The hillbilly murder channel

I have been watching a TV series on Prime called “Justified.” It is a formulaic program for which every resident of Kentucky should be deeply offended. The writers conjure up one hillbilly caricature after another, then allowing them to be brutally murdered by U.S. Deputy Marshall Rayland Givens, played by Timothy Olyphant. I have not counted, but Marshall Givens has to have killed twenty people by now, and seldom misses a day of work as a result. The shootings are always self defense.

I went looking for some background on Olyphant, only to find that he is scrubbed clean, as are his parents. We are told he was born in Hawaii in 1968, moved to Modesto, California, where his father worked as a VP for Gallo wineries. His mother (now divorced) is a Gideon, and we are told that his father now owns an ‘extensive’ cattle ranch in Arizona. They too are scrubbed.

Here is his Geni search result:

Olyphant Geni

Here is his photo, the thing that caught my eye:

Damon-Olyphant

The most striking feature of these Matt Damon Batch members is the hairline, usually offering almost perfect alignment. In the case of Olyphant, we also get perfect ear, eyes, eyes, nose, mouth and jaw alignment. Damon and Olyphant are two years apart in age, we are told, and were born of different mothers. Other than that, they appear to be replicas.

Welcome aboard, Timothy Olyphant. Batch membership is growing quickly. It has become predictable, and frankly, is getting a little tedious.

103 thoughts on “The hillbilly murder channel

  1. wow, very interesting….I had heard good things about this show but could not make it through even the 1st episode…such crap and so violent.

    Like

  2. A shot in the dark, but Olyphant played Seth Bullock in Deadwood (Another gun totin’ Marshal). Bullock is an intriguing name and some of these guys play family members. Olyphant descends from Cornelius Vanderbilt, so there’s that. Call his show “Juiced”.

    Like

  3. The “Bokanovsky Brats” may be the most important info that has been revealed on this site! Congrats to everybody on this and other great work so far.

    Also, I am wondering if the ruling elite(our Masters) employ a metaphysical power. If so they keep a tight lid on this. Two examples that got me wondering again: Last week at UFC Fight Night 139 in Denver, Yair Rodriguez defeated the Korean Zombie in the main event. Wiki states that “Rodríguez won the fight by knockout via reverse elbow at 4 minutes 59 seconds in the fifth round; the latest knockout in UFC history.” He bent over and shot his elbow up at the buzzer. I haven’t seen this move before. I thought to myself “what a sensational finish and it occurs at the 25th Anniversary of the UFC’s first event held in Denver in 1993.”

    Secondly, Washington Redskins quarterback Alex Smith brutally broke his leg today. It just so happens that today is the 33rd anniversary of Redskins QB Joe Theismann visiously breaking his leg in a similar fashion.

    Like

  4. hmm… he’s certainly from the families, this way or another. If there’s a Batch, I’m not sure? People I see on my way to office often remind me of somebody I already met earlier or somebody famous. There is this Phil Collins guy in my office. A colleague reminds me of Betty Middler. There are certain kind of types of people. Especially those Hollywood types will often look similar. They may have common roots too. It’s a closed society there. There also is something we call a cannon of beauty. Certain look is considered to be good looking. I’m just not sure, what came first, the chicken or the egg. Was this cannon there first or is Hollywood making it up for us.

    Like

    1. There are resemblances, I must continually emphasize, and our eyes pick up on them. I look somewhat like my brothers, but we are also easily told apart. We do not reproduce replicas. Even identical twins can be told apart as their gestation experiences are not identical. What we are looking at in the Matt Damon batch are replicas, identical facial alignment in all aspects, many many people, both men and women, exhibiting it. You’re not going to see that walking down the street. The possibilities for variances in the human body and face are endless. The odds of producing a replica randomly by themselves are astronomical. For these replicas then to end up in show business and to experience success at a high level even more so. You might say we are drawn to their golden ratios, and that explains their rise to stardom, but this is obfuscated by their being of the bloodlines, so you are also saying that the bloodlines are charmed with beautifully conceived offspring, and randomly. Inbreeding would yield something less than that. Far more likely is that it is not accidental breeding taking place.

      The ‘tell’ for me is found in the careers of Damon and Affleck, said to have produced a high-quality movie script at a very young age by “working very hard.” Such a feat ought to have been done again over time, but neither have produced anything of quality since. They seem to have forgotten the hard work formula. Far more likely what we saw with Damon and both Affleck’s with Goodwill Hunting was a rollout, introduction of three new star vehicles for the coming decades, all three possessing the exact same facial characteristics as those who came before, James Dean, Paul Newman, Jack Nicholson, for example. That these three lack the high-star quality of their predecessors … are we experiencing regression in the process as well?

      Like

    1. Wow, that is some juice! Just Morrison by itself, but also Washingron …

      Reminds me, I am doing some work on the KKK, and I came across a George W. Ashburn who was “assassinated for his pro-black sentiments.” I am sensing that KKK are hired agents provacateur, and I remembered one of John Brown’s fake kidnapping victims was Louis Washington, and so checked him out further … the W. stands for Washington, and you can bet he was not assassinated.

      Like

  5. they are not related, they just look alike. My children all look different and are from the same parents. Or take the Affleck brothers. They don’t really look alike. Even the McCartney twins don’t look much alike. There are just similar kinds of types of faces everywhere. Also I don’t think similar proportions in the faces can be used to analyze family relations. It does not work that way. Especially if you’re using digitally manipulated pictures. You’re using differences in the faces of twins to prove there are two of them and similarities in faces to prove the same. I have friends which used in-vitro several times and some got twins and even those don’t look very much alike. The genes have their own ways and you cannot predict or control them. Breeders use inbreeding and selection to emphasize certain characteristics and create a new breed but this new breed is always a form of monstrosity and never better than the original. Only mixing of different genes improves the output. The farther the genetic distance is, the better the offspring but then you cannot aim at certain kind of face or whatever. The only way to create a better human race is mixing everything together. There is no batch. There may be a closed society though.

    Like

    1. I disagree … not on twins or family resemblances or the need for open gene pools, however. That is all well understood. It is on the striking likenesses of the batch members. To step back and say it is merely photo manipulation is too easy, and anyway, would require manipulation of all photos of all batch members. There is a standard face underneath each member, probably chosen for the desirable characteristics, the most notable to me being the strong jaw. A full head of hair, parted on the left with a pronouced widow’s peak is another, and yet another the broad toothy grin. I would like to see them side by side to compare body size and height and find other likenesses. I wonder too of they are capable of reproduction.

