Menu
header photo

Show Me

(For those who should have been born in Missouri)

  • Blog
  • Bullet
  • Flood
  • J6

Shine the light - it is a God-designed disinfectant

From Where Did the Whizzing Bullet Originate?

There have been many conspiracy theories floating around about Crooks not being the actual shooter, and there have been eyewitness accounts of other shooters. Some have involved the water tower, some have involved shooters from inside the buildings.

Some of the witnesses and analysis sounded FAR from credible, so I was skeptical. I decided to see if any of those theories merited further investigation, or whether they could possibly be eliminated.

The photo that inspired me to perform this analysis was this one by Doug Mills of the NYT.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/14/us/politics/photo-path-trump-assassination.html

My thought was that based on the angle of this bullet path, we should be able to trace its path backwards to see where it may have originated. This would not prove there were NOT multiple shooters, but it proves there was at least ONE shooter at the other end of this trajectory (assuming this photo is not fake, that it is relatively level to the horizon, and that the camera pointing direction is relatively close to perpendicular to the bullet trajectory both vertically and horizontally).

While this analysis is simple high-school level geometry and trigonometry, I will mention that my background includes being a software engineer, coder, and software project manager for a full rewrite of a series of photogrammetry/mensuration math models that became the core for tools used throughout the intelligence community. Note however, that the only tangible thing that experience lends to this analysis is a mindset accustomed to chaining angular calculations within a photo and across multiple photos, which comes from watching professional photogrammetrists perform tasks like these, and much more complex ones, on a daily basis.

Disclaimer 1: I expect the biggest unknown in my calculations is the accuracy of relative ground elevations provided by https://www.freemaptools.com/elevation-finder.htm
Disclaimer 2: This analysis is presented in an effort to determine if I made a mistake and to provoke further accurate thought and analysis. It is very possible that I used bad values, or that I made a simple sign error. I invite any and all peer review of this analysis.

So, here’s the math...

First, I computed the elevation angle of this bullet path using this photo.

I used MS Paint to draw a horizontal line and measure its length in pixels, then I drew another line along the path of the bullet. Over the length of these lines we get 16 pixels of elevation rise (moving back toward the rifle) and 814 pixels of run. So, using the TOA rule (tangent of the angle = opposite side / adjacent side), the elevation angle can be computed.

Bullet’s elevation angle is approximately 1.13 degrees.

Next, I wanted to find out the height of the apex of the roof where the shot allegedly took place. I wanted to know where it was SUPPOSED to be before I ran the calculations to see if it did indeed seem to come from there. To get this height, I used this photo, along with some elevation data.

This is the building Crooks was on top of (taken from Google Street View). I added red lines to identify the apex point, then drew blue lines to measure the height of the door (in pixels) and the height to the apex. This was 90 and 200 pixels respectively. Since doors are a pretty standard 80 inches, the roof apex height can be estimated. Also note that the windows in this building are quite low. If a second shooter were inside this building, it seems it couldn’t be any higher than the horizontal blue line. Also, I added a blue line at the steps to establish an upper maximum of the height of the base of the building relative to ground level (about 25 inches).

Apex of the roof is between 14.81 feet and 17.03 feet; I used a best guess of 15.92 feet.

For the total elevation of the roof, I needed the ground elevation of the building. I used points on the ground at each end of this building. This elevation was obtained from https://www.freemaptools.com/elevation-finder.htm. The average elevation at the ground is approximately 1333.4 feet.

So adding the 15.92 roof height you get the roof apex elevation.

Elevation of roof apex is approximately 1349.32 feet (within 1344.81...1353.83)

Next, I needed the distance from the roof's apex to the stage. Here, I used Google Maps Satellite view and used their distance measuring tool from the approximate position of Trump (40.857030, -79.970930) to the roof apex. I took samples from near each end of the building to get minimum and maximum bounds. 

Distance from Trump to roof apex is approximately 442.5 feet (within 430...455)

Now all that remains is to figure out the elevation of Trump’s head, and the rest is simple geometry and trigonometry.

Ground level at the stage was obtained from https://www.freemaptools.com/elevation-finder.htm using an average of elevation points around the stage area as shown here.

The average is 1337.35 (within 1336.2...1338.5). From photographs, there appear to be five steps leading up to the stage platform. Using the minimum (6.25”) and maximum (7 7/8”) standard step (riser heights) and using a minimum of 4 and a maximum of 6 steps, you get a potential range of the stage somewhere between 2.08 and 3.94 feet. So, the platform is approximately 3 feet above the ground. Trump’s height seemed a little hard to come by online. I used several sources for an average of 6.08 feet. Next you need to subtract off the distance from the top of Trump’s head to the path of the bullet. I estimated this at 7.25 inches (0.6 feet).

Adding all of this together, you get the elevation height of the bullet whizzing past Trump’s head.

Elevation of bullet at Trump’s head is approximately 1345.84 feet (within 1343.33...1348.35).

I found it interesting that the roof apex is only 5 feet higher than this. Those folks in the North bleachers were certainly right in the line of fire. I wouldn’t be surprised if the line of sight was between the heads of people on those bleachers.

All of this went into a spreadsheet:

I chose what I felt were liberal minimums and maximums to try and bound the possibilities. And the result is that the bullet would almost certainly have passed the roof apex somewhere between -2 feet below and not more than 12 feet above. Best guess value is a tad over 5 feet.

All of this is completely consistent with the shot coming from Crooks’ rifle.

This photo shows an orange box that is just eyeball estimated to stretch from about 2 feet below the roof apex to 12 feet above it.

This analysis suggests that the whizzing bullet:
    • Did not come from the water tower (light blue line)
    • Likely did not come from the windows in Crooks’ building (yellow line)
    • Likely did not come from the roof of the building behind Crooks (dark red line)

This analysis suggests that the whizzing bullet is consistent with:
    • The position of Crooks’ rifle (lighter red/orange line)
    • The windows in the building behind Crooks and to his right (dark blue line)
    • The roof of the building much further back (orange line in image below)

The building far back also matches the best guess trajectory data. However, the latest acoustic analysis does not line up with this location. Also, I believe other analysis has shown that the whizzing bullet photo is actually the bullet that struck Trump's ear (you likely aren't seeing the bullet itself, but rather the pulverized flesh trailing behind the bullet), and that it was the first shot fired, or at least one of the first three shots fired.

Here are the same sort of calculations for this far building's roof apex.

The whizzing bullet trajectory has a best guess height above this roof of 3.09 feet.

If I were an honest and thorough investigator, I’d be making sure I completely ruled out the windows behind Crooks and to his right as well as the roofs of buildings further back. The red diamond is where Crooks was located.

As noted earlier, the fact that the trajectory is consistent with Crooks' rifle does not rule out other bullets coming from other trajectories (other postulated shooters). I will note however, that the NYT posted their whizzing bullet photo quite quickly. If this were a giant conspiracy, and the NYT was in on it (with camera presets to capture that bullet effect), then they would have needed to do this math to ensure they didn’t capture a bullet from the water tower or some other inconsistent trajectory.

If you would like me to adjust some numbers and re-run the analysis, I’d be happy to do so. Just drop me a note. Freedom of speech has allowed many theories to be voiced and consequently analyzed. The sillier ones have been rationally disposed of, for those willing to look. There remain many troubling facts surrounding this case that need thorough investigation, and I’m glad to see all who are asking the right questions and who continue to run these to ground.

Update 1: I initially supposed that Mills' camera would have been on a tripod. Turns out it was not. So, the assumption of "level with the horizon" is more suspect. I added a full +/- 2 degrees error boundary on the bullet angle to see the magnitude of the effect. This would extend the orange box about 10 feet at the top and bottom, which would include both the lower windows and the roof of the building just behind Crooks and to his right.

Update 2: I find Dr. Chris Martenson's acoustic analysis to be very compelling. I am now convinced there were at least two weapons firing TOWARDS the stage. Give this a watch. https://x.com/chrismartenson/status/1814095819831902381

Update 3: Another acoustic analysis by Mike Adams identifies three separate shooter distances TOWARDS the stage. The ranges are about 450 feet (shots 1-5), about 740 feet (shot 6 - likely bolt action), and about 1400 feet (shot 7 - likely bolt action higher power cartridge). Adams believes shots 1-3 are a different weapon than shots 4-5 due to a very different sound, though the range is about the same. Likely 4 total weapons. It seems that shot 8 is the one that took out Crooks. Give this a watch. https://www.brighteon.com/a2ec2cff-0d92-4870-9629-e1fa9eb3fb09

Update 4: A comment or two about acoustic data. See updates 2 and 3 above for links to early, yet very, very compelling analysis. There were high quality microphones located at varied locations all over the venue -- from professional network news equipment to good quality cell phone mics. This data is not going away and is as unmistakable and as difficult to tamper with as fingerprint or DNA evidence. Acoustic data captures when a supersonic bullet passes the microphone (sharp snap sound) and then captures when the slower sound of the rifle cartridge explosion arrives (a duller boom sound). It is child's play to determine if the shot originated from "good guys" on the roofs behind the stage, or from a more distant threat location. It is also highly reliable to determine the rough distance to the shooter (regardless of what variety of supersonic bullet), and is extremely precise if you know the bullet type and approximate velocity. With enough microphones at enough different locations, the location of the shooters can be determined quite accurately by professional acoustic analysts using triangulation. You can be certain that professional investigators have done this already or will soon do this. The first big glaring question is: Will the public ever be told about this analysis? And the second big glaring question is: Do any serious investigative journalists exist in the mainstream who are even bringing this avenue of investigation to the public discussion right now? If not, why not? You simply cannot hope to hide actual truth like this in today's world of electronic technology. Feet must be held to the fire until this line of evidence is transparently analyzed and reported.

