They HAD to neutralise this guy!

Just as they had to neutralise Hitler, they needed to get rid of Gaddafi also.

Like me, you probably have done your homework regarding the real Gaddafi and not the propagandised version of him we have been given (just as with Hitler) – and no, neither of them were perfect by any stroke of the imagination (but which individual in power is? David Cameron? Barack Obama? The Queen? ARE YOU SERIOUS? Are you STILL that blind, ignorant or naive? – but this movie certainly puts together in one nice little package, the overview of Gaddafi and shows quite clearly why he would be targeted. He was a rebel (with a cause) and he recognised western democracy for what it is. A sham.

So, I add again my little attempt to highlight the plight of another leader in the face of zionism:

WAKE UP GERMANY!

Who runs Germany? Not Germans that’s for sure.

You have been re-educated after the second World War to believe you genocided a people which you did not. Since then, that people and others have rewritten your Constitution, coerced you into keeping your mouths shut IF you DO your homework and recognise the truth and put you away if you dare speak out.

“Je suis Charlie” = “I am Israel”.

This lady is approaching the end of her life (I hope she is around to a very ripe old age) and your government will not have the guts to arrest her and put her on trial because, then, there would be an outcry and her story would get out – the last thing they wish for.

But the truth is, yes, there is going to be a huge anniversary of “Auschwitz liberation” where the Red Army are going to be heralded as liberating a “Death Camp” which didn’t exist PLUS what is going to be ignored is the little fact, fully admitted in 2010 by the Russian state, that the Katyn Forest massacre – blamed on the Nazis by Stalin and his jewish politburo – was actually carried out BY the Red Army.

PEOPLE JUST READ AND LEARN THEIR HISTORY HOWEVER AND THEN CAST IT ASIDE AND WHEN HISTORY IS REVISED, IT IS REVISED QUIETLY WHILE MOST PEOPLE HAVE NO INTEREST. X-FACTOR IS ON THE TELLY!

You have your German economy, your BMW and Audi, Bosch and AEG, your “exacting standards” of precision in design and production and the pride which goes with it.

What’s missing is your soul. You gave that away almost 70 years ago and you’ve forgotten what it is.

A Brit! Speaking on behalf of Germany? I must be insane!

No. Not at all!

Israel, jews and Zionists: Confused? You won’t be!

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again…. and again….. and again. I’ll put my “analyst” neck on the block once more.

I read “The Grand Chessboard” by Zbigniew Brzezinski a few years ago and I KEEP going back to it because every single step I see in this “game” is following what I gleaned from that book. It’s a template. It’s a strategic geopolitical, warmongering blueprint and they are following it to the letter.

I created this video a few years back:

Many thought I was WAY off in the analysis. Just stupid they said because the globalists and Rothschild love Israel. Really?

And you’ll say today Israel are getting away with murder re Palestine. Yes they are (and no they’re not). Yes they are because they are committing genocide with impunity BUT haven’t you noticed? The rising disgust even in our mainstream zionist controlled press and political circles? Why’s that? Well it’s exactly the same reason that, during WW2, the zionists sacrificed jews. Yes they did! Stop ignoring this you everyday Israeli jews. You are being sacrificed once more and your “zionist” (note inverted commas because when I use them I mean the “zionism” which reflects those jews who want their racist based ‘homeland’) Israel will and is coming to an end. Who’s leading this end? Benjamin Netanyahu of course! But you think he’s on your side don’t you “zionist”? No, not at all. Benjamin Netanyahu is on the ZIONISTS side of the game NOT the “Zionist” side! 😉 Netanyahu is another Tony Blair and David Cameron. Bought and sold by the Rothschild family. These guys are just pawns on the chessboard and it’s the Rothschilds and Rockefellers and jesuits who are dangling their strings. YOU, little old israeli, working to scrape a living, are of as much interest to Netanyahu as we are to Blair or Americans are to Obama. You’re a jew but you’re a nothing to these people. Your nationalism is just damned useful and you’re being played like an old Stradivarius violin as you watch movies like Spielberg’s Schindler’s list and keep getting filled with the holocaust stories of people who benefit from it. Just like we’re led to believe in the British stiff upper lip and that Winston Churchill was a hero! hahaha. He was a schmuck working for the same zionists who are now going to cause you some severe pain.

You still don’t get it do you? And that’s why you’ll be sacrificed! You see, Rothschild didn’t create Israel because he loves you! Oh you naive little “zionist”! He created it for a “beach-head” which is now passed its sell by date because the REAL ZIONISTS who sacrificed jews in WW2 now have pretty much effective control over that region of the world. Israel is just a pain in the ass to them now when they want the muslim world on the west’s side against Russia and China.

Haven’t you noticed something else?

All the muslim immigration into the UK, the EU and the USA. Now WHY would ZIONISTS want this? Seems a ridiculous idea doesn’t it? I know, yes it does. But you see it isn’t. Not at all. I’m not talking about “Zionists” here, I’m talking about ZIONISTS!

How would muslim immigration be beneficial to ZIONISTS? Simple: What happens when there are millions of muslim immigrants in the west? Well they have family members in the islamic states don’t they? Whether children, grandparents, cousins whatever. So then what happens when there is a stand off or war between the west and China/Russia? Tell me? How many muslims are in China or Russia? Not many at all is there? So whose side are the muslim states going to be on when they have family members spread throughout the west and none in China and Russia?

And who are the muslim brotherhood?   😉

 

Saudi Arabia has funded the Muslim Brotherhood for over half a century. Now, as a previous blog or two of mine pointed out, Saudi and “Israel” (more correctly, ZIONISTS) are cousins. They’re on the same side!

 

Your time is soon up “Zionists”. The ZIONISTS are coming to get ya! How? Through the U.N. and the “International community” which Bibi is winding up into a frenzy with his genocide, entirely on purpose of course!

 

Now why do you think we’re getting these headlines these days? What’s with the U.N. outrage all of a sudden? You’ve been treating Palestinians like shit for decades so why now?

Because your shelf life is running out! It’s time to create the ZIONIST controlled Islamic states and keep them happy by giving them the impression that the west has finally dealt with Israel the “nasty terrorist nation that they are” and the IDF has done its job. A job they thought was for Israel but no. Again, they’ve been played. The Mossad? ZIONIST controlled NOT “Zionist” controlled.

Ah and I thought you jews were smart! Well, after all, that’s what you like us all to believe isn’t it? LOL

Silly buggers!

 

But hey, don’t say you haven’t been warned a number of times. I tried to tell you and you didn’t listen so please forgive me if I laugh a little as I see you destroyed. Your ignorance of the game brought it on yourselves. Oh and your “chutzpah!” 😉

 

 

INMARSAT MH370 CALCULATIONS ERRONEOUS

I’ve stated it again and again – granted without going into this much detail – but Inmarsat have been talking dross all along AND they will not share the data.

It reminds me of the IPCC Climate Change “Peer reviews”.

Malaysia/China: You are being lied to! The Atlantic and these scientists are no “Conspiracy theorists”. But then neither are those scientists whose voices are suppressed telling you global warming caused by man is crap too!

 

 

The following are just some “highlights” of this article. For full understanding of why I choose these highlights, you need to read the whole thing:

 

Inmarsat concluded that the flight ended in the southern Indian Ocean, and its analysis has become the canonical text of the Flight 370 search. It’s the bit of data from which all other judgments flow—from the conclusive announcement by Malaysia’s prime minister that the plane has been lost with no survivors, to the black-box search area, to the high confidence in the acoustic signals, to the dismissal by Australian authorities of a survey company’s new claim to have detected plane wreckage.

This information is far from perfect. You know how far the plane was for each ping, but the ping could be coming from any direction. And you how fast the plane is moving toward or away from you. It could also be moving right or left, up or down, and the speeds would sound the same. The task of the Inmarsat engineers has been to take these pieces and put them together, working backwards to reconstruct possible flight paths that would fit the data.

So it should be straightforward to make sure that the math is right. That’s just what a group of analysts outside the investigation has been attempting to verify. The major players have been Michael Exner, founder of the American Mobile Satellite Corporation; Duncan Steel, a physicist and visiting scientist at NASA’s Ames Research Center; and satellite technology consultant Tim Farrar. They’ve used flight and navigation software like STK, which allows you to chart and make precise calculations about flight scenarios like this one.

When the plane is moving away from the satellite, the radio signal gets stretched out, so the frequency decreases. This means that the frequency shifts should be negative over most of the flight. Although there was an approximately one-hour period starting 40 minutes after takeoff when radar showed the plane moving westward, toward the satellite, the graph shows that no pings were sent during that time—so actually, all of the shifts on the graph should be negative.

But the graph defies these expectations. Taken at face value, the graph shows the plane moving at a significant speed before it even took off, then moving toward the satellite every time it was pinged. This interpretation is completely at odds with the official conclusion, and flatly contradicted by other evidence.

The first problem seems rather straightforward to resolve: the reason the frequency shifts aren’t negative is probably that Inmarsat just graphed them as positive. Plotting absolute values is a common practice among engineers, like stating the distance to the ocean floor as a positive depth value rather than a negative elevation value. (straightforward to resolve IF you make the assumption they are making as stated, However, if you assume they are graphed positively because they WERE positive then that leads you to this conclusion: THE PLANE WAS, IN FACT, TRAVELLING WEST – toward the Satellite – AND WEST LEADS TO (among others) DIEGO GARCIA!)

Inmarsat’s analysis is highly ambiguous about whether the satellite-to-ground transmission contributed to the measured frequency shift. But if it did, a ground station located significantly south of the satellite would have resulted in frequency shifts that could account for the measured shifts being too large at the beginning of the graph and too small at the end. And sure enough, Inmarsat’s analysis states that the ground station receiving the transmission was located in Australia.

It’s possible to check the theory more precisely. Public records of Inmarsat ground stations show just one in Australia: in Perth.

Why Inmarsat’s Analysis Is Probably Wrong
If this interpretation—based on the work of Exner, Steel, Farrar, and myself—is correct, it would allow independent experts to fully review Inmarsat’s analysis, verify its work and check to see if Inmarsat might have missed any important clues that could further narrow down the plane’s whereabouts.

The problem is, although this interpretation matches two basic expectations for the frequency graph, it still doesn’t match Inmarsat’s example flight paths. The new frequency values, calculated by Exner, show the flight’s speed relative to the satellite as only about 144 miles per hour by the last ping, but Inmarsat’s example flight paths show a relative speed of about 272 miles per hour.

Either Inmarsat’s analysis doesn’t totally make sense, or it’s flat-out wrong.

For the last two months, I’ve been trying to get authorities to answer these questions. Malaysia Airlines has not returned multiple requests for comment, nor have officials at the Malaysian Ministry of Transportation. Australia’s Joint Agency Coordination Centre and the UK’s Air Accidents Investigation Branch, which have been heavily involved in the investigation, both declined to comment.

Until officials provide more information, the claim that Flight 370 went south rests not on the weight of mathematics but on faith in authority. Inmarsat officials and search authorities seem to want it both ways: They release charts, graphics, and statements that give the appearance of being backed by math and science, while refusing to fully explain their methodologies. And over the course of this investigation, those authorities have repeatedly issued confident pronouncements that they’ve later quietly walked back.

The biggest risk to the investigation now is that authorities continue to assume they’ve finally found the area where the plane went down, while failing to explore other possibilities simply because they don’t fit with a mathematical analysis that may not even hold up.

After all, searchers have yet to find any hard evidence—not so much as a shred of debris—to confirm that they’re looking in the right ocean.

http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/05/why-the-official-explanation-of-mh370s-demise-doesnt-hold-up/361826/

 

So, to those of you who enjoy throwing the nasty comments (which yes I do read but trash soon after because they are not adding anything just simply attempting to have a go at me personally), please determine the location of your anus entrance/exit and, very gently, attempt to remove your cranium from the orifice. You will feel much better I assure you.

 

MH370: Obama just drops in!