      Like

      1. well Mark, we don’t know how real is the hair of the famous people. They love make up. Burt Reynolds comes to mind, or Elton John. We know their hair is fake of course because they made it that way. Remember Andre Aggassi? We would’ve never know about his bald head if he kept to wear the wig. I regularly see a woman with a very strong resemblance to Gwyneth Paltrow on my way to Frankfurt. She’s not in such a good shape though. Did you never met anybody with a strong resemblance to somebody famous?

        Like

        1. Again, we are not talking about resemblance. We are talking exact precise alignment of facial features. There’s a difference. I once dated a woman who so resembled Mary McDonnell (Stands With a Fist in Dances With Wolves) that when I mentioned it to her she said she gets that alot.

          Most young people have their own hair. Older celebrities mostly not. If a bomb were to go off at the Academy Awards, dental records would be useless in identifying bodies, as few do them have their original teeth.

          I think you are being obfuscatory.

          Like

      1. I only stated, that DNA is not the carrier of genetic information. That does not invalidate the entire idea of genes as an instrument to carry certain features from generation to generation. We just know very little how it really works. Inbreeding created the Labrador race, which has a waterproof fury, long, hanging ear overlaps which keeps the ears dry, strong and fast legs for fast running, etc. Inbreeding did not make the Labrador swim in ponds and fetch ducks for hunters. But it somehow got into his genes and young Labradors without any training love to jump in water and fetch things for their masters. The wild wolf was first fed by humans, got used to it, started to live within human tribes and his children’s children already forgot their natural violence. It is known that it takes two generations without natural scarceness to lose aggressivity. That’s how and why domestication works. It also works for refugees by the way. It gets into genes and the offspring becomes different to its roots.

        Like

        1. I think that those who study DNA have a very good understanding of domestication, for instance, the huge size variations in dogs, why horses can be domesticated while zebras cannot. I am not saying trust science, since so much if it is corrupted by money, but I have seen DNA analysis work, and it is not my imagination. They know stuff. There is rigor behind it.

          Like

          1. Zebras don’t procreate in captivity. Zebroides do. It takes two generations to change the natural behavior caused by natural scarceness.

            Like

          2. I based my view on the matter on the work of Jared Diamond in his book, Guns, Germs and Steel. I know no more or less than that, and don’t even know him to be a reliable source. He did, however, write at length on our ability to domesticate certain animals, but not others, zebras falling in the ‘not’ category.

            Like

          3. also, all dogs come from the original Wolf. The difference in sizes was created via deviation through inbreeding.

            Like

          4. This is known, understood by all. What you don’t seem to grasp is that the varying sizes of dogs that come from a wolf cannot be duplicates in other species. House cats have a far narrower range of sizes. Why?

            Like

        2. Nein! You said in that earlier comment: “DNA is a hoax …” You didn’t say that “DNA is not the carrier of genetic information.” Pure rubbish, of course: you are changing the understanding of technical words to fit your own agenda.

          What is that agenda? On this blog, to be “der Geist der stets verneint.” No matter what anyone on this blog says, you always contradict it; even if that means contradicting yourself or denying common knowledge.

          Your style of polemic reminds me of Steven Oostdijjk (lacquered over with an ersatz German accent) and his minions, before he passed the baton of his math/science ideas to Miles Mathis as front-man.

          Like

          1. I also wrote there “Scientifically the DNA cannot be the carrier of genetic information even if it plays a significant role in it, because it changes continually through your life.” You should pay more attention. Why are you trying so hard to misinterpret all I’m trying to express. I don’t deny the existence of DNA as a cell substance. Only as a synonym for genes. Now everything in the mainstream is about DNA and about genes. They even found a gene for obesity, can you imagine? As I explained there, they cannot prove that two DNA samples are identical. They can only find differences and this with a probability. The DNA of a worm is 99% the same as ours. How do they find differences between humans then?

            Like

          2. Ryan T, this is a discussion forum here. Our patient host Mark allows us to comment if we don’t digress into obscenities like flat earth. My understanding of the term DNA is based on basic biology. It is a poisonous acid the cells use to split their chromosomes during the cell division process. The interpretation of DNA as the only carrier of genetic information was far fetched from the beginning. It was born around 1953 from the old virus theories where virus was simply a poison causing sickness. The new virus theory claimed virus is not a poison but a dangerous genetic material and now the term DNA is the synonym for all hereditary material. When the idea that DNA is stable was refuted, they invented the Epigenetic. And so on. Is that rubbish to you? I always try to use simple arguments everybody with some basic knowledge can follow. And this simple arguments are usually ignored, which is sad. Polemical comments like yours above don’t do any good in a discussion forum.

            Like

  6. “DNA is a poisonous acid.”

    Thank you for proving my point. You use words to mean something different from what other educated people would understand. Like Humpty Dumpty in the Lewis Carroll story, words mean whatever you want them to mean. But then you use your eccentric terminology to throw stones at posters and commenters here. Not helpful for discussion. But I don’t think furthering discussion is your aim. Again, very reminiscent of the tactics of the Pi=4 crowd in math forums.

    And thanks also for proving that your English is just fine when you forget to put on the fake accent.

    Like

  7. what different do educated people understand under DNA, which means Deoxyribonucleic acid? What excentric terminology did I use? Written words don’t have any accent except maybe for some languages where you explicitly can accent parts of words or sentences using special letters. My accent therefore cannot be fake. I’m from Germany and learned English mostly watching MTV back then in the 90-s. What is your point? You never answer to my arguments.

    Like

  8. BM this is indeed a discussion forum and I only rarely toss anyone out, and that will stay the manner of doing business. But you were called out by a couple of people here and were asked to explain a glaring contradiction … you are indeed all over the court with your ideas on DNA … a hoax, a non-carrier of genetic information, now a poisonous acid.

    My only involvement was personal experience, that DNA evidence was used to exonerate a man of having raped my daughter, that man later awarded $3.5 million in damages due to use of dishonest methods to obtain his conviction (hair samples, which are useless as evidence and even said to be useless as DNA evidence as well). Twelve years later a man was arrested on drugs charges, plea bargained and agreed to give up DNA … bingo. Because evidence in the rape kit was still available, they got a match. Subsequent circumstantial evidence gathered was impressive … he lived a block away from us! We finally had our man, but the Montana Supreme Court set him free, statute of limitations. It is now on appeal to the US Supreme Court, and since the AG of the State of California has joined the case, is said to have a better than average chance of being heard. Neverending, it seems.