With the combination of these two early acoustic reports, I am now convinced there were at least 3, and probably 4 shooters. I don't think anyone who listens to these two reports would say this is an unreasonable conclusion. It would be unwise to nay-say this if you haven't taken the time to listen to both in their entirety. More may come to light. If anyone is aware of contrary acoustic analysis out there, I am completely open to my opinion being changed. So, my spit-balling, common-sense-driven thought processes lead me to the following two alternatives (based on an assumption of 4 shooters).

1. Such a conspiracy of 4 shooters would seem to be a professional operation. I find it extremely difficult to believe such a plan would have Crooks shooting first. The first three shots are evenly spaced, sound very professional, and would therefore come from someone close to Crooks (inside his building, or from the windows in the building just behind him and to his right, or even through a small hole in one of the buildings). Those shots then trigger Crooks and the other two shooters to fire. Shots 4 and 5 would be from Crooks in this alternative, and shots 6 and 7 from shooters further back.

2. Perhaps Crooks went off script and fired first. Perhaps he took those first 3 shots (or even 5 shots). This would have thrown the whole operation off. The other shooters would probably be delayed just enough that Trump had already begun to duck, thus their shots missed. Or perhaps Crooks had to remain completely ignorant of the existence of other shooters and they had no choice but to allow him to shoot first.

Update 5: One of the commenters in Mike Adams' video brought up the possibility that the snap booms from shots 6 and 7 could logically be nested. That is, snap 6 could be from a much longer range rifle such that snap 7 is associated with boom 6 and occurs prior to boom 7 which is associated with snap 6. I tried to compute the ranges for this scenario, however, this is pretty confusing due to different time scale values in Adams' video. If I deciphered that correctly, then we have Snap 6 at 9.935, Snap 7 at 10.235, Boom 6 at 10.295, and Boom 7 at 11.005. This results in a time of 0.06 seconds from snap 7 to boom 6, and 1.07 seconds from snap 6 to boom 7. These ranges would be in the ballpark of 120 feet and 1945 feet respectively. Perhaps 120 feet could be consistent with a counter-sniper returning fire on Crooks. The 1945 distance is about 650 yards. I find this interpretation unlikely, but there it is. Something else to try and confirm or eliminate. If I have time, I'll see if any buildings work out for 1400 feet and for 1945 feet. Also, for what it is worth, Dan Bongino (ex Secret Service agent) is very, very skeptical of more than one shooter, so just a reminder that caution continues to be merited for any conclusions.

Update 6: Dr. Martenson shared his audio files with Mike Adams so a more complete analysis was possible since these recordings are taken at different locations and some rough triangulation can now be performed. Adams is now confident there were 10 shots, with shot 9 being a pistol round fired from the stage area back toward Crooks by local law enforcement, and shot 10 being the SS counter sniper round that took out Crooks. The remaining 8 shots are all rifle shots traveling from the left towards the stage. Round 6 and maybe 7 have a different sound from the others (more muffled, with little or no echo off of building surfaces). These need further analysis and clarification. The largest looming question is why did the SS counter snipers fail to fire back after the first three shots. What is the typical response time to return fire if you already are aware of the shooter's location and you already have spotted and ranged his position, and your rifle is already pointed at the shooter? Is it reasonable that it would be 16 seconds after the first round before returning fire? The fact that the government seems to be stonewalling and providing almost no information to the public is not good. The fact that they claim to have no recording of the voice communications is extremely troubling. The fact that we know nothing about how many empty shell casings were on the roof is troubling (at most crime scenes they immediately mark the position of shell casings with little blue tent markers). The shell casings are tapered and would not be expected to roll all the way down the roof, they would most certainly roll in a circle until they came to rest against one of the roof ridge seams. The vacuum of information from the government is causing many more very bad theories to be aired, and it is forcing the crowd sourcing of the analysis with limited data. This paints the picture that the government desires this state of confusion.  Martenson and Adams have clear biases, however they have been begging for more audio data from attendees all along, and have now gotten that. They have been transparent with their analysis and have been willing to change their opinions. Here is the link to Adams' analysis on 2024-Jul-23: https://www.brighteon.com/268b2dc3-e9f9-4089-95a8-184ad5a383ed

Update 7: Wray testifies 8 "cartridges" were found on the roof. Dr. Martenson has refined the picture further. Many of the mysteries are now explained in this acoustic analysis. Shots 1, 2, and 3 have a very different sound from 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. The podium microphone has an auto-adjust feature, so when it hears a very loud snap, it is saturated and so automatically turns down its sensitivity for a short interval of time. That is why the mic caught some snaps, but did not record the associated booms. Martenson is certainly a biased source as you can hear from his speculations, but his data analysis seems to truly be getting more and more solid. I don't think any of the proposed explanations for the sound quality differences hold water. There is definite cause to suspect two shooters. Here is a link to his latest video: https://x.com/chrismartenson/status/1816269036768092383

Update 8: Dr. Martenson has now added a very important "6th" video source and the picture keeps getting clearer. The architect analysis confirms my estimation of the height of the Crooks' building roof apex (15.92 feet) and the delta elevation between where the podium was located and the base of Crooks' building (about 4 feet). Assuming the 6 audio files are raw and unaltered, the data shows that the most likely scenario is that more than one hostile weapon was involved. My critique of Martenson's latest video is as follows:

1) For shots 1 and 8, while the mic orientation is consistent, the position difference may be significant. It is possible that for shot 1 the tree trunk may have been between Stewart and Crooks. You notice the leaves hanging down into the frame for shot 8, he appears to be to the right side of the tree trunk. For frame 1 the leaves from the left side of the tree trunk appear to be shown. This means there is a small possibility that the tree trunk could be right in-line with Crooks. This could theoretically account for some audio differences.

2) When comparing the amount of low-frequency sounds using the graphs, the wide spacing of shots 1, 2, and 3 can make it appear "more blue than orange". It seems better to squeeze shots 1-3 together to visually compare these. I performed this squeeze, and this is the result:

Focus on the area in the two light blue rectangles. The area Martenson annotates with the green line isn't as obviously different in this image as in the image he shows, however when you look at "center of mass" of these brighter yellow areas, Martenson is correct that the first three shots center around 600-650 Hz, while shots 4-8 center around 400 Hz. Also, the difference in the area of the white line (10-200 Hz) is clearly very different.

3) I am also very curious about the ricochet sound seen in the audio of shot 1. What accounts for the time duration between the initial sound and the ricochet spike on the graph? It would seem to be a "range" effect. If so, what two events would cause the initial sound and the ricochet spike? The "ricochet sound" is present in shots 1, 2, and 3, so I do not believe it is an actual ricochet.

Here is the link to Martenson's latest video: https://x.com/chrismartenson/status/1818076611289415685

Update 9: There is an interesting video taken by one of the people on the far side of Trump who was critically injured by gunfire and/or shrapnel https://www.foxnews.com/us/video-from-trump-assassination-attempt-victims-pov-shows-figure-moving-roof-moments-before-gunfire. Well, that Fox News link is no longer valid. Here is another source for it: https://vigilantnews.com/post/shocking-new-footage-shows-someone-crooks-running-on-the-roof-moments-before-trump-was-shot/. You can clearly see what is apparently Crooks running left-to-right across the roof shortly before the shots (running from the area of the taller building towards his eventual ending position). You can also really see the angles and trajectories from his view. What officials have said about Crooks not being visible to the SS snipers until just before the shots began is simply not true (assuming this video is legit). You can also note the difference in trajectories between Trump and Comperatore. Comperatore is the gentleman in the upper left of the bleachers with a dark baseball cap who was killed by one of the shots.

The acoustic data continues to be compelling, with at least 8 different recordings from different locations undergoing some analysis. There is absolutely no doubt that shots 1-3 sound very different from shots 5-8. This is particularly true for the audio sources located to the west of Crooks' building (a perspective from the right side of Crooks). However, there continue to be several potential explanations for these sound differences. I have these in descending order of likelihood (my judgment based on the acoustic data, and the fact that some of these possibilities have zero proof or supporting evidence at this point in time).

1) Two different weapons is the most logical explanation with quite a bit of supporting data. Different weapons can sound very different, particularly if not located in the same place, or if one is firing from inside a building where the high frequency noise will not propagate to the sides. These graphics illustrate such a scenario.

2) Crooks may have been very low for the first 3 shots, then when he saw he missed, he may have raised up to fire shots 4-8. This could possibly change the sound quality, but those side aspect microphones sound VERY different between the groups, so I have doubts about this explanation.

3) The two sources from the side were not pointing in exactly the same direction for the two groups of shots. Note however, that cell phones have omni-directional mics, so a 30-degree or so change in aspect isn't likely to make very much difference.

4) For the source from directly in front of that building, the angles are roughly the same, but there is a slight possibility there could be a tree trunk directly in the line between the microphone and the shooter for the first three shots. This might affect the sound quality for those shots.

5) And the newest possibility is based on an odd configuration of Crooks' rifle. There was a red dot sight mounted on top of the rifle and two flip-up iron sights mounted on the SIDE of his rifle (this is an almost unheard of configuration). In theory, this could allow Crooks to tilt his rifle over sideways so that the long 30-round magazine would not contact the roof and require him to elevate his position and be more exposed. He would be able to fire using iron sights while keeping his head a bit lower, though managing recoil with a sideways rifle would seem very challenging (though AR-15 recoil is much tamer than many rifles). The reason this might affect the sound is that it appears that he had some sort of flash suppressor on the end of his barrel. If that flash suppressor directs gases to the sides and not vertically, then the sound could be different if the shots are fired with the rifle vertical versus sideways. So, if shots 1-3 were shot sideways, and 4-8 were shot vertically, then the sound could be different. I am skeptical of this resulting in very different acoustics in the high/low frequencies. Someone needs to test such flash suppressors and bring that data to the table if this theory is to be pushed.

