(0:00 - 0:58) By now, most of you are aware of the case of Jeff Eveley, who was fined over $28,000 for entering the woods in Nova Scotia. Eveley, who had been a candidate for the People's Party of Canada, notified park wardens before he went into the woods and made it clear he wanted to receive the fine in order to begin a court case against the provincial government for their blanket ban on citizens entering the woods. Apparently, five other people have also received fines, although it's unknown if they were intentionally seeking them, as Eveley was. According to the Canadian Interagency Forest Fire Centre website, as of today, there are 713 active fires, over 4,000 fires this year to date, with 7.5 million hectares burned. For context, the entire province of Nova Scotia is 5.5 million hectares. The fires have forced the evacuations of tens of thousands of people, including the entire city of Flin Flon, Manitoba, in May. (0:59 - 1:22) So far, an estimated 500-plus structures have been destroyed across the country, with over 100 homes destroyed in the past few days in Newfoundland and Labrador alone. So, of course, it's understandable that our governments don't want us going into the woods, where we could start forest fires. After all, global warming is making the forest dry, and just waiting for a spark from some careless camper to wipe out yet more homes. (1:23 - 1:56) Except for the fact there are serious problems with that narrative, and I don't just mean the fact that man-made global warming can be easily disproven as the worst kind of pseudo-scientific rubbish. Recently, we released my interview with arborist and forest fire expert Robert Brame, in which he shared with us his huge library of images which raised many questions about the forest fires in the US and Canada in recent years. The most suspicious of these are homes burned to white ash while nearby trees and even plastic playground equipment went untouched. (1:57 - 3:35) The image on the left here is the remains of a house from a, shall we say, normal forest fire, burned to the ground with what remains blackened while nearby trees have been severely scorched, and in many cases their upper branches burned away. The image on the right is from the recent LA fires, homes burned to white ash while nearby trees are untouched. Forest fires reach maximum temperatures of 800 degrees Celsius. Burning a home to white ash would require sustained temperatures at least 200 degrees Celsius higher than that, and likely in the range of 1400 to 1600 degrees Celsius, or about twice as much as most forest fires. Forest fires simply don't reach those temperatures. And notice the shed in the right hand photo? Every home in the neighborhood burned to the ground, but somehow that shed isn't even scorched. We'll get back to that. Here's an image of a mobile home completely destroyed, yet the attached deck hasn't burned at all. You would think that a fire intense enough to burn that mobile home down to nothing, but its metal frame would have ignited a wooden deck. In Greenville, California, Robert peeked over a retaining wall and took this photo of plastic play sets. The nearby homes had been burned to the ground, yet the plastic has only warped from the heat not melted. The maximum temperature a plastic play set could withstand before melting is 170 degrees Celsius, well below the 800 degrees of a natural forest fire, and well outside the range of the 1500 degrees required to reduce nearby homes to white ash. (3:35 - 4:53) How did the plastic play sets survive? And it gets stranger. Here are images of melted auto glass and aluminum. To melt aluminum, especially the aluminum alloys in cars, to a point where it would flow as seen in the image on the right, would require sustained temperatures around 1000 degrees. Again, substantially higher than forest fire temperatures. Melting auto glass would require about 1500 degrees and the glass would need to be exposed to that temperature for one to three minutes. This is not what would happen in a natural forest fire or an auto fire, even where the gas tank ruptures. A car with a full tank where the tank ruptures could burn for up to 30 minutes. However, the gasoline would burn away much sooner than that, and even during the hottest time of the fire, the temperature would not exceed a maximum of 1200 degrees Celsius. Once again, several hundred degrees short of what is needed to melt auto glass. Here's an interesting image I found on Alamy. It's of shattered windshield glass in a car that has been completely destroyed by fire. This is what we would expect to happen. The heat would break the glass but not melt it. Here's another image I found online. This was taken in California after the LA fires this year. (4:53 - 8:14) The unburned cars in the background appear to have been involved in a multi-car pileup, perhaps fleeing the area and blinded by smoke. The caption didn't say. But note the burned cars in the foreground with ribbers of melted aluminum and melted glass. Now look at the fir tree branch above them. Not even scorched. Robert showed us multiple images of fence boards that had burned only around nails, while the rest of the board is unburned. That is, by the way, a major clue as to what is really happening. Robert also showed images of tires, but only the steel belted tires burned. Tires with polyester belts did not. Another clue. And finally this. Robert also has many images of trees burned to at the base while the upper part of the tree remains green. None of the evidence aligns with forest fires, at least not natural ones. When I asked Robert when he had first started seeing these anomalies, keeping in mind that he has 50 years of experience with forest fires, he said it was around 2017. So I researched the number of homes in the U.S. and Canada destroyed by forest fires since 2010. Here's the U.S. with a major jump starting in 2017. And Canada, almost nothing until 2016, then a few years of relatively low numbers until 2021, where every year since then has been dramatically higher than the historical average except for 2022. Do note that Canadian data is less reliable than U.S. data, so it's the U.S. data that really tells the story. Finally, I