    This is, to me, real and tangible evidence of the validity of the science of DNA. No one in the Montana justice system foresaw a $3.5 million hit, that along with the incredible loss of prestige of their criminal justice system. It was not just sloppiness, but outright fraud, and led to other cases where the same man had done the same shenanigans. It was embarrassing. DNA also led to capture of the real perpetrator, a pedophile living in a trailer in White Sulphur Springs, Montana, who otherwise would not have risen above the radar.

    Your response to this evidence: The original man convicted and the ultimate man found and accused were known all along to police, who simply used DNA as evidence after-the-fact. That is not only untenable, but in my view, dishonest, and affected my view of your credibility. It does not affect your ability to comment here, as this is not a forum where accountabilty is necessary. Everything is up to everyone’s private judgement. It is, after all, just a blog.

    Like

  9. “a hoax, a non-carrier of genetic information, now a poisonous acid.” how is it a glaring contradiction Mark? Wikipedia will support the most of what I’m claiming. DNA is an acid by definition and it is a poison if isolated. It also is completely transparent to light by the way and cannot be contrasted. It is not stable and changes for instance under stress conditions which is why Epigenetic was invented. All this you can google. If DNA changes, it cannot carry genetic information which by definition has to be constant. Can you follow? I tried to explain many times why the genetic fingerprint cannot work. It looks for differences and that way you cannot prove the equality of two probes except you could compare 100% of all elements, which is not possible and which the DNA-fingerprint test does not do.

    Like

        1. it is not me, who is sealioning here, dear RYAN T. If you don’t want to waste time on my explanations, don’t read them. What terms of mine did confuse you so much? Where did I use circular reasoning? Please explain, so I can try to clarify. On the other side you did not write anything of value here, so why do you bother so much? You actually did not contribute anything so far.

          Like

  10. your personal experience Mark was not, that DNA evidence was used to exonerate a man of having raped your daughter, by the way, but that DNA hoax was used to legitimate this. If it did the right thing, why not? It’s the same as giving a false alibi for the right cause.

    Like

        1. In the world of science there are thousands who are trapped by funding sources and groupthink into errant results. I have seen this time and again, most recently with the Zika virus and anthropogenic global warming. One has to view science from a distance and maintain a healthy skepticism.

          What you are telling me is that a man was released after 15 years of unjust imprisonment; that despite the usual course of action in such a case of saying “Oops” and giving him a suit of clothes and some spending money, he was instead awarded $3.5 million due to bad faith; that the case was allowed to go cold for 12 years when another oops! moment produced the real perpetrator … each of these three events defy the odds, and since all are related, coincidence produces astronomical unlikelihood. Most crimes go unsolved. This one was not only solved, but led to great public embarrassment in some very powerful circles, all due to the emerging science of DNA mapping and comparison. Without DNA, the original unlucky young troubled kid who was sent to prison for three forty year terms would still be sitting there, with courts and law enforcement smugly insisting they got their man.

          DNA set him free, gave us justice, which may yet await the man uncovered in his trailer twelve years later. Along comes you, who says it is all a hoax, that police and courts knew all along that Jim Bromgard was innocent and that Ronald Tipton was guilty, and just used DNA to cover their asses.

          My apologies if you saw an earlier epithet in this comment. Got up on wrong side of bed.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. sad to hear that, Mark. I googled the names to get more details. So Tipton’s DNA was 2015 matched to the DNA profile obtained from the victim’s clothing in 1987, right? In what form did they save the DNA profile in 1987? The DNA fingerprint test uses gel electrophoresis to group what they call microstellites and which are parts of parts of parts of the original DNA multiplied via PCR. It’s a picture with a pattern on it which has to be compared to another picture. The patterns are never the same. Even the patterns of the same DNA from a different test. They claim to have a database with numbers representing the patterns but they don’t tell how they obtain the numbers. Magic? So a couple of numbers covers the entire human DNA? The entire test was never scientifically tested. There is no competition for better testing. Nobody ever claimed to make better DNA-fingerprints, so they must be 100% perfect already, right? In real science you repeat the measurement many times to get the error rate. They never do. So they make no errors, right? All you can read about it in Wikipedia is so full of holes, I’m wondering anybody can take this seriously. I already explained many times, it is like looking for differences in two similar pictures. You can only find the differences. If you don’t find any, it does not mean they aren’t there. DNA of a worm is 99% the same as ours, so how do they find differences between humans based on a couple of numbers saved in a database? You say, it worked in your case so it must be true. If you’ll ban me now, fine.

            Like

          2. First , my apologies for the epithet, since removed.

            In rape cases since the 1970s evidence is preserved in the form of a “rape kit.” They collect everything they can and preserve it. That is why evidence from 1987 was still there in 2014. [Actually, they did a DNA analysis of the perpetrator’s fluids in 2002 when Bromgard was set free, and put it in a national database in hope of a match. There it sat for 12 yars until Tipton unexpectedly triggered the match. Perhaps that was not clear to you.]

            This is why I knew that the Bill Cosby accusations are bogus … in 26 cases there was not one police complaint, ergo no rape kits, ergo no physical evidence. Rather than explain it …

            https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_kit

            Like

          3. Anyway, since you are stubbornly sticking to your opinions here, and since Fakeologist has sided with you, I think it is time to review evidence. I have personal experience with DNA sampling wherein one man was freed and another accused that I know could not have happened by any other investigative technique. I stand my ground, knowing these outcomes are real and reliable. But some time in the near future I will present some background and analysis of the history, strengths and drawbacks of the technology, which is real and more reliable than any other manner of investigation. Of course it is not perfect, and I will also highlight its known shortcomings. They are not hidden.

            Today is Thanksgiving. I am in the middle of another project, but will delve into this one after.

            Liked by 1 person

          4. This may be a bit off topic, but very interesting….parasite control…and I don’t believe that it just happens in the insect world…bartonella, (cat scratch fever) and toxoplasmosis come to mind..and this is a very short overview…there is a 1 hr 20 minute documentary on the subject and I find it fascinating and terrifying at the same time.

            Like

    1. proving somebody wrong is indeed very tiresome if you don’t have any better arguments. What did confuse you so much, dear annspinwall4? Please explain, so I can try to clearify.

      Like

      1. I refuse to continue and will no longer reply to any of your comments since I have no idea which “hat” you might be wearing on any particular day and no idea as to your agenda here at the blog.