Golly gosh!! How timely!

The first American President in decades to visit Malaysia. What a coincidence! And just 7 weeks after MH370 flies off the radar. Enough time, then to let things settle down to a great extent and see where the cards lie.

But also, a US President’s calendar isn’t such that they just decide to pay a “State visit” to Malaysia and book their flights through Thomson holidays a few days before because they got a cheap deal. This visit has been planned and prepared a long time ago. Does no-one else consider that absolutely perfect, coincidental timing of such?

Barack Obama is the first US President to visit Malaysia since Johnson in 1966. How about that?

The article goes on to say:

Malaysia is a growing partner of the United States, which seeks to deepen that relationship, Rhodes said.

Topics of discussion between the two leaders will include trade, security and regional issues, he said.

Trade being the Trans Pacific Partnership and security and regional issues, of course, shall be “Hey Najib my man! Have you found that plane of yours?” with a big beaming Obama smile on his face. “Now let’s discuss our mutual interests shall we? 1. We don’t like this Warcrimes tribunal you had. 2. We don’t like this anti TPPA rhetoric. 3. Your plane COULD be found with passengers and crew alive and you all made into heroes if you just follow the plan. What do you say Najib?”

One of the security detail then whispers into Obama’s ear (a little like that day at the school for George Bush) “Sir, we’ve already shot them all”.

“Strike that” says Obama. “We’ll find the plane but if there are any bodies we’ll just bring up the chinese ones because, as you know, it’s a muslim thing to be buried at sea anyhow. Well that’s what we told the world in relation to us getting rid of the evidence… I mean burying Osama Bin Laden. Best let dead dogs lie right Najib?”

 

Once upon a time….

In Britain:

10 white Englishmen, 2 poles, 2 turks, 3 Iraqis, a pakistani and a trinidadian went to a job interview for the position of Electrician.

8 of the 10 Englishmen had full Electrical qualifications while 2 of them only had domestic installer grades with zero experience. Of the two, however, one was gay.

The two poles were plumbers, the turks had no qualifications at all, the 3 iraqis had just arrived in the UK from Baghdad and couldn’t speak a word of English, the pakistani was a chef and the trinidadian was just very cool man!

There were 6 jobs to be filled and because Lenny Henry felt there was a need for a larger ethnic minority representation in the number of electricians in the country, one englishman was given a job, one pole, one turk, one iraqi, the pakistani and the trinidadian.

Because neither of the non white englishmen were qualified, the government provided them with free electrical courses and the company had to wait for their completion of the course before they could fill the roles.

The Englishman also had to complete the course because he was one of the two who didn’t have full qualifications. The company chose the gay candidate to ensure that their stated policy – in line with legislation – that they did not discriminate on the grounds of race, colour, sex, disablement or sexual orientation, was proven in practice. Also, Peter Tatchell was keeping a close eye on the decision and the company shit itself at the prospect of having a lawsuit on its hands.

So not a single fully qualified Englishman got any of the jobs. Equal opportunities you see! Multicultural Britain.

The company was sued for not employing an adequate number of iraqis.

David Cameron was asked to comment on the situation and said “This isn’t UKIP or BNP Britain you know! This isn’t a homeland for white British people only you racist bastard!”

Globalism! And the little jewess smiled!

 

In Israel:

10 jews, 20 Palestinians, 3 ethiopians went to a job interview for the position of electrician.

The 10 jews were ex bankers, the 20 palestinians were all fully qualified and the 3 ethiopians were too.

There were 12 jobs to be filled but the company had to re-advertise for 2 of them because they only had 10 jews to employ while the palestinians were shot and the ethiopians jailed without trial for 3 years before being kicked out of Israel.

David Cameron was asked to comment on the situation and said “Israel is Britain’s friend. It is the only democratic nation in the middle east and it is the jewish homeland. Mr Netanyahu assures me that all the palestinian and ethiopian candidates were terrorists. No, Israel has never apologised for the King David Hotel bombings because it never happened!”

 

Yep, have the entirety of Europe and the UK “multicultural” brought into being by the jews and anyone complaining is a racist, bigot and anti semite BUT make sure, at all costs, that the jews have their very own patch of dirt all to themselves.

Aye David you’re a wanker as are all your predecessors.

Christian country my arse! “Christianity” slips off your tongue as you suck judeo dick!

MH370: PM Najib Razak – “Yesterday and today”.

The Malaysian Prime Minister, Najib Razak, is being steered by US and British interests.

While Malaysians and Chinese are throwing their venom at the Malaysian government, they are throwing it all in the wrong direction. Sure the Malaysian government are going along with it but why? Do you think that, politically, the Malaysian government have a strong hand as compared to the British and US governments? Or the Chinese government for that matter?

Here is Najib just a couple of weeks ago:

Here he is on CNN just a day or so ago:

In the first video he’s telling you that he’s relying on Inmarsat and the AAIB in the UK. He’s got no choice. He didn’t have to accept it did he? But then IF he hadn’t informed at the “earliest opportunity” and the media came out and stated that Malaysia had been provided with such analysis but hadn’t accepted it, then he would have to deal with people assuming he and his government were hiding this also. So the man is between a rock and a hard place. He gives a press conference stating the analysis’ results and, to give such results he can hardly then state “But I don’t believe them” can he? So what the hell do you expect him to do? He’s being TOLD to believe them

In the second video, however, while then “couching” his initial disbelief, he is sowing seeds of that disbelief. At the same time it makes no sense whatsoever that we are now told that primary radar picked up an aircraft turning back but they don’t know if it was MH370. If it wasn’t MH370 then they must know which aircraft it was because, if they did not know what type of aircraft and where it was originally heading (therefore have an understanding of the, as yet, unidentified plane’s flight path) then how would they know it had “turned back”? Yes they could say they saw a plane on radar making a 180 degree turn BUT, if they didn’t know the purpose or the destination of that plane, how could they conclude a “turn back”? They also state it wasn’t a threat. How could they know this without first identifying what type of plane it was (civil or military) and how would they not consider something wrong whichever type of civil aircraft it may have been? So they MUST have known what plane it was. If it wasn’t MH370 then which airline was it? And what’s the story behind THAT “turn back”? All of this is ignored.

None of this holds water. So PM Najib is holding back something here but WHY is he? I doubt it’s because he and Malaysia wish to.

However, additionally, in the second video (the most recent with CNN) he will not state outright the plane has been lost (and yet we’re talking about death certificates?) because, as he says, he is considering the families feelings in this. No, he’s not. IF he knew 100% the plane was lost and it was where Inmarsat said it was (forgetting it cannot be found for the moment) then he would be bringing closure to the families (as he already tried to do based on his statement a month ago) then it would be that (and the proof) that would be considerate of the families’ feelings. He’s not stating it’s lost because can’t. The “authorities” have not done a good enough job yet to achieve that level of confirmation needed.

“We are as sure as we can possibly be” says Inmarsat and the “experts” from UK and the US. So that’s a “NO” then. It’s not a yes and when faced with such a direct question “Are you sure?” It’s a yes or no answer. Anything else automatically defaults to “NO”.

There are people who know exactly where that plane is and what happened to it. The rest is a wild goose chase as I’ve said from the beginning. IS it Diego Garcia? Who knows? I don’t. I have only said I have strong suspicions of it being so and why the globalists would carry out such a ‘project’. The ONLY reason why that scenario is deemed “crazy” and not investigated by any “authority” is because the “authority” IS globalist! Why do you think Najib is now submitting his document to the United Nations before releasing it to the people? Why does the United Nations ICAO have to give its “blessing” to the Malaysian government for such a release of information?

Who owns the United Nations? And please don’t say it’s a few countries on the Security Council. Please don’t give me that naivety when it is, with a little research, obvious to anyone who runs that show.

Here’s another thing from Sky News. Notice anything?

 

http://news.sky.com/story/1247069/mh370-relatives-in-death-certificate-fury

It goes on to say:

“A public opinion poll published last week found that more than half of Malaysians believe their scandal-prone government – which has controlled the country for 57 years – is hiding the full truth about the plane’s disappearance.”

A subtle little addition to suggest that the Malaysian government is a “regime” of sorts. Well they all are aren’t they? I’m not making excuses for ANY government. They ALL have their drive for power (and corruption) and the biggest of them are Her Majesty’s government followed closely by the American government (which is just the brawn of Her Majesty and the City of London anyhow).

I have said from the beginning that, at least in part, this whole episode is to destabilise the Malaysian state. I stick to that 100%.

Glad to see, however, that the relatives are not accepting the death certificates. It’s quite obvious that Najib understands why. He IS in between a rock and a hard place and every last word he comes out with while pressured, is going to be twisted by one faction or the other. He can’t win.

Another one:

http://news.sky.com/story/1249182/missing-malaysia-flight-mh370-search-to-widen

And it goes on to state:

“The Malaysian government, which has primary responsibility for the investigation, has been accused of mismanaging the search, concealing information about the tragedy and of being too slow to update families of the missing on developments.”

Every shot is being fired at the Malaysian government but very few at Inmarsat, AAIB, UK and American governments. Yes questions may be being asked of how accurate the analysis has been but NO-ONE is suggesting that the information provided could be being provided for nefarious reasons. And yet, not an ounce of evidence or debris to back it all up. 95% of the search area has now been completed and nothing. And yet, it was based upon Inmarsat’s analysis and Australia talking about one ping after another (having the first “ping” seemingly detected by China). Narrowing down and narrowing down the search zone based on so called “pings” yet, in this narrow searched zone, nothing found. Now some are saying (again unidentified US defence personnel) that the search could take years. If that is the case then these pings were not pings from a black box, so what were they? We will never get the answer to that because answers are NOT what they are looking for.

This is a study in trying to cover up a real story and trying to stitch together an “official story” while wearing down the families and interested parties to a point where the official story is accepted (once more) and years later, when it has all died down, a headline or a 7th page news item or news item at the end of the 6 o’clock news, states that debris and black boxes have eventually been found. The actual black box recordings will never be released but perhaps transcripts will – written by officials of course – and the entire event will, like so many others, continue to be discussed here and there as if the official story was real, correct and anyone questioning it, a nutter.

Wear them down. Just keep wearing them down. Add a great deal of confusion and unidentified, anonymous statements and opinions by “experts” to deflect from fundamentals which the majority view as reality because officialdom says so but which, from day one, were highly questionable.

And once more we have people murdered for an agenda and the perpetrators walk away scot free because they are officialdom. The perpetrators construct the story after all.

As they say “History is written by the winners”.

MH370: We’ve narrowed the search and narrowed it again…Oops! We don’t know where the hell it is!

The international team searching the Indian Ocean for the Boeing 777 are now considering the seemingly impossible scenario of the aircraft having ‘landed’ somewhere, instead of crashing in the southern Indian Ocean.

The Malaysian-led investigation team, along with experts from Inmarsat and the UK’s Air Accidents Investigation Branch, had to rely on an Inmarsat communications satellite, which did not provide any definite details, including the aircraft’s direction, altitude and speed.

One of the sources told the New Straits Times: ‘A communications satellite is meant for communication…the name is self explanatory.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2610035/MH370-landed-not-crashed-Indian-Ocean.html

 

Hilarious. Absolutely hilarious.

“Inmarsat have done sterling, incredible work and we are certain it crashed into the sea where they said it did……. well, ok maybe not”

And people laughed at me. 🙂

Don’t you love it when what you’ve been saying and showing for weeks proves to be correct? Sorry, I do.

Repeat:

which did not provide any definite details, including the aircraft’s direction, altitude and speed

MH370: The “managed” contract

They really have very few places to go now with this MH370 issue.

Their lack of transparency, lack of logic and scientific honesty, their outright lies and propaganda have all served to put them in a bit of a bind. They’re taking this “search” to the last possible step and they can either come up with a black box (looking more and more unlikely) and/or debris (also unlikely given it would have been found by now floating) or they can say they took the bluefin down as far as it could go and it either malfunctioned or they couldn’t take anymore chances with it.