researched the number of hectares burned year over year and calculated the ratio of homes burned to hectares burned, with the assumption that if something suspicious had been going on since around 2017, we'd see the number of homes burned in relation to the number of hectares burned increase, thus raising the suspicion that homes are being intentionally targeted. After all, if forest fires, burning towns and cities were random, as natural forest fires should be, then we would not see any noticeable trend in the relation of homes burned to hectares burned. But of course, that's not what the data shows. What the data shows is that more homes are burning per hectare burned since 2017. Here's the U.S., where we can see that the average number of homes burned year over year has increased dramatically since 2016 in comparison to the number of hectares burned. And here's Canada. Once again, the Canadian data is not as reliable, but we can still see an upward trend since the spike in 2016, the year after Justin Trudeau was elected. It seems quite clear that homes are being targeted. Why? And why do our governments not want us going into the woods? Since Trudeau was elected, the government has been telling us that the increase in forest fires is due to global warming. And while they've never explained the precise connection with that idea, I would assume it's because they're claiming that higher temperatures have led to the woods drying out and thus being more susceptible to catching fire. In addition, higher temperatures would lead to more thunderstorms, thus more lightning strikes. But the sad truth of human nature is that unless it affects them directly, most people don't care. (8:15 - 9:13) Burning more hectares of forest than the entire province of Nova Scotia? Oh gee, that's terrible. What's for dinner? We're being evacuated and our house is going to burn down. We need to do something about climate change right now. So they clear people out of the woods and one of two things happens. The number of forest fires and thus houses burning to the ground drops and the government says, see it's climate change. By getting people out of the woods and preventing the number of camping fires, we've succeeded in reducing the threat to your homes. Now, what else are you willing to give up? Or the number of forest fires doesn't go down and the government says, see it's climate change. We tried to stop it, but the increase in temperature, that would be the imaginary, easily disprovable increase in temperature by the way, has led to more thunderstorms and lightning strikes and your homes will continue to burn until you stop driving, stop heating your homes and stop eating meat. Either way, they win. (9:14 - 10:40) Which just leaves the question of how they're burning the homes. For decades, the U.S. military, and I think we can probably assume the militaries in other countries such as Russia, China, Great Britain and possibly France, have been experimenting with HPMDEWs or high power microwave directed energy weapons. This is no secret. The claimed use of these weapons would be to shoot down missiles and drones and burn out electronics in the ground. And the U.S. government has also released the data to show that a bomber such as a B-52 could generate enough power from its engines to sustain a 100 megawatt microwave beam. That's 100 million times more powerful than the microwave in your kitchen. Plastic is transparent to microwaves. Any metal would act as an antenna rapidly heating the surrounding wood. Similarly, the metal bodies and parts in cars would heat rapidly as well, easily generating the high heat necessary to melt auto glass and aluminum. The steel in steel belted tires would ignite the rubber, while tires with polyester belts wouldn't burn because rubber, like plastic, is largely transparent to microwaves. Most trees hold a great deal of water in the base, but far less in the trunk and branches, meaning that the water in the base would rapidly superheat, burning away the wood, while leaving the rest of the tree untouched. Except for evergreens, which have a taproot, and where water is not more concentrated in the base than it is in the rest of the tree. (10:41 - 12:26) So, homes nearby would burn, while the trees do not. A wooden deck adjacent to a metal-framed mobile home would likely not be exposed long enough to ignite, while the mobile home, the entire frame of which is one giant microwave antenna, would burn rapidly. Oh, and a shed, which had no metal in it, such as plumbing pipes or wires, would likely not burn, although the homes around it would. Such a weapon could be fired from a bomber at an altitude of 10 to 20,000 feet, where no one would see it. There is a minor problem. The dispersal of the beam from that height would have it covering an area anywhere from 100 to 1,000 square meters, and that would reduce the intensity to the point where the beam would need to be focused on the area for quite a long time before anything would burn. And what we're seeing in Robert's images suggest fires that start quickly and burn intensely for a short duration. Otherwise, surrounding trees or plastic items would burn. But remember that all of this is based upon what the U.S. government has admitted to. The tech we know they have. And since when has a military ever disclosed their full capabilities? And I did find notes on research into pulsed microwave weapons, where, based upon current tech, a 400-pound device powered by the engines of a large aircraft, such as a C-130, could produce pulsed outputs in the range of 100 gigawatts, 1,000 times more powerful than the 100 megawatts we know they can produce, and providing more than enough power to almost instantly ignite anything close to metals in the affected area. This is extremely important information. (12:26 - 12:53) People need to understand that they are not only being lied to by our governments, but that those same governments are actively working against us, cooperating with the globalist agenda to take away our rights and freedoms and leave us all freezing and starving in our homes. To paraphrase, you will own nothing, and they will be happy, because they will own everything. Please share this.