C-130 video & photos disprove 84th RADES data while corroborating witnesses & pilot

Ever since the release of our latest presentation The North Side Flyover, the pseudo-skeptics have chosen to ignore the implications of the fact that the north side witness count has exploded from 4 to 13, and have instead launched a furious (and way off base) diversion campaign to defend the official radar data flight path of the C-130, which is ALSO fatally contradicted by these new witnesses (as well as the pilot himself Lt. Col Steve O'Brien).

It's a fine case of people asserting something with authority over and over hoping it will stick but if you actually read what they are saying you can see there is nothing to definitively back up their claims. It's really just a bunch of unsupported smoke blowing.

And of course they are wrong.

I'll show why and back it up.


But before I get into details let's take a quick look at the back story surrounding us uncovering the anomalous C-130 flight path.


Way back in March of 2007, my partner Aldo Marquis posted a thread outlining how the C-130 pilot's statements regarding his flight path and interaction with the attack jet contradict the NTSB data.
pilotsfor911truth.org...

Rob Balsamo conducted an email interview with the C-130 pilot Lt. Col Steve O'Brien around the same time.

In that interview, O'Brien reaffirmed what he had said in other interviews, and what Aldo had already posted, which is that he was headed westbound after having flown by the Mall when he first saw the attack jet.

"Our first sighting of the AA flight was just after we had gone by the mall westbound."
-Lt. Col. Steve O'Brien

This simple statement is fatal to the NTSB data thrusting O'Brien into the spotlight of evidence proving the official story false. A subpoena of O'Brien during a congressional inquiry could break the case wide open.

Aldo later sent an email to the public relations department to request a follow up interview with O'Brien in July 2007 to nail down the flight path details even more.

In August 2007 Aldo received a reply back from O'Brien who agreed to answer our follow up questions when he said something to the effect of "how can I be of assistance?"

Aldo proceeded to send an extremely detailed set of questions in order to nail down exactly where he flew and his interaction with the Pentagon attack jet.

At first, O'Brien said he was busy with training and would eventually get to it. Then after weeks of no reply, Aldo had simplified the questions and asked him to at least look at the attached flight path images. O'Brien said that his network was not allowing him to open the images. After making it even more simplified with links to the images, O'Brien stopped replying all together.

After numerous phone calls to public relations who said they kept trying to get O'Brien to respond to us, we still never saw a reply.

Then the 84th RADES alleged radar data of all the planes in the area from 9/11 was released on Oct 5th 2007.


From FOIA originator:

"On October 5, 2007 I received 4 CD’s containing that data with a cover letter dated September 13, 2001 indicating it was prepared at the request of the FBI. The CD’s contain multiple raw data files and projects specific to software provided by RADES.

So....within a few months after we publicly posted the anomalies in O'Brien's account in relation to the NTSB flight path of alleged "flight 77", as well as obtained direct confirmation from O'Brien regarding our interpretation..........O'Brien fell mysteriously silent and the alleged radar data was released showing something that simply did not match what he had been saying.



Have the pseudo-skeptics even bothered to try and get a hold of O'Brien?

Doubt it. They sure never claimed they did. Instead they confidently assert that the available photographs and video of the plane support the RADES data even though they don't provide a sufficient argument as to WHY.

They are simply stating it with authority while hoping you believe them. They are being as forceful as they can with this manufactured point as desperate spin against all of the new eyewitness accounts we provided proving us right, O'Brien right, and the 84 RADES data fraudulent.

They want you to reject independent verifiable evidence in favor of faith based government controlled and supplied data.

This is why they are called "pseudo-skeptics".


But let's get into this photographic and video evidence they are falsely using in defense of their faith.


Anthony Tribby video and Bruce Looney images


These images and video had been around for a while but the C-130 was indistinguishable and therefore could only be fairly called a "UFO" at that point.

Curiously, in July of this year (2008), Tribby released more of the video showing the craft more clearly so now we can speak with more confidence that it was in fact the C-130.

1. original video (was hosted on his site long before being uploaded to youtube)
2. close-up released in July 2008



Here is what notorious CIT admittedly obsessed detractor Caustic Logic determined about it's location based on the Tribby video back on Feb 12th 2008:


Now here is a screen cap of the Tribby video added with a landmark showing how CL was actually pretty correct for once!


