Earthling

National Archives kept secret: British Zionist War Cabinet 1917

Posted in Political History, The Corrupt SOB's by earthling on July 28, 2016

I think it’s pretty clear that I despise my government, the Judges who protect it, the Monarchy and the Armed Forces/Police who do their will in abject ignorance. I also some are not ignorant but, as one cop said to me recently: “It’s every man/woman for themselves. We all have families to feed and nothing’s gonna change”. So he/she knows it’s screwed up and that he/she is a part of it and simply does as he/she is told, BUT “Selfishness rules in society so we take care of ourselves”.

And you know what? He/She is right. What a pity huh?

So, when it comes to Arms and Defence companies etc, the people who work there are doing so because it’s a job even though they know (or don’t think or care about it) it kills tens of thousands or even millions of innocents. Not that long ago, I blamed them. I don’t any longer because I agree, it really is every man for themselves this life. Not what i would prefer but it’s how it is.

Does that stop me trying to bring facts and truth to your attention? No. I just did. What I just said above is the truth and a fact. Sure, sure there will be many of you out there saying “We’re not all like that” but you know what? You are!

So here we have Palestine attempting to sue the British government based on the agreement with Jews (NOT only zionists but JEWS!) re the Balfour Declaration. The treaty demanded by the Rothschild bitches!

Palestine to sue Britain BBC

Palestine to sue Britain 2

And can you blame them? I can’t. We’re a despicable, cuckolded bunch of monarchical subjects ruled over by a Zionist Occupied Government and we think we’re a “free nation” while we plod along in our empty fucking lives trying to scrape a living while our successive governments suck on the tit of the jewish diaspora of the west who actually hate our guts but smile sweetly at us (they’re so fucking good at that!) and most of us are outraged by anyone who steps out of line and shines the light on these bunch of leeches and we call those who do, “Anti semite”. It’s been drilled into us for our entire lives to believe the little hook nosed cretins can do no wrong, have been persecuted by every nation on the planet (I wonder why? – That was rhetorical if you didn’t suss it) and are “God’s chosen” ( a belief they projected onto Hitler and the NSDAP – Nazis to most of you – to demonise them. The irony!).

Well, if you tend to research a bit, you pick up on a lot (and some of you pick up on crap and believe it by the way) but when you dig further and further, you “stumble” upon more and more, deeper and deeper and facts that make your hair stand on end or your jaw drop.

I’ve had this for years but, only now for some reason, thought it pertinent to blog it. That is these pages out of the British National Archives. They make sickening reading.

B1

B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8

B9 B10 B11 B12 B13 B14 B15 B16 B17 B18 B19

B20 B21

 

But those infinitesimally small percentage of the human race are a tight little tribe and they owe so much of their wealth, position and power in all areas to just a few families who find the Old Testament or Torah a very VERY useful tool. One of those families you know well of course. They have their name emblazoned across the most central and well known street (they call it a Boulevard of course) in Tel Aviv and here it is in 1913 and today (notice the nice chequered paving):

Rothschild Boulevard 2843266734_66943526c3_b stock-photo-tel-aviv-isr-apr-rothschild-boulevard-street-sign-in-tel-aviv-israel-it-s-one-of-the-285217451 rotchild1w

 

They STOLE the land and they used terrorism to do so and Rothschild walks free today while people like Menachem Begin (a bloody terrorist) became Prime Minister. A terrorist that blew up the British Government HQ and killed British men and women as well as Arabs to achieve his goal. Today? Britain actually celebrates the founding of Israel. Founded upon British service men and women’s blood. And you expect me to “cry for our boys and girls in uniform” while they go abroad to STILL fight Jewish wars? You’re joking right?

I’d sooner join what you consider as the Nazi Party!

 

So yes Palestine, sue the shit out of the British Government because, before they clandestinely decided Palestine was going to be flooded with Russian and Eastern European Jews so they may create a “National home for the jews” (read: Israel), you lived and worked that land peacefully over generations. My government gave your land to these alien cretins for their own purposes (probably paid handsomely and why the British government and Monarchy suck jewish dick to this day) and without any discussion/negotiation with those of you who already lived there. But that’s nothing new. Our government have cause the misplacing of peoples from their homes for centuries. Ask the American Indian or ask those Chagossians who they threw off their lands at gunpoint to provide for a Naval and Air base on Diego Garcia for the Americans.

