gambler. Ask the local politician who sends naked pictures of himself to teens, with his wife in the next room. Astronomers are bored to tears if all they can do is look at stars; they need big bangs, black holes and parallel universes to spicen things up.

Our naive tool says that hardcore conspiracists are paranoid and anti-government. Who'd want to join them after hearing that? But if someone believes that the government was involved in a hoax like this, they don't tend to fall in love with their government. If someone believes that the government is capable of a fraud like this, they also believe that the government is dangerous. Tools like Mr. Braeunig can be of their opinion largely because they can't believe that government would do such things as give the wink for a fake lunar landing? To all you government tools out there, have you not noticed the corruption in government? Do only the nice guys make it to the tops of governments? Hello?

You don't want to be an outspoken moon-hoax member if you can't handle being in the minority. I realize that many accusations have been explained away fairly well by the pro-NASA lobby, not necessarily meaning that the accusers are wrong. Just because there is a half-decent explanation for the missing stars in photos doesn't mean that the astronauts were taking photos on the moon. Just because there is another explanation for the waving flag doesn't mean that the wind didn't move it.

The fact that drives doubters is things like this: if it was a hoax, we'd expect no stars to show up in the photos; if it was a stage production, we'd expect to find hints of stage-production lighting; if they're liars, we'd expect to see things like coke bottles and electrical wires on the moon-landing set; if it was done on earth, we'd expect to find landscapes and rocks like those on earth. Those same sorts of arguments can be made in many other ways, and because there are a predominance of such statements, it's the believers in NASA who really have their backs up against the wall. And it shows in how many online defenders of NASA have come out for the cause. Lots of them.

If we can trust the photographic expert, Jack White (I can't corroborate some of his photo science), this page shows that both the earth and the outer space were pasted into a lunar-orbit photo. After looking at all Jack's photo-testing arguments, I agree with him that what we are being made to think is the moon is just a piece of earth. The idea that the outer space had to be pasted in jibes with NASA's consistency in removing all stars from their photos. I do not buy their line that cameras were provided only with fast-shutter lenses, too fast to catch the starlight, for we expect NASA to have provided a camera that could catch starlight. How can we believe that NASA would be on the moon several times and never once wish to catch/record stars as they appear from the moon?

In this photo featured by Jack, the earth is photographed from the lunar surface (supposedly) from a camera well below chest level, for the earth can be seen high in the sky above the astronaut. It could not therefore have been photographed by one of the astronauts, because their cameras were attached to their chests. The only way for the horizontal upper bar of the flag to be pointing into the sky like that is by taking the photo from near the ground. Jack White is claiming that NASA wants us to believe that the little astronaut in the visor, who is standing on his feet, is taking the shot of the earth high in the sky with a camera on his chest.

The flat bottom side of the earth is almost perfectly horizontal with the cross hairs, meaning that the sun, if the photo were authentic, should be positioned very high above the photographer's/astronaut's head, and yet the light falling on the photo is coming from the left side. Oops. Yes, judging by the angle of the visor where the light source falls upon it, the sun appears to be very true to the left side of the viewer. One cannot appeal to a slanted camera to explain the near-horizontal position of the earth's flat side, for in the close-up of the visor, the cross hairs are not slanted at all, indicating that the camera was straight up and down when taking the shot.

The image in the circled part is the other astronaut (seen in the visor), who is viewed better in this page, where nearly the same photo now appears to be taken from chest level or higher. Now, the earth's flat side is angled far different, but when comparing the two photos (they have different photo numbers, 20384 and 20387), it seems the only explanation is that the earth was pasted into both shots separately with the flat-part positioning based on guess work by the photographic expert who may have had little skill in astronomy.

In the second shot, there is what Jack claims to be a smoking vase held by a hand. The "vase" cuts across what should be the shadow of the little astronaut, but the shadow isn't at all apparent, and it almost seems as though the "vase" is supposed to act as the shadow. The little astronaut appears ghost-like, as though one can see the ground through him; the same smudges and hues seen around the astronaut are in the astronaut's suit. His standing position/direction is wrong, as though his legs and feet are downward toward the brain while his head is upward toward the though someone had photographed him from above his head. The specific curve of the visor where he appears does not justify it. It looks as though someone were taking a photo of the little astronaut from atop the roof of a house, and for me this suggests that the little astronaut is a paint job, not a photo of a man/dummy in a space suit.

Back to the first page, and comparing with the photo of real people on earth reflected in a visor, we can see that the people are not photographed as though from atop a roof. Plus, there on the left side you can see the little astronaut not much more than about half the height of the real people, even though the astronaut is about the same width (i.e. would be about the same distance from the visor) as the man in a tie.