This location of the C-130 banking away is too far east to match the RADES data but matches perfectly with what we were told by the witnesses in Arlington Cemetery as you can see in Part 1 of our new presentation The North Side Flyover.




Frankly the difference is close enough that it is understandable how the pseudo-skeptics are able to use the power of suggestion to manipulate you due to perception issues in order to blend the two and say it all matches the official data. But when looked at more closely and using landmarks, the RADES data starts to fall apart. Plus, even more obvious, the contradictions with the independent evidence we have regarding the approach and timing completely destroy the RADES data once and for all. We'll get into that in a bit.



Now on to the Bruce Looney images.....

Undertow of www.aa77fdr.com... studied the Bruce Looney photos from Ft McNair and, unlike the pseudo-skeptics, yet like the screen shot added to the Tribby video above, he actually used ground landmarks to figure out a more precise location of the plane.

Well okay. Here's what I think after studying these pictures.

They show a C-130 in 3 photos.
I have located his position as well as one of the buildings seen behind the tree line.

This GE map is marked up as follows:
Yellow Line - Camera spot
Yellow Circle - Bldg ID'd, white round top
L.Blue Line - duh
Red Lines - These are the approx view angle from the camer to the C130 seen in the pictures, actual distance from camera and altitude unknown.
Lower line - C130 is perpendicular to camera, imo most likely behind the plume.
Upper Line - C130 is traveling directly away from camera or nearly directly away.

Here is picture 160 (2nd in series) with a picture of the bldg I ID'd in the photo.
I have also taken picture 161 (1st C130 picture) and shrunk it's size to match photo 160, then pasted it over the top of the plume.
I took pic 162, cropped, resized , and transparent overlay it over the pic 160 as well. I added a black line under the C130 (?) in this picture.
pic 163 overlayed as well.
timestamps added to pieces.

This gives rough accurate composite of what it looked like I believe.

(side note: Look how high it is! Do you really think our first critical flyover witness Roosevelt Roberts Jr. could have mistaken that for a commercial airliner "just above the light poles"?? The flyover witness did NOT describe the C-130 no matter how many times the pseudo-skeptics confidently assert this nonsense to you just as we said they would.)



The fact that undertow actually used a landmark makes his analysis INFINITELY more credible and accurate than the pseudo-skeptics who simply state their belief as if it should automatically be accepted despite the obvious fact that perspective issues make determining the exact location virtually impossible.

You HAVE to use landmarks.

These shots show it flying away to the northwest (exactly where it came from), not the west as the fabricated RADES data shows...

www.aa77fdr.com...
www.aa77fdr.com...
www.aa77fdr.com...

So you see the video and photographs support the EYEWITNESSES (and O'Brien's statements) giving 4 separate independent sources contradicting the dubious government supplied 84 RADES data, that was conveniently released soon after we started aggressively inquiring direct with O'Brien about this clear anomaly.

But the contradictions don't end there!




Approach path and timing


The APPROACH of the C-130 is not caught on video or photographs.

But the eyewitnesses we present all saw it approach from the north west or from over Arlington Cemetery.



Crude estimation of the approach that they describe compared to completely opposite RADES approach:


This is absolutely fatal to the official data. This is the main reason the pseudo-skeptics are going so strong with the false assertion that the images and video support the data. They prefer to discredit the independent genuine witnesses who were there in order to defend this dubious government data at all costs.


The timing is important too....they describe it as coming in the scene well after the explosion, as much as a couple minutes later.

Of course this ALSO matches with what O'Brien and Tribby prove about the timing!

Tribby claims he didn't turn on his camera for "approximately one minute" after the explosion and you don't see the C-130 until 1:48 which means it was about 3:00 minutes later.

O'Brien straight up admitted that he was so far away from the Pentagon at the time of the attack that he could not even tell at first that the explosion was coming from the Pentagon!

"When I saw the initial explosion I was not able to see exactly where or what it had impacted, but remember trying to approximate a position to give to ATC."
-Lt. Col. Steve O'Brien

Although he was ordered to turn around and follow the attack jet by the time he turned around it was too late. He never got a chance to follow it.

So once again the video and the pilot himself corroborate the witnesses.

Well......the genuine witnesses.

Before we got a hold of O'Brien and exposed all these details it was clear that the media and government were trying to ambiguously paint a picture that some sort of plane or jet closely followed or shadowed "Flight 77", which is eventually blended into and blamed on the C-130, that DID in fact attempt to follow the attack jet, but never got the chance to.