        Like

  11. I feel there is a gate keeper here on this post. A very familiar one. Back on topic, the facial matching of soooooo many people (with scrubbed backgrounds) is way beyond chance. NOTHING happens in that media machine by accident.

    Like

    1. The gatekeeping you feel exists in the following form: first-time commenters are automatically sent to moderation. This allows us to prevent people who simply come here to ridicule and denigrate us without any underlying background or knowledge from polluting the comment threads. Not a week goes by that I don’t get called a “fucktard” in need of medical help. Those comments never see light of day. However, once someone shows up as reasonable and polite, the first comment is released, and thereafter there is no censorship.

      Certain people come to be pains in the ass, such as a recent fellow who insisted on throwing long tracts on gematria at us. He was warned to knock it off, and kept it up, so he is gone. Generally such bans, which are uncomfortable, are lifted. His might stick. I don’t like having power over others and don’t relish banning anyone, but my hand can be forced.

      That is the extent of our gatekeeping. Quite a few who read and comment here are not in line with our views. So what. You have no idea of the amount of bad work I have done that has disappeared as people with good heads and manners pointed out the errors.

      Liked by 1 person

  12. The term ‘gate keep’ was missed used by me. The derail by BM, that style & delivery looks very familiar to me. I am not able to do this PM without knowing how to type it properly or code decipher. On topic: Harry Hamlin shares these facial features to a degree. And speaking of degrees his YALE degree & career scream spook city. But even more spooky is his ‘look’ today. Matt & Ben writing a hit movie? Sound’s like Paul & Johns writing ‘music’. When you do a KKK & Co. thread, I will pile on some related information. I have not watched TV programing in years, nor have I viewed this ^^series. But I imagine the confederate flag, white trash, inbred, pickup trucks, ect are done to the point of maximum overkill. And a touch more for ADD viewers. Mt Dew anyone?

    Liked by 1 person

  13. dear Motorhead, what is so derailing to you in my chain of arguments considering DNA? Just pick one argument of mine and check it on Wikipedia. As for “scrubbed” geni entries for actors and other famous people , did it ever occur to you, that this entire digital genealogy data is not reliable. Anybody can write anything there. If nobody writes anything on somebody or somebody’s parents it is not scrubbed. And anything what’s written there can be totally invented.

    Like

    1. Barbara, again, your argument smacks of a broad brush, lacking rigor. I don’t do much genealogy just because it is tedious and as an amateur I don’t know what to make of it. However, when I see “private” all over some prominent person’s parentage and siblings, as with Timothy Olyphant, it is easy to see that what is not there needs to be researched.

      And again, as with DNA, “this entire digital genealogy data is not reliable” … Huh? I’ve seen my own family there, and again, it is just my entry point, but it is accurate though we don’t have much beyond two generations. My wife’s family is far more interesting and goes back much further, and certain people in her family have spent countless days and hours researching and compiling the results. That is the source of this “unreliable” information, and it is done in countless families. It is basically crowd sourcing writ large.

      The more prominent a family is, the more likely a person has been hired to monitor the information and keep it from going public. Thus did I find that the most powerful and wealthy man in the state of Montana, Dennis Washington (note the name), had no record of parentage. It takes brains and curiosity to make sense of this, and a certain MM is much too quick to jump to conclusions based on slim evidence, but there is a rich vein to be mined. I suggest you sit back and abstain from the long conclusions and short evidence.

      Like

    1. Yeah, I saw that, mentioned it above. The subject is going to get a little more rigorous treatment down the road here, as I have an ‘in,’ that is, I have seen it work and find your explanations for my experience outlandish. That is, to me, a good starting point.

      By the way, something like 99.9% of DNA is identical in all of us. Researchers who rely on the technology have only to deal with those aspects of it that differ in us. Does this mean that 99.9% of your argument can be dismissed out of hand at first encounter? We’ll see.

      Like

      1. Mark, as you look into DNA further, it will be important for you to take the word of someone who has read a Wikipedia page over people who actually have worked in that field for many years. 😉

        Liked by 1 person

        1. Yes, this has been observed before with Müller. The argument of ignorance is “strong” with her. “I don’t understand how experts analyze it, so it doesn’t exist”. A common theme seen in these “conspy circles”. The biggest joke of her was the allegation that “blood transfusions don’t exist”, aptly answered by someone who actually performed them! Peinlich!

          I have seen this so often, especially by people who claim that “oil is an inorganic resource, does not come from organic matter”. Oh really? No answers as to how this process would happen (especially for the complex molecules that constitute petroleum resources), no rebuttals of actual oil formed in lab experiments (or even in the field), just regurgitating an old Soviet Russian ‘theory’ without going into any specifics, as that would blow their cover. I suspect they haven’t even read the original publication where this idea was planted (as they lacked seismic and source rock analysis deep in Siberia).

          “Don’t trust the experts!!1!!!1!1” Even when they are, and you’re not…

          Like

          1. Good thoughts, Gaia, and argument from ignorance is right in our faces. Thanks for pointing it out.

            Regarding petroleum, I spent my career in that business, as a CPA of course, and not a scientist. But I was always aware of the conflicting opinions regarding the origins, and noted for myself that certain properties in which I own small interests do not deplete in the manner proscribed by the organic origin theory. They seem to continually self renew. Consequently, and time may prove me wrong, where others are pessimistic about the future of certain wells, I am able to buy their interests for a song. It could be that the name if the song is “Oh what a fool I’ve been,” but so far it is not.

            There is another theory as to the origin of our planet’s petroleum resources provided by Velikovsky, given to us by the tail of the comet Venus. It would be from Jupiter [where … I cannot help adding this, men are said to go to get more stupider].

            Like

          2. Regarding petroleum, I spent my career in that business, as a CPA of course, and not a scientist. But I was always aware of the conflicting opinions regarding the origins,

            There is a fringe hypothesis (not even a theory) which stems from Soviet Russia in the 1970s, I wouldn’t call that “conflicting opinions”. 98% of the petroleum industry knows oil is formed from organic matter. Something you can see for yourself; visit a swamp or bog and you see a film of oil on the water. It comes from algae (together with plankton the main source for oil, not the amateuristic idea that “it comes from dinosaurs”) and oily plants (plant material mostly forms coal which is a source rock for gas, but also oil can come from certain plants).

            Example of this in Germany:

            It is actually quite on-topic here as a similar method of “fingerprinting” is done in petroleum analysis. Certain macerals (“organic minerals”) form certain types of oil and that depends on the type of organic matter in the source rock. You can even see them with immature source rocks under a microscope, where the original macerals that form oil under pressure, temperature and especially time are visible.