6) There could have been different ammo types for shots 1-3 versus 4-8. It is VERY unlikely the sound would be that different based on ammo alone. (Note: It is also odd that we have been given zero information about the type of shell casings found and what type of ammo may have been used. I don't know how easy it is to identify all the different places where bullets struck people, bleachers, and the ground, but that information could help answer trajectory questions. The general lack of information flow and briefings held by the protective teams and leadership is very, very troubling.)

Update 10: There is another video floating out there that I am quite certain is fake. It purports to show ANOTHER "bullet" captured in flight from the OTHER side of the venue. They claim they have a subsonic acoustic signature for this (a silenced weapon). Folks, the geometry doesn't work. Such a shot would have had to have been taken from within 60 feet of Trump. No way.

I snipped out a portion of the last frame containing the "bullet" to paste on top of the first frame containing the "bullet". I selected this region so that it could be easily aligned with the light pole in the lower left of the images. Trump's jacket is moving around a bit from frame to frame, but the light pole vertical and horizontal components provide a fixed reference for tying these two frames together.

The resulting angle has a rise of 77 pixels over a run of 603 pixels which calculates out to 7.28 degrees using the trigonometric TOA rule.

The "bullet" passes Trump at the ribcage area. Let's estimate that at 2/3 of his height, and Trump is about 6.1 feet tall.

Again, the platform Trump is standing on looks to have 5 steps, so it would be about 3-4 feet above the ground. Let's call it 3.5 feet.

So when it passes Trump it would be approximately 7.56 feet above the ground.

If we project that 7.28 degree angle out toward the crowd from there, we can see where it would strike the ground. That comes out to about 60 feet, again using the trigonometric TOA rule.

Update 11: The latest Martenson video update has audio analysis from a full-resolution higher-quality audio file from Source 4 which was over to Crooks' right. https://x.com/chrismartenson/status/1820989291524472877

The data still more strongly supports two different weapons firing toward the stage. The timing of the echoes produced by shots 1-3 at 0.08 seconds are very different from the echoes produced by shots 4 and 8 (at 0.17 seconds).  The orientation of the microphone would not affect the timing of these echoes. Additionally, the frequencies are very different. Note the bright yellow of shots 1-3 is lower (deeper sounds) on the graph than for shots 4-8. There is also much more high frequency sound for shots 4-8 (the orange area between the bright yellow and the black region above). These visible artifacts in this graph are very clear to the ear when you listen to this audio.

If there were two shooters, where would the second one be located? The windows in Crooks' building (6) below him were apparently checked right after the shots and all appeared to be closed. Other options include: 1) Some sort of hole in building 6. The image below suggests a few places that an on-the-scene investigator might want to rule out. Martenson's video has an internal building diagram of this scenario.

2) On the roof of building 6 hidden at the far South end behind the parapet at the main building entrance. This is about 40 feet to the left of Crooks per Martenson's video.

3) The open windows in the building behind and to Crooks' right seem to be the most obvious possibility.

Martenson also notes the peculiar silence about the investigation and the manner in which the investigation has been conducted. Noteworthy points are:

  1. The crime scene was immediately dismantled so that the bleachers and stage can no longer be as accurately analyzed.
  2. We don't know the names of several key individuals (officer being lifted up to the roof, officers in the building behind Crooks, the SS officer inside building 6, the name and location of the officer who fired shot 9 at Crooks).
  3. We don't know any details about Crooks' rifle and the brass casings. What is the model of the rifle, what are all the attachments, had it clearly been fired, do the brass casings all match the rifle (firing pin indentations, ejector markings)?
  4. How did the SS know that "the shooter is down"? How did they know there was only one shooter and submit to Trump standing back up and being exposed again?

If the shots all came from Crooks' rifle, this video shows at least some evidence for some of the trajectories involved. https://youtu.be/-w2lVIJc000

 Posted in General

New Evidence of Noah's Flood?

There is compelling new archaeological evidence for the biblical global flood that was published recently (Dec 18 and May 12). For me, this evidence is of the type that once seen, cannot be unseen. One thing that is jaw-dropping is that this evidence is something we have all seen! The interpretation of the evidence is open to critique, but if correct, this is gobsmacking and brings with it a number of implications.

In this article I will:

   1) Present the new evidence,

   2) Present my hypothesis for how this new evidence can fit compatibly with the biblical flood,

   3) Offer some cautions about the author and various hypotheses he derives from this evidence.

==============================

1) Presentation of the new evidence

The author is known as "The Ethical Skeptic". See the end of this article for links to the author's three source articles that contain these images (see Footnote 3).

I have noodled on this evidence and the author's interpretation for the last few months. Initially I chuckled at it and was very, very skeptical. Since then I have taken time to observe many people try to critique and dismiss the interpretation. They haven't had much luck. I'm now starting to think it may actually be a legit interpretation. I may have missed something in the online discussions, but I've not seen anything that argues strongly against what these images seem to indicate.

The evidence consists of erosion on at least two pyramids in Egypt, Khafre in particular. The author argues that there is NO explanation for this erosion apart from sustained salt-water, oceanic erosion. Which, if true, means that sea levels remained at a height of 576 feet above current sea level for quite some time (10 to 50 years, at least in this area). It really does feel that once you see it, you can't unsee it. Note that the Sphinx also has indications of water erosion. And if you read the author's explanation and defense of the pyramid erosion interpretation, it seems quite compelling. The author claims to have maritime experience, experience with building materials to understand granite and limestone, and claims to have personally visited and examined the pyramids multiple times. Regarding any attempts to shrug off this interpretation or produce another explanation, I think he fairly states: "If your hypothesis [...] does not definitively explain that erosion band - it is psuedoscience [sic]." He seems fairly convincing in his dismissal of explanations such as humans removing the stones for other building projects (see Footnote 1).

Besides the erosion bands at the top of the pyramid, the base also holds evidence of sustained ocean water presence. All around the base, there is (or was) a skirt that looks like hardened sludge. In fact, this appears to be where the soft exterior limestone stones covering the pyramid dissolved and then the calcium carbonate settled to the sea floor and concretized.

Additionally, there was a 30-foot segment of the same sort of concretions inside the passageway leading to the subterranean chamber. Below is an image (top) showing a side-view and one (below) showing a top-down view.

Tragically, early archaeologists removed much of this evidence. Sir William Petrie wrote: "...from the decayed limestone of the outside of the Pyramid, thus filling the last 30 feet of the slope. ... The limestone was easily smashed then and there, and carried out piecemeal; and as it had no worked surfaces it was of no consequence." Note there was no sand, which would have blown in and mixed had this been rain erosion. Rains would not build a consistent 30 foot structure, but would form an intermittent-flow creek bed.

Further evidence can be seen from the same 576 foot ancient waterline that is visible on surrounding terrain.

Additionally, there are salt encrustations on the interior. The source article provides details on why sea water seems the best explanation for these as opposed to the standard explanations.

Implications

If all of this is indeed sea erosion, this means that our history of Egypt is very, very inaccurate -- with these two eroded pyramids pre-dating the flood. This may also indicate that the "sciences" of archaeology and Egyptology are facing a scandal. The Ethical Skeptic has faced some stiff resistance to performing simple tests to help answer these questions, such as analyzing the salt deposits within the "Queen's chamber" to detect ocean water causation, or carbon dating the red ochre paint used inside the pyramid chambers (are the pyramids older than the standard narrative suggests?).

If this is indeed sea erosion, then without a doubt, there has been some sort of global flood, and would lead me to believe this is very clear physical evidence that the biblical account is true (read part 2 of this article for details).

One begins to speculate whether Noah and his family may have actually seen these pyramids before the flood. One begins to wonder whether other pyramids in the world (e.g., South and Central America) pre-date or post-date the flood. Was it descendants of Noah who wandered the post-flood world and built them?

One thing that I believe makes this evidence particularly strong is that the author is a "hostile witness". In his articles he conveys how much he did not want to accept the notion of a global flood. "I dislike this alternative." "I opposed this idea vehemently for decades. Like many of my colleagues, I had grown weary of hearing Noah's flood theories, and had attained a level of cynicism regarding the matter as well."

Hostile witnesses are usually reluctant to admit uncomfortable truths. The author has been quite vitriolic about his disdain for the biblical account of the flood, even AFTER being the one to identify this evidence that supports a much larger and recent flood than the vast majority of scientists have been willing to consider. Below are some quotes from him to illustrate the hostility he has toward scripture.

Regarding the Genesis flood account, he says: "No, the Bible stole this from humanity and corrupted it into a lie." [May 18 - X.com]
"It is the corruption into Monotheism of previous history of other cultures - and they destroyed all competing copy.  That is stealing..." [May 18 - X.com]
"And we lost our actual history and origins as a species as a result. We became vulnerable through ignorance to malicious god-wannabe's. Libraries burned and we were tortured if we didn't 'believe' - left with this dishonest book. Like an emptied bank vault with a whole bunch of worthless IOU's in it." [May 18 - X.com]
"The biblical flood narrative reduces that set of events into familiar tropes: it was ‘man’s fault’ (sound familiar?)" [May 18 - X.com]"
As a result, the biblical version is unreliable as compared to more ancient accounts [...] that offer a more nuanced and physically plausible depiction of events." [May 18 - X.com]
"One can learn more about reality by watching Clint Eastwood's flick, High Plains Drifter, than by reading every religious scripture known." [May 19 - X.com]

==========================================

2) My hypothesis on compatibility with Noah's flood

Note: My "hypothesis" is hastily formed, and is certainly subject to rock throwing. It is not well thought out or investigated enough to be a theory (or perhaps even meet the definition of a hypothesis).

There is abundant evidence for a flood apart from scripture. Virtually every culture has a narrative of a massive flood in their annals of history. There is also pervasive scriptural evidence for the flood from cover to cover (see part 3 below).