Balfour_portrait_and_declaration

 

As an aside and regarding the Chagossians returning to The Changos Islands, it is laughable. You see:

“Under the terms of the 1966 lease the US have an option to extend the lease for 20 years in December 2016.” and it is highly likely that the Americans will extend the lease. The problem is for them (and the Chagossians) is that the maximum elevation above mean low water of Diego Garcia, for example, is just 30 feet.

Our governments kind of ignore stuff like that (and don’t like you thinking about it) when it comes to this subject of the ever so scary “Climate Change”. Ever wondered why? 😉

“Yes, sure you can go back to your Islands. Sorry about chucking you off, we thought you looked scary……… Oops! Sorry again! We forgot to tell you about sea levels rising due to global warming….. ummm I mean climate change….. ummm….. oh nevermind. Is it deep? Can you hear us?….. Well admiral, we got rid of them again. This time by “natural causes””.

 

Chagos islanders

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3557216/Deal-send-Chagos-islanders-home-closer.html

INMARSAT MH370 CALCULATIONS ERRONEOUS

Posted in "Terrorism", Disappearance of MH370, Geo-Political Warfare, Politics by earthling on May 10, 2014

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!

 

Inmarsat wrong 1

 

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: George Galloway pushing tripe.

Posted in "Terrorism", Disappearance of MH370, Politics by earthling on April 10, 2014

Why is George Galloway pushing this story?

I once spoke with George Galloway on his radio show and I just had time to mention “The Grand Chessboard” of Zbigniew Brzezinski and he cut me off for being a “Conspiracy theorist”. I simply asked the man if he had read the book – that is all. As soon as I did that, he cut me off and referred to me as a “Conspiracy theorist”.

And YET “Gorgeous George”, who thinks every word that is uttered from his tonsils should be taken as fact, is pushing THIS “theory”. CAN YOU BELIEVE THAT?

Hey George: You’re an ASS! You talk a lot of truth mate but don’t kid a kidder. All your “truth” also has an agenda behind it. 

George Galloway

 

Yes, I have strong suspicions that that plane went to Diego Garcia (if the story is real at all) but I’m a “Conspiracy theorist” George so what do you expect? You’re not! You’re an “upstanding politician and member of the UK Parliament!” You don’t DEAL in conspiracy theory George! You don’t even talk about REAL books!

But here you are pushing Jim Stone’s story of a totally black iphone photo taken somewhere on Diego Garcia by some passenger who STUCK his iphone up his rectum? Excuse the pun George but don’t talk SHIT!

So let’s consider the possible scenarios here:

1. An actual physical hijacking.

What did Philip Wood do George? Put up his hand and ask to go to the toilet then ram his iphone up his ass? Did he ask a stewardess if she had some KY jelly on her?

Or did he just decide to drop his keggs in front of the passengers and hijackers or sat quietly in his seat with a blanket over him and shove a rather hard, unforgiving, quite large rectangular metal phone up his anus? Does Sarah Bajc, his girlfriend know about this George? Have you called her to tell her how real this is? Go on George. Call Ms Bajc and tell her that you are absolutely certain this is what her boyfriend has done and he’s still alive on Diego Garcia!

2. The flight was remotely hijacked and Philip Wood had all the time, patience and consideration that, when they landed, he would have to have his phone stuck up his ass in case he was searched by American forces personnel.

So then what? He’s in a cell by himself? In the pitch black. While these professional American forces hijackers or CIA never thought of using “wands” on the passengers to ensure they had no metal on them? A wand that can pick up a sliver of a piece of cigarette foil paper stuck in the corner of the back pocket of a pair of jeans (I know this because, due to that, I almost received an anal examination at Los Angeles Airport a few years ago until I finally located a tiny sliver of the stuff right in the corner of my jeans pocket).

So then Philip whips out his phone and send a picture message. Ok, so we assume that Diego Garcia is totally open to all and that every telecommunications network operator is on that island. Philip lived in China – about to go to Malaysia but he retained an AT&T mobile line JUST IN CASE he was hijacked right? Or SPRINT or any one of the other American based mobile operators. Ok, let’s assume that too. Because we certainly couldn’t assume China Mobile had a network connection on Diego Garcia could we George?

So then we assume that Philip, in a pitch black (no windows) room was able to get a signal. We then have to consider why he would wait 10 days before sending this pic (dated 18th March) AND, if we assume it was because he was, somehow, never alone out of the sight of his captors, we then have to believe that in those 10 days, his captors (American soldiers or CIA) did not find his iphone on his person or up his ass! He has had to go to the toilet how many times in that time? Let’s say once a day (assuming they’re getting fed) so, each time he goes, he has to shit out the phone and then stick it back up his ass am I right?