The fraudulent RADES data gives a mild impression of the C-130 following closely behind on the official story flight path, but the following suspect alleged witnesses were a bit more bold in their assertions of this well before the data was even released.

Keith Wheelhouse specifically claims the C-130 was "shadowing" the attack jet and veered away over the cemetery at the very last moment or during the explosion!

From exclusive November 2007 interview with CIT:


He was the only one who was so specific about this proven false claim (not even the fraudulent RADES data supports it) and there was a series of articles in local newspaper The Daily Press by reporter Terry Scanlon detailing Wheelhouse's anomalous account only days after the event. Again, our belief was that this ambiguous second plane/jet story was circulated to cover for the flyover/away, but eventually turned into the C-130 which was really in the area. We believe that once the event was sold, suspect witnesses would no longer need to worry about being questioned about this. However, if they were ever questioned again by independent investigators like CIT, they would have to carefully tailor their responses especially in light of the release of the RADES data.

So Keith Wheelhouse was able to perfectly relay to us the fraudulent C-130 flight path from the newly released official data, but he was not able to back out of his anomalous "shadowing" claim. Sure enough he dutifully stuck by it in our exclusive interview with him.

Strangely, in yet another "coincidence", out of the small handful of previously published "2nd plane" witnesses, a good portion were USA Today employees.

They were more ambiguous than Wheelhouse in their previous quotes about timing and type of plane (Vin Narayanan even called it a "jet"!). But when we got USA Today editor Joel Sucherman in the CIT hot seat we got him to nail down exactly when he allegedly saw the C-130 after the explosion. He told us "3 to 5 seconds"!

People can easily write off what Sucherman said to time distortion due to a traumatic event. But he was very lucid in the other details he alleges to have seen and was a major part of the mainstream media propaganda campaign to sell the official story immediately after the event. But remember, if we didn't press for details, he would have remained an ambiguous witness account to an alleged second plane (which he did not and would not even try to identify) peeling off immediately at the time of the alleged impact. As he was pressed for details, the second plane begins to turn into and starts to sound an awful lot like the C-130 while still remaining vague and ambiguous enough to continue to serve as cover for the flyover.



Frankly we find it suspicious that he would act so clueless as to what this 2nd plane was. Whether or not he could tell that it was a C-130, you would think that an editor for a major news outlet who was prominently featured as a witness to the event would have at least heard of or read reports of the C-130 after the fact. But when we interviewed him in 2006 he acted completely clueless as if he had no notion whatsoever about reports of Lt. Col Steve O'Brien and the C-130.

The Tribby video is the ultimate proof that these guys were not being honest about this 2nd plane being immediately in the scene.

It is not logical to suggest such high profile "credible" alleged witnesses could mistake it as "shadowing" or coming in "3 to 5 seconds" later and "veering away" immediately after the explosion when the Tribby video, the pilot himself, and all the other witnesses completely contradict them.

But what's 100% clear is that by having ANY witnesses place the "2nd plane" there at the time of the explosion it helps serve as perfect cover for the flyover.

Details and exclusive interviews with Wheelhouse, Sucherman, and Vin Narayanan available in our short presentation The 2nd Plane Cover Story.

The pseudo-skeptics simply blow all of this off and confidently assert that the government data is right despite all of these clear anomalies.

They are once again forced to suggest that all of the witnesses were simultaneously remembering the opposite of reality in order to defend the official data.

They want you to simply believe them when they say everything matches perfectly with the official story and to dismiss all the independent evidence proving otherwise out of nothing but pure faith in the government.

Does that really make sense? Is that true "skepticism"?

The only witness who has the C-130 on the RADES flight path is Keith Wheelhouse but he is fully discredited with his "shadowing" claim that contradicts the data and isn't supported by anything else.

So the fact that we now have these 4 genuine new witnesses giving us clear corroborated accounts of the C-130 approach and bank away, and the fact that this is corroborated by the photos and video as well as O'Brien, should be enough for any intellectually honest person to realize that there are serious issues in regards to this mysterious "2nd plane" once again implicating a military deception.


Oh and did I mention that the Arlington Cemetery witnesses also saw the attack jet on the north side of the citgo?