            The Soviet geologists worked in an area with abundant basement rock (granites) and did not see a source rock in that area, deeply buried below the surface, yet they had oil deposits. So they postulated “oil was formed from granites”. But how this amazingly complex process would take place remains undescribed. Volcanic and magmatic rocks can form gas (methane; CH4), because that is a simple molecule, with C and H among the most abundant elements in the Earth, but how multi-cyclobenzenes and long chains of dozens of carbon atoms are formed inorganically? No explanation.

            and noted for myslf that certain propertes in which I own small interests do not deplete in the manner proscribed by the organic origin theory. They seen to continually self renew. Consequently, and time may prove me wrong, where others are pessimistic about the future of certain wells, I am able to buy their interests for a song. It could be that the name if the song is “Oh what a fool I’ve been,” but so far it is not.

            I don’t know what you mean by “deplete in the manner proscribed by the organic origin theory”. The origin of oil is a different thing than how fields may produce more oil for longer than previously thought. Contrary to popular belief, oil is not stored in “underground pools”, but in the pore space of porous rocks, mostly sedimentary.

            Here is an example of tar (heavy oil) dripping from a fractured limestone in Italy, my own photo:

            Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) is a whole field of study and business and of course companies will do their best to produce as much oil as possible from a field; it costs hundreds of millions of dollars in investments to even get to producing from an oil field. Oil is never produced pure; it is always mixed with water. And oil fields actually never deplete; commonly just about 40% of the oil in a field will be produced. They use steam and other injection methods to separate the oil phase from the water phase to enhance production, but a lot of the oil remains still in the reservoir rock (the pore space).

            There certainly is a lot of “secrecy” and mystery about reserves and oil production, due to political and economic reasons (nobody knows actually how much oil there is, even in a well-studied field); our control of the data points is as bad as sticking straws in a heterogeneous layered cake and interpret/infer what happens between those control points.

            But again, to take such a hypothesis of inorganic oil production seriously, one needs to specify a lot of points; how it works, why it works only in certain areas, what about the maceral study of biomarkers, why do we see oil produced live, how come we produce oil in RockEval pyrolysis experiments, what causes the differences in viscosity and other characteristics of different types of oil etc. etc. etc. There are a lot of questions to answer here. Questions that are satisfactorily answered by organic geochemistry.

            There is another theory as to the origin of our planet’s petroleum resources provided by Velikovky, given to us by the tail of the comet Venus. It would be from Jupiter.

            You know my hesitation of taking Velikovsky seriously, but also here, or even more, this “theory” requires an enormous amount of back-up explanations (call it “evidence”), which would fill a dozen books or more. How did this petroleum end up in the subsurface? Why do we find oil only in certain areas? If there is a space origin of oil, how come we don’t see it at the surface of the Moon? When did this astronomically big event allegedly happen? How does that relate to the ages of the rocks we find oil in? How does it work with rocks of similar ages where we don’t find oil? What is the explanation for that difference? What caused the different types of oils; waxy, viscous, light? Etc. etc. etc.

            Armwaiving some hypothesis (not; “theory”) without actually going at length to explain all aspects of such an idea may convince others, but not me. I use the same skepticism and toolbox for/against “alternative ideas” as I do for/against “mainstream ideas”; logic, continuity and empirical science.

            Like

          3. Yes, it is understood that hydrocarbons form from vegetation. There is a logical fallacy at work here too however, that one explanation excludes all others. My gasoline is 10% corn-based, creating untold problems just due to the power of the agricultural lobby. Ethanol degrades and cannot be allowed to sit for even a few months before it gums up the works.

            Velikovsky spent his entire life providing backup theory and books. That mainstream science ignored him has more to do with orthodoxy in science rather than disproving his hypothesis. He is widely discussed to this day because no one has yet proven bim wrong. That does not mean he is right, but at least demonstrates that his work has staying power. I suggest you have not investigated him in depth, and so are doing what scientists did in his lifetime, dismissing him without fair hearing.

            Liked by 1 person

          4. The same questions remain, even if there is a combination of processes involved. IF oils can be formed inorganically, even if it is just 1% of the petroleum resources on Earth, then my fair questions stand. That is not what the proponents of the inorganic origin “theory” claim however; they maintain “oil is not organic, yet inorganic”, an absolutism.

            I have heard this “this person is dismissed by mainstream science [so he/she must have a point]” idea many times before. Think about aliens (visiting extraterrestrials), second shooters at grassy knolls, TYCHOS, electric universes, Flat Earth, Concave Earth, Expanding Earth, biblical nonsense, etc. etc.

            It is not an argument by itself. Yes, rejected theories can and do hold value, for sure, but that cannot hinge on rejection alone. It is the evidence/clues for an alternative and against an established theory that count. For both alternative and mainstream ideas.

            I do not “dismiss” Velikovsky, I ask questions which are perfectly reasonable. If someone comes up with a wild theory (and oil coming from a comet that Venus is supposed to be, originating from Jupiter, certainly can be classified as “wild”), it is only fair to ask for loads of back-up evidence that doesn’t fit the cherry picking position, also seen so often in “alternative ideas”. Do you think it is unreasonable to ask for a little bit of back-up if someone proposes an idea that has enormous implications??

            I take my Nazionism research (second and higher bases) as back-up for the H mystery (first base) as an example. Someone asking “then what happened to those hundreds of thousands of people, if they were not gassed to ashes in physically impossible chambers” is completely right to ask that obvious question and it is the task of the one rejecting that H Story to at least make an effort of answering that. I know a lot of “researchers” are lazy and stop at first base, without thinking about the implications of what they are suggesting, but I am not one of them.

            Another good example is the Space Travel topics. “How did they do it then?” is the obvious and critical question that requires answers. Green screens (proven), CGI (idem), Devon Island (idem; “Mars” rovers visible on Google Earth), front screen projection, different light sources, passing Earth rocks off as “Moon rocks”, etc. etc. etc. Thousands of people have worked to show how they did it, making a stronger case than the NASAssholes who sell us the idea we can go into space.

            There also seems to be a lot of confusion about especially geologic subjects. People not familiar with the field of study present it as if there is “an official story”, but even when you read just a couple of publications you notice how much disagreement there is within the scientific community. Which only makes sense; a lot of the geosciences rely on interpretation, as nobody was there to witness a Cretaceous limestone or Carboniferous coal deposit form live.
            Ironically, again the cherry picking, that lack of certainty is held as an “argument” against geology and paleontology at the same time; “they are never sure about things”.