 

George Galloway: PISS OFF you idiot!

Go collaborate with Wood’s “fiance” and both of you go on record with that story.

You know this entire MH370 story is bullshit so you’re just playing the game. You don’t care that you’re talking shit because you know the whole story is shit.

Gallow's humour!

Gallow’s humour!

MH370: Matthias Chang & Reuters

Having been pointing to the U.S. (Globalists) and affiliated intelligence agencies since just about day one plus providing the reasons as to why they would stoop to such depths, plus providing information about Boeing’s patent for remote control of planes by CIA and, finally, questioning Diego Garcia, I think I can say I am vindicated for doing so.

This is an unannounced “war”. Wars are for political and economic power. 9/11 commenced a few but this just may be the point at which we begin to see mainstream “light” being shed upon who really is behind all of this from 9/11 to MH370. Because it certainly wasn’t (and isn’t) “Al Qaeda”.

What was the last direction that aircraft was pointing in according to radar? Forget this satellite arc crap! Provided by a British company tied to the British and American governments for its entire existence (contracts). But that last known direction does not reflect what the western globalists want us to consider does it? It says “Whoa! I’m going to Garcia!”

MH370-sky-vector-460x306

Disappearance of Malaysian Airlines Flight MH 370: The Trillion Dollar Question to the U.S. and Its Intelligence Services

Malaysian media should pose critical questions to the US and its Intelligence Services and not to the Malaysian Government

By Matthias Chang
Global Research, March 29, 2014
Future Fast Forward

Matthias Chang is a prominent Malaysian lawyer and author, who served as political secretary and adviser to former Prime Minister Dr. Mahathir Mohammad.

Let me state from the outset that I totally agree with the press statements by Malaysia’s Defence Minister and Acting Transport Minister, Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein that “we have conducted ourselves fairly, responsibly and history will judge us for that.”

And to a mischievous and presumptuous question from a correspondent of the Financial Times, Datuk Seri with confidence and integrity rightly said without any fear of contradiction that, “I don’t think we could have done anything different from what we have already done.” Well done!

The Financial Times, CNN and other foreign media ought to pose similar questions to the US and its intelligence services and stop insinuating that Malaysia has not been transparent and/or engaged in a cover-up. Foreign media should stop engaging in dirty politics!

It is my hope that following the publication of this article, Malaysian mass media will focus on questioning the integrity of the US’s assistance to Malaysia in the first three weeks of the SAR mission, notwithstanding its recent offer of more assistance.

I take comfort that my reservations about the US and its intelligence services as well as other intelligence services closely linked to the US, especially British secret service, have been more than vindicated by Reuters in its news report on 28th March, 2014 entitled Geopolitical games handicap hunt for flight MH370 (see below)

The search for flight MH370, the Malaysian Airlines jetliner that vanished over the South China Sea on March 8, has involved more than two dozen countries and 60 aircraft and ships but has been bedevilled by regional rivalries.

… With the United States playing a relatively muted role in the sort of exercise that until recently it would have dominated, experts and officials say there was no real central coordination until the search for the plane was confined to the southern Indian Ocean, when Australia largely took charge.

Part of the problem is that Asia has no NATO-style regional defence structure, though several countries have formal alliances with the United States. Commonwealth members Malaysia, Singapore, New Zealand and Australia also have an arrangement with Britain to discuss defence matters in times of crisis.

As mystery deepened over the fate of the Boeing 777 and its 239 passengers and crew, most of them Chinese, it became clear that highly classified military technology might hold the key.

But the investigation became deadlocked over the reluctance of others to share sensitive data, a reticence that appeared to harden as the search area widened.

“This is turning into a spy novel,” said an envoy from a Southeast Asian country, noting it was turning attention to areas and techniques few countries liked to publicly discuss.

Ultimately, the only country with the technical resources to recover the plane – or at least its black box recorder, which could lie in water several miles deep – may be the United States. Its deep-sea vehicles ultimately hauled up the wreckage of Air France 447 after its 2009 crash into a remote region of the South Atlantic.

While Putrajaya has been forced to reveal some of the limits and ranges of its air defences, the reluctance of Malaysia’s neighbours to release sensitive radar data may have obstructed the investigation for days.