Here is more overwhelming evidence that shows how the attack jet flew over DC skies on our proposed DC/East of Potomac flight flight path which also means the C-130 flew on the Morningside Departure/south of the mall flight path:
z3.invisionfree.com...

So do you choose to believe the genuine independent witnesses who were NOT used as part of the propaganda campaign and are corroborated by video, images, and the pilot himself? Or do you choose to believe the dubious 2007 released government supplied 84 RADES data and radio transcripts that are not backed up by anything but the anonymous pseudo-skeptics online authoritatively stating over and over that they are valid?

Bottom line the C-130 pilot needs to be subpoenaed in a congressional hearing because he could easily put all of this to rest.

No doubt this is why the pseudo-skeptics didn't even bother trying to contact him and why if he ever resurfaces for another media interview that you won't hear a single word regarding his flight path.

Since this issue has been beaten to death already, I'll keep it short and sweet.

This image

and these transcripts prove you wrong.

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT

No doubt this is why the pseudo-skeptics didn't even bother trying to contact him and why if he ever resurfaces for another media interview that you won't hear a single word regarding his flight path.

PM me his contact info and I will do it tomorrow. I guarantee that you will not like what he has to say.

These are the two questions I'll ask him:

1) Who worked up your flight plan on the morning of 9/11?

2) Did you depart on Morningside One or Camp Springs One?

Simple enough?

Originally posted by Boone 870
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT

 

No doubt this is why the pseudo-skeptics didn't even bother trying to contact him and why if he ever resurfaces for another media interview that you won't hear a single word regarding his flight path.

PM me his contact info and I will do it tomorrow. I guarantee that you will not like what he has to say.

Whoops! Timing, Relative Position of the two aircraft, Direction of turn to follow AA77 all correlate.

Guess we don't even need to correct his video and photograph analysis.

I'll bet you a beer, you don't get contact info or if you do suddenly O'Brien will be "in on it".

reply to post by Boone 870


I don't give contact information for real people to anonymous pseudoskeptics.

PM me your real name, I'll reply back with my phone number, call me and and talk to me like any normal honest human would, and I'll be happy to provide you with contact information.

Otherwise there is nothing stopping you from finding it on your own.

As obsessed as you are with this issue I can't fathom why you haven't already.

It was the very first thing we did before running with the story back in March of 2007.

You have dedicated yourself to spinning it ever since without so much as lifting a finger to back up your claims.

That is the clear difference between us.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by Boone 870

 

I don't give contact information for real people to anonymous pseudoskeptics.

You owe me a beer Boone.

On the other hand, O'Brien is not really needed. There is already enough.....

Originally posted by Reheat

On the other hand, O'Brien is not really needed. There is already enough.....

Just look at you guys grovel!

Why would you need ME to contact him?

Obviously he is the key to this mystery that you have both devoted so much time to spin in favor of the official story.

Please reheat, do tell, how much effort have you made to contact O'Brien?

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by Reheat

On the other hand, O'Brien is not really needed. There is already enough.....

Just look at you guys grovel!

Grovel? No, actually I'm having a beer before I sleep and enjoying the heck out of watching you squirm and avoid facing how these transcripts blow your crap out of the air!

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Why would you need ME to contact him?

You said you did already and he wouldn't talk with you in detail. Quite frankly, I could care less if you or anyone else contacts him. That really isn't needed.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Obviously he is the key to this mystery that you have both devoted so much time to spin in favor of the official story.

The only spin involved is YOURS. You see, the transcripts are enough and they blow your fantasy to smithereens.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Please reheat, do tell, how much effort have you made to contact O'Brien?

None whatsoever! I don't need to do that at all. I understand what he said and I understand where he flew on 9/11. I also understand where AA77 flew, as well. Now, it's fully confirmed, so I'm glad I didn't bother him. You and Alpo badgering him about his experience are more than enough for any one human being to have to deal with in a lifetime.

[edit on 2-9-2008 by Reheat]

reply to post by Reheat


Right.

Got it.

You've made no effort whatsoever to contact him and you refuse to while continuing to spin his past claims to fit something he did not describe.

Blind faith that avoids hard evidence at all cost.

Brilliant!

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by Reheat

 

You've made no effort whatsoever to contact him and you refuse to while continuing to spin his past claims to fit something he did not describe.