I can't see the camera(man) in the real-people shot no matter how I try, and am wondering whether that is itself a painting. If that black object near the bottom of the visor is supposed to be the front of a camera lens, I don't buy it. It's not round enough, and there's no forehead/hair/scalp above it. Moreover, if that were the camera, then because it's on the downward part of the visor's curve, the camera must be well below the chest level of the astronaut, and yet we can see the top of the camera on the astronaut's chest, as well as the top of his shoulder, meaning that the photo, if indeed it is a photo at all, must be coming from above his chest line.

The camera must be on the 90-degree reflection point of the visor. There can only be one such point on a spherical mirror...such as the visor is. The 90-degree point must be directly below the highest point in the horizon circle, because the two slopes of the horizon circle are formed by the visor's shape curving back on both left and right sides (the horizon is at eye level of the people standing, meaning that there's flat ground at the horizon, not a mountain/hill). The camera should therefore be somewhere on a vertical line directly below the highest point of the horizon's circle. The camera height on that vertical line should be at the point where the visor neither curves down or up, which point is between waist or chest level of the two men standing. But where's the camera??? In one of the man's flies?

In the second photo, what's that redder-brown area that the little astronaut is standing in, and stretching across the visor to the right? To the left of the little astronaut (his right), the grayish ground is different, looking to me like the normal ground that was part of the original photo. One can clearly see a near-vertical reddish-brown border to the left of the little astronaut that marks the edge of the paste job.

According to the angle of the visor where the astronaut is reflected, he cannot be standing where the camera is positioned. If he were taking the photo, he must be positioned in the part of the visor that is straight-on 90 degrees to the camera. That point is directly above the "vase," where we see smudges that were pasted in to cover the photographer/camera. Part of the glove of the large astronaut was removed from the visor by the paste job, but the glove area was then touched up with the same reddish-brown to make it blend in, but without showing the distinct outline of a glove. The whitish area streaming vertically below the "vase" looks to me like a touched up pant leg of the photographer, perhaps sitting on a chair. The "vase" (which puzzles me completely) would then be on his lap. The astronaut's hand looks like it's going into the photographer's crotch.

In the first photo, the paint job over the camera(man), at the little astronaut's left arm area, is much better, but we can still see a whitish thing at that location as evidence of the cover-up.

In Jack's close-up 'D', what Jack would view as the bottom part of a vase looks semi-spherical, which could be the bottom of a vase, though a vase lying in a horizontal position makes no sense here. It could be that what looks like the rim/top of the vase is actually the bottom on which the object sits on a surface, meaning that the semi-spherical part is the top of the object. It wouldn't be a bottle, however, though perhaps or light, camera lens, bell or loudspeaker used by the production team.

Perhaps there were so many paste jobs required that they just got sloppy with a bad conscience. How could anyone leave out tire-tread marks on the moon's surface directly under the rover??? Joy oh joy. Jack claims on this page that the sun cannot be photographed by a typical camera not using a serious filter, yet the relatively non-technical cameras used on the moon supposedly took splendid photos of the sun.

Here's Jack's claim that he found a large light bulb in the NASA photo of the sun shining on the moon.

Here's Jacks' goods on the famous Young jump, very enlightening. I think he well-proves that the two photos of two separate jumps were professionally taken (i.e. not by the other astronaut) because in both cases the shots were taken at top-dead center, while in both cases top-dead center was at the same height even though one of the jumps included no running start. Jack then claims to prove, by a minor-but-major miscalculation of the NASA Fake Team, that Young didn't have wires under his arms, but rather had a single wire to the back of his neck area, and the wire is shown with a ring on the top end...that would of course be around the hook of some (pulley-on-a-spring?) gadget to keep him suspended longer in the air and/or aided in his jump. Jack may have hit it on the nail when saying that these wires were connected to the astronauts when they bunny-jumped around.

At the bottom of the page above, there are two photos showing fraud. There are only two things that have moved between both photos, the astronaut's left leg has been positioned a little more to the front in the color photo, and the camera has been moved a few feet to the left for the color photo. The camera in the color photo is directly in front of the tire tracks...but the tracks are gone!

A production team (unless the astronauts had a rake on board) had raked the foreground between pictures...and then created "footprints" in place of the tire tracks. The foot prints don't at all appear to be from a person(s) walking along. It's as though some stage hand had a footprint-making device, one footprint at a time, but didn't take care to make them look authentic, while the rulers of the production were too drunk in the hoax to care.

As the astronaut actor is shown to be nearly identical in both shots, the suggestion by others that dummies were used for photographs seems to be true. It might have been cheaper, more convenient, and safer than dressing actors.