            So what is the criticism then? Is it that there is an “official theory, carved in granite that everybody follows” or “there is a lot of speculation and disagreement, so they can never be sure, there is NO official story”?

            You cannot eat the cake and sell it at the same time.

            Liked by 1 person

          5. I really think you have to read the man, his background, his lectures and articles, the crtiicisms and his answers thereto, and books written both attacking and defending him, to form a fair opinion. Since I, prior to reading him, had already seen widespread fraud in science (anthropogenic global warning, Zika, HIV, the Stephen Hawking hoax, the moon landings), his ostracism did not dismiss him in my eyes, and the evidentiary base that has been built up to support him over time is impressive.

            Like

          6. Can you give a summary of his points? The questions I asked are very basic, nothing fancy. Many more people can ask many more questions that require answers. Also, a solid theory is predictive; in the times Velikovsky wrote certain discoveries were not made, was he able to predict them, using this -in this case quite literally- outlandish ‘theory’ that petroleum comes from comet Venus, that formed from Jupiter some thousands of years ago, but now is stored in rocks that are way older and 3 or more (pre-salt) kilometers deep in the subsurface?

            Of all the topics you name (AGW, Zika, HIV, Apollo) people were able to make solid cases with scientific (testable and following the philosophy of the scientific method) as well as logical, psychological/social engineering, financial and other arguments. On all 4, scientists and engineers working in those fields have spoken out against the mainstream theories.

            To compare that to one guy who postulates a wild theory of comets in space forming petroleum deposits deep inside the Earth is a bit far-fetched…

            Like

          7. I will give it just a shot … the material is voluminous. It is not my job, more yours. He first stumbled on biblical writings and began to form a theory in the 1940s that the stories of Exodus, if taken literally, might be evidence of a catastrophic event. From there he went around the world to various cultures and found the same stories of the same calamities at the same time. From that he deduced a world-wide cataclysm. He then went into detail with Exodus explaining how each event could be interpreted in terms of a near planetary collision.

            The book received widespread praise, but was viciously condemned by scientists whose cherished theories he disrespected. This is not new. This is how science works. Behind the scenes his publisher was threatened, books were destroyed and reissued by another publisher. Reviews of the book trashing it were written by people who proudly admitted they had not read it. Attacks came from all quarters, seminars were held in which he was not allowed to participate, or where he was heavily outnumbered. This too is how science works.

            He had one supporter who actually read his work, wrote in the margins, and was prepared to use his reputation to encourage experiments to test his hypothesis, Albert Einstein. He died before he could carry out his promise.

            Velikovsky introduced the idea of electromagnetism into a gravity-run solar system. He claimed that Jupiter emitted radio waves. He said Venus was extremely hot (when scientists thought it almost habitable), that it had a realtively flat surface free of craters, and even though invisible, still sported a cometary tail. He claimed craters of our moon, elliptical, are evidence not of meteorites, but an encounter with a larger body. He claimed that cometary tails, loaded with hydrocarbons, would leave not just oil, but carbohydrates behind (manna). He claimed there was a world wide flood caused by a swelling of the oceans. All is proven or evidenced to be correct. Nothing he offered has been shown to be wrong.

            He followed up with a book that did not rely on ancient writings, but rather physical evidence all around us, to support his theory. It is called Earth in Upheaval. I have highlighted and transcribed passage from it, and will send you that Word file if you want to peruse it.

            That is all I am willing to do. Wave of the hand dismissals are not your style, so I hope you explore further.

            Like

          8. I will give it just a shot … the material is voluminous. It is not my job, more yours. He first stumbled on biblical writings and began to form a theory in the 1940s that the stories of Exodus, if taken literally, might be evidence of a catastrophic event. From there he went around the world to various cultures and found the same stories of the same calamities at the same time. From that he deduced a world-wide cataclysm. He then went into detail with Exodus explaining how each event could be interpreted in terms of a near planetary collision.

            Right. So his premise is that the Bible is a reliable source for natural phenomena.

            The Bible is a collection of books written by various people centuries after events allegedly happened. I have nothing against people who take valuable information from the Bible, as in wisdoms (the 10 commandments are a no brainer for a successful society), but I do when people use it for natural phenomena. I have seen people claiming the Earth is flat, the Earth is concave (Stephen “Lord” Christopher) and the Earth is convex, using the Bible. It cannot be all three, so it is a useless non-conclusive source for the physical world we live in.

            His starting point is already flawed, so that doesn’t promise a good follow-up.

            “Same calamities at the same time”. Also here; how does he know that? I started reading Worlds in Upheaval and got to the first 3 chapters. In the Preface he talks about dendrochronology (tree rings) as a source for the time span. But a statement “at the same time” is not a scientific approach. What this study does is give ranges of times. If you compare a dataset of various writings from all over the world, then you should end up with a collection of ranges in time. Not “at the same time”, that is a false precision we cannot establish.

            The whole point is that the start should be the physical world; study that, and only after that you can find supporting clues in ancient (or “ancient”?) writings. Not the other way around.

            The book received widespread praise, but was viciously condemned by scientists whose cherished theories he disrespected. This is not new. This is how science works.

            Sorry but “this is how science works” is a ridiculous statement. Yes, there are certain forces active to silence critics, as can be seen in the AGW discussion. But to project that to all of science doesn’t make any sense. Science is a study, based on a philosophy, science is not the group of people claiming to perform science.

            Behind the scenes his publisher was threatened, books were destroyed and reissued by another publisher. Reviews of the book trashing it were written by people who proudly admitted they had not read it. Attacks came from all quarters, seminars were held in which he was not allowed to participate, or where he was heavily outnumbered. This too is how science works.

            “Attacks”? Or founded criticism? Or both? The book was #1 on the New York Times bestseller list for 11 weeks (“an instant NYT bestseller” Wikipedia calls it). The number may be a clue, or coincidental, it is not about that. But it is about the listing. We know how controlled those publishers and lists are and rogue authors do not reach that level, that is the terrain of the scripted authors; the Hemingways, Fitzgeralds, and others covered by Miles Mathis. Or do you believe Velikovsky was some Asterix village exception in an ocean of controlled writers? What is your evidence for that idea?

            He had one supporter who actually read his work, wrote in the margins, and was prepared to use his reputation to encourage experiments to test his hypothesis, Albert Einstein. He died before he could carry out his promise.

            You seem to suggest here that support by Einstein is a good thing? I would say the exact opposite. Magician Einstein was elemental in turning an empirical science (physics) into a theoretical (=non-empirical) field, which has done more harm than good.