You keep failing to mention or address that the Communication Transcripts from Reagan TRACAN (RADAR) tell the complete story. Pssst - they don't agree with your story.

Here they are again reduced to just the conversation between TYSON (Reagan National TRACON) and Gopher 06 (the C-130).



aal77.com...

Blind faith that avoids hard evidence at all cost.

He says while looking into the mirror

[edit on 3-9-2008 by Reheat]

reply to post by Reheat


I'm sorry but you have provided no independent verifiable evidence.

That alleged "transcript" (that is not really a transcript at all) is nothing but a random document that was created, prepared, and supplied by the suspect.

Besides......there is nothing in it that directly contradicts a single one of the points in the OP anyway!

You are bluffing with authority and confidence but you can't pull the wool over my eyes.

Faith based claims are not evidence and hollow faith based claims are worth even less.

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT


You may be able to sell this snake oil here, but I would pay to see you try to sell it to anyone that matters.

reply to post by Reheat


You have not made a single reply in this thread with substance.

Come on reheat...I dare you.

VERBALIZE exactly how that alleged "transcript" contradicts a single point I made.

Or why don't YOU go ahead and contradict a single point I made with your own words?

Let's hear it.

Back it up with evidence.

Links, images, explanations.

Talk like an adult and leave out the insults.

Please.

We're all waiting.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by Reheat

 

We're all waiting.

My, my, you are impatient aren't you. I will at my convenience, but I want to watch you squirm first.

You don't understand it because you are ignorant about physics and about anything at all related to aviation.

In the meantime, you might try explaining the difference between a RIGHT turn and a LEFT turn. You do know the difference, don't you? You can try explaining that little problem in your scenario to your fans while I sleep......

[edit on 3-9-2008 by Reheat]

Originally posted by Boone 870

These are the two questions I'll ask him:

1) Who worked up your flight plan on the morning of 9/11?

2) Did you depart on Morningside One or Camp Springs One?

Simple enough?

Boone, I will say that if you are not honest or forthright enough to have a phone conversation with me in order to get a jump on the contact info, yet you are finally at least contemplating making your own effort to reach him anyway.........

Your 2 questions are awesome but I would add one more for ultimate certainty:

3. Were you north or south of Reagan National when you first saw the attack jet?

I would ask that question first as the answer would put a definite end to the controversy.

reply to post by Reheat


Just as I thought.

Nothing.

You blow a lot of smoke and feign authority but when push comes to shove you have zero independent verifiable evidence.

Are you sure you are a "skeptic"?

You've had your thread on this issue now for weeks yet you can't come up with a single thing to refute what I have presented.

I present evidence.

You confidently dismiss it based on faith.

That's it in a nutshell.

Hi reheat!

Must say that there's something very strange about your person.
It seems to me that you're doing everything you possibly can to give us the impression that you are everything but an honest and truthful chap.
You project yourself with an enormous arrogance, self-admiration and self-satisfaction.
Your posts are saturated with scorn, belittlement, ridicule and acid oozing sarcasm, which of course can only come from a rather dark person whose mind would be unable to contain any traces of honesty and truthfulness. As you ought to be aware of, these qualities can only be present in persons who are mature, intelligent, understanding, tolerant and good, etc..

To find out whether you really are a good guy who is honest and can be trusted, or one who is more likely to be deceitful than anything else, I will quote some passages in following posts, which, if you're honest, mature, intelligent etc. will receive without any hesitation.
But if you're not any of this, I certainly would not recommend you to read any of the
following, as it would in all likelihood either just scare you to 'dead', or just give more fuel to your beloved scorn and ridicule!

I hope of course, in reality, you're a good man, and trust we will hear only positive comments from your side til the following:

Continues...

....continued:

All warfare is rooted in Darkness

In his “State of the Union” address 2003, President George W. Bush concluded his speech with these words:


“We Americans have faith in ourselves, but not in ourselves alone. We do not
know – we do not claim to know all the ways of Providence, yet we can trust in them, placing our confidence in the loving God behind all of life, and all of history.

May He guide us now. And may God continue to bless the United States of America.”


Whether the President and his administration have since placed their confidence in ‘the loving God behind all of life’, and whether this God in the same period have guided the President and blessed the United States of America, is today worthy of a new look, and we hope the answer to these questions will appear to all good and kind people in the messages that follows.