At an ambassadorial meeting in the ad hoc crisis centre at an airport hotel on March 16, Malaysia formally appealed to countries on the jet’s possible path for help, but in part met with polite stonewalling, two people close to the talks said.

Some countries asked Malaysia to put its request in writing, triggering a flurry of diplomatic notes and high-level contacts.

‘It became a game of poker in which Malaysia handed out the cards at the table but couldn’t force others to show their hand,“ a person from another country involved in the talks said.

As in the northern Indian Ocean, where Chinese forces operate alongside other nations to combat Somali piracy, current and former officials say all sides are almost certainly quietly spying on and monitoring each other at the same time. (emphasis added)

mh370-cockpitatc-talk-shows-nothing-abnormal-malaysia_010414061849WantChinaTimes, Taiwan reported,

The United States has taken advantage of the search for the missing Malaysia Airlines flight to test the capabilities of China’s satellites and judge the threat of Chinese missiles against its aircraft carriers, reports our sister paper Want Daily.

Erich Shih, chief reporter at Chinese-language military news monthly Defense International, said the US has more and better satellites but has not taken part in the search for flight MH370, which disappeared about an hour into its flight from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing in the early hours of March 8 with 239 people on board. Shih claimed that the US held back because it wanted to see what information China’s satellites would provide.

The above is the reality which we have to confront. Therefore, desist any attempt to label the above mainstream media articles as a “conspiracy theory”. Reuters has let the Genie out of the bottle!

Malaysia’s Minister of Transport Datuk Seri Hishammuddin gave hints of Malaysia’s difficulties (as his hands were tied by intelligence protocols and or refusal by the relevant foreign intelligence services and diplomatic reluctance) but our local media failed to appreciate the nuances of his statements by not directing their questions at those parties that have failed Malaysia as their neighbour and in their duties under various defence treaties and arrangements.

Malaysian media, please read at the minimum three times, the sentences in bold AND WAKE UP TO THE REALITY that our country has been badly treated even though our country put all its national security cards on the table so that countries whose nationals are passengers on flight MH 370 could come forward with sincerity to assist in resolving this unfortunate tragedy which is not Malaysia’s making.

Malaysia is but a victim of this tragedy whose plane, MH 370 was used for a hidden agenda for which only time will reveal.

In my previous article posted to the website on the 27th March, 2014, I exposed how Israel is exploiting the tragedy to create public opinion for a war against Iran, a Muslim country that has close ties with Malaysia.

At the outset of the SAR Mission, all concerned stated categorically that every scenario, no matter how unlikely would be examined critically with no stones left unturned – terrorist hijacking, suicide mission, technical failures, inadequate security, criminal actions of the pilot and or co-pilot etc.

Given the above premise, families of the passengers and the crew of MH 370 have every right to ask the following questions of the US and other countries that have sophisticated technologies to track and monitor airplanes and ships in all circumstances.

Such questions should not be shot down by those who have a hidden agenda that such queries amount to “conspiracy theories”. Far from being conspiracy theories, we assert that the questions tabled below and the rationale for asking them are well founded and must be addressed by the relevant parties, failing which an inference ought to be drawn that they are complicit in the disappearance of MH 370.

 

Lets us begin.

1) Was the plane ordered to turn back, if so who gave the order?

2) Was the plane turned back manually or by remote control?

3) If the latter, which country or countries have the technologies to execute such an operation?

4) Was MH 370 weaponised before its flight to Beijing?

5) If so, what are the likely methods for such a mission – Biological weapons, dirty bombs?

6) Was Beijing / China the target and if so why?

7) Qui Bono?

8) The time sequence of countries identifying the alleged MH 370 debris in the Indian ocean was first made by Australia followed by France, Thailand, Japan, and Britain via Immarsat. Why did US not offer any satellite intelligence till today?

9) Prior to the switch of focus to the Indian ocean, was the SAR mission in the South China seas, used as a cover for the deployment of undersea equipment to track and monitor naval capabilities of all the nations’ navies competing for ownership of disputed territorial waters? Reuters as quoted above seems to have suggested such an outcome.

 

10) Why was there been no focus, especially by foreign mass media, on the intelligence and surveillance capabilities of Diego Garcia, the strategic naval and air base of the US?

11) Why no questions were asked whether the flight path of MH 370 (if as alleged it crashed in the Indian Ocean), was within the geographical parameters of the Intelligence capabilities of Diego Garcia? Why were no planes deployed from Diego Garcia to intercept the “Unidentified” plane which obviously would pose a threat to the Diego Gracia military base?