Beyond scripture and annals of history, there is plenty of physical evidence in the geology of earth that many believe strongly supports a global flood. The standard narrative, that earth's features developed slowly, runs counter to much evidence. Many canyons show evidence of being formed rapidly, not by the slow work of water over millions of years. Catastrophism has become much more in vogue over the last few decades.

Many who believe in the biblical flood think that the flood laid down many successive layers of sediment across the continents as the flood waters washed across. Then, as the waters abated, large bodies of water became trapped on the continent. For example, many believe a large inland lake was formed (or glaciers) upstream from the location of the Grand Canyon and was held back by an earthen ridge or dam. After a period of time, the dam gave way and the entire contents of the inland lake rushed rapidly through the still-not-fully-solidified layers of sediment, and that the Grand Canyon was carved in weeks or perhaps days, and not in millions of years (there are many sources that document variations of this theory, such as https://www.icr.org/article/grand-canyon-exposing-the-flood). There is similar evidence for the topographical features in the Northern US areas of the Black Hills and Badlands of the Dakotas (https://www.icr.org/article/black-hills-showcase-creation-and-flood).

One nagging problem with reconciling Noah's flood with the evidence of erosion on the pyramids, is whether the flood waters remained high enough for a long enough period of time to cause this erosion. According to Genesis 8 and 9, the time between the flood beginning and when "the waters were dried from off the earth" was less than one year. If it takes 10 to 50 years for this erosion, then it may seem there is an issue.

My hypothesis piggy-backs on the inland lake ideas, and suggests there is another prominent region of the earth that deserves consideration of having a large inland lake or sea that was present as the flood waters abated, a sea that was contained by relatively narrow "dams" of land. This location is the Mediterranean Sea. I'll name this hypothesis the "Post-Flood Mediterranean Inland Sea Basin Hypothesis". There are three places where a "natural dam" would be required to contain the sea above ocean level. These are:

1) The Straight of Gibraltar which separates Europe (Spain) from Africa (Morocco),
2) The straight at Istanbul which separates Greece from Turkey,
3) And either end of the Red Sea; either east of Cairo at the north, or between Yemen and Djibouti at the south.

My hypothesis is that the biblical flood covered the entire earth with water (mountains included - which may have been shorter prior to and during the flood), and that as the waters abated, these three land dams were in place so that the water became trapped in the Mediterranean basin.

After a period of time (years to decades) these "natural dams" may have given way, flooding the Black Sea, and spilling into the Atlantic and Indian Oceans. Initially, I speculated that this might mesh well with archeological evidence of ruins in the Black Sea (north of Turkey) that have been found underwater. After further thought, 50 years isn't enough time to build much of a settlement immediately following the flood. I'm not sure if that land dam staying in place longer than the others helps that or not.

Below is a map showing this area with a black/brown line drawn at the 576 foot elevation mark that I generated (courtesy of https://www.randymajors.org/).

I found it surprising that such a dramatic rise in sea level doesn't expand the area of the Mediterranean all that much; just a few areas of Italy and fairly large areas of north-central Africa. Another thing I found very surprising is that if the Black Sea is raised to 576 feet above sea level, it looks like it would wash all the way across Eastern Europe and into the Baltic Sea (the eastern Atlantic). So if you are looking for a land ridge/dam to contain the Mediterranean, it seems that Istanbul is the most likely candidate.

If the pyramid erosion interpretation is correct, then a global flood has occurred. There may be disagreement with some on just how high the waters rose. The pyramids had to have been built on dry ground prior to this flood, and somehow, the Mediterranean basin had to fill with water after construction. I see no way this could happen short of a global flood. In short, I believe this pyramid erosion evidence, if true, should further affirm the truth of Noah's flood.

There are a couple of obvious things to consider and check out regarding my hypothesis. It may fall flat immediately with just a bit of investigation. 1) The pyramid "sea erosion" evidence/interpretation may be wrong (fairly likely, I'd say); 2) Is there evidence of such a 576 foot ancient water line at multiple different locations in the Mediterranean basin? 3) Is there a lack of evidence for such a waterline outside the Mediterranean basin? 3) Would all three dams have to break at the same time? Or were all three partially composed of glaciers causing all to weaken at about the same time? Would one of them breaking cause enough "sloshing" that it would cause the other two to break shortly thereafter? Or would it be reasonable for them to break independently over longer periods of time; and if so, in what order?

There is at least another compelling piece of evidence supporting this hypothesis. That is the Wadi Al Hitan (near the pyramids), where 1500 whale fossils have been found, and they are well-preserved -- even some stomach contents are intact.

I decided to go ahead and crawl out to the end of the limb and post this very preliminary hypothesis to provide a reasonable explanation that could fit within the biblical narrative. Surely I'm not the first to think of this, but who knows? There could be some whose faith may be shaken if they accept The Ethical Skeptic's hypotheses (see section 3), and perhaps my hypothesis could help someone who might struggle with it.

====================================================================

3) Cautions about the author and various hypotheses he derives from this evidence

From here forward, I will refer to The Ethical Skeptic as "TES".

Even though TES has been forced to the conclusion that there has been a global flood, he does not believe it covered all the mountains. I expect he believes the majority of survivors of the flood were on high ground (above 2200 feet if I recall his comment correctly), and not in boats. He believes the story of Gilgamesh is a more accurate account of the event.

Being hostile toward scripture, I am convinced TES is very unreliable with respect to some of the hypotheses he forms related to this evidence (most will scoff outright at one or more of his hypotheses - and I think rightly so). I will attempt to summarize his hypotheses as I understand them (which isn't likely). Believe it or not, TES believes these are all tightly related. I've categorized and dubbed them H1 through H5 below.

These are not facts. They are not theories. They are at best hypotheses - things requiring further study (as TES concedes and encourages) and people throwing rocks at them.

H1: The extreme heat we have seen the last two years (particularly in the ocean) may be coming from the earth's core (see a summary of his ten observations in Footnote 2).

H2: The erosion on the pyramids was caused by sea erosion, and there is evidence of ancient receding shorelines across North Africa and Saudi Arabia.

H3: Something cyclical in the earth's core (mass shifts) results in the earth going through a Dzhanibekov effect. This causes the earth to drastically shift its rotational axis (104 degrees), slosh the earth with 2200 foot ocean crests, which then settle down to around 576 feet (at least at certain latitudes), and then return to normal after 10 to 50 years.

H4: He believes the King and Queen burial shafts in the Khufu pyramid document this event (complete with the 104 degree angle). I assume this means he thinks the ancients predicted the alleged event before it happened and left a message about it in the pyramids.

H5: He believes earth's core is beginning this cycle again and that another 104 rotation and another flood are due in the not terribly distant future, and that the core recently releasing heat outward, and variations in the magnetic field are indicators and precursors.

As I said, I give cautions about these hypotheses, and consider at least the last to be flatly incorrect. My biggest skepticism with H3 is whether changes in the earth's core and rotation (apart from tectonic activity) could maintain a sea level increase of 576 feet for an extended period of time in the latitudes of the pyramids.

There may be some who are troubled by this new evidence and by the hypotheses of our "hostile witness", and some may even have their faith shaken by such things.

Given his hostility toward scripture, I'm not going to place much trust in his hypotheses. It is for the reader to decide whether his views represent a love of the truth or whether there may be a susceptibility to delusion.

Having a love of the truth is vitally important. I believe the most reliable source of truth is scripture, over and above secular history, and above all the sciences. I believe this to be a rational conclusion based on solid evidence. Accurate history and true science are excellent sources of truth, but being products of humans, they are ultimately untrustworthy, and they are of necessity incomplete. For example, Christianity hinges upon the resurrection of Jesus and the empty tomb. The hard sciences will never provide truth on this matter. They are simply unable. And so it is with any event where the supernatural clearly alters events in our physical universe. There may be appropriate ways to explain or account for God's actions with physical explanations, but one should never feel absolutely constrained to do so.

Reminders from Scripture:

Loving the pleasure of unrighteousness and failing to love truth are dangerous things.
2 Thes 2:10-12 - "...because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. 11 Therefore God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may believe what is false, 12 in order that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness." A reading of 1 Kings 22:1-38 is also relevant and a practical example.

1 Cor 15:14-19 - And if Christ has not been raised, then all our preaching is useless, and your faith is useless. 15 And we apostles would all be lying about God—for we have said that God raised Christ from the grave. But that can’t be true if there is no resurrection of the dead. 16 And if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised. 17 And if Christ has not been raised, then your faith is useless and you are still guilty of your sins. 18 In that case, all who have died believing in Christ are lost! 19 And if our hope in Christ is only for this life, we are more to be pitied than anyone in the world. [NLT]

There is abundant scriptural and historical evidence of the flood of Noah.

Peter hangs his hat on the fact of the global flood happening, and that it is evidence that there will eventually be a second coming and a global destruction by fire. For any who desire to mock that no such thing will happen, Peter points them to the thing they "deliberately overlook" or "willfully forget" - that the earth has been destroyed before with a mighty flood. 2 Pet 3:3-13

Jesus himself spoke matter-of-factly about the days before the flood just prior to Noah entering his boat. Mat 24:38-39. The entirety of scripture is littered with references and allusions to the flood event.

There is abundant evidence for a flood apart from scripture. Virtually every culture has a narrative of a massive flood in their annals of history.

If God said there was a global flood that covered everything, you can take it to the bank. If God said he will never again destroy the earth with a flood, you can take that to the bank. Likewise, if he says its next destruction will be with fire. Count on it.

Regarding his hypotheses, TES is quick to make character judgments against God. "Who," he asks, would design such a planet prone to cyclic global floods? He says his hypotheses "...argue poignantly for an atheist viewpoint." (from the last of his three articles).

