Here's an interesting one with 4 different camera angles, since the main one can be hard to seee ...

Uhm, here we have John Henry Westen claiming that some "scuttlebutt" indicates that Parolin + Erdo split the first vote.  Inquiring minds want to know where he got that information ... or whether he's just making stuff up.

https://x.com/JhWesten/status/1920193420909556012

He probably means speculation on the part of people outside the conclave. I highly doubt it's possible for any information to reach the outside world from in there. They even have EMF jammers to prevent anyone from communicating to the outside with any form of electronic device.

Well, such speculation would not have such specificity as a split vote between Parolin and Erdo ... and it's not what anyone was really expecting or speculating about.  Erdo was not generally considered even a top 5 possibility.

As for jammers / EMF, the same people who run / control the conclave can do what they want.  None of this has been on the up-and-up since the infiltrators took over.

None of this has been on the up-and-up since the infiltrators took over.

You mean since 2013?
A German cardinal then accidentally(?) leaked the results before Habemus papam! occurred.

You mean since 2013?
A German cardinal then accidentally(?) leaked the results before Habemus papam! occurred.

Oh, this goes back to 1958.  There are stories out there about Roncalli telling people he had already been selected.

Of course in 2013 you had the St. Gallen mafia thing.

JH Westen points out that nearly every conclave from Montini on forward took about 2 days.  That's just not possible, naturally speaking, especially for Montini, Luciani, Wojtyla, Ratzinger, etc. ... because back then (before Bergs appointed 108 of them himself) there was still a blend of conservative and liberal.  No way they could resolve that tension in 2 days.  They came up with the whole notion of Conclave to speed them along after one of them took 3 years and the Cardinals had no sense of urgency.

But, there are basically two high-level paradigms regarding the Church Crisis.

1) Gradually, over time, more and more individual bishops got contaminated with Modernism ... and that ultimately led to the natural outcome of their selecting a Modernist pope.

2) An Enemy Hath Done This ... enemies of the Church infiltrated, took over the power structures, and eventually one of them became Pope, and then appointed more of them, etc. ... taking control of the official apparatus.

We have a ton of evidence for #2, from their own words, designs, plans, to various individuals like Bela Dodd who admitted to having placed 1,200 young men in Catholic seminaries just by herself.  What about all the others, especially behind the Iron Curtain, where they largely controlled any Church prelate who was not in jail or being tortured, where the Commie official is known to have personally insisted upon Wojtyla and said he would only approve Wojtyla and Wojtyla got to tour the world while many other Bishops were under house arrrest, in jail, or being tortured.  He was widely regarded as having been a "Pax" priest, a Commie collaborator.  If you weren't, you didn't last long, and then Montini would just depose you on orders from the Commies, as he did to Mindszenty.

So I subscribe to paradigm #2 as the primary driver of this attack on the Church, where it was spearheaded by deliberate, conscious infiltrators.  Now that they've held the high ranking offices of the Church for 6 decades, they most certainly would not have appointed anyone who might be any kind of threat to them.  Now, of course there were some who just went along because they were contaminated with Modernism ... and they just becames mindless yes-men to the Revolution, useful idiots ... so there was a bit of a blend, but the primary impetus has been driven by the enemy infiltrators.

Sure, every once in a while someone of good faith gets in, and they let them in as being harmless ... similar to how in the US they let SOME decent politicians get in, like, say, a Ron Paul or a Massie, etc.  Not only do they realize that there's nothing those types can really do against you, but it's even good to have a few token "consrevative" types to make it look good and keep people guessing.  "See, if we ran everything, how did Ron Paul get in?"  Or, "See, if we ran everything, how did Sarah get in?"  But they don't care, since they know they control and rig the conclaves, and the Sarahs and Burkes serve the purpose of legitimizing the Conciliars just a little bit ... as we see even know with Trad, Inc. hoping for Sarah and/or Burke to get elected and therefore kicking against the goad from realizing that the Conciliar Church is not the Catholic Church.  If every single Cardinal and 99% of bishops were Bergoglios and Tuchos and Zuppis ... and the flaming (and flamer) Modernists, I'm guessing the Traditional Catholics would have convened an Imperfect Council and elected a Pope long ago.  So they have to keep up appearances and make it kindof look good for the consumption of the convervative types, while they boil the frog and slowly poison them out of existence.  It's not unlike how they must blend in a good amount of truth to get people to swallow the error.  If it were 100% error, or, heck, even 70% error, no Catholics would be fooled into accepting it.  They'll even permit 90% Catholic truth, just to get as many people as possible to swallow that poisoned 10%.  That's what Wojtyla did, where he held the line on Catholic morals, engaged his acting skills to make people buy the old "santo subito" narrative, where he'd bow his head in deep contemplation (or sleep?), got himself photographed holding a Rosary within 50 yards of a statue of Our Lady, etc. ... and it fooled the vast majority.  What they didn't realize is that Wojtyla was the biggest, most pernicious purveyor of religious indifferentism and dogmatic heresy to have held or usurped the See of Peter, and so they all bought that heresy.  If you listen to the conservative EWTN types today, for 50 minutes of a 60-minute show you might think you were listening to  Traditional Catholic Thomists ... until they start blubbering on about "separated brethren", "fellow Christians", deny EENS dogma, utter Pelagian heresy verbatim, etc.  THAT is where Wojtyla poisoned them ... since how could the Great Santo have taught heresy?  Wojtyla's abominations made Bergoglio's Pachamama incident look like childsplay.  But then Bergs came along to gut the moral theology that Wojtyla had kept intact.