But here’s where the real story is:

The Malaysian government and the Australian government (think “Her Majesty’ Commonwealth”, the US, Australia and perhaps even Singapore) are now negotiating a contract. A “treaty” in a sense which transfers all (or some) liability for the “story” to Australia.

 

Haha. The people are offered no involvement in this decision. This is international law at work between two “legal persons” in the form of the Malaysian government (a legal person) and the Australian government (another legal person). The victims families are given no say in this matter because these two “legal person” authorities have decided that their interests outweigh the interests of the people. Malaysia is saying “if you want to go with this story Australia and the west, then we’re happy to allow you to as long as you provide the Malaysian government with legal protection regarding any and all lawsuits which may arise out of this and, if your story unravels, we are in the clear legally.”

Further, the Malaysian government can now say to both, its own citizens and chinese that they do not have authority over any of the found black boxes and plane parts (if ever found which, I would imagine, will be “found” at a much later date). So the chinese cannot hold Malaysia responsible. I wonder if Malaysian Airlines will also be covered by this “insurance”? Somehow, I think not. Just the government. MAS might just be held out to dry on this.

The Australians, British and the US will now simply come up with the story, present whatever they wish to the world in the ongoing weeks, months and years and the whole thing will be wrapped up nice and tightly.

IF there were actual persons lost on that flight, their families will now be told a little story and told to shut up just like the 9/11 families. You weren’t loud enough folks. “Philip Wood’s fiance” did a good job too.

Not much else to say on this topic. It’s transparent as it is.

Globalists 3 World’s population 0

The BIG question: U.N. or Fulton policy?

Here’s the big question which will be answered by the situation in the Ukraine:

Will the world’s powers fall in line with U.N. policy or the stated “Fulton” policy by Winston Churchill in 1946?

Winston Churchill. Alongside F.D. Roosevelt, a traitor to his country and yet heralded as a hero.

UNITED NATIONS (BRITISH POLICY)

HC Deb 04 November 1947 vol 443 cc1790-800 1790
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, “That this House do now adjourn.”—[Mr. Popplewell.]

§ 4.10 a.m.

§Mr. Zilliacus (Gateshead) I want to raise the question of Britain’s position in the United Nations, which is the point where defence policy and foreign policy coincide. The fundamental principle of the United Nations Charter is the principle that the permanent Security Council members must always appease and never fight each other. That principle is the result on the one hand of article 2, paragraphs 3 and 4, of the Charter, which binds all the members of the United Nations to settle all their disputes by peaceful means, and in no circumstances to resort to force or the threat of force in their mutual relations, and, on the 1791 other, it is the result of the unanimity rule, the so-called veto power, by which the Security Council can decide to take action to coerce a peace breaker only when the Great Powers, its permanent members, are unanimously agreed. The effect of this principle of the Charter has been described by the Secretary-General of the United Nations, in his first report to the General Assembly, as follows: The fact that the Charter gave the right of veto to each of these permanent members imposes upon them an obligation to seek agreement amongst themselves. I should be failing in my duty in presenting this report if I did not emphasise the absolute necessity that the powers should seek agreement amongst themselves in a spirit of mutual understanding and a will to compromise, and should not abandon their efforts until such agreement has been reached. This principle of mutual appeasement and non-fighting does not exclude disagreement or deadlocks arising out of disagreement. What it does exclude is the use of force or the threat of force as a means of breaking a deadlock and seeking to reach agreement.
The first question I want to ask His Majesty’s Government, since they claim that our policy is based on the United Nations is, do they accept this fundamental principle in our relations, not only with the United Slates but also with the Soviet Union? As far as the Labour Party is concerned it has accepted that principle. The Party’s report on The International Post-War Settlement states: We cannot dictate to the U.S.A. or to the U.S.S.R. nor they to us. We can only pool our ideas and hopes, and seek the widest possible measure of agreement. So far as the declarations of the Government are concerned they also accept the principle. In particular the Foreign Secretary on 21st February last year said: I cannot conceive any circumstances in which Britain and the Soviet Union should go to war. I cannot see about what we have to fight. And certainly it never enters my mind and I am certain it does not any of my colleagues in the Government. I approach America in the same spirit. I would never think of, and I never could see—and I am sure no party in this House ever sees—the possibility of war between us and America. I do not think of it in the other case either. I say this very emphatically that in considering in our minds all organisations or states there can be no policy or anything else which will lead to a conflict with either of these great Allies. 1792 On 6th March I asked the Prime Minister whether he would confirm that declaration, and he did so.

So far as declarations are concerned the situation is satisfactory. Most unfortunately the facts of the situation and the facts of the Government’s policy point to a very different conclusion. They point to the conclusion that the Leader of the Opposition is quite right, when he claims, as he has done on several occasions, that the policy of the Government is, in essence, the policy he first outlined at Fulton, and which as he truly says, the United States Administration has since adopted, that is, the policy of an Anglo-American bloc prepared to use the threat of war as an instrument of policy in its relations with the Soviet Union.

§Mr. Blackburn (Birmingham, King’s Norton) On a point of Order, may I ask, Mr. Speaker, whether it is in order for the hon. Member to refer to the President of the United States in language which suggests that he is desirous of promoting war?
§Mr. Speaker I did not know that the hon. Member mentioned the President of the United States. I thought he referred to the administration of the United States.
§Mr. George Thomas (Cardiff, Central) My hon. Friend did not say the President of the United States.
§Mr. Zilliacus The attempt of the hon. Member for King’s Norton to emulate the noble Lord, the Member for Horsham, has fallen to the ground.
That policy has been described correctly by the Diplomatic Correspondent of the “Daily Herald,” Mr. W. N. Ewer, in a pamphlet just published by the Fabian Society and entitled “Foreign Policy.” It is described very ably, lucidly, and persuasively, and I will give a short quotation from it: The present world situation is not the result of a Soviet-American conflict in which Britain has no direct part or direct interest. On the contrary, the Soviet-American conflict is the result of a situation in which, initially, Britain has been more directly concerned than the United States. It is, except in the Far East, the result of Russian pressure, of suspected Russian expansionist tendencies in Europe, in the Eastern Mediterranean area, in Persia. And in the last two certainly, resistance to Russian expansion has been a canon of British policy 1793 for a century or more. Whether that policy is right or wrong is another matter. My point at the moment is that this is not a new American policy which Britain is being asked to support.

§Notice taken that 40 Members were not present.

§House counted, and 40 Members being present—

§Mr. Zilliacus The end of this quotation by Mr. Ewer is as follows: It is an old British policy which the United States has decided to support. The ‘Truman doctrine’ is no American invention. It is, in effect, simply the announcement that the United States is prepared to support, or even to take over material responsibility for, an already existing British policy. He then goes on to argue the necessity, in his view, for continuing a close defensive alliance between Britain and the United States, to resist Soviet alleged or hypothetical or putative aggressive and expansionist tendencies by means of armed force. That is the Fulton policy. It is a return to power politics. It is a repudiation of the fundamental principle of the Charter. The same doctrine is preached in that interesting pamphlet somewhat misleadingly called, “Cards on the Table”, the origin and status of which are shrouded in mystery and ambiguity. When it was published it was announced as being an official and authoritative exposition of Labour policy, and as such it was splashed in the Press not only of this country but of the world. However, when questions were asked at the Margate conference the Chancellor of the Exchequer denied—if I may put it in this way—that intimacy had taken place between the Foreign Office and Transport House, and asserted that this pamphlet could not be regarded as the lawful brain child of the National Executive. Nevertheless this pamphlet is still circulating as an interpretation of the Government’s foreign policy, although its central thesis is the repudiation of the Charter as the basis of relations between the Great Powers. Here is the quotation: Here we come to the crux of the problem. The United Nations Organisation is by its very constitution formally prevented from dealing with disagreements between the Big Three. … The Veto power does in fact commit the Big Three to appeasement of one another so long as action is confined to the United Nations—a situation which puts a premium on aggressive action. 1794 The pamphlet goes on to argue the suggestion that we should not line up with the Soviet Union in order to restrain any possible aggressive action by the United States, but that we should line up with the United States against any possible aggression by the Soviet Union. I am grateful that this first insanity of an Anglo-Soviet line-up against the U.S.A. is not proposed. But I regret that an exactly similar insanity is proposed, namely, that we should line up with the United States against the Soviet Union. That is a return to power politics. It is not the policy of the United Nations, not the policy of the Charter. It is the policy of Fulton.
I should like to know whether or not that does denote the fundamental principle of the foreign policy of the Government. I fear it does. I should be very grateful if I could, have a clear repudiation of the principle of power politics as applied to the relations between our country on the one hand and the Soviet Union on the other. I fear that what in fact has happened is that, as Mr. Ewer correctly pointed out in his pamphlet, when the Labour Government came in they never attempted to review the fundamental assumptions on which British foreign policy was founded. They took over unexamined the traditional Tory concepts of what are our interests throughout the world. Instead of applying Labour’s view of our national interests, the Labour Government have followed the Tory policy, and as a consequence we find ourselves committed in the Middle East to what I call the Crimean War foreign policy, which assumes that Russia must be kept out of the Eastern Mediterranean and the Middle East, whereas the Labour Party is clearly and expressly pledged to the view that the U.S.S.R. as well as the U.S.A. shall be invited into partnership on the basis of the Charter, and that we should work for an international settlement of the Middle East problem, with international control of oil resources, international control of economic development, and international control of the Suez Canal as well as of the Dardanelles.

Similarly in Europe, again as Mr. Ewer points out, the Labour Government have accepted the Truman doctrine that capitalism must be restored in Europe as the basis for a revival of democracy The Labour Party believe and are officially 1795 pledged to the view that Socialism is essential as the basis for economic reconstruction and for the revival of democracy and political freedom in Europe. I think we need to go no further than this failure of the Labour Government to apply a Socialist foreign policy and their continuation of Tory foreign policy to find why it has been impossible hitherto to reach agreement with the Soviet Union. I am not suggesting that the diplomatic manners of the Soviet Union could not be improved. They could. I am not suggesting that Soviet official control of news and views is not a handicap in reaching international agreement. I believe it is. I believe our free democracy is not only superior as a system of government and a way of life, but also as a medium of international intercourse.

But I suggest there is urgent need, before we are faced with the splitting of the world into two, of abandoning this long-continued and ill-starred attempt to bash our way through with a Tory foreign policy by reverting to the methods of power politics and abandoning the Charter. On these lines we are being drawn further and further into vassalage and dependence on the United States, which today is ruled by men whose interests are not our interests, whose attitude towards civil liberties, trades unions and Socialism is certainly not our attitude, and who have made no secret of the fact that they want to make use of the threat of war as an instrument of national policy in their dealings with the Soviet Union. I hope that in the reply tonight we shall get some explicit repudiation of the principle of power politics, and a specific re-affirmation that the Labour Government base their relations with the Soviet Union, as well as with the United States, on the fundamental principles and provisions of the Charter of the United Nations. It is high time that the Labour Government tried to act on the Labour Party’s election pledges and Socialist principles in world affairs, before disaster overwhelms us.

§ 4.26 a.m.