The next Jack White page after the one above shows yet another pasted flag, because it has no shadow. The photo-doctoring team was by this time too weary of arguing back and forth on how best to conduct the hoax deal that they just lost morale and got worse than sloppy. Can you imagine the spiritual atmosphere hanging over this group day after day, each one knowing that the other is a louse, worse than a snake, each one trying to keep up their own morale? What morale? Bankrupt. Can you imagine how much the team members started to hate the bosses who were conducting this massive fraud on humanity, as frustration set in on raw nerves?

One guy just finally said, "Screw the flag's shadow. I'm sick of doing that for this one week." He submitted the photo to the inspector's office, and the inspector there was too sick in his own soul to spot the shadow-less flag. On the photo went to the people in charge of publicizing the "moon shots." And that sort of thing was multiplied many times over.

One reason that flags were not planted into the ground at the production scene(s) is, probably, due to wind knocking them down from day to day. Also, a stage hand planting a flag would make a mess not looking like astronaut markings. The team decided to paste them in, "problem solved." But that decision will contribute, and has already, to costing NASA it's reputation.

On this page, Jack points out a single boot print that has no others leading up to, or going away, and it moreover has 12 ribs while other astronaut boot marks have only nine ribs. It therefore seems that a stage hand possessed a single boot-imprinting device, probably a boot on a pole, and went about placing footmarks where ordered to. We can't even be sure that the other footprints were made by live actors. The 12-rib shot could be a nine-rib boot superimposed slightly on another nine-inch boot, i.e. where the fake boot was pressed in twice by the stage hand. It could be that the offending single footprint was needed to cover someone's spilled lunch. Who knows? This is the same shot, by the way, with shadow-less flag.

Did you see the wire like an extension cord stretching clearly along the ground in the close-up of the offending footprint? What do you think that's about? Is it for a camera that the Apollo-11 astronaut needed to power? Of course not, for they were not on the moon. The NASA Fake Team wouldn't have placed the wire there to make for any sort of authenticity.

This is so much fun that I've been at it for days. The only way NASA can combat this material is through some very underhanded methods. And NASA doesn't have much time. The Internet is a fast vehicle. And any underhanded methods used are a gamble that could sink the organization still deeper. I don't think the Shuttle program came to a halt for any other reason than what you're reading in the webpages featured here. Proud Americans need to understand that NASA is not anything good, but rather an occult organization committed to Evolution-ary discovery. It's a God-hating organization. It spends your money to "prove" that there isn't a God.

On this page, Jack points out that the same Buzz Aldrin in two photos appears to have two different suits, and two different men inside them with different-length legs. While one can appeal to a possibly bent leg (at the knee) in the left-side photo, the other leg cannot simultaneously be bent. I can add to Jack's list of differences that the black markings in the lower leg areas are not in the same spots when the two photos are compared. The marks do, however, show the attempt to copy one another exactly, and yet there is a slight failure in that attempt too. Many failures throughout.

On writer pointed out that there was only one close-up photo of Neil Armstrong, and as I recall it, he was merely climbing the ladder into the ship. We could only see him sideways, and it wasn't exactly an inspiring shot. The writer rightly asked why the first man on the moon, and the commander of the crew, would be deprived of such honor as to have some front-view photos of himself. Now we can see a possible answer: both astronaut suits on the set had the same knee markings, and perhaps they didn't have a third suit at that early time. Or, they didn't have a suit that fit Armstrong's body build (I'm just talking off the top of my head here).

On the next page, Buzz Aldrin is shown variously with and without an antennae, and with white or gray gloves.

On his page, NASA tries to crawl out of a bad hole and fails miserably, though they might convince the naive reader. There are two thrusters visible from two windows inside the lunar lander. Only one thruster is visible per window. NASA provided two photographs of thrusters both taken from the inner sides of the windows. The problem is, as Jack tells, both thrusters are on the left sides of the photographs, and you can't have that. The two thrusters must be on opposite sides of the photos, wherefore it's obvious that the thrusters were pasted in, and wrongly so. No matter what NASA has said to blame it's photographic department for accidentally "printing a photo backward," we're not that naive.

On this page, Jack's points 4, 5, and 10 are not verifiable on first glance, while his number 11 seems wrong for certain (because the section marked, 11, is on an angle), but otherwise all other points seem bang-on and prove that all four photos of the same piece of equipment are different during Aldrin 40-pace walk with it. It seems like a riddle as to why they didn't have Aldrin just carry the same piece over that short walk. Jack tends to prove that the pieces are pasted in because there is sunlight on at least two photos where no sunlight can shine, and the other two photos don't allow the viewer to see the whole piece so as to rule-out sunlight on them. My take is that the piece in the first photo is a different piece of equipment altogether (mainly due to the shiny-metal wrap-around (around the corner) at the area of number 7), and that the three other photos may show the same piece but at different times and/or with different peculiarities.