In any case, since Roncalli, the conclaves have been under their control ... as they installed Montini, Luciani (who may have woken up somehow and got himself murdered), Wojtyla, Ratzinger (whose mission was to reabsorb Trads ... failed, so told to step down), Bergs, and then whoever the next one will be.  There's no surprise, no accident, no "election", but a SELection, just like with the past dozen or so US Presidents.

Unless and until God directly intervenes, along the lines of the vision of Anna Maria Taigi ... they'll remain in control of the Vatican apparatus.

Every time there's a papal election or the person masquerading as the pope speaks from that balcony the television camera will pan across a packed St Peter's Square. It will inevitably settle on a group of nuns or other ecstatic faithful and I wonder to myself, how do these people not see this heretic for what he is?
Are they reading a different catechism or Bible than me? Are they living in an alternative universe?
They take the time, trouble and expense to visit the Vatican, maybe catch a glimpse of the pope, yet don't seem to
grasp the basics of their own faith. 
How do these people get goosebumps, feel so inspired by the word salad these clowns spew?
I understand the Trump phenomenon a lot better. He's a world class bullshit artist that knows what his base wants to hear. One can easily grasp the concepts that encompass the whole MAGA thing: closing the border, cutting waste, resisting wokeness, etc. It has a legit appeal. 
What on earth did Bergoglio offer to justify such adoration? Those homos, trannies, and people living in sin that he received, they would have continued on with their lifestyle with or without his sympathy, condemnation or correction. Such people don't struggle with pangs of conscience. They don't even believe in sin.

Every time there's a papal election or the person masquerading as the pope speaks from that balcony the television camera will pan across a packed St Peter's Square. It will inevitably settle on a group of nuns or other ecstatic faithful and I wonder to myself, how do these people not see this heretic for what he is?
Are they reading a different catechism or Bible than me? Are they living in an alternative universe?
They take the time, trouble and expense to visit the Vatican, maybe catch a glimpse of the pope, yet don't seem to
grasp the basics of their own faith.
How do these people get goosebumps, feel so inspired by the word salad these clowns spew?
I understand the Trump phenomenon a lot better. He's a world class bullshit artist that knows what his base wants to hear. One can easily grasp the concepts that encompass the whole MAGA thing: closing the border, cutting waste, resisting wokeness, etc. It has a legit appeal.
What on earth did Bergoglio offer to justify such adoration? Those homos, trannies, and people living in sin that he received, they would have continued on with their lifestyle with or without his sympathy, condemnation or correction. Such people don't struggle with pangs of conscience. They don't even believe in sin.

Have you never been to a concert? I mean one of those really big ones, with a lot of lights and visuals. You simply get involved in that atmosphere. People are not there for the faith, they are there for the show, for the "high". The conclave is a big event, and people don't go to big events to pray. They go to feel the rush, the adrenaline, so they can tell other people that they were there when Pope Hereticus V was elected and greeted them from the balcony.

Every time there's a papal election or the person masquerading as the pope speaks from that balcony the television camera will pan across a packed St Peter's Square. It will inevitably settle on a group of nuns or other ecstatic faithful and I wonder to myself, how do these people not see this heretic for what he is?
Are they reading a different catechism or Bible than me? Are they living in an alternative universe?
They take the time, trouble and expense to visit the Vatican, maybe catch a glimpse of the pope, yet don't seem to
grasp the basics of their own faith.

.

I think they love the liberalism, the idea that they can say everyone is good, and they themselves are automatically going to heaven, along with everyone else.

The Novus Ordo fake religion gives everyone what they want in this world. That is why it's so popular!