How can I be sure his hypothesis (and resulting accusation against God) is incorrect? Because God said so; "It is written".

Gen 9:12-15 - Then God said, “I am giving you a sign of my covenant with you and with all living creatures, for all generations to come. 13 I have placed my rainbow in the clouds. It is the sign of my covenant with you and with all the earth. 14 When I send clouds over the earth, the rainbow will appear in the clouds, 15 and I will remember my covenant with you and with all living creatures. Never again will the floodwaters destroy all life.

In the highly improbable event that Noah's flood WAS brought about by the mechanism he has proposed, we are completely assured it will not happen again. If I understand Genesis 9 correctly, whatever had just happened, God will not allow to happen again, or will preemptively bring the final judgment with fire.

And perhaps the timing is divine with respect to this new evidence being understood and revealed. Perhaps the world needs a reminder of an event of staggering importance that many have willfully forgotten?

Ed Holder

Footnote 1:

Keep in mind that I have conceded that it is likely that the erosion interpretation is wrong, however, I will note that TES is crazy bright (see this article as an example:  https://theethicalskeptic.com/2021/02/24/the-peculiar-schema-of-dna-codons-second-letter/). Intelligence isn't his problem (unless he has too much of it). He is very hostile toward scripture, yet is honest enough to recognize that the DNA code could not be evolved, and he now admits a massive flood despite REALLY not wanting to see that.

Alternate Hypothesis: The lower outer casing stones were pilfered for other building projects in the area.

CAUTION: TES can be quite arrogant and snarky at times, especially after having answered the same question many, many times.

Responses from TES (from articles and from X.com replies):
As we toured the Giza complex, I inquired of my driver/guide the reason for the removal of the Tura casing stones from both the Khufu and Khafre pyramids. He responded “Mr. G, they say that the stones are reused in ancient buildings down in the local community; but in truth, no one knows what happened to them. As you can see, if indeed the [Tura limestone casing] stones were scavenged, I find it odd that none remain laying along the bottom of the pyramids themselves. Also, why did they stop at that cap?”

In fact, there are some remaining casing stones which were not carted off and still reside at the base of Khafre: they are all made of granite (Mohs 7+).15 Such is a Sherlock Holmes worthy deductive clue, as only the seawater-solvable blocks had disappeared from both the pyramid itself, as well as the entire Giza complex.

Then it hit me. The Tura limestone casing blocks had not been scavenged at all. The patterning and undercut nature of the stone depletion made that notion a ridiculous fairy tale (see Exhibit D above). The Tura limestone blocks had been dissolved, dissolved through both the ferocious kinetics, as well as carbonic acid chemistry – of ocean water.

Below, one can observe the horizon-disciplined (as in water-level) karst erosion which is centered around the 312′ level (576′ above sea level) of the Khafre pyramid. There is only one factor which can cause such an erosion pattern. In a Holmesian sense, even though this factor may seem like an implausibility, the characteristics of these marks serve to eliminate every other possibility, and we are left with only one possible answer. This was caused by a global or regional inundation.

There is no possibility that this happened through human intervention, stone scavenging, or pyramid structural vulnerability.

Exhibit G – The horizon-disciplined nature of the karst erosion serves to falsify every competing notion as to how the Tura limestone blocks had been removed from the Khafre pyramid at Giza. As well, the parabolic erosion rises from wave action become readily apparent on all four sides of the undercut Tura limestone cap.

[He concedes that the other pyramid cap was manually removed:] "So, there is no doubt that, unlike the case of Khafre, the Khufu Tura cap was manually removed."

[People claim the pilfered stone use is documented. TES responds:] "I've got the full stone count, so let me see the inventory and how they certified it as pyramid origin. Otherwise this is part of the same fable lore."
"No. That is an explanation for children."

[Regarding the charge of Muslim pilfering:] "I love the prank they played on later millennia by making the details seem like karst and waterline erosion. Clever pranksters."
"A made up story with zero evidence. The erosion is directly observable in comparison.
If your hypothesis of scavenging does not definitively explain that erosion band - it is psuedoscience [sic]."

[Regarding other types of erosion:] "But it will not produce a trough line or 0 sea state line, or edge erosion phenomena.  This is only ocean water. No other possibility."

Footnote 2:

TES Hypothesis 1 (H1) gory details (my attempt at summarizing) ---> He analyzes CO2 cycles and how the "Covid pause" affected them. He noted that CO2 rises follow temperature rises, and not the other way around. He observes that the atmosphere doesn't seem to be actually retaining more heat as CO2 rises. He observes that mean sea level variance range is increasing and should not be and that ocean current speeds have increased 15% in this same timeframe. He observes that strange things are happening with the earths magnetic field (weakening and drifting). He observes that the earth rotation has been speeding up a bit. He observes that 48% of global ocean sea surface temperature heat content rise from 1995 to 2023 arrived in a mere 3 to 4 weeks of 2023, far too fast for the atmosphere or man to serve as the cause. A record level Antarctic ice melt-off occurred simultaneously to this and during a record cold winter. He observes an increase in global volcanism. Ocean heat anomalies appear to originate from The Mid-Atlantic Rise convections from inner earth heat. Ocean abyssal waters gained lots of heat and the atmosphere does not possess an immediate and direct way to rapidly heat it. There are cycles Earth's core goes through.

Footnote 3:

Below are links to the three articles in the series by "The Ethical Skeptic". I've provided my caution about his (and our) susceptibility to delusion. I will also warn that it takes HOURS to even skim these articles and gain some understanding of what he's saying. 

The ONLY thing I was referring to in the beginning as "looking legit" is the pyramid erosion interpretation. The pyramid evidence is in the second article (hidden in plain sight). To read all of the defenses of the erosion theory, you'll probably have to go to X (twitter) and spend hours weeding through the many threads where he has responded to these critics. To be very, very clear, I'm NOT going to promote ANY of his hypotheses, except perhaps H1 which argues very convincingly that our oceans HAVE warmed VERY rapidly - something which seems could ONLY happen via heat from earth's core.

Feb 16, 2020
https://theethicalskeptic.com/2020/02/16/the-climate-change-alternative-we-ignore-to-our-peril/
Dec 18, 2023
https://theethicalskeptic.com/2023/12/18/hidden-in-plain-sight/
May 12, 2024
https://theethicalskeptic.com/2024/05/12/exothermic-core-mantle-decoupling-dzhanibekov-oscillation-ecdo-theory/

My thoughts regarding the sum of these articles are akin to the police psychologist character in The Terminator. What a story these intricately connected, fantastical hypotheses weave. Probably a franchise in this too!

0 comments
 Posted in General

How the sausage is made - Who congress really works for

Questions citizens often ask (or should be asking)...

  1. How is it that congress persons become VERY wealthy while in office, despite drawing a relatively modest salary?
  2. Is it true that the "permanent bureaucracy" in Washington is actually running the country, rather than our elected officials?
  3. To what extent do our intelligence agencies compose and/or drive this "permanent bureaucracy"?

To attempt answering these questions, let us examine congressman Henry Cuellar as a case study, and see what dots we can logically connect with very high probability. Cuellar's 54-page indictment was just made public this past Friday. Everyone should read (or skim it) [https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24636508-cuellar-indictment].

Here is a quick summary...

  1. Congressman Henry Cuellar gets elected in 2004. Fact.
  2. Congressman Cuellar gets involved in taking bribes from foreign countries as early as 2014. Fact.
  3. Our intelligence agencies are aware of this illegal activity right about when it first occurs (2014). There is ample evidence that our congress persons are under heavy surveillance (electronic communications, etc). Probability: 99+% (my estimate)
  4. Intelligence agencies likely help facilitate the communication/travel for foreign government activities for which they have a desire to support. Probability: 60+% (my very conservative estimate)
  5. Congressman takes an action that is very displeasing to the permanent bureaucracy. In this case Henry Cuellar (D) was very vocal publically about the Biden border crisis (in late 2021). Fact.
  6. A few short weeks later (Jan 2022), Cuellar is raided by the FBI and he and his wife are indicted for bribery, wire fraud, FARA, and money laundering. Fact. [The FBI has almost certainly been aware of the illegal activity for 8 years, yet only acts immediately after this "mis-step". https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/fbi-raid-us-rep-henry-cuellars-texas-home-office-said-tied-azerbaijan-rcna13005]
  7. Virtually all congress persons (both parties) are involved in similar questionable fund-raising activities. Probability: 95+% (my estimate)
  8. All these congress persons most certainly took notice of the clear example of what happens when one of their number steps out of line from the permanent bureaucracy.

Even if an elected official hasn't done anything too terribly wrong, that doesn't mean there is no fear. Go look into how many whistleblowers have wound up being found guilty of something (naughty stuff on their computers, for instance, perhaps planted - six ways to Sunday??).

Congressional officials have multiple avenues for making side-hustle money besides bribery from foreign countries. These include: money laundering of US Aid to foreign countries coming back into the pockets of US officials; insider trading to make wildly successful investments in companies that are favored by US policy; and bribes from companies (foreign and domestic) to enact legislation that favors that company. Most of this activity is hidden through family members and shell companies.

The comment from Cuellar is telling: “I want to be clear that both my wife and I are innocent of these allegations. Everything I have done in Congress has been to serve the people of South Texas,” Cuellar said in his statement, later adding: “The actions I took in Congress were consistent with the actions of many of my colleagues and in the interest of the American people.”

It is important to understand that the DNC and RNC are NOT a part of our government. The Democrat and Republican parties are private corporations that operate by their own made-up rules. There are virtually no candidates that rise to the general election that are not hand-selected by these parties. The probability that they are leveraged, or highly likely to be leverageable is extremely high. Think John Gresham's "The Firm" and avoid pretending this is not the case. There are trillions of dollars and global power at stake. It is extremely rare that anyone rises to high office that is not controllable. One might at least consider if this might be a factor in the intense level of hate-manufacturing propaganda that has been generated toward a certain high-profile political figure.

