TL;DR: The portrait on Neilia Hunter Biden’s wiki page in her wedding dress is fake. Why would such a photo exist? This leads us on a very long, very strange trip. Since everything is fake about Joe (including Joe!) this should probably come as no surprise.
The Photo
Look at the linked photo. Seems fine, right? Note that they only say the photo is from 1966, the year of their wedding. But it sure looks like a wedding dress and a fancy hairstyle, so we make the obvious conclusion that it’s her wedding photo. What you should note here is that, because we came to that conclusion ourselves, we will never, ever question it. It’s a technique beyond clever.
Okay, now tell yourself the photo might be fake, and look again.
Her head’s too big in comparison to her neck, and her face is also very pale in comparison. So did they paste Neilia’s head on a bride’s body?
Go to the original and zoom in around her hair. Not one single flyaway hair. Is that actually how hair looks in any real photos you have, ladies?
But perhaps we can’t see individual hairs due to the low resolution. Well, that just stiffens the case for fakery. This was a formal portrait (supposedly) taken in 1966, so it would have been on film, with resolution as high as you cared to scan it. So what was it scanned with? No cell phone ever had resolution that low (250x289 pixels). The ridiculously low resolution is--of course—to hide the fakery, a technique as old as the bogus Moon landings.
And while you’re zoomed in, look at her jawline. At no point is there any continuity down to her neck. There’s just a sharp line on her left, a shadow line below her chin, and a very odd fuzzy patch on her right. Not a smoking gun, but consistent with a low effort job. Hey, why bust your ass when no one’s looking anyway?
Finally, look at the lighting. The bright side of her face is on her left, but just below that we see that’s the shadowed side of her neck. The lighting was offset behind the photographer on opposite sides in the two different photos.
So there’s exactly one wedding photo, and just of her. Before you think that maybe these young, crazy lovers with stars in their eyes just couldn’t afford a real wedding photographer for their special day, understand that they met in the Bahamas on spring break just before Joe went to law school. You know, like all poor people.
Evidence Both Rare and Fake
As for additional photo evidence, I leave it to you, dear reader, to analyze and judge for yourself. I can only find six other pictures of them together.
One of them featuring the whole clan is another fake. It’s very well done but there are certain anomalies. The most important is that baby Naomi’s face should have some shadow but does not, indicating the baby was added later. Naomi will come up again.
The woman in the picture appears to be the same woman as the portrait. Her image also looks suspect and both her and the chair may have been pasted in. Let’s call her “Neilia”.
It’s important to make a distinction because all the other photos which are said to be Neilia and Joe look legitimate but are actually of another woman. Who is she? Hell if I know, but she appears in 1972 campaign photos so we have that marker. Let’s call her “SimNeilia”.
Why Does All Fakery Exist?
To account for the fake “wedding” photo, one thesis is that (believe it or not, young folks) there was still at that time some social stigma attached to having children out of wedlock. “Bastard” was not just some generalized insult. The idea would be something like they never actually got married and they had to retcon it. But that doesn’t really explain the appearance of this SimNeilia shortly before Neilia died. I think we’ve altered the line of investigation to why SimNeilia exists.
What Happened to Neilia?
Well, we would need a SimNeilia if the real Neilia was not “available”. Now the water gets deep. She supposedly died in a car accident along with her infant daughter, Naomi. Beau and Hunter were also in the car but not Joe (surprise!). Joe still blames the other driver but you should look up what his family has to say about that. This is not the last word on the car crash.
It turns out that Joe held only one office, on the New Castle County Council, before being rocketed directly to the US Senate. Neilia was killed in December 1972, a few weeks after the election, and Joe went to the Senate in January 1973. This brings up the idea of "elite sacrifice", where TPTB demand that a person consent to--or even participate in--the sacrifice of someone close to them in return for a career of riches and fame. There are many examples of such.