§Mr. Blackburn (Birmingham, King’s Norton) The hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. Zilliacus)—I certainly do not describe him as my hon. Friend—has been to the Soviet Union and also to Warsaw and has represented himself throughout the world 1796 as a friend of what he calls the Eastern democracy. He is an individual, despite the fact that he is a member of the Labour Party, who has gone with his friends thousands of miles away from this country and tried to suggest that we in the Labour Party believe in a concept of democracy which includes concentration camps and the terrors of whole parties of secret police which we fought against in the war.
§Mr. G. Thomas I am quite sure, since I heard what my hon. Friend said when he was abroad, that there is not a shred of evidence to support what the hon. Member for King’s Norton (Mr. Blackburn) has said. Perhaps he would like to withdraw his remark.
§Mr. Blackburn May I say that I have no desire to attack the hon. Member personally, or those hon. Members who went with the hon. Member for Gateshead, but I am perfectly prepared to do so if I am challenged. All I want to say is that on the very occasion on which the Cominform was formed, and when the Prime Minister of this country and the Foreign Secretary of this country were designated as traitors by men of the highest rank in the Soviet Union, I did not hear the voice of the hon. Member for Gateshead raised in protest in Warsaw. What I read was a statement purporting to emanate from the hon. Member for Gateshead which agreed with the Soviet statement. I also heard that they were forming what they called a Socinform, this being apparently to represent those who were prepared to suck up to the Soviet Union, and who represent themselves as Socialists when really they are Communists, like the hon. Member for Gateshead and his friends. It seems to me absolutely disgraceful that when M. Petkov was under sentence of death for being a friend of Britain and America and standing up for the democracies for which we have stood in this House of Commons for century after century—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Platts-Mills), who now makes a “yah”—
§Mr. Platts-Mills (Finsbury) May I draw attention to the fact that it was a “bah” and not a “yah.”
§Mr. Blackburn It is characteristic of the hon. Member for Finsbury that it 1797 should be a “bah” and not a “yah.” It is entirely in accordance with his traditions of having fought so gallantly against Fascism during the war, like the rest of his friends—who showed himself so active in the cause that we had to fight against Fascism—and having as a young man fought so gallantly in the air, or wherever else it was. It is characteristic that he should now talk about “bahs” and not “yahs.” Let those who fought against Fascism fight against the next form of totalitarianism which arises, if it arises.
I say that there is no reason why there should be another war. We can stop another war provided that the freedom-loving democracies make it perfectly plain that the lesson which we had so bitterly to learn last time is learned this time, and that never again do we appease totalitarianism in any form. I have no desire whatever to suggest, as some people suggested, that we could offer any form of threat to the Soviet Union. On the contrary, I still believe that we can achieve peace with the Soviet Union. I quite believe that such a state of peace is possible with the Soviet Union—but it will not be possible if hon. Members come into this House as they have this morning at 4.30 and give Stalin the impression that he has a Captain Ramsay of the Left here today, as I believe the hon. Member for Finsbury certainly is—and the hon. Member for Gateshead, and some others are. I have nothing to gain by telling the truth.

§Mr. Scollan (Renfrew Western) Is it in Order to refer to any hon. Member of this House as a “Captain Ramsay”?
§Mr. Speaker I do not think it is out of Order, but I do not think it is a very pleasing remark.
§Mr. Blackburn With great respect, Mr. Speaker, Captain Ramsay has never been tried and nothing has ever been proved against him.—[Interruption.] I fought against him when you did not. I fought against the Germans when you did not.
§Mr. Orbach (Willesden, East) I think that the imputations of the hon. Member ought to be stopped at some stage.
§Mr. Blackburn I am referring to hon. Gentleman none of whom but one, fought against Fascism.
1798
§Mr. Platts-Mills When the hon. Member indicates that he has nothing to lose in his reputation, should we worry in the least what imputations he choses to throw against others?
§Mr. Blackburn I do not consider this is the sort of case the Government ought to reply to at all. I believe that this is an occasion utterly unworthy of the House of Commons. It may be occurring at 4.30 in the morning, but that means nothing to me. I am glad at any rate that I prevented an answer being given to anyone who can put up a bogus crypto-Communist case in this House of Commons.
An Hon. Member Totalitarian.
§Mr. Blackburn Certainly. Why did they let Petkov down? Why is Mikolaczyck our friend? Why is he in this country? Is it suggested that our Minister over there has invited these people, and had actuated them to produce a military conspiracy against their own Government? Can anyone seriously believe that nonsense? Do they believe that? They either think that or they believe these people have been either murdered or would have been murdered by judicial process. They can have it one way or the other—either my hon. Friends on the Front Bench have incited these people to war—or on the other hand these people are innocent. If you look at the history of it, if you look at Stalin, if you look at the people who were with him when he was starving, you will find that about 75 per cent. of the lot were murdered. What about Yagola, chief of the O.G.P.U. for ten years? What happened to him? Try to study the literature of Nazism itself and do not make the mistake we made with Hitler. The mistake there was that we did not study “Mein Kampf.”
§Mr. Tiffany (Peterborough) May I raise a point of Order, Mr. Speaker? Is it not the practice and courtesy of the House to allow the Government to make its own case by answering statements which have been made? Should not there be a reply from the Front Bench?
§Mr. Speaker It is not for me to decide. Hon. Members speak when they are called and no one else rose.
1799
§Mr. Blackburn All these people believe in the foreign revolution, and they say the Soviet state is the model for revolution all over the world.
§Mr. Zilliacus Will the hon. Member have the courage to say outright that he is encouraging preparation for a third world war against the Soviet Union?
§Mr. Blackburn No, I do not say that. What I say is that we should refrain from making the mistake we made with Hitler. Fascism, Nazism, and Communism all use the same methods; all use the secret police and the concentration camps, and all talk of reactionaries. I suppose I shall be called a reactionary. Let us remember that the third line of the “Horst Wessel” song is, Kamarader der rote front und reaction erscheerson—the Red front and reaction, and this fight is against “reactionaries.” Whether one is a Fascist or a Communist makes no difference. Nothing would be more horrifying to me than another war of any kind, and one can stop a war with this country and the freedom-loving countries by doing as the Foreign Secretary has done, by telling the truth about the terror which strikes into every home and to say that Petkov did not die in vain. I remember the last time I talked about Petkov. The hon. Gentleman in- 1800 terrupted me to say that Petkov was not in danger. Now he has been killed. One might wonder if the hon. Gentleman expects rewards if Communism should come.
§Mr. Zilliacus On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker, may I ask if the hon. Member should not withdraw the suggestion that my political line is dictated by expectation of reward from Communism. That is a reflection on my honour.
§Mr. Speaker I think that, early in the morning, or late in the morning, whichever it is, there is difficulty in hearing exactly what hon. Members say or mean. I do not think that the hon. Member for King’s Norton intended to injure the honour of the hon. Gentleman.
§Mr. Blackburn Petkov’s death seems to mean so little. I am surprised to see that the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Foreign Secretary is smiling. Let us remember that Petkov continued to—
§The Question having been proposed after Ten o’Clock and the Debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

§ Adjourned accordingly at Twenty Minutes to Five o’Clock.

MH370 Co-Pilot call

Very simple:

Contact the mobile operator and ask.

So the intelligence services are saying there was a call and the Malaysian authorities saying there wasn’t. This is something they would have known within the first few days of the event.

Which mobile carrier did he use allegedly? Maxis? Telekom Malaysia? DiGi? There’s only a handful of them.

Then if you get a “Yes” then have the carrier publicly state it and also advise which base station in the network it connected to.

Otherwise, be quiet. Whoever are feeding these stories anonymously should be charged with some form of obstruction of an investigation. At best, they are sick little bunnies.

Meanwhile, the media should not even print anonymous sources and information they cannot verify but they do and why? It writes the narrative and causes the confusion wanted.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/missing-malaysia-airlines-flight-mh370-copilot-call-claims-denied-9256304.html

Rothschild’s Iran-Iraq War

Iran-Iraq War

HC Deb 11 July 1995 vol 263 c527W 527W
§Mr. Llew Smith To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has held with his Chinese counterpart in regard to the provision of munitions to the combatants during the Iran-Iraq war by factories based in China but funded by N.M. Rothschild Bank. [32888]
§Mr. Arbuthnot [holding answer 6 July 1995]: I am aware of no such discussions.
§Dr. David Clark To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what further reports his Department has received to indicate that British arms firms sold arms to Iran via Singapore during the Iran-Iraq arms embargo; if he will list those companies involved; and if he will make a statement. [29465]
§Mr. Freeman [holding answer 20 June 1995]: Following the statement by the President of the Board of Trade on BMARC, Departments have, as a prudent measure, started to research some associated areas of defence exports to Singapore. It is too early to draw even tentative conclusions. Any evidence of illegal activity will of course be brought immediately to the attention of Customs and Excise, the independent prosecuting authority, for its consideration.

Nice eh? To make sure they didn’t have any problems with British export licencing and to keep their name out of the Iran -Iraq war issue as far as possible, the Rothschilds sent arms (Chemical WMDs? Although it doesn’t matter what they were) to Iran/Iraq (probably both) from their globalists little outpost in China. And you think, when thinking about world geopolitics and wars, that it’s all to do with the west versus the east, the US or UK versus China or Russia?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hcberkowitz/Sandbox-Chinese_support_for_Iran_during_the_Iran-Iraq_war

Listen and listen good! It’s a globalist V the rest of us issue. The globalists get the job they want done from anywhere on planet earth! That’s why they’re CALLED “GLOBALISTS” and that’s why Rockefeller speaks about “conspiring with others (internationalists as he calls himself and them) around the world”.

Meanwhile, here’s another Rothschild thing from Parliament archives:

Note how Tam Dalyell (and this goes for all other parliamentarians) shits himself at the idea of stating what he has stated outside of parliamentary privilege because he knows Rothschild would come after him in litigation. And you wonder why these guys keep their mouths shut most of the time? If Rothschild doesn’t know they shag babies then the Rothschilds will destroy them in court. NOT by necessarily winning but by the sheer knowledge they have the money to keep the case going on and on and bankrupting the other party.

 

 

Official Secrets Act (Prosecution Policy)

HC Deb 06 February 1987 vol 109 cc1291-8 1291
§Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Peter LLoyd.]

2.41 pm
§Mr. Ivan Lawrence (Burton) On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) spent 22 minutes of the previous debate on human rights deploying the same arguments as I anticipate he is likely to deploy in the Adjournment debate. Is it possible, in those circumstances, that those of us who were not able to make a speech on the Human Rights Bill because of the hon. Member for Linlithgow’s actions should be able to take part in the Adjournment debate and deploy some of the important arguments that we were seeking to deploy on the Human Rights Bill?
§Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker) The hon. and learned Gentleman knows that I cannot rule or make a judgment on a hypothesis.
2.42 pm
§Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow) The hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) will be disappointed, because there is another, different aspect to the issue.
Charmingly, the Solicitor-General began his speech this morning with what he said was a platitude. I should like to start with a non-platitude. While not being his easiest parliamentary colleague, and, trying though he may find me from time to time, being over-inquisitive, I have had every courtesy from an approachable and forthcoming Attorney-General. It is no platitude to wish him a speedy return to full health.

I heard the Solicitor-General this morning and I thank him for attending the Adjournment debate. In my opinion, in the 1950s he was the most eloquent Oxford president ever to come to the Cambridge Union. He was extremely eloquent this morning.

May I say at the outset that I gave the Attorney-General a copy of my speech in relation to the possible prosecution of Lord Rothschild and Mr. Bernard Sheldon on Monday, since it raises issues of byzantine difficulty and daunting delicacy, which should not be sprung out of the blue on any Minister. Knowing the Solicitor-General, I am sure that he will respond to this in the same spirit of considered seriousness.

The purpose of the first part of my speech is to give the Law Officers an opportunity to tell Parliament—these issues are ultra-party— what on earth they propose to do to clear up the Augean stables of inconsistency in prosecutions under the Official Secrets Act. The Law Officers will understand that my deep interest in these matters was born during the 11 days that I spent in the Old Bailey, in Mr. Justice Sir Anthony McCowan’s court, during the trial of Clive Ponting.

Why prosecute Clive Ponting and dither, understandably—I do not use that word in a pejorative sense—over prosecuting Victor Rothschild? Why send Sarah Tisdall to prison for months and do nothing about Bernard Sheldon, albeit he is approaching retirement, in relation to Rupert Allason, alias Nigel West? Why fail to prosecute Bernard Ingham for the selective leaking of the Solicitor-General’s letter? It looks as if there is one prosecution policy for the influential, the famous and the distinguished and another prosecution policy for the more junior, hitherto less famous, civil servants.