Our government hasn't operated per the constitution for a very long time. Our representatives do not represent we the people. Taxation without representation is a fact that becomes more clear with each passing day.

We gotta gotta gotta enact term limits. The federal government will never do this themselves. The only avenue is for the states to act. A convention of states is desperately needed to do this one single thing. The constitution was designed and written to give us this offensive action to defend our constitutional republic. Time to do it.

P.S. We have another more recent example: Eric Adams, mayor of NY City. Here is a link describing his criticism of the feds and the results from that: https://thenationaldesk.com/news/americas-news-now/nyc-mayor-eric-adams-blames-migrant-crisis-democratic-criticism-for-indictment-new-york-city-federal-corruption-probe-illegal-immigration-biden-harris-administration-unsealed-indictment.

P.P.S. I have no intent of Epsteining myself, and to my knowledge I have never had illegal naughty stuff on my electronic devices.

0 comments
 Posted in Severed Limb... (Judges 19:29)

I think I'm becoming a free speech absolutist

Websites are now being threatened with deplatforming because of things that appear in their "comments section". Is this a good idea? Does the average small-to-medium operator of a website have the resources to police their comments section to an adequate degree to promptly delete "dangerous speech"? If there were anyone that had resources to spam the site with "comments deemed illegal" (say an opposing political party or authoritarian government or foreign actor), how could a smaller operator possibly counter that? Do you see the problem here?

Is the solution to disallow public discussion online? Is the solution to disallow public discussion online unless the operator can afford automated AI tools to detect and automatically delete "illegal content"? And who gets to decide when information is "dangerous" or "illegal"? Will there be double standards in the standards or the enforcement? [You know the answer to that!]

We have always been told that you can't have complete freedom of speech, and the old example is trotted out: "You can't yell 'FIRE!' in a crowded theater".

I will be the first to agree that it is a horrible action to yell 'fire' in a crowded theater. You are likely to cause a stampede and people could get hurt, and it sets the stage for 'Peter and the wolf' desensitization, where people might not leave in the event of an actual fire.

A free speech absolutist would say: you can say whatever you want, whenever you want, and wherever you want. People have the choice to listen, disregard, or [foremost] to speak in return.

A free speech absolutist would say there is no penalty or law against uttering the words. Rather, the penalty should come when there are provable consequences that are provoked directly and promptly from those words.

A free speech absolutist would say that if 5 people were trampled and killed and 50 seriously injured in a theater after someone yelled 'fire' in a theater, that the person is liable and should be severely punished. The person's entire financial assets should be forfeited and given to the victims and their families, with lifetime payments continuing to be due. The person might even be subject to prison time or perhaps worse.

A free speech absolutist might say that if an individual is genuinely fragile, and is being verbally harassed repeatedly, that the victim should be able to very easily get a restraining order. Any violation of that order would be met with severe penalties paid to the victim, with possible jail time. This should never be applicable to a public place (such as a college campus in general).

A free speech absolutist would say that if someone is found guilty of slander or false testimony, then an assessment is made of the actual damage done (provable consequences provoked directly and promptly), and the restitution to the victim would be severe (e.g., three times the damage done).

Perhaps, just perhaps, the solution is not a nanny state where people are "protected from mere speech" that they don't like or that they feel threatens them.

A free speech absolutist would say: "It is not OK to suppress speech if there is a good reason."

"The cure for wrong speech is always more speech." - El Gato Malo

P.S. If it is not clear why this is critical, please consider what our government has shown itself capable of in the next article down (Considering the recent J6 pipe bomb evidence).

For further reading...

"Here I stand, I can do no other." -- "isn’t it basically the purpose of a high functioning civilization to marginalize those who oppress and infringe upon the citizenry?" -- "the true and vital purpose of the high functioning civilizational republic is to marginalize one group of people in particular, and that group of people is 'politicians.'" https://boriquagato.substack.com/p/free-speech-hier-stehe-ich-ich-kann

Harvard [very big surprise, actually] goes to bat for Mackey who is facing jail time over a clearly satirical meme: https://harvardlawreview.org/print/vol-137/united-states-v-mackey/

CJ Hopkins charged for satire in Germany: https://www.racket.news/p/its-not-about-trump-american-cj-hopkins

Greenwald and Taibbi discuss censorship: From Counter-Terrorism to Counter-Populism https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2024/03/19/taibbi_governments_online_censorship_regime_has_expanded_from_counter-terrorism_to_counter-populism.html

VDARE.com being shut down through lawfare.  https://revolver.news/2024/04/soros-backed-radical-ny-ag-letitia-james-has-basically-shut-down-conservative-magazine-vdare-through-lawfare/

Sites being threatened/deplatformed for content in COMMENTS SECTION! Note that this sort of action was predicted months ago by this author to ramp up in April of this year. https://theconservativetreehouse.com/blog/2024/04/03/site-notes-and-updates/

Constitutional issues in free speech. It boils down to citizens to enforce it. And AI may make enforcement much more difficult.
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/what-if-president-ignores-supreme-court

0 comments
 Posted in General
  Tags freedom of speech

Concerning the recent J6 pipe bomb evidence...

INTRODUCTION:

We are in a big mess as a nation, and government isn't going to save us (and that includes Trump). Our problems are spiritual, cultural, and civil and they go deep and broad, metastasized through the grass-roots level.

As I said, Trump should not be relied upon to save us. To be fair, I have spoken positively about some of his policy approaches and his seeming genuine concern for the nation. However, I am not interested in trying to defend him based on his character. I have been outspoken about my dislike of Trump from the beginning. I have posted numerous times about his pride, immorality (past and present), his propensity to lie (particularly about his accomplishments), his pettiness, his crassness (diarrhea of the mouth), and his continuation of big government spending. These weaknesses provide a shaky foundation for trust.

That said, I will defend Trump when he is unfairly and illegally targeted by a weaponized federal government. I have spoken against politically motivated attacks before, even against politicians I do not like. I had a strong distaste for the attacks on President Clinton when he was impeached (and I was no fan of Clinton).

Finally, by way of introduction, our government seems intent on dividing us one against another, and Trump seems rather willing to help with that (mocking isn't going to unite). Refuse to take the bait, whoever may be casting it before you. Your fellow citizens whom you might imagine to be uninformed supporters of the Democrat party or the Republican party are not your enemy. All fellow citizens have legitimate reason to distrust both parties and their respective leaders. Disregard the inflammatory rhetoric and the marionettes out front and dig deep into the evidence.

The evidence I am concerned with is the weaponization of government against political foes, with specific focus on the eye-opening story of the pipe bombs of January 5th and 6th, 2021. It is time for some light - the God-designed disinfectant.

THE GOVERNMENT NARRATIVE and OBSERVATIONS/FACTS:

The government writ large wants us to believe the Jan 6 events were the biggest domestic terror events in history (on par with Pearl Harbor and 9/11). The fact, however, is that the single most "terror-like" action taken that day was the planting of pipe bombs, yet our government and media have routinely omitted and/or suppressed this story for years now after having made a very big deal about it in the first few days following the events.

If you believe the government narrative concerning the January 6 pipe bombs, it seems you must believe ALL of the following (sources and credits are provided in links further down):

1. You must believe that Kamala Harris' Secret Service detail is completely inept. See the video (link below) of SS officers in a black SUV and capitol police officers in a capitol police SUV who are attached as part of the SS detail). They are utterly unconcerned when they are informed there is a pipe bomb in very near vicinity to them and to their protectee inside the DNC headquarters.

2. You must believe the officers have no concern for the safety of school children walking right in front of the bomb (along the sidewalk area, about 4 or 5 scooter lengths away).

3. You must believe that the pipe bomb had been sitting in a fairly conspicuous location, on a high foot-traffic day, for 16+ hours without being discovered.

4. You must believe that the Secret Service failed to detect the pipe bomb when they did a sweep of the area prior to Kamala Harris' arrival. The August 2024 OIG report confirms the SS did a sweep of the DNC prior to Harris' arrival.

5. You must believe that the bomb-sniffing dogs that did a second sweep of that very area 20 minutes prior to its discovery also failed to discover the bomb. The August 2024 OIG report confirms there were two sweeps by canine teams. The report also calls into question the truthfulness of SS excuses for how these sweeps failed.

6. You must believe that the geo-fencing data for this area of the capitol was coincidentally corrupted so that they were not able to trace the cell-phones moving about in this area when the bombs were planted. Note that geo-fencing data has been used extensively to identify and imprison many who were within the capitol grounds. Note also that the head of the investigation (Steven D’Antuono) which announced this "data corruption" is the same individual who was in charge of the Michigan field office that ran the Whitmer kidnapping plot investigation, and who was then promptly promoted to this prominent DC position.

7. You must believe that it was a coincidence that the "RNC pipe bomb" (actually in a back alley behind a dumpster near by the capitol hill club) was found just 17 minutes prior to the initial capitol fence breach after having been in place for 16+ hours. Capitol police began responding to the pipe bomb at 12:50 and the breach occurred at 12:53. Security officials are on record as saying that the reason there weren’t more bike rack barriers at the Ray Epps Breach point is that they couldn’t deliver them at the critical moment due to law enforcement responding to the discovery of the pipe bombs.

8. You must believe it was a coincidence that the RNC pipe bomb kitchen timer was "stuck" at the position showing "20 minutes to go". Recall that the bomb was discovered at 12:40 (so the dial indicated a 1 PM detonation when found) which is the precise time the vote certification process was to begin in Congress (and right when the capitol breach would be underway).

9. You must believe it was just a coincidence that the DNC bomb was discovered only 15 minutes after the RNC bomb, when both had been planted for 16+ hours.