At the top of this page, Jack the photography expert shows a studio-lighting effect on, and across from, the lander's hatch door (see yellow line and the image above that). Very good work, Jack! But because the shadow line goes straight up the very center of the hatch door, NASA claimed that it had the two halves of the door painted different shades of grey. Jack investigated and found that other doors having "two tones" also had, in every case, the same related shadow on the ceilings above the door (highly perplexing indeed), but then doesn't conclude definitively one way or the other as to why this should be the case with multiple doors.

My take is that the shadow on one door was found by someone before Jack discovered it, and that upon that person having NASA notified, the latter had an artist alter all offending photos by making the doors therein appear truly painted in two tones. The artist then located the line between tones as close as possible to the center of the door, and of course made the line straightly vertical. In this theory, to explain why multiple doors were given the same double-tones, NASA must have originally used the same door-and-ceiling image with multiple Apollo landers. That then implies that the same lander was used in multiple "lunar landings."

Apparently, the NASA Fake Team in the early 70s was playing their Fraud Game to the average Joe Watcher and not realizing that one year soon after, Average Joe would possess his own computerized equipment to discover and reveal their fraud. The NASA Fake Team laughed and celebrated when the work was all over, but dug NASA's grave in the meantime. Now, the Russians are celebrating this one. NASA doesn't have much time left to cover for these false signs and wonders. What will it decide to do to stay alive? Another, bigger and better, hoax, or string of hoaxes?

NASA may survive with Illuminati-government help, but only like the lunatic in battle who ran crazily into the wind of bullets, saved only by falling injured to the ground below the bullet line. A bruised NASA will be severely restricted by the clamoring voices of many important peoples...who may not speak out publicly, but will relay private sentiments to important leaders.

Jack's computer technology has uncovered fuzzy objects hidden in the black of space (within NASA lunar photos) that may be hard to specifically identify, but the fact is, he reveals objects part of the original photos that were blacked out. Clearly, NASA was involved in a MASSIVE operation of photo deception. This is Jack's legacy, and yet we can be completely puzzled as to why his findings are not making the national news. It certainly is newsworthy. There's only one explanation. The NASA-minati will make you look like a lunatic if you come out against NASA with any real teeth.

Page 9 is one example of what looks to Jack like a truck blacked out, and there's yet another one page back on page 8. NASA had no way of knowing that people would own what Jack owns, and future technology is going to make things still worse for NASA. Their problem is, lots of people have NASA images stored in their own homes so that the more NASA alters their images to fix the problems that the Jacks of the world are pointing out, the deeper they ultimately dig their graves. One can imagine that they are very willing to prolong the public backlash until they are no longer with us, and of course many of the fraudsters have already passed away. But there are younger people now in charge of damage-control who know the fraud very well, and it'll be their skin that's out to dry if they make any crucial mistakes.

The point is, be on the majority side, the side that confesses unashamedly that NASA is a Fake Job. It may not be the majority side yet, but it definitely will be. Therefore, be on the majority side early, and find honor later when everyone agrees with you. As NASA made many converts for their anti-God program, so the ongoing revelation of the Fake Job will lose many of those converts.

Jack's page ten shows a definite shadow problem that the declining land cannot fully explain, and if you're interested he has a link there to "serious shadow problems." On this page, on the first item regarding the flag, it's shown that the fraudsters were, once again, lazy/sloppy, as though the NASA team thought they had a shoe-in fraud that the public would never catch. It reveals a fundamental flaw in the mentalities of the hoax's leadership. I see them as men of finesse with worldly appeal, with the task of convincing their photography workers that this was an easy job without any risk whatsoever. "Sure, go ahead and paste the flag in reverse, no one will notice. And while you're at it, put a small happy face on it too."

How else can we explain all the paste-related blunders? The typical human leader of a photography department can't handle the employees where hundreds, if not thousands, of photos, of so great importance, had to be dealt with in pure deception. The task's gravity had to be lowered to a comfortable level for the employees, and the leaders and workers together had to fool themselves into believing that they were playing a happy, risk-free game. Any indications from the leaders that the workers might ruin their careers and reputations for life, should this plot fail, had to be minimized or eradicated altogether. If the leaders started to show repeated frustration with, or objections to, unsatisfactory photography ploys, the workers might become too alarmed to do their work happily. So the leaders had to allow some sloppy work to pass, hoping for the best. This could explain why the same flag shot from opposing directions (180 degrees) was pasted exactly the same (in two photos) rather than having one done in reverse-shadowing.

