I saw a clip of the strike the night it happened. It looked like a nuke at first glance, but not conclusive. I didn't bother researching it because it turns out no one really cares about analyses such as these. (Much easier to make stuff up or just ignore it, you see.) I was finally triggered (haha) to take another look by this story:
Exclusive: IAEA Said BIG Tactical Nuke Used by Russia Near Kherson, US Ordered It Covered Up (Confirmed) (The Intel Drop 5/5/2023)
Why precisely did the US order it covered up? That's what I wanted to know. I didn't find out in the article because it has no text. Knowing their (purported) calculus could be important and it's still an open question.
But let me note here that many, many dozens of nuclear devices have been used in various hostilities over the decades. That includes in the current conflict, like this 2014 blast at a depot in Czechia holding munitions for (you guessed it) Ukraine:
A Look Back At The Deadly 2014 Czech Depot Blast That Prague Is Now Blaming On Russian Agents (RFE/RL 4/18/2021)
Look at the size of the crater, and how almost all of a reinforced concrete bunker was obliterated by a blast centered outside the structure. Oh yeah, and the dude in the full hazmat suit.
The night of the Pavlohrad strike, there was--interestingly enough--a rumor on 4chan reposted on Reddit that Kiev got nuked. Maybe it did too, but I have no info:
Kyiv nuked according to 4chan, thoughts? (5/1/2023)
First, was there anything in Pavlohrad worth nuking? Maybe. Estimates in the recent "leaks" were that Ukraine was going to run out of air defense missiles later this month. This strike may have moved that up to about... now. The third-hand rumor you can read in this tweet claims two divisions (up to 16 installations) of S-300P, along with supply vehicles and reloads, were destroyed. One would guess these were staged for whatever spring Kherson "counter-offensive" Ukraine/NATO has in mind. Maybe it's off the table now.
On to the meat of the analysis and the article I stumbled across today:
Incredible Destruction Seen At Ukrainian Rocket Storage Site That Detonated After Russian Strike (Updated) (The Drive 5/4/2023)
About 2/3 of the way down you'll find this tweet with b/w security cam footage of the event. What you'll see is this: First, far in the distance, a conventional cruise missile strike. Then at 0:25, there are two more or less simultaneous detonations. The closer one is another conventional warhead, and you can't even see the shadow of the column of dust and smoke for a few seconds because the camera sensor had it's soul blown out by the glare of the nuke behind it.
There are a few things to notice about the nuke blast. It's obviously different than the other two, dwarfing them. The glare is huge, and persists for quite a while. The shockwave is clear and titanic. Chunks of flaming missile propellant and explosives are scattered very, very far. Also note that it's "all in one go", not the slow "cooking off" process of an ammo depot fire.
Now to orient yourself, I refer you to the last couple of sat pics in the article. The security cam was off to the "left". You can see the pinprick of damage by the conventional warhead on the left, and the devastation on the upper right. They knew just what bunker to hit and they annihilated it. The blast also ravaged all the nearby bunkers. Remember these are reinforced concrete behind earthen berms.
Finally, the first half of the article includes closer photos of the bunker. More precisely, where the bunker used to be. Note that the extreme heat of the nuke and wide scattering of flaming debris burnt all the greenery for hundreds of meters around the site.
So did the Ukraine War go nuclear, yes or no? You probably didn't expect it, but it's really a philosophical question, isn't i? As I mentioned, nukes have been used in anger numerous times.How do they keep it secret? Easy: they don't tell you about it. Well, you'll say, people could find out for themselves. I know. I just did. But virtually no one else does. That's my point. Not hard to keep a secret when no one is looking for it.
Using inductive logic, we can do some further thinking:
First, let's dispense with all the talk of a "fake war". What do you need real nukes for in a fake war? People that buy into this seem moronic to me. I invite any morons to declare themselves.
Second, there's so much talk about NATO conducting a "nuclear false flag". Well, they could have just called this one out for what it was, right? But they didn't, and there's something to be learned from that. (Personally, I think "They" do not have control of any nukes any longer.)