10. You must believe it is a coincidence that Ray Epps (in Arizona) claimed to have "heard in advance" of plans for explosives to be planted on side streets to cause diversions on Jan 6.

11. You must believe the FBI has good reason to withhold video footage that would provide clear pictures of the pipe bomber actually planting the DNC bomb. We know there is a camera with a clear viewing angle of that exact area - some video was released from that camera. Also, you must believe the original frame rate on the video we WERE given (from a bad camera angle) was 1.6 frames per second. It is really hard to even find a camera this bad. The cheapest camera generally available is 8 frames per second. Video footage also seems to be withheld showing the two sweeps of the canine teams.

12. You must believe that the "random pedestrian" that found the RNC pipe bomb was a random pedestrian. Karlin Younger worked at FirstNet Authority (which has the head of DHS and DOJ on its board) and was responsible for the system that ensures usable cell-phone communications for first responders during emergencies (which was credited with working well during J6). FirstNet Authority received a $92 million dollar contract from the FBI less than a month before J6. Younger now works for Pendulum and her job is fighting disinformation narratives on behalf of their government clients. She is a project manager and is "building out the Pendulum platform to empower narrative-based intelligence". See later comments for the source link, which includes a detailed analysis of Pendulum and its staff. Note that it is standard law enforcement procedure to consider the "discoverer" of such a device as a suspect. Seems like a legit procedure (she was never questioned by the FBI).

13. You must believe the excuse given for the lackadaisical response to the pipe bomb: that the response was deliberately designed so as not to cause panic among the public. This answer is so unbelievable that it should be clear that they are covering up the real story.

14. You must believe that the reason they looked for a second pipe bomb was "on a hunch" that there might be one at DNC because there was one at RNC. Pipe bombers have to be bipartisan, don't ya know?

15. You must believe that they just KNEW there wouldn't be MORE than two pipe bombs, so it was completely natural to stop looking after finding the second bomb.

16. You must believe that Ashan Benedict, the ATF special agent in charge for all of Washington, D.C., believes these narratives to be true. He stated or nodded his approval to these three narratives (lackadaisical response, hunch to look at DNC, knowing not to look for more) during testimony. This is a man with a 20-year career as an ATF agent.

17. You must believe that all these agents completely forgot that there actually WAS discussion at the time that there might be more than two bombs. Heavily redacted ATF text messages were recently released under a FOIA request. These text messages show Benedict in the chats with others who are discussing there being as many as five pipe bombs.

18. You must believe that there is a reasonable explanation for the odd (yet convenient) career path for Benedict. In April 21 he left a 20-year ATF career to take a temporary position in a LOCAL police force - DC Metro Police (assistant chief, promoted to interim chief in May) [a force which was under scrutiny in those few months after J6]. He left that position in Nov 23 to join the US Capitol Police as assistant chief. His role includes intelligence and counterintelligence. This makes him gatekeeper for any efforts to investigate irregularities in the Jan 6 narrative (e.g., the name of the Capitol Police plainclothes agent who "discovered" the DNC bomb). [Peter Daszak and EcoHealthAlliance ringing any parallel bells? It seems that many investigations have an odor of actually ensuring certain information doesn't leak out.]

19. You must believe it was reasonable for Donell Harvin (Homeland Security) to assign his most junior analyst to the task of analyzing what Harvin realized was overwhelming evidence of serious trouble brewing in the days leading up to J6. Also note that there is incredible cross-pollination between FirstNet (Karlin Younger's organization) and HSEMA (Donell Harvin's agency). 

20. You must believe that Harvin's junior analyst just happened to predict and NAIL what actually happened on J6 as his "worst-case scenario." His worst case scenario WASN'T that the pipe bombs would explode and cause mass casualties. His worst case scenario was that the bombs would serve as a diversion that would allow extremists to attack government buildings such as the Capitol. Remarkable!

21. You must believe it was reasonable for Donell Harvin to omit this amazingly accurate prediction about the pipe bombs in the weeks following J6. Harvin left his Homeland Security job and entered the media circuits. There was interview after interview where his foreknowledge of J6 events was touted, yet the most amazing prediction (use of pipe bombs) wasn't milked.

22. You must believe that it is standard/acceptable practice for an officer to take a single photograph of the DNC bomb from just one angle (and to then give the SS detail a thumbs up).

23. You must believe Kamala Harris had a valid reason for not milking the fact that she was in the danger zone of this pipe bomb (in fact she has gone out of the way to hide the fact that she was in the building). If J6 is what they claim it is, the pipe bomb narrative should have been THE most convincing story and should have been front and center.

24. You must believe that the FBI did NOT in fact identify the car used by the pipe bomber despite whistleblower testimony stating they have video of the car and license plate after the bomber exited a Metro station.

25. You must believe that it is a coincidence that all secret service text messages from J6 were somehow permanently deleted with no backups preserved.

26. You must believe it is coincidence that the SS just happened to fail to log this "Unusual Protective Event" (UPE) as would be required and expected per SS policies (confirmed by the 2024 OIG report).

27. You must believe the release of the 2024 OIG report and its confirmation of several of these details warrants virtually zero coverage by the mainstream media.

C'mon folks. Time to stop pretending and face the fact that something is very wrong with this picture.

I don't think you have to be that great at math - though I may be missing something. Just assign a conservative probability (a number between 0 and 1) to each of these items and do some back-of-the-napkin calculation. Generally speaking, all those probabilities need to be multiplied together. If you have 4 events that all must be true, and the probability is 0.5 for each of them, then you get 0.5 * 0.5 * 0.5 * 0.5 = 0.0625, so about a 6% chance that these four events all occurred (assuming the events are independent). What tiny number would you come up with multiplying 25 such numbers together (or even just the 10 most credible yet unlikely events)?

VIDEOS and other LINKS:

Video of the pipe bomb discovery and the lackadaisical response: https://revolver.news/2024/01/secret-service-foreknowledge-or-criminal-negligence-damning-new-evidence-surfaces-fbi-january-6-pipe-bomb-story/?utm_source=left-rail-latest

Video of bomb sniffing dogs 20 minutes prior to the pipe bomb discovery:
https://www.declassified.live/p/bomb-sniffing-dog-performed-vehicle

ATF text chats regarding pipe bomb response: https://revolver.news/2024/03/mop-up-man-ashan-benedict-is-this-former-atf-agent-running-j6-pipe-bomb-coverup/

Karlin Younger (RNC pipe bomb discoverer) corporate ties: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1748480778445447323.html

Ray Epps: Part 1 - https://revolver.news/2021/10/meet-ray-epps-the-fed-protected-provocateur-who-appears-to-have-led-the-very-first-1-6-attack-on-the-u-s-capitol/ Part 2 - https://revolver.news/2021/12/damning-new-details-massive-web-unindicted-operators-january-6/

Interview with Darren Beattie: https://rumble.com/v4dn5cu-jan-6-pipe-bomb-truth-with-darren-beattie.html

Strong argument that the pipe bomber video was artificially degraded, and a discussion of D'Antuono admitting the narrative is shaky: https://revolver.news/2023/06/steven-d-antuono-former-head-of-fbi-jan-6-pipe-bomb-investigation-comes-clean-with-stunning-admission/

Washington Post "Red Flags" article (https://archive.fo/UCWAP) that chronicles vast foreknowledge of J6 troublemakers, which should have resulted in a truly prepared defense of the Capitol. Donell Harvin is featured along with his Nostradamus-level prediction of pipe bombs being used for a diversion, along with the expected focal point being the Capitol building at 1 PM. Everything went down in a short time window around 1 PM (12:40 RNC bomb discovered, 12:50 responders move away toward pipe bombs, 12:53 initial breach of fencing (by Ray Epps), 1:00 scheduled start of vote certification proceedings, 1:05 DNC bomb discovered). Recall that FBI director Christopher Wray told Amy Klobuchar that officials were simply caught off guard on J6 (per https://revolver.news/2024/05/meet-donell-harvin-trump-hating-deep-state-official-who-predicted-j6-pipe-bombs-in-advance/).

Car of the bomber reported to be identified: https://www.cf.org/news/the-fbi-knows-what-car-was-used-in-jan-6-pipe-bomb-but-refuses-to-identify-prime-suspect/

Deleted secret service texts: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/07/secret-service-deleted-january-6-texts/670597/ (note THEIR conspiracy theory when they surmise that any supposed dark conspiracy would have been SS agents trying to help Trump stage a coup - that's the Atlantic for you). https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2024/02/20/we-have-a-new-twist-in-the-january-6-pipe-bomb-story-n2635446

Reporting on the 2024 OIG report: https://revolver.news/2024/08/media-silent-damning-oig-report-confirms-kamala-secret-service-role-in-pipe-bomb-hoax/

WHY IT MATTERS:

If it turns out our security apparatus did rig the pipe bomb scenario and narrative, then we must face the reality that this was a very large operation in its own right (likely involving members of both parties). And people should not be considered crazy for beginning to suspect that the J6 events at large need some real investigation.

The national security state (the intelligence community) has reinvented itself to look inward instead of outward, and the facts indicate that their actions are heavily biased along certain political lines. Eventually, to whatever degree our government becomes evil and weaponized, it seems reasonable to expect that ALL upstanding citizens will at some point be "across the political aisle" from them. As has been famously stated before, there is a need to speak up to defend victims of political targeting lest we ourselves become targeted and there is no one left to speak up.

The 702 FISA was reauthorized in April 2024. There was a big push by many citizens to stop the invasion of privacy that has been taking place with government surveillance using the FISA process. There is clear evidence this capability has been misused and appears to be clearly unconstitutional. The information gleaned in this surveillance is immense raw power which feeds the intelligence community.