St the very bottom of the same page, the same mountains are of the same size exactly in two photos, one photo having a giant lunar lander and the other photo having a tiny lunar lander. That cannot be true where the lunar lander is in the same spot, and of course the astronauts on the moon would not have been able to move the lander. The reality is, the mountains in the photo with the big-lander shot should be larger because the camera taking the shot is much closer to the mountains. Simple. If you can't see that NASA is guilty on this one piece of evidence alone, then I'd say you're a NASA-lover and/or moon-walk romanticist, but you are definitely not a person of truth. God is watching you believe the lie, and asking why you wish to believe the lie, whether it has got to do with your love of the world. Harken, Christian lover of NASA. Don't turn away thinking that this controversy has got nothing to do with your spiritual walk. It's especially important because the Illuminati is suspect at NASA's throne.

Jack reveals how the Fake Team was able to make the moon's background area as light as the foreground. They at times used a giant light in the background, pointed toward the main props...right into the camera taking the pictures, then removed signs of the light. But in some cases, as the ones shown here, Jack was able to bring the light back into view. Look at the circular objects in "outer space," with centers not far up from the horizon (one shot even shows glare on the lens). Then, on the ground, look directly below the circular objects (i.e. the remnants of bright flood lamps and their glares, or perhaps even the sun at dusk/dawn) to see bright/hot spots of reflected light, exactly where it's expected. It's possible that the landscape was shot/filmed at night with floodlights or setting red sun, and that the cameras taking the shots had their shutters open longer than usual to brighten up the landscape. The extended time of open shutters could explain how the light source grew in size to a massive sphere.

Click over to Jack's next page to see some of the many similar anomalies discovered in a single night! NASA should be writing the fine points in its will, and yet's it has been gearing up for a long fight against Jack's discoveries. Don't we think that the leaders of the hoax ought to pay the American people back for money wasted on this massive Fake Job? And if they don't have the money to pay the people back, shouldn't they go to jail for stealing the money in this way??? Shouldn't NASA include in its will a repayment of the people?

At the bottom of this next page, Jack shows what should be on the national news for weeks at a time. It's incredible that the news refuse to do a story on this one piece of evidence alone. Jack shows that the same mountain line exactly is in two photos, one with, and one without an Apollo-15 lunar lander. There was a similar couplet of photos debunked by NASA because the same mountains were not exactly aligned, allowing the argument that the missing lunar lander was just off the photo to the left. But in this case, Jack shows the mountains to be exactly aligned, exact in every way, meaning that it's the same photo camera shot shown twice, one with, and one without, the lander. Isn't that enough to make for national news, with debate carrying on for weeks, with NASA's demons asked to come live to give their explanations??? Of course it's enough to merit such public debate.

For an example on how landscapes were changed in color by leaving the lenses open longer, see the bottom of the next page. The brighter mountainside (as bright almost as the ground) is impossible because sunlight in the dimmer shot is being presented as coming from behind the mountain. The two shots are not the same, the brighter one being from a lower camera shot (as the foreground crater reveals). The tire tracks being absent in the foreground suggests that the darker photo was shot first, but this could be incorrect. The object (the lander, I'm assuming) making the foreground shadow in the dimmer shot casts no shadow in the other photo, and is therefore not parked in the same spot, apparently. If we suggest that the shadow is absent because the light(s) that created the shadow was not shining during the creation of the brighter shot, it would be contradicted by the fact that some of the same mountain shadows in the dimmer shot are evident in the brighter shot.

Therefore, it appears that the brighter shot was taken before the lander was trucked into its slated position, now suggesting that the brighter shot came first, which would then imply that the tire-track area (including the tire tracks) in the foreground had been raked out by the time of the dimmer photo. One could say that the rover was trucking on the moon before the lander landed on the moon, but if that's obviously untrue, or one could say that the whole thing was a con job by a team of dirty-scum rats worthy of severe jail time. Jack is too gentlemanly to speak this way, but I'm of a different breed. I have no love for NASA, no forgiveness until it repents and steps down from its too-high pedestal.

Jack's one gem. In the next page (13), he shows that one astronaut in the Apollo-15 affair without an antennae on his suit also has no camera at his chest, and yet he supposed had just taken a photo of his fellow astronaut. Can NASA claim that the cameras are removable from the suits while the men are on the moon's surface? Note too the identical positions of their lower arms and gloves, as though the astronauts are suited manikins (flexible at the joints) with pipes in the legs inserted over spikes in the ground. Then read what Jacks says in the second couplet of photos, once again suggesting that the astronauts are manikins. There are your space heroes, America: manikins, and the fraudsters who purchased and dressed them.

On the next page, Jacks provides two photos 26 shots apart, showing the same landscape in either photo, one with a crater and one without. The photo with number 428 has the crater, while the photo taken later with number 454 had the crater filled in and raked out in the time between the 26 photos. You now have the opportunity to study how a rake job was created to make for the original dust surface of the moon. It's possible that the crater is just a paint job, but even still the dirt around it was raked/altered for picture 454. In my opinion, the latter shot looks like it has a pile of new dirt creating a mound over the cratered spot, regardless of wether it was a real or fake hole.