12) The outdated capabilities of the Hexagon satellite system deployed by the US in the 1970s has a ground resolution of 0.6 meters; what’s more, the present and latest technologies boast the ability to identify objects much smaller in size. Why have such satellites not provided any images of the alleged debris in the Indian Ocean? Were they deliberately withheld?

13) On April 6th, 2012, the US launched a mission dubbed “NROL-25” (consisting of a spy satellite) from the Vandenberg Air Force Base in California. The NROL-25 satellite was likely rigged with “synthetic aperture radar” a system capable of observing targets around the globe in daylight and darkness, able to penetrate clouds and identify underground structures such as military bunkers. Though the true capabilities of the satellites are not publicly known due to their top-secret classification, some analysts have claimed that the technology allows the authorities to zoom in on items as small as a human fist from hundreds of miles away. How is it that no imagery of MH370 debris was forwarded to Malaysia, as this capability is not classified though other technologies might well remain classified? (Source: Slate.com)

14) Could it be that the above capabilities were not as touted?

15) However, in December, 2013, the USAtlas V rocket was launched carrying the spy satellite NROL-39 for the National Reconnaissance Office, an intelligence agency which is often overshadowed by the notorious National Security Agency (NSA), only it scoops data via spy satellites in outer space. The “NROL-39 emblem” is represented by the Octopus a versatile, adaptive, and highly intelligent creature. Emblematically, enemies of the United States can be reached no matter where they choose to hide. The emblem boldly states “Nothing is beyond our reach”. This virtually means that the tentacles of America’s World Octopus are spreading across the globe to coil around everything within their grasp, which is, well, everything (Source: Voice of Moscow). Yet, the US with such capabilities remained silent. Why?

It cannot be said that it is not within the realm of probabilities that the US may not want the plane MH 370 to be recovered if rogue intelligence operators were responsible for the disappearance of MH 370.malaysia-mh370-passports

If the above questions have been posed to the US and other intelligence agencies and answers are not forthcoming, I take the view that the Malaysian government ought to declare publicly that our national sovereignty and security have been jeopardized by the disappearance of MH 370 and that the relevant intelligence agencies have been tacitly complicit in the disappearance of MH370.

By coming out openly to explain the predicament faced by our country, Malaysia may prevent a hostile act against a third country.

I therefore call upon Malaysian mass media to be courageous and initiate such queries as only the US and other intelligence agencies can give definitive answers to the above 15 questions.

It is futile to demand answers from Malaysia as we are not in any position to supply the information as we do not have the capabilities of the global and regional military powers.

Malaysians must unite behind the government so that our leaders need not feel that they are alone shouldering this enormous burden.

 

The Reuters article:

(Reuters) – The search for flight MH370, the Malaysian jetliner that vanished over the South China Sea on March 8, has involved more than two dozen countries and 60 aircraft and ships but been bedevilled by regional rivalries.

While Malaysia has been accused of a muddled response and poor communications, China has showcased its growing military clout and reach, while some involved in the operation say other countries have dragged their feet on disclosing details that might give away sensitive defence data.

That has highlighted growing tensions in a region where the rise of China is fuelling an arms race, and where several countries including China, Malaysia, Indonesia and the Philippines are engaged in territorial disputes, with the control of shipping lanes, fishing and potential hydrocarbon reserves at stake.

The Malaysian Airline jet, which disappeared en route from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing, was last officially detected hundreds of miles off course on the wrong side of the Malaysian peninsula.

As mystery deepened over the fate of the Boeing 777 and its 239 passengers and crew, most of them Chinese, it became clear that highly classified military technology might hold the key.

A reluctance to share sensitive data appeared to harden as the search area widened.

“This is turning into a spy novel,” said an envoy from a Southeast Asian country, noting it was turning attention to areas and techniques few countries liked to publicly discuss.

With the United States playing a relatively muted role in the sort of exercise that until recently it would have dominated, experts and officials say there was no real central coordination until the search for the plane was confined to the southern Indian Ocean, when Australia largely took charge.

Part of the problem is that Asia has no NATO-style regional defence structure, though several countries have formal alliances with the United States. Commonwealth members Malaysia, Singapore, New Zealand and Australia also have an arrangement with Britain to discuss defence matters in times of crisis.