1292 Compared with what Victor Rothschild set in train, with Peter Wright and Harry Chapman Pincher, anything that Clive Ponting put in my way melts into insignificance, in terms of national security, if not political embarrassment. There is an apparent inconsistency of policy, and it would be helpful to the House to know on what principles those discriminating practices are justified and on what basis discrimination is authorised by Ministers.

It is to the position of Lord Rothschild that I wish to refer. If, for the first time, I shelter under the cloak of parliamentary privilege, it is because Lord Rothschild can be a litigious man and, secondly, I do not think that what I am saying is to his discredit. I refer to 26 November—[Interruption.] Hon. Members had better wait and hear what I shall say. I refer to 26 November, when I asked the Attorney-General what consideration he has given to proceeding against …. Mr. Arthur Franks, formerly head of MI6, and …. Lord Rothschild for breach of confidence in relation to information on matters of state security given to authors. The Attorney-General replied: I am considering with the Director of Public Prosecutions the allegations made in respect of the two named individuals.”—[Official Report, 26 November 1986; Vol 106, c. 268.]

I returned to the subject on 1 December 1986, and the Attorney-General said: The matter remains under consideration.” — [Official Report, 1 December 1986; Vol. 106, c. 415.]

On 18 December 1986, I asked the Prime Minister whether she will now release Lord Rothschild from his obligations of confidentiality as a former member of the security services; and if she will make a statement.

The Prime Minister replied: All present and former members of the security services owe a lifelong duty of confidentiality to the Crown. They may not make unauthorised disclosures of information acquired in their work. Any requests for authorised disclosure would be considered in the normal way.”—[Official Report, 18 December 1986; Vol. 107, c. 613.]

Let me offer necessarily truncated points. First, in the 1930s, international Jewry, of which the Rothschilds were one of the leading families, were aghast at the anti-semitism that was then rampant in Germany. Secondly, Victor Rothschild may, as the author Douglas Sutherland suggests, have recruited Guy Burgess for a minor role in one of the Jewish intelligence services. Thirdly, as an understandably passionate anti-Fascist, Victor Rothschild may have had relations with Comintern agents. Talk of spying is jejune nonsense. Anyhow, a good agent is one who gets from foreign powers more than he gives.

Fourthly, the events of long ago fade into the past. Sleeping dogs from the 1930s and 1940s were rightly, in my view, allowed to lie. De mortuis nil nisi bonum. But in 1979, Britain gets a new species of Prime Minister. On 15 November 1979, the new Prime Minister makes a statement on Blunt, against advice, with the aplomb of a cow in a china shop. Sir Charles Cunningham tells me that Sir Anthony Blunt’s activities as an agent of both sides many years previously were fully known to successive permanent secretaries at the Home Office.

Fifthly, I believe that Lord Rothschild was extremely angry about the Prime Minister’s reaction on Sir Anthony Blunt. Some of us believe that Sir Anthony Blunt’s memoir, given to his brother, and now lodged in an institution in London, will reveal a complex story, part of which is that Sir Anthony Blunt was asked by a former member of the security forces whose name I have given to 1293 the Attorney-General, and by Guy Liddell, to help get Burgess and Maclean, by that time embarrassments both, out of the country.

Sixthly, in the summer of 1980, Lord Rothschild had the Prime Minister to his flat in Saint James’s. He is subsequently quoted in the press as saying: She does not understand intelligence matters.

Seventhly, Lord Rothschild then came to believe that his own reputation was at stake, especially after the Prime Minister’s statement on Sir Roger Hollis on 23 March 1981, which appears in the Official Report at column 1079. At his own expense, Lord Rothschild brought Peter Wright from Australia. He discussed with Wright certain material which appeared to constitute a contravention of section 7 of the Official Secrets Act 1920. Section 7 states: Any person who attempts to commit any offence under the principal Act or this Act, or solicits or incites or endeavours to persuade another person to commit an offence, or aids or abets and does any act preparatory to the commission of an offence under the principal Act or this Act, shall be guilty of a felony or a misdemeanour or a summary offence according as the offence in question is a felony, a misdemeanour or a summary offence, and on conviction shall be liable to the same punishment, and to be proceeded against in the same manner, as if he had committed the offence. If the Attorney-General would decide to prosecute Lord Rothschild in open court, it would be possible to ask questions which are causing much public concern and which Lord Rothschild would then have to answer on oath. These are some of the questions that might be asked. First, how does Lord Rothschild explain his involvement with Sidgwick and Jackson over the Pincher-Wright book? While it is possible that Sidgwick and Jackson would consult Sir Arthur Franks about possible breaches of the Official Secrets Act 1911, that would not explain Lord Rothschild’s involvement.

Secondly, why should Lord Rothschild expose himself by suggesting an unlawful enterprise to Mr. Wright, namely that he should breach the Official Secrets Act and then procure a writer, Mr. Pincher, to act as a channel for royalties?

Thirdly, why should Lord Rothschild fly Wright to London if, as has been suggested, all he needed was a testimonial to protect himself against suggestions that he had been a Soviet agent?

Fourthly, why pay Wright? Why introduce him to Harry Chapman Pincher? Why should Mr. Pincher pay him half the royalties?

Only by proceeding in open court on oath can obscurities be made less obscure. Only by proceedings in open court can there be an end to doubt and to the suspicion of discrimination.

I ask the Law Officers why they will or why they will not prosecute Victor Rothschild. If they decline to prosecute, apologies should be winging their way to Sarah Tisdall and Clive Ponting.

Even more clearly, the Law Officers owe Miss Tisdall and Mr. Ponting an explanation as to why they take no action against Mr. Bernard Sheldon for briefing Mr. Rupert Allason — alias Nigel West — who incidentally, and I do not intend to make much of this, is Conservative candidate for Torquay, for his books. I want to make it clear that I do not wish to enter the argument about Mr. Allason being Conservative candidate for Torquay.

If I am asked in general terms after my comments this morning about sources, part of my reply would be that 1294 there is an urgent need for an appeal body to which civil servants, policemen, service men or people in the intelligence services can go without jeopardising their careers if they believe that they have been abused. That is the official policy of the Labour party put down by the Cirencester and Tewkesbury amendment at the party conference at Bournemouth on the Sunday. I was interested to hear on the radio that Nigel West — alias Rupert Allason—said at 8.15 am on 5 February that he supported the idea of such an appeal body.

Finally, yesterday my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and I raised with the Leader of the House the question of the Interspace articles with regard to Zircon. The question was whether the knowledge of Zircon or Skynet IV was in the public print at least two years ago. The Leader of the House said that he would draw that matter to the attention of the Solicitor-General.

I will leave the matter there, because the hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken), the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) have a very serious interest in these matters.

2.54 pm
§The Solicitor-General (Sir Patrick Mayhew) I thank the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) for his kind good wishes for my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General and for his kind remarks about him, which are much appreciated. May I also thank him for his kind reference to me. I am grateful to him for having given the Law Officers advance notice of the contents of his speech, which was a helpful gesture. Even so, he made several allegations to which, as I shall explain, I shall be unable to respond.
The main theme of the hon. Gentleman’s speech was whether Lord Rothschild should be prosecuted under the Official Secrets Act. On 17 December 1986, the police were requested by the Director of Public Prosecutions to investigate allegations that Lord Rothschild and Mr. Chapman Pincher had committed offences under the Official Secrets Act. The police investigation is continuing and no decision can be taken until the Director of Public Prosecutions is given the police report, which will then be sent to the Attorney-General, or to me if the Attorney-General has not yet returned to his duties.

In those circumstances, and in accordance with the normal practice of the Law Officers, I cannot comment, except to say that I am satisfied that the matters raised by the hon. Gentleman will be considered by the police officers who are carrying out the investigations. As far as I can recollect, most, if not all, of the allegations formed part of the evidence given by Mr. Wright in the proceedings in Sydney and, as allegations, they are common knowledge.

I emphasise once again that my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General has no discriminatory policy in considering cases submitted to him under the Official Secrets Act. Each case is considered openly upon exactly the same criteria, and there is no foundation for a claim that importance or seniority in rank provides a person who is under investigation with any advantage.

The hon. Gentleman asked a question today which is already the subject of a question on the Order Paper for priority written answer by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General. It relates to the publishers of the Interspace newsletter in respect of an article or 1295 articles that might be considered to refer to the Zircon project. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the matter raised in the written question and which he has raised today will be the subject of consideration. My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General has authorised me to inform the House that, on having considered the report by the head of the Civil Service, and on the material before him, he has decided after consultation with, and with the full agreement of, the Director of Public Prosecutions and senior Treasury counsel, that there is no justification for the institution of proceedings under the Official Secrets Act 1911 in respect of any of the persons concerned in this matter” — [Official Report, 23 January 1986, Vol. 90, c. 451] —that matter being the one raised by the hon. Gentleman a considerable time ago relating to the Westland affair. I mention that in relation to the name which he mentioned today of Mr. Bernard Ingham. I do not recall that, in the copy of the speech which he furnished to the Attorney-General, he said that he would make allegations against Mr. Bernard Ingham to the extent that he has done today. The words that I have just uttered formed the basis of a statement on 23 January 1986 by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

In the context of remarks about the book, “A Matter of Trust” written by Mr. Rupert Allason, alias Nigel West, the hon. Gentleman mentioned Mr. Bernard Sheldon, who is an official. He asks why the Attorney-General has not prosecuted Mr. Sheldon. The answer is simple and I trust that it is welcome. I am informed that there is no evidence at all to show that Mr. Sheldon has committed any offence under the Official Secrets Act. The hon. Gentleman also mentioned Mr. Sheldon in connection with the recent searches of BBC premises. I am informed that neither that official nor the security service had any involvement at all in any decisions or actions relating to this matter. During the last debate the hon. Gentleman made allegations about my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate and his Department in connection with the search of BBC premises. Having had no notice of the allegations made in that debate, perhaps I may be permitted to say that in his answer in another place on Wednesday 4 February my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate set out the circumstances in which the search warrants were applied for and granted.

I am informed that there is no foundation for the allegation that the Crown Office, alarmed at the enormity of what it was being asked to do, made a direct or indirect approach to the Prime Minister’s office and that the Crown Office was told by the Prime Minister’s office to allow special branch officers to take everything and anything from BBC Scotland. I am informed that at no time was the Crown Office in communication with the Prime Minister’s office. I understand that yesterday the hon. Gentleman told my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General for Scotland that he would not expect him to be in his place today for this debate. Therefore, I find the allegations made earlier today a little surprising.

§Mr. Dalyell That was simply because as a Scottish Member I know that it is difficult to be here on Friday.
§Sir Patrick Mayhew I hear what the hon. Gentleman says about that, and no doubt it is an explanation. When officials enter the public service they know that throughout their service they will be unable to speak in their own defence to answer criticism and that they must rely on their Ministers to do that for them, especially when 1296 criticism is unfounded. The hon. Gentleman thinks it justifiable to allege that named officials should be prosecuted for offences under the Official Secrets Act. I have already repeated the Prime Minister’s words about Mr. Bernard Ingham and I should now like to say something about Mr. Bernard Sheldon.
The hon. Gentleman earlier made a speech about human rights, but has not provided a scrap of evidence to support his allegation about Mr. Sheldon. Either he has evidence, as The Independent reports him as claiming he has, in which case it is disgraceful that he has not provided it, or he has none, in which case it is disgraceful to allege an offence.