One question I haven't heard answered yet is how the lunar lander was kept cool while it flew/sat days in constant sun. How did the men get sleep unless the craft was kept under 90F? Didn't it need a cooling system too, just like the astronauts in their suits? Why did I never read about the heat exchanger on the outside of the lander when doing this week-long investigation that included much detail on the lander's particulars?

On August 5, NASA will launch a ship, Juno, to Jupiter (can we believe it?). One stated purpose is to seek for water on Jupiter. It's the same old NASA waste-your-money to find life in the solar system to destroy belief in a Creator. You can bet that NASA will find water in Jupiter's clouds just as it "found" water on Mars.

Back in the early parts of the 1900s, science started going very wrong on the nature of the atom, on the nature of heat, and on the nature of gravity, and on the nature of light. For that reason, they may not realize that there is heat in Jupiter's core. Heat in a planetary core is the source of gravity (says me but not others) because heat comes with a negative charge. Gravity is an electro-magnetic force (says me but not many others), but scientists opted for Newton's form of gravity (non-electromagnetic) where all atoms possess their own gravity, or "graviton" particles, as scientists call them (no one has ever discovered these gravitons, and they are merely assumed to exist).

Newton was a chief Christianized Rosicrucian, and it wasn't long after his day that the theory of evolution was being advanced seriously by a science-minded so-called "Lunar Society." It's not coincidental that Newton's view of gravity is absolutely necessary to explain the evolution of the universe via a Big Bang, for unless each atom possesses its own gravity, the exploding debris of the Big Bang (which somehow created all protons to be identical, and all electrons to be identical, says foolish modern science) could not come together to form galaxies and single stars/planets. Now you know why Newtonian gravity is still with us today, and in an inexplicable/mysterious form (because it's erroneous).

There is only one way to explain Jupiter's rings, and big red spot, so far as I can imagine. Jupiter must be a solid rock with much heat and constant volcanoes. In this picture, Jupiter's solid part is not uniform in material, but must possess different materials in different areas of the solid in accordance with the different colors of "gas" rings. As the various materials in the planet spew out, they fill the space above the planet to form colored rings as the planet spins on an axis. In this picture, the rings are not just gases, but volcanic dust too, each different color crowding in on the other with no room to expand by upward (the "lightest" gases would then be at the top, and hydrogen is the lightest know gas (though in my science book, all atoms weigh exactly the same). The red spot is then just a massive volcano or volcanic system spewing out red material.

[The rest of the update is atom-technical, you may wish to skip it]

It's a good idea to present this view of gravity here in the NASA section of the updates, for scientists that may have come by who wish to know the reality (I'm not being arrogant, just confident). If you have any wisdom whatsoever, you know that electrons don't orbit atoms. You know that atoms (= consistent individual particles) exist because there is no other way to explain a gas and its properties, and you know that atoms express electromagnet charge, wherefore you realize that atoms are made of both positive and negative particles. We call the negative particles, electrons, and these are both heat particles and gravity particles (and may not be electrical particles unless they are captured by atomic attraction). By various demonstrations of science, it's known that electrons are on the outer side of atoms while protons take up the inner core. The rulers of science have that correct.

One lie is the orbiting electron. Impossible. There is no natural force conceivable that should require electrons, which are merely attracted by protons, to enter a perfect orbits around protons. Wipe that from your mind and stop being a fool. Then, imagine correctly that the protonic core of an atom (regardless of what the core looks like) will attract free electrons in its near-environment only to a certain degree: until the outward negative charge from the accumulation of captured electrons equals the total positive charge from the protonic core, at which time no further electrons can be attracted. That limits the size and mass of the atom. The strongest protonic cores will create the largest, most-massive atoms, and yet all atoms will end up weighing exactly the same.

And to make sure that scientists are completely fooled, its the largest and most-massive atoms that have the greatest lift (they rise to the top of mixed gases), while, to make you puzzled still further, the largest atom happens to be the hydrogen atom, the very one that science claims to be the smallest. I'll explain.

The electrons surrounding the protonic core will spread out, under their own inter-repulsion (negative repels negative) evenly around the core. These captured electrons can be considered the "atmosphere" of the atom, where no electron in the upper parts of the atmosphere is in contact with its neighbors: all are hovering (it's this atmospheric condition that allows atoms to bond, but this is not out concern here). When we enter gravity into the picture, it being a negative force from the heat within a planet, what do you think will happen to the outer electrons of an atom? The outer electrons are captured with the least protonic force, and the very outer layers are barely able to remain captured.