Let us remind ourselves first and foremost of the Golden Rule (which is present in virtually all known religions, as well as being used by more prominent Philosophers, Scribes and Sages, through the ages), and which simply state: Do to others as you would others do to you, when destitution, sickness or suffering in various ways befalls you.
Coinciding with the Golden Rule, we were also given this little simple advise: As you sow, so shall you reap!

In the Light of this, let us go on and carefully read these extracts from a work titled “Toward the Light”. 1920.

"(.......)
I speak unto you who are the rulers of the many nations, whether you be rulers by inheritance or election, and whichever title you may bear. Hear me, for I speak unto you all!

Make it your common goal that each of you shall become the best and most worthy person of your nation. Demand much of yourselves, that you may demand much of others. Be beyond reproach in your dealings, that all may respect, honour and love you. Choose your counsellors with great care and wisdom, and choose them from among those who are unselfish, truthful, wise and just. Protect the weak, the poor and the oppressed. Be unselfish in your care for the welfare of the nations and the peoples. Never act against that which your conscience tells you to be truth and justice.

Do not gain dominion over the realms of others by force or by cunning, and never compel the people of other nations to submit in humility to your rule; for all this is of the evil!

Be understanding and patient toward the people whose native countries have been seized by your forefathers, by your predecessors or by yourselves. Seek to rectify and to assuage some of the injustice that has been brought upon those who have been compelled by force and through hatred and envy to live under foreign rule, and who against their will have been separated from those states to which they rightfully belong.

Be as brethren toward one another. With good will abolish all strife and dispute, and never disturb the peace which prevails among the realms and the nations.

Yea, truly I say unto you: be you the first to establish an enduring, brotherly concord; and pray unto our Father to bless you and the pact which you agree upon, that you and your successors may be able to keep the promises that you have given one another. Yea, pray unto our Father to bless you, that you and those who come after you may never, never again break the peace upon the Earth!

Pray unto our Father to enlighten you upon the truth of my words. Pray unto Him for help and guidance, that each of you may truly fill the position that is yours.

Continues....

...... continued:

" I speak unto you who are the givers of laws, unto you who in numerous ways take part in the various kinds of governance in the nations and the states. Hear me, for I speak unto you all!

Make it your common goal fully and with all your might to serve the country and the people to which you belong. Prepare your laws as though you yourselves should be judged by each and every statute, for then will your laws be just.

Do not by guile or with deceit force yourselves into high positions that are not rightfully yours and which you cannot properly fill. Be truthful to the utmost and be sincere in all your speech. Never act against your conscience, indeed, never act upon selfish thoughts of personal gain! Cease all your disgraceful strife and quarrelling. Never hurl bitter or hateful words against those who share not your beliefs. Do not besmirch the name and honour of your adversaries by false accusations, by untrue and wicked slander. Be meek toward one another. Go to meet one another, seek to work in mutual peace and understanding, that you may best further the interests of the nations and the peoples.

Abolish all condemning unto death; for no human being has the right to take the life of another, no matter how many crimes have been committed. Do not prepare laws that compel your brethren to murder and to slay one another in warfare; for all this is of the evil! Let all bearing of arms be of the free will, until all the nations and lands upon the Earth are united in a lasting, unbreakable pact of peace.

Give proper care unto the poor, unto the sick and to the wretched of all ages - men as well as women - unto all abandoned wives, unto all needy widows and unto all orphans among you. For I say unto you: however vast your nation may be, there shall not be one single human being in distress - man, woman or child - who must beg for their daily bread. Nor must anyone able and willing to labour drift about without home and without work. Therefore, provide shelter, food, clothing and work without delay for all who cannot obtain these for themselves.

Support not and help not in any manner by which it becomes demeaning charity, but in such manner that those who receive the help and support from your society can with gladness and gratitude accept the help that is offered them.

Yea, truly, I say unto you: your obligations are many, and your responsibility is great; I ask you therefore carefully to consider that which I have said unto you. For you shall know that if out of selfishness or faintness of heart you give not care unto the poor, unto the suffering and to the unfortunate, then shall you surely taste the want and misery of the homeless and the poor in your coming lives upon the Earth until you have learnt to take pity on your unfortunate fellow human beings.
Pray unto our Father to open your eyes, that you may see the truth of my words. Pray unto our Father to sustain and to guide you; for is He with you, then shall your laws surely be fully just.”

continue.......