§Mr. Dalyell This is part of the problem and the reason why I said in my speech that it is of great urgency to institute some kind of appeal body to which civil servants, service men, intelligence officers or policemen who think that they are being maltreated can go without jeopardy to their careers. That is important and that is why I raised the subject at my party conference and was one of those who made it helpful to be the policy of the party.
§Sir Patrick Mayhew Civil servants must be defended by their Ministers when they have no means, at present at any rate, of speaking in their own defence. However, officials are entitled to rely on more than defence by their Ministers. They are entitled to expect that hon. Members, protected as they take pains to be by privilege, will treat officials fairly. I regret that Mr. Sheldon and Mr. Ingham, both of whom have had careers of great dedication and distinction with successive Governments, have been unfairly treated in the Chamber.
§Mr. Dalyell Before the Solicitor-General sits down, may I remind him that I am talking about men of considerable power. I worked closely with the late Dame Evelyn Sharp and know how civil servants should properly be treated. The difficulty arises when civil servants become so powerful that they are not accountable in the normal sense of the word. That is why I had an Adjournment debate on the role of the Prime Minister’s press officer, saying that we were dealing with the most powerful “man” in British politics. Later several of the Solicitor-General’s colleagues vouchsafe to me—that I was quite right arid that he is the most powerful—
§Mr. Deputy Speaker Order. I thought that the hon. Gentleman was making an intervention. He cannot speak for a second time.
§ 3.5 pm

§Mr. William Cash (Stafford) rose—
§Mr. Deputy Speaker Does the hon. Member have the consent of the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and the Solicitor-General to speak?
§Mr. Dalyell Most certainly.
§The Solicitor-General Yes.
§Mr. Cash I am most grateful for an opportunity to speak. We have just had a debate on human rights in which the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) made a speech which stretched the procedures of the House. He has now made a series of apparently groundless allegations against certain people. I was not privy to that speech and I can only form a judgment on the basis of what he said. He said nothing specifically and he substantiated nothing with evidence.
1297 There are times when we have reason to be worried that the hon. Gentleman is as much interested in grabbing headlines as in getting at the truth. I suspect that that is true of what happened earlier this morning.

Campaigns such as the Campaign for Freedom of Information and the hon. Gentleman’s suggestion of an appeal body, which was apparently endorsed at the Labour party conference, raise central questions about the nature of authority and where it resides.

§Mr. Dalyell That is absolutely right.
§Mr. Cash The hon. Gentleman says that I am absolutely right, but I suspect that we disagree fundamentally about where the centre of gravity must remain.
Self regulation and the constraints that people impose on themselves to ensure a proper balance of responsibilities and, by contrast, the right to speak, are issues which go to the heart of the matter. We have become increasingly fed up — I am sure that is true for the country as well — with people who believe that their unsubstantiated opinions which appear in the media or here, and which are drawn from a fairly limited range of information, can be used to make assertions and inferences—

§Mr. Dalyell rose—
§Mr. Cash I shall, of course, give way to the hon. Gentleman a little later. Such clashes of opinion ought to be resolved in the proper and normal way, which is within the framework of law prescribed by our procedures and Acts of Parliament. We are increasingly fed up with invasions of privilege.
§Mr. Dalyell The hon. Gentleman says that I have made unsubstantiated allegations. That was the type of speech which was made against me for 18 long months before the Old Bailey Clive Ponting trial substantiated everything that I had tried to say.
I named Colette Bow in the House and there was the matter of the Solicitor-General’s letter. Who has since been proved right about that? The Solicitor-General will not comment but, with regard to his letter, I was attacked time and again by Conservative Members, but who now thinks that I have been wrong?

1298
§Mr. Cash I have a straight and simple answer. If the hon. Gentleman was proved right in the courts before, he should make the unsubstantiated allegations that he made today outside the House and prove his point in the courts. That is my direct and simple answer to him. Will he reply to that?
§Mr. Dalyell If I go to a court of law and name names, people’s careers are in jeopardy — not mine, other people’s careers. I have to make a judgment whether what I have been told is the truth or not. From my inquiries in Scotland, I believe that every word that I am saying is true.
§Mr. Cash The record has to stand for itself. The only person’s reputation that will be harmed by what has been going on here this morning is the hon. Gentleman’s. I have offered the hon. Gentleman an opportunity, which he is not prepared to take up. If he thinks that making statements and allegations within the privilege of the House will enable him to be able to justify what he has to say, when what he is doing—because he knows perfectly well that everything he says will be splashed over the newspapers tomorrow — is not damaging people’s reputations when they cannot reply to him, then he is absolutely wrong and we are fed up with it and the way that he carries on.
§Mr. Dalyell If there is going to be anger, I am exceedingly angry about what was done in BBC Scotland, which was a wholly un-British thing to do. What happened in Glasgow was horrific. That was something that has never happened in Britain before. I have been here for nearly a quarter of a century and previous Prime Ministers — the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), Mr. Harold Macmillan and Sir Alec Douglas-Home—know that I have behaved impeccably towards them. This is a different kind of Government and a new species of Prime Minister. As a Member who has been here for a quarter of a century, I do not like it.
§Mr. Cash The hon. Gentleman may not like it, but he is shielding himself behind the privileges of the House.
§The question having been proposed after half-past Two o’clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

§Adjourned at eleven minutes past Three o’clock.

 

Ever wondered why these sorts of people intermarry? Well, when you combine wealth you protect yourself enormously because those who would wish to attack you don’t dare because they know you can spend them into bankruptcy. Whereas, if you were to marry a pauper, you just have what YOU have and your spouse brings no further protection to the table. If you wish to maintain your class as the ruling class, you continue to marry within it.

 

Arms Exports

HC Deb 20 June 1995 vol 262 cc231-2W 231W
§Dr. David Clark To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) when his Department was informed that British arms were being exported to Iran via Singapore; and if he will make a statement; [29463]
(2) when his Department received notice of allegations that BMARC was exporting arms via Singapore to Iran. [29474]

§Mr. Freeman In 1991 my Department was made aware of allegations to this effect as a result of evidence given to Trade and Industry Select Committee.
§Dr. David Clark To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the types of military equipment exported to Iran via Singapore by the British firm BMARC. [29464]
§Mr. Freeman As stated by my right hon. Friend, the President of the Board of Trade, on 13 June 1995 at columns 595–606, there may be grounds for believing that the final destination of GAM B01 naval guns, spares and associated ammunition exported by BMARC could have been Iran. This type of equipment is fitted in many surface ships of the Royal Navy and other naval forces including the Singaporean navy.
§Dr. David Clark To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations were made to his Department during the period of the Iran-Iraq arms embargo to permit British arms to be sold to Singapore. [29466]
§Mr. Freeman The Ministry of Defence receives frequent inquiries from British companies who are interested in exporting defence equipment to Singapore or other countries. We do not keep records of all such inquiries.
§Dr. David Clark To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the total value of arms exports sold to Singapore since 1980. [29467]
§Mr. Freeman It has been the policy of successive Governments not to reveal the value of defence exports to individual countries. However, the value of exports by geographic region is contained in table 1.11 of UK defence statistics.
§Dr. David Clark To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what reports his Department has received that British arms exports are currently being sold to Iran through Singapore. [29468]232W
§Mr. Freeman It is not normally the practice of my Department to comment on intelligence reports. The possibility of British arms exports to Iran through Singapore, or other countries, is kept under regular review interdepartmentally and appropriate action taken.
§Dr. David Clark To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the normal procedure undertaken by his Department following requests from the Department of Trade and Industry for information on British arms export licences; and if he will make a statement. [29469]
§Mr. Freeman The Department of Trade and Industry normally circulates export licence applications, to the FCO and MOD. Unless the exports concerned have already been the subject of MOD scrutiny they are normally circulated within MOD for the appropriate operational, security and intelligence assessments. A MOD view is then co-ordinated and sent back to the DTI.
§Dr. David Clark To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what procedures his Department adopts to prevent British arms from being sold to Iran; and if he will list the changes to these procedures in the last 10 years. [29471]
§Mr. Freeman All export licence applications are looked at on a case-by-case basis, taking into account all the available evidence and our national and international policy commitments.
In the case of Iran, since December 1984, this has been undertaken by a Ministry of Defence working group and an interdepartmental committee, which includes representatives from FCO and DTI.

§Dr. David Clark To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will make a statement on the duties of the Minister of State for Defence Procurement in the export procedures of British arms; [29472]
(2) what role the right hon. member for Thanet, South, (Mr. Aitken) had in respect of the export of arms to Singapore while acting as Minister for Defence Procurement. [29473]

§Mr. Freeman The Minister of State for Defence Procurement has responsibility within MOD for, inter alia, promoting defence exports within Government policy. He also has ministerial responsibility in relation to the advice on exports his Department gives to the Department for Trade and Industry, as licensing authority.

 

Malaysian Airlines MH370: A proven script start to finish

Ok. Where do I start?

How do I PROVE to people who do not wish to accept that what I am telling them is absolute fact?

If we really do have families of missing MH370 passengers then do these families just want “closure” (it would increasingly appear so) given by people who are lying to them from start to finish, OR do they want to step up the discussion to find out what TRULY happened to their relatives? Or do they just not care because, perhaps, this entire story has been a hoax from the beginning?

It’s up to the families to prove they are actually REAL families! This may sound crazy to people reading this that I am saying this BUT, ask yourself (I have asked myself): Would you, having a loved one on a flight and being told it just “disappeared”, while then being “guided” by one contradiction after the other and amazingly fortunate occurrences, to a conclusion that your loved one ended up at the bottom of the Indian Ocean and NEVER being given proof of this, accept it? You KNOW (because if you don’t you seriously are really quite inept, I’m sorry) that there has been political turf wars going on and intelligence agencies crawling all over it while these same intelligence agents have been “feeding” the story and conflicting messages (precisely for the required confusion which all leads to people simply saying they want “closure”) since the day it disappeared.

Me? I don’t understand you if you are one of those families. I either don’t understand you and, therefore, can never sympathise with you, or you are actually non existent because, knowing what I know and seeing clearly what I see, I KNOW – if it were my relative – that they did not end their lives at the bottom of the Indian Ocean.

So who ARE you people is what I want to know?

1. Inmarsat: Triangulation from a SINGLE satellite! 

This is triangulation –

In trigonometry and geometry, triangulation is the process of determining the location of a point by measuring angles to it from known points at either end of a fixed baseline, rather than measuring distances to the point directly (trilateration). The point can then be fixed as the third point of a triangle with one known side and two known angles.

You need at least TWO reference points – in this case, it would have to be a second satellite OR another plane which spotted MH370 or SOMETHING – a boat at a known set of coordinates. BUT YOU CANNOT TRIANGULATE WITH ONE SATELLITE AND THEN BY ANALYSING OTHER BOEING 777’s FLIGHTPATHS ON COMPLETELY DIFFERENT DAYS AND HAVING NO GEOSPATIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH MH370! If someone did this they should be winning the Nobel prize for physics!

I’d PAY to hear this explanation of how they did it! Even then I wouldn’t believe it!

Watch this IDIOT try and speak to you like a weather forecaster about Inmarsat’s amazing analysis:

 

2.  Black box pings

I wrote about the fact that, to detect such pings, the Haixun or the Ocean Shield would need to be within a mile or two of the position of the plane underneath.

I provided this is back up for my claim:

I further support this statement by the following now…

What does the above tell us?

Quite a few things actually.

1. I mentioned in a previous post re Angus Houston that I did not believe this claim that ocean depth and, therefore, pressure, would have such an impact upon the Black box frequency. What we see now is that it is being said that “older equipment can make the frequency drift”. This is bullshit for one major reason: The manufacturer is suggesting that they have sold a black box to an airline with no “lifetime guarantee” that, throughout the stated lifetime, the frequency will not drift? Then that company should be out of business. It should state in the specification and support agreement that the equipment should be operationally checked at certain intervals. I would then doubt that such servicing checks were not carried out. You DO NOT just casually make a statement like this. Find out who the manufacturer was and ensure Boeing never use them again IF it is, in fact, Boeing who contract out this item. To supply into the airline industry and to people like Boeing, you must go through the most rigorous testing and quality procedures. I know! I can assure you of that!