Third, Russia is "in it to win it", and they are going to do what they feel is necessary and appropriate to accomplish that. So many people say, "Russia issues all these warnings, but the pussies never do anything about it!" Well, now we've all seen them do something supposedly "unthinkable", they just didn't bother announcing it. So again, all the people that include "russkies are pussies!" as part of what they call thinking seem like total ignoramuses to me.
If you read this far, thanks, and I hope you got something out of it. Also, congratulations on having an attention span on the far-right of the bell curve.
When Ryland was a toddler with long, flowing blond hair, he could pass as female of course. Supposedly at age three he "communicated" to his parents that he was really a boy and began his "transition".Here's the original coverage from seven years ago when Ryland was eight:
"Raising Ryland": Parents open up on child's gender transition (3/17/2016)
Take a look starting at 2:15 when Ryland is batting and throwing a ball. Does that look like any eight-year-old girl you've ever seen? Me neither.
The real giveaway, in my opinion, comes more recently now that Ryland is 15:
California transgender teen hopes to be an inspiration to others (6/12/2022)
Listen to his voice starting at 0:45. Sounds like any other teen boy you've ever heard, doesn't it? Females don't just have higher-pitched voices, but they speak with a "musicality", and Ryland has none of that. (This same characteristic is the basis for the classic "gay" voice, the root cause probably being decreased testosterone or increased estrogen). Trying to change voices FtM with hormones always leaves them sounding like they have a kazoo stuck in their throat.
The parents seem normal enough at first glance, but check out the dad at 1:56. Dude's got those crazy eyes. Maybe these people are Satanists and those children are just lucky to be alive.
Finally, for the shills who are going to weigh in with, "No, no, you're wrong, Ryland really IS a girl who's become a boy!" I would just say: okay, alright, we get it. Give it a rest because you're making my point for me.
The narrative now is all about, "QAnon Shaman is innocent!" and "Chansley's lawyer says he was denied evidence!" Those are not the primary issues are they? Why didn't the cops just say, "GTFO or at least put a shirt on, weirdo", and then just steer clear of this obvious freak and troublemaker? On the other hand, were they escorting any of the ordinary people around?
No, of course they did none of that. This different treatment is prima facie evidence that there was an open-air dramatic presentation that day, and that Angeli and his pals were part of the cast.
Further, ask yourself why you're reading about this on some little-known social media forum, instead of from Tucker or Gaetz or Trump or MTG or Bobert? Do they not realize this? It's easy enough to point out, as I just did.
Actually, I'm not highlighting this to slam them. Personally, I think there's a deeper game at play and even fake-ass crisis actors like Chansley et al are not even worth exposing. I think we may have to endure some minnows swimming free while sea monsters are being hunted.
Fauci’s deputy to serve as his temporary successor at NIAID (Washington Examiner 12/9/2022)
Hugh Auchincloss Jr. was NIAID’s Principal Deputy Director, making him formally second in command but I suspect he runs the place with Fauci as cutout. How no one has noticed him before is beyond me.
His maternal grandfather was Harvey Hollister Bundy (Skull and Bones), who looks like the guy that really ran the US involvement in WW2. And thus he had as maternal uncles Bill Bundy (CIA) and McGeorge Bundy (National Security Adviser).
His mother was Katherine Lawrence Putnam, daughter of William Lowell Putnam and niece to Harvard president Abbott Lawrence Lowell. These are the Lowell’s of the Boston Brahmins. And I can’t quite make the tie right now, but I feel confident this Putnam is of the Putnams of G.P. Putnam’s Sons.
His father’s side is even deeper. Hugh Auchincloss Sr. was first cousin once-removed of Hugh D. Auchincloss Jr., who worked for the Office of Naval Intelligence in WW2. It takes off in many directions from him.
Hugh’s third wife was Janet Lee Bouvier, the mother of First Lady Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis. And his second wife was Nina S. Gore, mother of Gore Vidal.
With Gore Vidal, they admit he was descended from the Gores, one of 19 families that became wealthy (or more wealthy) selling the land of what would become Washington DC. They don’t admit this directly with Al Gore, but do say that he descends from “immigrants who first settled in Virginia in the mid-17th-century and moved to Tennessee after the Revolutionary War.” So yeah, I’d say he’s of the same Gores.
Finally, his son Jake Auchincloss is currently Congressman for Massachusetts's 4th district, 25th wealthiest by Median Household Income.