Both gravity and heat particles are defined here as freed electrons. So long as electrons are captured by protons, they cannot register heat (e.g. in the skin, or in a thermometer, or in any material), but when they are set free from atoms, they become heat particles. The core of the planet is abundant with freed electrons, and their great accumulation there creates a super negative force. It won't take you long to realize that this negative force will free the outer layers of captured electrons on all atoms within a planet's gravitational field.

The further away the atoms from the center of gravity (for example, up into the sky), the fewer electrons that will be sent free (too logical). The fewer electrons that are sent free, the less the atoms will weigh on a weight scale. In this picture, atomic weight is defined as the attraction of negatively-charged gravity to the positively-charge atom. But that's impossible, you would say, because it requires every atom to be positively charged (because it's know that all atoms have weight). But this was my fantastic discovery many years ago because I was willing to jump out from under science's hypnotism.

Aside from gravity, an atom will be neutral, having neither a net-negative nor net-positive charge. But if gravity sends electrons flying, then every atom gets a net-positive charge. Too logical, explaining why all atoms have weight, Gravity is what makes them positive, and gravity is what therefore pulls them to itself. It's not complicated enough to be a fantastic discovery, yet it's fantastic because it's easily proven to be the reality, easily proving that evolutionists have got gravity it all wrong.

If we say that all atoms four thousand miles from the earth's core are affected by Gx amount of gravitational force (where x is the specific gravity force at that distance), then all atoms at that distance will be deprived of all captured electrons held on (to the protonic core) with less than Gx attraction force. At this point, all electrons held on with Gx force will barely be hanging on to the atom's outer-most layer.

But then every atom -- regardless of type, i.e. includes oxygen, hydrogen, metal atoms, etc) -- at x distance acquires a new charge which we can call Px, or the net-positive charge at x distance. As every atom at any given distance acquires the same net-positive charge, every atom will be attracted by the same amount of gravitational force, wherefore all atoms at x distance will weigh the same, regardless of the type of atom. This is what made the discovery so spectacular. It redefined atomic physics completely, and in fact was a great key in understanding the true nature of atoms, and explaining correctly many of their known properties.

All atoms at any given distance will weigh the same, explaining why every object falls to gravity at the same acceleration/velocity when dropped from the same height.

If you'd like the formula: N(eutral) - G = A(tomic)W(weight), but G = AW works just the same. This is more important than E= M2, especially as the latter is incorrect.

Again, gravity repels electrons from an atom, and gravity simultaneously takes an attractive bite into the atom with a force equal to the new positive charge at the atom's outer layer. The positive charge of the atom's outer layer changes with altitude, and the atom's specific weight therefore changes with altitude.

Lest I'm misleading you to believe that all atoms are positively charged, that's not true. There is another factor, heat, that makes all atoms negatively charged in relation to one another while not nullifying the gravitational attraction on atoms. All of empty space is filled with heat particles inter-repelling one another in all directions, and therefore they inter-repel toward all atoms. It's important to distinguish between the captured electrons of atoms and the free electrons that intrude into the captured-electron atmospheres. As heat particles cram in on the electron atmospheres, the effect is to cause atoms to move away from one another (unless atoms are in an enclosed space).

Heat particles are always flowing upward, away from gravity, and therefore always flow past atoms, never belonging to atoms but affecting them as they pass by. As atoms are net-positive when heat particles are not in the picture, atoms do attract some heat particles as they flow by, but the atoms are unable to keep them because gravity repels heat particles upward with more force than the net-positive force of atoms can attract them. Still, because atoms are actually attracting the nearest heat particles as they pass by, atoms lose their net-positive charge toward one another. That is, even though atoms can't capture them, atoms are in reality neutralized because heat is constantly passing by, constantly applied to the atom's outer layers.

Moreover, there is reason to believe that the neutralized atoms adopt some negative energy from the heat particles pressing in on them, thus making there atoms net-negative toward one another. The more heat, the more net-negative they become, and the greater the increase in atomic inter-repulsion.

A gas should be defined as atoms inter-repelling (not at all what scientists claim, who say the impossible, that all atoms attract). All atoms -- as gases, liquids, and solids -- inter-repel due to the negative charges effected from the free electrons (= heat) all around.

Heat is an upward-flowing "gas" tending to give lift to any atoms in its path. As every different type of atom weighs the same, the atom with the largest cross section will receive the most lift, and as it's known that hydrogen goes the highest, hydrogen atoms are the largest atoms, not the smallest (physicists have this backward). Metal atoms are therefore the smallest atoms, explaining why metals are the heaviest materials per unit volume.

As evaporation of liquids is caused by heat-particle lift at the surface of the liquid, larger atoms have the greater probability in evaporating at lower temperatures. That works, because hydrogen has a very low evaporation temperature, while metals have high evaporation temperatures.