2. They have introduced the above excuse (no excuse at all as I have just pointed out) along with the pressure excuse AND the battery lifetime excuse (battery lifetime has ZERO effect upon an electronic equipment’s frequency of transmission. It either has enough power to transmit or it dies and doesn’t transmit. It doesn’t act like Robbie the bloody Robot!). Again, they are clouding the issue to cover ever possible way out. BUT they’ve screwed up. You know why? Because, listen to this video once more. It says that the Haixun picked up the signal at 37.5KHz! So, we have a perfectly working 37.5KHz at such ocean depth pressure from chinese analysis but we have a 33KHz signal (a frequency used in ocean echo sounding)  from Ocean Shield because the manufacturer has said at such pressure, the frequency would drift! Caught out in a lie once more! This is incredible stuff!

Now I’ve already said the Haixun and the Ocean Shield HAVE to be picking up completely different signals because they were about 500+ kilometres apart – therefore impossible to be the same source. As it says in the last paragraph above: “It is designed to detect signals at a range of (only) 1.12 miles”. IMPOSSIBLE that the two ships can be picking up the same signal. AND YET, Houston and friends have used those two entirely different signals (if signals at all because I 100% believe this entire thing to be a scripted story) to “narrow down” and, once again, “triangulate”. So now we have two reference sources for the black box being two different ships. The PROBLEM being they are suggesting “triangulation” of ONE target when it CANNOT be the same target!! This really is a joke and it is transparent to any scientist on planet earth!

Here is what they have done by using absolutely incorrect and totally misleading CRAP to have people believe they have narrowed down the search corridor for the black box:

 

Points 1 and 2 are about 400Km apart (in these diagrams although, elsewhere, it was stated the ships were 300 nautical miles apart and about 560Km). The ping locator on Ocean Shield has a range of 1.12 miles and the black box is about 3 or 4 Km under the surface. This means the ship has to be directly above the wreckage to detect. So think about that for just one microsecond.

1. The impossibility the two ships have detected the same source so to then draw a line between the two and suggest this line represents where the black box is, is just pure voodoo junk trash! The black box can ONLY be located directly below where either ship is. Now, if you located a 37.5KHz signal (Haixun) and a 33KHz signal (Ocean Shield) and the black box was known to transmit at 37.5KHz, which one would YOU suggest had picked up the right signal? So WHY are they going with the Ocean Shield one at all and almost ignoring the Haixun?

2. IF the box can only be detected by a ship directly above it (which it can only be) then WHY has Houston suggested this ridiculous, misleading strip between point 1 and point 2? Why has he said they have to get even closer to decide to send down a submarine or UAV or divers?

Not ONE ounce of this makes sense and it doesn’t because we are getting fed total bullshit!

 

Addendum:

“Honeywell Aerospace, which made the boxes in the missing Malaysia Airlines plane, said the Underwater Acoustic Beacons on both the flight data recorder and cockpit voice recorder operate at a frequency of 37.5 kilohertz plus or minus 1 kilohertz.” Not 33KHz then! Even so, I am very surprised at the lack of precision of such a device.

http://www.npr.org/2014/04/06/299671354/electronic-signal-with-aircraft-black-box-pulse

Angus Houston “There’s going to be an event Aaron”

I wrote the other day about how it was obvious that Angus Houston knew that Black Box “pings” from MH370 were going to miraculously be found. He had made the statement the day before ANY such pings had been detected that he was going to have “big news” last friday.

HOW DID HE KNOW THIS? HOW DID ANGUS HOUSTON KNOW, BEFORE THE EVENT HAPPENED THAT HE WAS GOING TO HAVE ‘BIG NEWS’? HE COULDN’T HAVE UNLESS HE’S INVOLVED IN WRITING THE SCRIPT!!

This is what ANGUS HOUSTON said on thursday. One FULL day before any “pings” were detected. A “BIG” operations announcement. There was NOTHING “big” at all he could have been speaking about BUT what then transpired. 37.5KHz “pings” they are SAYING are from MH370s Black Box.

 

 

WHY ARE MALAYSIANS AND CHINESE WILLING TO BELIEVE THE BRITISH, AMERICANS and AUSTRALIANS? WHY, WHEN YOU HAVE ALL THIS DATA OVER THE PAST WEEKS TELLING YOU YOU ARE BEING LIED TO (and I honestly believe Malaysia is under pressure by these countries) ARE YOU EVEN ACCEPTING HEARING THINGS LIKE “We may have good news” WHEN IT IS NOT GOOD NEWS TO HEAR CONFIRMATION OF YOUR FAMILY MEMBER HAVING DIED! WHY ARE YOU PUTTING UP WITH THIS?

None of this entire story – from start to finish – has made sense and yet you are accepting it? You’re accepting that if they say they’ve found a black box it will actually be MH370s and not one placed there. You have accepted unexplained garbage from Inmarsat regarding how they “pinpointed” the direction and “location” of the plane when they have not shown the world how they did it. Are you “families” of the victims for real?

“There’s going to be another event Aaron. From which we’re going to take control of Malaysia and most of South East Asia. There’s going to be guys out in the middle of the indian Ocean looking for a plane which doesn’t exist (at least not there).”

Now we have this today re Angus Houston’s “knowledge”. Simply, once more confirming he could not have known he would have “big news” on friday when friday hadn’t happened yet!

By James Matthews, Sky News Correspondent, In Perth
An Australian ship has been unable to re-locate the signals, or ‘pings’, first heard at the weekend in its search for the black box of flight MH370.

Search coordinators say they will continue to trawl the Indian Ocean for several days before they consider sending down a mini submarine to investigate.

The Australian ship Ocean Shield picked up the pinging sound twice, on Saturday and Sunday, [Interesting that it is saturday and sunday. So it was just the chinese ship which picked up anything on the friday while Houston stated on thursday that he had BIG NEWS to come on the friday] but has since been unable to hear it again. [Note: Ocean Shield was 300 nautical miles from the Hiaxun. It could NOT be the same ping! But they have led you to believe it was, so far.]

Search coordinator Angus Houston and Australia’s defence minister David Johnston both said re-locating the ping was the best-case scenario for the search. [WHICH ping? Ocean Shield’s OR Hiaxun’s?]

Mr Houston said: “There have been no further contacts with any transmission and we need to continue that for several days right up to the point at which there’s absolutely no doubt that the batteries will have expired.

“If we don’t get any further transmissions, we have a reasonably large search area of the bottom of the ocean to prosecute and that will take a long, long time. It’s very slow, painstaking work.”

He said narrowing the search area first was critical.

He added: “It is a large area for a small submersible that has a very narrow field of search, and of course, it is literally crawling along the bottom of the ocean.

“That’s why its so important to get another transmission and we need to continue until there’s absolutely no chance the device is still transmitting.” [Another transmission from which boat’s location? They are TWO completely different pings if they are pings at all!]

It would provide a precise target for the Bluefin 21, a mini submarine, to aim for in the next stage of the search.

The plan is to send the mini sub down to the depths of the Indian Ocean and create a sonar map of the seabed.

It would highlight any debris on the ocean floor, which would then be further investigated using photographic equipment. [Where is ANY debris on the surface? If you are so close to the black box then why no mention of even looking for debris on the surface? Are you saying the entire plane just crashed into the ocean, never broke up and submerged itself? Is that what you’re now trying to suggest? This is becoming a ridiculous fairy story! Well it already was.]

If all goes to plan, confirmation that plane wreckage had been discovered would come in the form of a photograph beamed back above the water’s surface. [snore. Beamed back from the water’s surface. As opposed to where? The MOON’S surface? Jesus H fucking Christ! You are really treating people as dumbfucks.]

The transmission of the sound detected by the Australian ship is 33.2khz. This contrasts with the 37.5 kHz which is the usual transmission from a black box. [BIG problem then because 33KHz is the frequency used for Echo sounding and, therefore, THAT is what you could be picking up]

Australian officials say they have checked with the black box manufacturers and it is still regarded as a credible reading. The pressure at the base of the ocean can affect transmission signals. [First I knew! Can you confirm that please? 37.5KHz is 37.5KHz. Prove your assertion!]

Angus Houston: “There’s going to be an event…”
Haven’t I heard this somewhere before?

 

 

But here we have a little “insight” as to what is going on….

China Trying To Scoop Malaysia In MH370 Search
Updated: 3:31pm UK, Monday 07 April 2014

By Alistair Bunkall, Sky News Defence Correspondent

The authorities are, quite rightly, not publicly concluding that they’ve found the plane; but reading between the lines, there are clear signs that they believe this is it.

Tony Abbott, the Australian PM, phoned his Malaysian counterpart Najib Razak this morning to tell him what ADV Ocean Shield had heard overnight. [He could be calling to just synchronise the story!]

That is a sign of how significant this development is. The two leaders wouldn’t speak in person were it being treated as a routine update. [As above.]

And the wheels are now fully in motion to fly the relatives to Perth, maybe in the coming days. The Malaysians are compiling a list of the next of kin. Again, a demonstration of how seriously this news is being treated. [As above. “This is what we’re going to say so get the relatives over for the big newscast”]

No-one has mentioned the Chinese. At least not voluntarily. It was a tweet from Chinese state-run media that got everyone’s hopes up on Saturday evening. Much was made of their find. Pictures from Chinese journalists on board showed Chinese sailors listening to a signal with the correct frequency.

The news took all of us by surprise. [It didn’t Angus Houston. OR, perhaps it did! You see Angus shot his mouth off on thursday which could well have had the chinese say “We want in there first”. Perhaps the chinese know that the west really don’t have a plane to look for down there and perhaps the chinese know this is one big story. So if they hear that the west is going to make a call on the black box, why don’t they get in there first. Perhaps they know the overall story is “Oh dear we found it at the bottom of the Indian Ocean” so all the chinese do is tell their people THEY first heard the pings!” Good internal politics that is.]

The head of the search operation Angus Houston kept his nerve. By rights China’s news should have been relayed to the world by him or the Malaysians. That would have been the protocol. [You see? There’s a propaganda war going on. Angus “kept his nerve”. Jesus! This is so obvious]

A mea culpa: I accused the Australians of losing control of the media strategy.

In some respects I was right, this was not how they wanted the news to break. The Chinese had gone rogue. [Ho ho ho. We’re talking about the lives of 239 people and the media and the authorities are playing some form of cat and mouse game. They should all be hung!]

But I should have given Angus Houston the benefit of the doubt. He has been extremely impressive since taking control of the situation and I think he knew exactly what he was going on over the weekend. [How “impressive”? Tell me Alistair, what exactly has he done? Is it just because of his position and one of the Queen’s men?]

Behind the scenes he was learning about Ocean Shield’s discovery. [?]

On Sunday morning, in between a flurry of questions about the Chinese discovery, he mentioned that Ocean Shield had had an “acoustic event” but details were sketchy. Few of us gave it much thought: all eyes were on the Chinese discovery and HMS Echo steaming towards the area. That was the real discovery. Or so we thought. [None of them are real Alistair. You’re just a western journo creating the name for Angus Houston and you’re transparent as hell]

Clearly, even to me, the two didn’t match up. Either one of them had heard the black box, or neither of them. Given their distance from each other, it couldn’t be both of them. [THAT is true! Thanks for that confirmation.]

Patiently, Houston waited until Ocean Shield was sure about what it had heard, and only then was it announced as a major development. [So then what was the “big news” your hero Angus knew he had on Thursday then Alistair? ;-)]

In their respective press conferences today, Australia and Malaysia have declined to criticise the Chinese but the way they’ve answered questions about them, short and to the point, says much.

China has shown frustration with the Malaysians in particular throughout this past month. They first questioned and then demanded the Inmarsat data be handed over. They allowed their nationals to protest outside the Malaysian Embassy in Beijing. Things like don’t happen without the state turning a blind eye at the very least. [Indeed not. It’s all managed as I have been saying for weeks.]

And the breakthroughs were being made by companies in other countries: the British firm Inmarsat, the French company Airbus, Boeing from the US. [Funny that isn’t it? Ever had the feeling it’s the west running this entire show?]