            It is also not relevant. As I don’t care about Carl Sagan slaughtering Velikovsky, I don’t care about the other side, Einstein praising him, either. Both “authorities” have no merit; only his work itself does.

            Velikovsky introduced the idea of electromagnetism into a gravity-run solar system.

            Like Miles Mathis, this idea may be valid or not, but it is and always will be pure speculation. We cannot go into space to test it, so it is an idea. Maybe right, maybe false, who knows.

            He claimed that Jupiter emitted radio waves. He said Venus was extremely hot (when scientists thought it almost habitable), that it had a realtively flat surface free of craters,

            Again, speculative. We cannot see the surface of Venus directly, at least not in visible light. And it is presented as highly volcanic. How does Velikovsky know it is “free of craters”?

            and even though invisible, still sported a cometary tail.

            Huh? If it is invisible, how does he know Venus has a cometary tail?

            He claimed craters of our moon, elliptical, are evidence not of meteorites, but an encounter with a larger body.

            Most craters on the Moon are round or only slightly elliptical. How does “a larger body” produce so many craters?

            He claimed that cometary tails, loaded with hydrocarbons, would leave not just oil, but carbohydrates behind (manna).

            Where were those hydrocarbons coming from in cometary tails? Where are his measurements of that?

            He claimed there was a world wide flood caused by a swelling of the oceans.

            Yes, this biblical “deluge” idea has been presented in the first chapters of Earth in Upheaval. He used 3 (!!) examples for that idea that allegedly “prove” such a world-wide flood existed. One on a Siberian island, Monte Bolca in Italy and the Old Red Sandstone of Wales. But that is not science. That is cherry picking. You cannot just select 3 examples that “fit your hypothesis” and ignore all the rest. Well, you can, but it has nothing to do with science.

            The problem is also that the ORS is Silurian-Devonian, very old (according to mainstream dating 450-350 million years), while Monte Bolca is Eocene (around 50-40 million years) and the Siberian example much younger, like Pleistocene (so max 2.5 million years). How can someone compare those three very different ages (the exact ages are debatable, but not the relative ages) and claim they all were the result of a world-wide flood?

            He also talked about “erratic boulders” as evidence of a deluge, using an example from the Alps (mass flow deposits are very common there, no flood needed) and the glacial boulders of northern Europe (again, satisfactorily explained by moraines; glaciers transporting large boulders over 100s of kms).

            If there would be a “world-wide deluge”, why don’t we find those boulders everywhere on Earth, but are they restricted to areas covered by ice in the past?

            All is proven or evidenced to be correct.

            According to whom? Velikovsky himself? That is circular reasoning and also not scientific.

            Nothing he offered has been shown to be wrong.

            Then he would be the first and only person in the world who is not wrong on at least 1 point. You don’t mind me not believing such a claim, right?

            He followed up with a book that did not rely on ancient writings, but rather physical evidence all around us, to support his theory. It is called Earth in Upheaval. I have highlighted and transcribed passage from it, and will send you that Word file if you want to peruse it.

            Yes, as explained, he does what many so-called alternative proponents do, including Simon Shack in his TYCHOS book; cherry picking. Ignoring a huge amount of information and only using some examples to “prove” his idea right. That is not scientific.

            This kind of thinking is not new, and I don’t know the details of the “attacks” by scientists, but I assume this is one of their (very valid) criticisms.

            That is all I am willing to do. Wave of the hand dismissals are not your style, so I hope you explore further.

            I do not dismiss it by a wave of the hand indeed. I only got to chapter 3 and there are many more but from what I read so far it is not promising. Another form of cherry picking Velikovsky does is using the first geologists and paleontologists (Buckland, Cuvier, Lyell, Darwin) as they also believed in the Bible as a valid source. So ignoring the 100-150 years of research afterwards.

            I really struggle to understand how you can put so much trust in this kind of “research”. As much as I criticize the TYCHOS, at least there is a more scientific approach in that book than what I have read so far of Velikovsky.

            Like

  14. ok I am going to chime in here. things were moving in an interesting direction. B.Muller has added many interesting comments, supplied calm rational logic when emotions were taking over many of us, and having seen her posts on different forums, her replies are all the same grammatically speaking. Now i find it interesting that Ryan T seems to have started the personal attack on her. It seem to me we were getting somewhere with this Damon Bunch, ideas and the pooling of knowledge and headway was being made. Then everyone got to knitpicking what was said months ago-because no one else here changes there opinion when confronted with new info. Ryan T has done exactly what he is accusing B Muller of doing. He derailed the conversation, got everyone involved in she said and we say type of argument, people who were prove wrong in the past by B Muller jumped on the bandwagon and viola the topic was derailed. Hopefully this will not be like when I warned everyone about Miles being a committee and got attacked. I was right then and I think I am right now. B Muller always adds some interest comments that move things along in a way that challenges us to do more research and expand our knowledge. Did Ryan T do that in any of his comments on this post or did he just sabotage a topic because we were collectively getting closer to the method to the power that be’s madness?
    I think there is a gatekeeper and I for one will not be happy if I don’t continue to read the insight of B Muller on POM.

    Like

    1. When jumping on a band wagon that drives toward proving a point, Don’t look at it’s riders…Look at the whip cracker holding the reins.

      Like

    2. Chaz, you build a beautiful straw man. You ascribe to me statements and motives that are simply not mine.

      If you look at the history of my comments on this blog, you will see that I have no record of being a derailing artist.

      B. Muller, on the other hand, has a solid record of being a contrarian, even when that means staking out an outlandish position (“All genealogical websites are hoaxes.” “DNA is a hoax.”) or misconstruing the gist of someone’s comment.

      If you have worked with Germans, as I have, you get a feel for the kind of mistakes they make in English. B. Muller does not make these kinds of mistakes, but instead introduces random typos and word omissions to make his/her writing look like it comes from a foreigner. At other times, B. Muller writes perfect English. I would expect someone faking an accent to fake it the same way on every website he/she visits. So the fact that his/her replies are “all the same grammatically speaking” is irrelevant. But I think you knew that.

      “Nitpicking over what was said months ago” (actually, only a week or two) is, on the other hand, completely relevant. Comparing contradictory statements from the same author makes it possible to show that someone is saying things just to stir the pot, and not because he/she really has any commitment to the statements he/she makes.