In reality, heat moves through a vacuum no problem. It must, or the earth would over-heat in no-time at all. Heat rises and escapes into space as a material. As heat rises over a sphere (i.e. such as the earth), heat particles become eight times less dense per a doubling of upward distance. That's simply because the volume of space over a sphere increases eight times per doubling of upward distance. In short, heat particles spread out as they rise, providing decreasing lift on air atoms. The atmosphere grows larger/higher by the sunlight of the day, and shrinks by night.

Let's imagine a water molecule, in order to remain afloat in the air and not come down as dew, requires at least x number of heat particles below it. I'm suggesting that at that number, the upward lift on a water molecule is equal to its downward pull by gravity. Let's say that at the ground area there are 1000 heat particles under each water molecule. Up into the sky the molecules will be lifted by the upward-flowing heat...until the expanding volume of space reduces the number of particles under each molecule to x. That is the highest altitude (ignoring wind, air- pressure variations, and further input of heat from the sun) that the water molecule can achieve, representing the heights at which clouds form and accumulate.

Hydrogen goes much higher, not because it's larger than a water molecule. It isn't. But a water molecule has nine atoms total, and therefore weighs nine atomic units. The hydrogen atom only weighs one atomic unit. A true water molecule consists of one hydrogen atom bonded with eight smaller oxygen atoms, though there may be multiple such combinations per water molecule (e.g. 2 H atoms per 16 O atoms).

For the serious physicist interested in this view of the atomic model, it's important to realize that the assumption of scientists is wrong where any given gas volume (regardless of the type of atom) at equal temperature and pressure has the same number of atoms. That shaky theory has no real premise, and it's the very theory that wrongly assigns a water molecule two hydrogen atoms per one oxygen atom (i.e. H2O). The only thing that scientists have proven is that two volumes of hydrogen added to one equal volume of oxygen created an equal volume of water vapor. It doesn't necessarily follow that a water molecule is two hydrogen atoms bonded to one oxygen atom.

As it's known that a volume of oxygen weighs 16 times more than an equal volume of hydrogen, the oxygen must have 16 times as many atoms. That's how important the all-atoms-weigh-the-same discovery was. It reveals that a water molecule is eight oxygen atoms bonded to one larger hydrogen atom. As all atoms repel, the eight oxygen atoms take up equa-distance upon the hydrogen atom, none of them touching the other, and a ninth is not permitted to join them due to the repulsion of the others. It's just the way it is. Scientists have found a way to get eight more oxygen atoms onto the hydrogen atom (there is room for them), in the making of H2O2 (hydrogen peroxide), but hydrogen peroxide (in an open vessel) spontaneously loses oxygen atoms, and reverts to water.

It's known that a volume of water vapor weighs nine times as much as the same volume of hydrogen, revealing that water vapor has nine times as many atoms.

The uranium atom is said to weigh 232 times as much as the hydrogen atom, but as their theory for arriving to that idea is faulty, the reality is that uranium gas has 232 times as many atoms than an equal volume (at equal temperature and pressure) of hydrogen. The uranium atom is so small, therefore, that it's the weakest atom amongst all the elements. And being weakest, it's captured electrons can be released most easily, which is why uranium can be used to produce nuclear energy most efficiently.

Freely I give the world the atomic realities, and no I'm not a kook. If we want to knock electrons off of atoms to harvest significant heat energy thereby, one must knock the electrons off and keep them off, or they will just reload onto the atom. Friction removes electrons, but the rubbed/banged object just regains its electrons in short time from the space around it. Nuclear energy is the destruction of the proton but bombarding it with something violent enough. Without a proton working properly, electrons come flying out in masses and act as more "bullets" to destroy more protons in their vicinity. Don't try this at home.

God gave us an excellent method of harvesting electrons for heat. It's combustion. And he gave plenty of wood to combust (crude oil is a form of wood). In combustion, atoms bond, and whenever atoms bond, they release heat particles permanently...until something causes the atoms to separate again, at which time they absorb as much heat as they gave off when bonding. Every time nine oxygen atoms bond with one hydrogen atom, they give off the same amount heat, and every time that nine oxygen atoms unmerge from one hydrogen atom, they re-absorb the same amount of heat. Therefore, the merging of captured-electron atmospheres causes electrons in their merged areas to go free...because none of the protons (of the bonding atoms) can retain the higher-density electrons in the merging parts. The protons are already "fully loaded" with captured electrons before merger begins.


Especially for new or confused readers
shows where I'm coming from.

For serious investigators:
How to Work with Bloodline Topics

Here's what I did when I had spare time on my hands:
Ladon Gog and the Hebrew Rose
It took the prime right out of my life.

The rest of the Gog-in-Iraq story is in PART 2 of the
Table of Contents