But I think they’ve also been frustrated with their own inability to find the plane. This was a chance to demonstrate the ability of their technology to the world. A chance to reassure their own people that China is superior. [It’s been a negotiation Alistair]

A chance to say, “don’t worry, we’ve got it; if anyone is going to solve this global mystery, we will”.

They haven’t managed to. [Certain ‘interests’ working behind the scenes Alistair.]

There were 154 Chinese nationals on board MH370 and clearly Beijing has a right to play a major role in the search, but more than once by various senior people I have been told how they are not operating as team players. There are clearly two separate search operations going on and that isn’t helpful. [Exactly, it’s a turf war and a political game start to finish]

It might be a race to find the black box but it isn’t a competition. [oh but it is Alistair. VERY naive of you!]

http://news.sky.com/story/1238723/hunt-for-mh370-pings-delays-sub-launch

 

Ok, two points:

1. “But, again, experts say that the distance between this and the Chinese contacts make it unlikely that both could be connected to MH370.” You’re damned right. So then that makes the NEXT link (after the one below) a heap of crap! Because you cannot “narrow down” when the two pings (560Km apart for a signal that you can only pick up within a very few miles – i.e. 1 or 2) are obviously not of the same source!!

2. “But some experts have questioned whether the listening equipment the Chinese appear to have been using would necessarily be able to isolate that frequency.” So then that, once again, goes to prove that, if it is a 33KHz signal then it is the WRONG frequency for a black box! Why would you WISH to “isolate on 37.5KHz” IF, as said, 33.2KHz is still credible? This whole story is ripping apart at the seams!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-26912071

 

 

“Although the 37.5 kilohertz “pings” heard by Australian and Chinese ships on 5 and 6 April have not been confirmed, they have allowed search teams to narrow their efforts.” But this is total utter bullshit! These two pings CANNOT narrow dow the search for reasons just given above! But the MEDIA is doing the job the authorities want by promulgating CRAP to the ignorant! WHY ARE SCIENTISTS NOT SPEAKING OUT ABOUT ALL OF THIS ABSOLUTE SHIT THEY’RE SPEWING?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-26923235

 

 

 

MH370 CRITICAL: Houston, we have a problem!

Ok, so I can’t stop watching and researching the news. Ok I grant you that. However, what you are about to read is going to blow your mind. (After a short detour). Angus Houston has fcuked up! He’s been FAR too keen to blow his mouth off and far too soon!

Unless, that is YOU can tell ME what “BIG NEWS” means other than something exceptionally significant after all these weeks.

ANGUS HOUSTON KNEW HE WAS GOING TO FIND PINGS FROM THE BLACK BOX BEFORE THEY WERE FOUND.

THE MAN HAS AN INCREDIBLE CRYSTAL BALL!

Ok, on now to the main event of this evening: In the red corner, we have “Angus” Houston, wearing the Queen’s colours and those of the RAAF. A born and bred Scotsman schooled at Strathallan school, no less, in Forgandenny, Perthshire. Elite born and bred then and conditioned through life. He is now a Companion and Officer of the Military division of the Order of Australia. He joined the RAAF in 1970 and has never looked back. Angus says he has some big news to give “tomorrow” (and he said this on Thursday 3rd April). In the blue corner, we have another scotsman who never went to Strathallan, despises the Queen and her entire clan and their hangers on and is willing to call Angus a lying, deceptive bastard. Not lying that he had “big news” but lying in the sense of how he possibly could know he’d have “big news” the next day! We’ll get to it in a moment or two.

Strangely, however, he was also given an award by Malaysia of all countries. Searching out why he got that was rather difficult but I got there. He was stationed in Malaysia in 1999/00 WITH NATO. There is a “Five Power” agreement in place between Malaysia, Singapore, Australia, UK and New Zealand.

 

Angus Houston was the Commander of IADS (CIADS) during 1999/00. Nothing entirely dramatic about that. Just a fact.

However, it would seem, from the bottom, final paragraph of this rather long (and edited by me) document, Najib wasn’t too happy with the FPDA membership. So ANOTHER western alliance that Malaysia weren’t too interested in, similar to the TPPA. And, ironically, we have Angus – with his previous Malaysian award – now taking charge of the search for the plane while the RAAF and Australians are saying “What we can assure you (to the world audience) is our professionalism”. A dig at Malaysia AND, perhaps, China?

Let’s move on….

Another thing that the western media and western “experts” and “specialists” have been full of, is the suggestion that Malaysia’s radar and airspace defence is piss poor. OH NO IT’S NOT!

If you haven’t heard of Thales (French) and Raytheon (American) – although I’m sure most of you have heard of the latter – they are two of the world’s top suppliers of defence equipment. Malaysia, just last year (February) had upgraded and then completed full system acceptance on a brand new Command and Control centre including new long range radar supplied by Thales/Raytheon. One other thing to note about this is that there is no way, then, that western military and/or intelligence could NOT know the capabilities of Malaysia’s defence radar system! So for the west to suggest that Malaysia was not forthcoming with such data is absolute, utter trash.

 

 

“Western arms makers” want to sell! Who do they want to sell to and why? To South East Asian countries in case of a threat by who? China? Russia? Why would the latter wish to attack them? I’ve never seen any suggestion they have thought that way. It’s hardly worth attacking just for the sake of the Spratly Islands for god’s sakes! And these countries are not America. Perhaps they don’t feel the need for arming themselves to the teeth? Ah but they’ve GOT to because the UK and US want to sell arms because that’s just about the only fcuking market they have that they produce for in any great volume and profit! PLUS, they want the South East Asian countries to be on our side in the next war don’t they? And they don’t want them siding with China or getting too close to China economically. But remember, I’m still talking about globalists here.

Oh my god! Malaysia didn’t scramble fighter jets! Well they only had ONE plane in this case. What happened when America had FOUR planes in their airspace and ONE of them heading into the PENTAGON? (so we’re told). America, do us all a favour and shut your big fcuking mouths! (American government that is and Pentagon and intelligence). Because you’re as transparent as single K glass window and full of shit!

 

Ah! The International Institute for Strategic Studies’ Mr Huxley, jabs his nose in and says “there are other elements” as if to suggest that, while they now have invested in some of the best kit, Malaysians are just not quite as smart as Americans! You condescending, up your arse piece of shit. Your country is DYING Huxley and it’s dying from the inside as you’re getting eaten alive by globalists. Nobody needs to attack you. You’re falling apart because your people can’t quite grasp they’re being invaded by a cancerous growth internally. That’s how good YOUR ‘training and morale” is. America: Falling apart at the seams just like my own country the UK for exactly the same reasons and due to exactly the same people.

Anyhow, let’s get on to Mr Houston shall we?

ANGUS HOUSTON – YOU HAVE A PROBLEM!

You’re caught lad. Red handed!

I happened to have come across this little article:

 

I thought “What an interesting statement to make”. For a reason which shall become apparent immediately I hope.

So I checked the CNN report referred to:

April 3rd was Thursday. Angus was priming the press for “big” news. Hmmm… what could “big” news be? They had found the plane? Or, at least, they had found a black box? After ALL the “big” leads, what would a “big” man like Houston have which he considered “big” enough to be called “big”? It would just have to be “big” wouldn’t it?

WELL WOULDN’T IT?… B I G…..BIG!!

 

Note the date of this article: April 4th – Friday.

 

So, as you can see, on friday, there was no BIG news, no big new clues. The info based on the same kind of analysis etc while Houston, himself says Just “The area of highest probability…. best data…” etc so absolutely nothing new on friday at all…… until!

 

Now LISTEN closely to the following:

Remember, the “pin-point (but “rough”) accuracy of the satellite “models’ that were done in a week or two when it would normally have been a year’s worth of work and they never had done anything like this before and they called it “triangulation” when it can’t be because you need more than ONE satellite to triangulate to any degree, told us exactly the area where the “plane went down” and it was about 2000 miles off the south west coast of Perth Australia. But NOW, it’s not. NOW, all of a sudden with MORE “analysis”, it’s hundreds of miles further north because the analysis told them the plane was travelling faster therefore took up more fuel quickly. And YET, there is NO WAY they can tell what speed that plane was doing nevermind direction or altitude. You can believe me or not but I’m telling you that is a fact. A doppler analysis would NOT give you direction in the first place. Nearer or further from the satellite yes but not anymore than that.

“37.5KHz” – Houston and the chinese ship and the authorities are now being “CERTAIN” that this is the case. Then IF that IS the case you tell me? Why won’t they say “We’ve found it”? I’m saying IF they are so certain which they are saying they are AND the news is stating “surely this is the strongest lead so far”. Yes he says nothing confirmed as of yet BUT the “authorities” are stating very strongly – almost without a doubt – that it was a 37.5KHz pulse. If so, then, considering we don’t know of ANY other plane which was meant to have crashed down there AND there is no other equipment which pulses at 37.5KHZ because that will be reserved for black boxes, then it can ONLY be the MH370 black box can’t it?

And here is our Queen’s long term RAAF man this morning (Sunday 6th April) giving his “big news”. He is stating the pulses were picked up on saturday and, at earliest, friday.

At this point, I will state categorically, that IF they find a black box it will have been DROPPED there!

“The Haixun icked up the signal yesterday (FRIDAY) lunchtime.” This means the above article was written and published Friday morning BEFORE the signal was picked up.

The chinese reporter then says signals had been picked up over friday and saturday. There were NO signals reported on THURSDAY! Not only that but the Australian reporter then goes on to say that the Haixun wasn’t even meant to have been involved in the underwater search and it was only in the past 24 hours that they found out it had a black box detector onboard. Now COUPLE this with the fact that the now NEW area of search (there are, in fact 3 or 3 new areas) STILL covers a very large region of ocean and, we are aware that a boat needs to be somewhere in the region of just 1 or 2 miles from the black box to pick up its acoustic pulse, that is one HELL of a stroke of luck! Just give it a moment’s thought. That really is one hell of a lucky little tugboat! It MUST have a lucky chinese take away on board.

Inmarsat say “definitely there” and then it changes to hundreds of miles away (approx 1000Km in fact). THEN we have the little Hiaxun just wander into that big expanse of ocean and PING! From 56 miles away no less! What a lucky little chinese tugboat!

Take a look at how long it took to find A330’s black box:

 

Here’s another few articles to fill in blanks:

Now, here’s another little problem. The Haixun is reported to have been 56 miles away from the location (they assume) of the black box. The “Ocean Shield” is saying it picked up a 37.5KHz signal from 300 (THREE HUNDRED) nautical miles away.

 

[Correction: The above is suggesting the debris was spotted 56 miles away not that the sounds were picked up that far, However, the 300 nautical miles still stands and that is impossible from what I read and what is shown here regarding the range over which such pulses can be detected]

BUT the question then is: Is this person talking shit?

“Only from a distance of a few miles….. Sarah McComb, CHIEF of the recorders division at the NTSB.. ‘I don’t think the range is quite 5 to 10 miles…'”

Is Sarah incompetent? Doesn’t she know what she is talking about? I have read elsewhere that the range is only a couple of miles or so. So HOW 56 miles? And HOW 300 nautical miles?

 

However, forget all the black box pulse detail for now…..

The BIG question is

HOW DID ANGUS KNOW ON THURSDAY THAT THERE WAS GOING TO BE BIG NEWS TO GIVE ON THE OPERATION THE NEXT DAY WHEN NO-ONE WOULD KNOW THAT LITTLE HAIXUN WOULD PICK UP 37.5KHz PULSES ON FRIDAY AND SATURDAY?

I’ll tell you why Angus knew: Because Angus is a part of those “in the club” who are running this “show” and writing the script!

I think Angus got a little excited and ahead of himself. A little like WTC 7 on 9/11.

If you have another theory for what Angus’ “big news” could have been (and KNOW what it was which I’ve missed on friday) then I’m all ears!