A one-term county councilor does not seem likely to go straight to the Senate, does he? So if Joe sacrificed Neilia and Naomi to assure a Senate seat, we would need a SimNeilia until her death could be staged. No one would necessarily expect to see the baby in public. (BTW, I believe Alec Baldwin “qualified” himself in just such a way last summer, and predict that he will run for Kirsten Gillibrand’s Senate seat in 2024.)
This would imply that the car accident was another hoax. Could it have been? Well, reference the photos of Joe swearing in to the Senate just a few weeks after the car crash. It took place in Beau Biden’s hospital room. Does Beau look injured? To me he looks like a little kid laying around on top of a hospital bed during a very crass publicity stunt.
Even Deeper?
A quite outlandish story popped up a while back--which we’ll discuss momentarily--but the upshot is that Neilia may have spirited herself and her daughter away before Joe got to use one or both either as a sacrifice or for his other “predilections”. Well hey, wouldn’t you? I have no information on Neilia, but given Joe’s Senate win and all future successes, we must speculate that she was indeed sacrificed.
How about infant daughter Naomi? Try this on for size: does Naomi still live on as Associate Justice of the US Supreme Court Amy Coney Barrett? What!?! Well, have we not we seen enough these past couple of years to realize we're way beyond the looking glass and should consider the case?
ACB FTW?
I wish I could say I discovered it, but here's where I stumbled across it: Is Amy Coney Barrett Naomi Christina "Amy" Biden? ("U.S. Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett is none other than Joe Biden's daughter Naomi Christina Amy Biden! She did not die in a car crash as reported back in 1972.)
The story is very long and very detailed, as if done by a thorough researcher. I tried to find an internal contradiction or an easily debunked point, but failed to. And I personally found the side-by-side photos of Amy and Ashley particularly compelling. They would be half-sisters but look more alike than any sisters I know who aren’t actual twins.
God only knows how you could come across such a story. The writer alludes to it "spreading on social media", but I never heard anyone talking about it anywhere else. My best guess? White Hats are trying to slowly leak out information on the very, very strange world we actually live in.
Alternatively, you might think it's disinfo planted by TPTB. But if TPTB are orchestrating the planting of elaborate disinfo that only a vanishingly small number of people will ever encounter—let alone believe—then they're so far ahead that we're all forked anyway.
In conclusion, did you notice that none of this actually gives a solid explanation why her wiki photo is fake? That suggests that even with all this insanity, we still haven’t even gone deep enough. But what else is new, eh?
If you read this far, thanks and I hope you enjoyed this trip through Our Fake History!
There's no such thing as being against natural law; while being within natural law. Only if one ignores perceived natural law for suggested contract law, can one be illegitimate and unlawful to the laws of men.
What differentiates? Flow (inception towards death) causing momentum (balance) for the differentiated form (life) within.
Why the self differentiation? As communicated inspiration for form to sustain self within flow aka the inspiration needed to resist (form) velocity (flow). If everything perceivable would be the same; then what would inspire form to sustain self within flow? Temporary growth within ongoing loss requires effort (resistance); which implies inspiration (from within spirit) aka SPIRIT; noun (Latin spiro) - "to breathe" aka forms adaptation to flow aka impressed to compressed to expressed.
Natural law represents the behavior of flow; which the differentiated form within its momentum can only comprehend by adapting to perceived differences (inspiration). The parasitic few mix differences together to corrupt the many from perceiving differences; hence reducing their comprehension. This isn't against natural law, it's in willing ignorance of natural law; which only hurts the form within momentum; not the flow (natural order) causing it.
One can shape information into whatever one wants; yet only adaptation to incoming inspiration represents the need for self sustenance. Each one is being processed for both growth (need) and loss (want); while representing the responding choice in-between.
Let's try it simpler...is there any other place for choice to exist than the center of balance? How does choice get into a conflict within balance?
For (want) or against (not want) other races will not prevent mixing; only self sustenance (need) does. RACE, noun [Latin radix; radius] - "to radiate". That represents ONEs growth expression within ALL loss impressed.