      I think we are all savvy enough to know that the Internet provides a playground for time-wasting trolls to have a lot of fun. Cards on the table: B/ Muller is that kind of troll. The more attention his/her negating comments get, the more he/she gets her rocks off. Or maybe gets paid. Who’s to say? On the Internet, a 45-year-old neckbeard chowing down on Doritos in Poughkeepsie can pretend to be a elderly mother sending comments from the former East Germany. It happens all the time, and there is no reason to think that anyone is who they say they are.

      In fact, Charlie, you might be B. Muller’s altar ego. Who knows?

      Bottom line: this is Mark’s blog. If he thinks I am the problem for pointing out a troll, he should give me the heave-ho.

      Liked by 1 person

    3. thank you Charlie Townsend for the kind words. As long as Mark does not throw me away, I will gladly add my two cents whenever I feel the need. Miles Mathis already outed himself as a committee posting recently more and more papers written by his mates, which he calls guest writers. I also started to think that this entire genealogy movement on internet is a part of what I call “The Great Deception”. Even Wikipedia is more reliable. You can see there to a degree who’s changing what in the history. Not so on the genealogy sites. Did all the famous people paid for the accounts to put there their data and if not who did? That’s the diversion Miles Mathis is selling. All the combined names, suggestions that all goes back to the peerage. It’s not entirely a lie of course. They have to keep the illusion of peerage and aristocracy alive to make us look up to them. As they make us look up to the billionaires, which are also only actors.

      Like

      1. Has Miles outed himself as a committee? Memories misused?
        Didn’t Kevin Starr contribute his outing of old Hollywood stars there (more ‘Strange Relations’ please, KS) as a guest writer several times?
        Nobody knows everything for certain, but saying it is so, is not proving it is.

        Like

          1. I think BM disagrees with everything on purpose sometimes just for the sake of it. Is she a troll?, I don’t know, but some people would argue with Saint Peter at the gate.

            Like

      2. “I also started to think that this entire genealogy movement on [the] internet is a part of what I call ‘The Great Deception'”. This is worth consideration. I think it is also being used as a marketing tool to get people to hand over their DNA to companies like 23andMe and Ancestry.com. I remember an advertisement for Ancestry.com in which an African American woman described her sense of pride at having discovered, through DNA testing, that she descended from the queen of an African tribe. Curiosity about where we come from can be compelling, although one should consider the far reaching implications of handing over one’s DNA to these companies. You receive a bit of information about your genetic background and in exchange they hold onto your DNA in perpetuity. I recall reading on 23andMe’s website a disclaimer stating that if the company was ever bought out their terms and conditions could be subject to change at the discretion of the new company owner.

        There is also an interesting nexus between 23andMe and Google. 23andMe was founded in 2006 by Linda Avey, Paul Cusenza and Anne Wojcicki in 2006. Anne Wojcicki married Google co-founder Sergey Brin in May 2007 (now divorced), and her sister, Susan, is the current CEO of YouTube and also helped found Google.

        Clint Richardson has written much on the subject of genomics and is worth reading. Following his lead, I recently took it upon myself to slog through the King James Bible and found the following regarding the value (or lack thereof) of genealogy:

        1 Timothy 1:4

        “Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.”

        Titus 3:9

        “But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.”

        The elite’s practice of claiming authority due to descent from a real or imagined ancestor is an ancient one. An excellent analysis of the formation of ancient societies is written here:

        http://hipcrimevocab.com/2018/11/17/the-composition-of-ancient-society/

        “…The most common of these forms was the tribe, which was based around imagined descent from a common ancestor. Eventually tribes became nations, and later states, but that’s another story. ‘The Individual’ was a rare breed, and was created as a legal fiction mainly for contractual obligation purposes as literacy became more widespread and trade more extensive in the Renaissance and Early Modern period. ‘The Individual’ first appeared in Roman Law, and then disappeared with the dissolution of the Western Empire, only to return emphatically during the modern era…”

        Like

  15. Charlie, despite suggestions to the contrary, Barbara is welcome here and her manner of discussion, now clarified by Gaia as argumentum ad ignorantiam is easier to deal with when so described. Whether she is someone other than her true self, whether she is a paid troll I cannot know. We have had those, and by use of IP addresses even outed a few as being the same person using different names. I’ve not followed that route with Muller, and don’t have any desire to do so. She has not derailed things so much as simply inserted doubt, forcing us to add more rigor, and also to offer evidence for things so well known that we should just ignore her. DNA comes to mind. My real life experiences mean nothing to her. So be it.

    Regarding gatekeeping, I don’t like having the word applied to me as it implies that I have an unstated agenda. If you read our commenting policy, the agenda is openly stated. If you have been reading along over time, you will see that I am a real person, and have named my birth family and place of birth, and put my birth certificate up for all to see. Who else has done that? I have used my photo on occasion. Other than flying around the world and paying personal visits to commenters, I don’t see what more I can do.

    Like

    1. Mark, you said there are “THREE” types of people who visit your blog, and I know where I fit in here,and so do you…I just chime in from time to time, and call it the way I see it… I know my comments here, are not appreciated, But..What you have here is more than just an attack on “B.M”…There is more than just a “Gatekeeper”.. There are keepers,and then there are “KEEPERS”, And with that being said…I think it’s time the TRIGGER MAN says, “Fare-Thee-Well”

      Like

  16. YEs, BM is very well versed at what she does. And if she is who I believe she to be, then time (again one of their tools) shall tell the truth in this zone.

    Like

    1. What do you mean by, who she is, or what she does..Why don’t you stop beating around the bush ? say whats on your mind, instead of trying to get everyone else on your side to bring her out into the light ? if she is, who you think she is…why don’t you just come out and say it, and have some Balls… stop looking for public persecution to support your war rally…if she’s guilty..one of her well versed tools will fail and bring her into the “ZONE”.

      Like

  17. The makers of the cable show in the OP^^ where seeking to further demonize the whites. And especially southern whites again. The Ho;;ywood Ziofest does love to dish it out on to them at every turn. BUT, using these replicates or clone/drone beings? The el-ite laugh how they get away with so much for so long.

    Like

  18. I don’t check in often lately, but have been reading some of these comments, though not all. Please forgive if someone else has made the same observation— I suspect that B. Mueller might be MM.

    Like

      1. Aye Captain. She has the markings of another blogger I have encountered else where. Although this one^^ seems sedated at times, the traits are strongly similar.

        Like

      2. I don’t think so either, but I still can’t find any info about worms DNA being 99% like humans. I’ve seen 70% for the Acorn Worm, and 50% for a banana! No 99%.

        Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s