Closing note (and this may be the most important point): I stumbled across this guy a couple of years ago and have been waiting the whole time to see if anyone else noticed and said anything about him. In that whole time no one did, and no one even noticed it when his appointment was announced yesterday.
My point here is not that I’m some tremendous researcher because, as I said, I just stumbled across his name, but rather that TPTB do not need to work very hard at all to cover Their operations. I no longer wonder at how They could possibly get away with so much.
It was reported that on January 24th of this year that Gavin Newsom was executed: Gavin Newsom Hanged at GITMO . That's a bold claim but I have certain reasons to believe it.
Holding a sense of due intellectual diligence, since then I check in every so often when "Gavin Newsom" makes an appearance to see if he returns from Hell. Here's was today's photo op:
We are presented with three photos and Gavin is pasted into all of them. As an aside, most of the other people seem pasted in as well, but due to the similarity of the lighting I'd guess they were together in a real photo and were just rearranged here. I won't go over the details, but there are a couple of areas to look at if you wish to study the pictures yourself.
First, look for physical interactions between the people. That is, can you see the lines of their clothing disturbed because the person next to them is pressing up against them even slightly?
Second, always examine the lighting. If people are next to each other, are they lit from the same direction, with the same level of contrast between light and shadow, with the same hot spots, etc?
I consider it well worth your effort to develop an "eye" for examining photos in such a way--and also to develop the habit of doing so--because we are steeped in such fakery. The reason They get away with it so easily is precisely because virtually no one is looking for the fakery.
We're told the bridge was sold to an American in 1968, and it was dismantled, transported, and reconstructed in Lake Havasu, Arizona. Everyone's free to believe fairy tales, but IMHO normally functioning adults should give it up. So does this one hold up?
No, it does not.
No "9/11 Pentagon"-level photographic analysis is needed, just use your favorite search engine and look up something like "london bridge arizona construction". But before you do, what do you expect to see? Probably pictures of a bridge at different levels of completion over a body of water, right?
Wrong. What you see is a complete bridge over a desert, with dirt piled up to the top of the arches. Well WTF, huh? What are we seeing?
This was a completely existing bridge that had been buried under the desert. Probably because of erosion, at some point it became impossible to hide it's existence. So they dreamed up a tale to tell you about how it got there.
If you look around you can actually see that the waters of Havasu were originally nowhere near where the bridge is located. So between the "shore" and the "island" they had to excavate all the dirt to create a waterway, and then construct a brand new roadway to the bridgehead.
The population of Lake Havasu City, even by 1990, was only 24,000, and was not centered near the "island". No one was living on a hill out in the desert and no "bridge" was needed.
I believe they invented the whole "Spring Break" phenomenon to blow smoke around this whole incident. Culturally, that may be the strangest thought of all.
Sure, click-bait title, but did you know they were selling this as part of the narrative?
How many magazines did the shooter have? Police found 58 total magazines at the crime scene – which included inside and outside the school and at the shooter's wrecked pickup truck nearby – and an additional two magazines at the shooter's home.
How many magazines were found in the school? Police found 11 magazines inside the school: Two in Room 112, six in Room 111 and three on the shooter's body.
How many magazines were found outside of the school? Police found 32 magazines outside of the school but on school property: One just outside of the school and 32 in his backpack, which he left outside.
How many magazines were found at the shooter's crashed pickup truck? Police found 15 magazines at the crash site. McCraw said Ramos began shooting at two men near a funeral home, shortly after getting out of the wrecked truck.
Magazines were flying off this guy like coins in a Super Mario side-scroller.
I had been picturing it as just on the edge of possibility that this kid straps on several chest rigs and loads up with 60 pounds of loaded magazines, like maybe he was preparing for some sort of running gun battle ending in a high-octane last stand.
Well, we got no last stand, no running gun battle, no gun battle, no shell casings, no bullet holes in walls, no spider-webbed glass, and a site soon to be scraped from existence.
I suppose we see that for the believers in this tale, it all somehow makes sense. They will make it make sense.
Thanks, WFAA, for the detailed account of this "event": By the numbers: How many rounds the Uvalde shooter fired, and how much police fired at him
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!