Furthermore, the narrative for the coming elections will continue to hinge on Jan 6 being portrayed purely as domestic citizens threatening democracy. If this turns out to be a deceptive message, it is critical that the American people be aware of this. Even though it was more than 3 years ago, Jan 6 remains a very live issue and is the primary "legal pretext" being used to try and remove candidates from 2024 ballots and to campaign for many on the ballot.

If the J6 pipe bomb scenario (and perhaps more) was rigged, then these people don't need to be anywhere near the levers of power and foreign policy. There is likely nothing they wouldn't do to retain their power. Those with draft age children ought to be wide awake with ears perked. Any politician (either party) who pretends our intelligence/security apparatus is fine is not to be trusted.

Certainly addressing spiritual problems and putting it in God's hands through prayer is the ultimate answer. Recognize, however, that sharing this story and shining light on darkness can change things too. Light is a God-designed disinfectant (Eph 5:11).

P.S. Politicians do not start parades, they join them. Grass roots people speaking out have more power than we often realize.

0 comments
 Posted in General

Let's face it - Many in our government are "the baddies"

It is time to stop pretending. It is time to speak truth. Stop believing that things are as you wish and hope they would be.

Examples:

Free Speech:

Our taxpayer dollars are funding anti-Orban media organizations in Hungary: https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/business/tom-olohan/2024/02/12/exclusive-biden-gives-taxpayer-dollars-soros-funded-groups

The government collaborating with Amazon to censor books and search results for books: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1754637204146581783.html

Without free speech there is no correcting mechanism to what is a clear system problem. https://twitter.com/ScottAdamsSays/status/1755602289107329178

Our Judicial system:

Fair trial and a public right-to-know are vanishing: https://chrisbray.substack.com/p/far-out-to-sea-dark-lessons-of-a?

Blatant misuse of the courts through Lawfare: https://alexberenson.substack.com/p/on-the-rising-danger-of-democratic?

Attempts to gain power and control:

A Central Bank Digital Currency seems to be the end game goal, and a means to extraordinary measures of control: https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2023-03-31/cbdc-universal-remote-control-over-your-behavior; This one may be a little over the top, but an interesting boots-on-the-ground perspective: https://theconservativetreehouse.com/blog/2023/12/04/a-walk-amid-the-freezing-pines/

We are being discouraged from growing our own food: https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/globalists-will-use-carbon-controls-stop-you-growing-your-own-food

Unconstitutional invasions of privacy and tracking of "extremists" (who often are defined as "people who do not agree with us"): https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/germanys-top-security-queen-says-government-dragnet-track-right-wing-extremist

Owning the narrative: https://off-guardian.org/2024/02/12/ai-and-the-new-kind-of-propaganda/

0 comments
 Posted in Severed Limb... (Judges 19:29)

The Federal Government cannot be allowed to run our Elections

NO! We really do not necessarily NEED electronic vote tally machines and computers.

Nor should we trust (or allow) the government to count the votes. Trust me, this isn't as crazy as it sounds.

Do not swallow the lie that things are terribly complicated and it takes all night or multiple days and big computer systems to consolidate vote tallies. Just do the math for yourself.

Note: I am talking about key federal offices ONLY - like President, Vice President, and Congress. You can leave all the other tallying up to each state and county. The federal government certainly has no need to be involved in that tallying.

Yes, you may well want an automated ballot reader (like we use in Alabama) that reads paper ballots and feeds them into a bag for safe-keeping and possible audits/manual recounts. But you don't NEED any other fancy tools to tally votes. Let's do the math.

In the 2020 general election, there were about 160 million votes cast.
Sources:
https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2022/2020-presidential-election-voting-report.html
https://www.cfr.org/blog/2020-election-numbers
(Note by-the-way - these disagree by about 3 million votes - how's that for trustworthiness and transparency?).

For a ballpark estimate, let's divide up the country into voting locations so that about 10,000 voters are expected to vote at each location.

160,000,000 voters divided by 10,000 voters per location = 16,000 voting locations.

Folks, a simple Excel spreadsheet can handle over one million rows. Even nationwide, one Excel spreadsheet can very, very easily handle 16,000 rows, and tally the results in less than a second.

However, if it was done this way, it might still take HOURS to enter 16,000 rows of data into a spreadsheet. So, we certainly shouldn't do it that way. The following is a bit of an oversimplification, but it is in the ballpark.

The federal spreadsheet could have just 50 rows (one for each state).
Each state could have their own spreadsheet. California is the largest state and they had about 18 million votes in 2020. So, back to our math...
18,000,000 voters divided by 10,000 voters per location = 1,800 voting locations.

Therefore, each state could have a spreadsheet with 1800 rows or less.
At 1 minute per row, a ten person team could be finished in three hours (for the entire state of California).

The process could go like this...

Each voting location has 2-5 paper vote tally machines.
1. The voting occurs (single-day, in-person voting).
2. The bags are sealed up when the polls close, and are labeled and securely stored.
3. Each voting location sums the numbers from their machines (5 machines at most).
4. At most there are 5 key federal offices on the ballot at any given location (president, vice president, 2 senators, and 1 representative).
5. Each voting location prints a piece of paper with the results and posts it on the door for all to see.
6. Each voting location calls in their results to the state (or sends a photo).
7. The state enters those numbers into their spreadsheet (1800 rows or less).
8. The state prints the results and posts it on the door of the state house.
9. The state calls the federal office and reports their totals (or sends a photo).
10. The federal office enters that data into their 50 row spreadsheet.
Done.

If anyone has doubts about the results, they go to the state in question and look at the results. If any voting location looks suspicious, it wouldn't take many hours to hand recount 10,000 votes.

So, why isn't it done this way (or something similarly simple and transparent)?

Answer: Neither party WANTS it done that way. They want it opaque and un-auditable and unaccountable because it serves them (the DNC and RNC private clubs). Time to stop pretending and speak truth.

One might say Excel sheets and hand entry are just too error-prone and inadequate.

There are other ways. Did you know we could create a system "run by no one" and which is "auditable and visible to all"? "NOTHING about that is hard". The blockchain technology is common-place and used ubiquitously for financial transactions every day. These quotes and concepts are from a 2022 article by EL GATO MALO (https://boriquagato.substack.com/p/accusations-of-electoral-fraud).

Additionally, the words of Scott Adams seem worth considering. However, note that the only reason our voting system is complex is because it has purposely been MADE complex. Scott has fallen for the lie.

Scott Adams: "Fact: Any system with lots of participants, complexity, and high stakes will become corrupt over time. That is true of every observed human-made system since the beginning of recorded history. The only mystery is WHEN the corruption happens. For example, we know Congress is influenced by the military-industrial complex, and we know the financial markets are increasingly rigged for the big players."

"Every complex human-made system of high value becomes corrupt over time, no matter what kind of controls are in place. There has never been an exception. That's because bad actors have an incentive to peck away until they find a hole to crawl through."

"Our elections are not fully auditable. We don't see the computer code for the machines. We don't know if mail-in ballots were discarded before reaching the drop box. We don't know if any bad actors hacked any part of it. And we certainly don't know if there are innovative ways to rig an election that have not yet been discovered."

"We can't know for sure if any particular election -- such as 2020 -- was rigged. But we can know for sure the current design of our election systems guarantees rigging at some point. And we can know for sure that the voting results for 2020 violated historical patterns so drastically any reasonable person would have some questions."

Is it time to have a talk with YOUR state's chief election official / secretary of state?

P.S. Other relevant articles: https://boriquagato.substack.com/p/democracy-dies-in-adulterated-voter; https://thefederalist.com/2024/02/07/mollie-hemingway-breaks-down-everything-wrong-with-u-s-elections-from-mail-in-ballots-to-zuckbucks-to-censorship/; https://heartland.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Feb-24-2020-Election-Analysis-vWeb_Final.pdf; https://thepoliticsbrief.com/republicans-blow-chance-to-take-back-pa-house-due-to-flood-of-mail-in-ballots/

0 comments
 Posted in Severed Limb... (Judges 19:29)

There are only THREE options regarding the DNC pipe bomb. Which do you believe is most likely?

There are only three logical possibilities regarding the video of the "discovery" of the pipe bomb in front of DNC headquarters on Jan 6, 2021.

1. The Secret Service detail protecting our vice president, Kamala Harris, (and the metro police officers attached to the SS detail) knew full well in advance the pipe bomb posed no threat.

2. The officers failed to protect our vice president, Kamala Harris, and a group of children who were in close proximity to the device our government tells us was real and highly dangerous (and these officers need to be fired).

3. The video (purportedly supplied by our government) is not as advertised. It has been altered or omits important context deceptively.

Please watch the video here (https://revolver.news/2024/01/secret-service-foreknowledge-or-criminal-negligence-damning-new-evidence-surfaces-fbi-january-6-pipe-bomb-story/?utm_source=left-rail-latest). Please disregard the biased, sensationalized, click-bait nature of the website and just consider the facts (the video itself).

Then, please vote anonymously using the poll that I created here: https://xoyondo.com/ap/9upzyh20d5whqtd?fbclid=IwAR26RgoQIvNx7w2NGnKvB16obJKFV4eA34JVQSHQC7BEYWZeDuSehWkr3oo

If there is a fourth logical possibility I am overlooking (other than "I don't want to vote"), please zip me a comment under Contact. The government finally came out with their "explanation" which is that the officers didn't want to create a panic. I'm gonna say that one falls under voting option #2. And I don't buy it.

Further video showing drug sniffing dogs searching that very area 20 minutes prior: https://x.com/repthomasmassie/status/1757605317137850852?s=46&t=x35WP-2TSZudlNdYMAmJpg

0 comments
 Posted in Severed Limb... (Judges 19:29)

Maybe one day...

...I will take up blogging.

0 comments
 Posted in General

Search

Archive

Comments