“There is … a pressing need for regional security structures to take a few leaps forward,” said Air Vice Marshal Michael Harwood, a retired Royal Air Force pilot and former British defence attaché in Washington.

The risk, he said, was that the search instead became seen as a national “test of manhood” and driver of rivalry.

Already, several governments have been openly competing in announcing findings and satellite images.

RADAR POKER

Malaysia’s acting transport minister Hishammuddin Hussein, who is also the country’s defence minister, has defended the international effort to find the jet.

“All countries involved are displaying unprecedented levels of cooperation, and that has not changed,” he said.

But while Kuala Lumpur has been forced to reveal some of the limits and ranges of its air defences, the reluctance of Malaysia’s neighbours to release sensitive radar data may have obstructed the investigation for days.

At an ambassadorial meeting in the ad hoc crisis centre at an airport hotel on March 16, Malaysia formally appealed to countries on the jet’s possible path for help, but in part met with polite stonewalling, two people close to the talks said.

Some countries asked Malaysia to put its request in writing, triggering a flurry of diplomatic notes and high-level contacts.

“It became a game of poker in which Malaysia handed out the cards at the table but couldn’t force others to show their hand,” a person from another country involved in the talks said.

It was not until a week later that Malaysia announced a list of nations that had checked their archives.

Beijing, meanwhile, was dramatically upping its game.

Its ability to deploy forces deep into the southern hemisphere is particularly striking. Beijing has sent several deployments into southern waters in recent months, including warship visits to New Zealand and South America, while its icebreaker “Snow Dragon” helped rescue personnel from a trapped Russian icebreaker in the Antarctic late last year.

“China are deploying because that’s what great powers do, and there must be a political expectation for them to (do so),” said one former Western military officer. “How well they do it, only the USA will currently know (through surveillance and signals intelligence), and time will tell.”

CHINESE CLOUT

With five Chinese ships heading to a new search area in the Indian Ocean on Friday, experts say China is revealing military capabilities it lacked just a handful of years ago.

Chinese officials have also spoken of the growing number of satellites it has put to the task, a sensitive topic nations rarely disclose.

“A decade ago, China wouldn’t even have been in this game at all,” says Christopher Harmer, a former U.S. naval aviator and search-and-rescue pilot, now senior fellow at the Institute for the Study of War in Washington DC. “It really shows how far they have come, much, much faster than most people expected.”

Ultimately, the only country with the technical resources to recover the plane – or at least its black box recorder, which could lie in water several miles deep – may be the United States. Its deep-sea vehicles ultimately hauled up the wreckage of Air France 447 after its 2009 crash in the South Atlantic.

So far, Washington has sent two Poseidon maritime reconnaissance aircraft to the southern Indian Ocean search as well as an underwater drone and its Towed Pinger Locator, specifically designed to detect the signals from black boxes.

As in the northern Indian Ocean, where Chinese forces operate alongside other nations to combat Somali piracy, current and former officials say all sides are almost certainly quietly spying on and monitoring each other at the same time.

Military secrets, meanwhile, remain the last thing on the minds of those still hoping for news of missing relatives.

“I don’t care about the secrets. I just want my son to return,” Liu Guiqiu, mother of missing passenger Li Le, told China Central Television.

(Reporting by Peter Apps in London, Tim Hepher in Kuala Lumpur/Paris, Additional reporting by A. Ananthalakshmi; Editing by Will Waterman)

Malaysia-Airlines-Missing-Flight-MH370-Could-Be-in-Gulf-of-Thailand

US Government: Why would it hijack MH370?

It’s becoming somewhat of a bore listening to mouthpieces in the media and very ignorant mouthpieces at that, who perhaps have never studied politics, history and geopolitical agendas. Media mouthpieces which utter nothing except that they are told to. They possibly trawl the internet occasionally to read “crazy conspiracy theories” so that they can, in their abject ignorance and naivety of the world – in their innocence in fact but with an arrogant style of innocence because, after all, they’re in the Media! They may even be on the telly from time to time! That makes them a “player” and someone people have to take seriously – take the proverbial out of those of us who are, probably in most cases, older, wiser, experienced and have read a lot wider and deeper than they. So when we analyse an event or series of events and connect one event to another and create a far bigger picture than that they are concentrating on (and therefore, they can never quite work out what or why something happened but just report on the detail and the input – conflicting as it may be – from a slurry of “experts”) these media types can do nothing but try and protect themselves from being seen as inept, by attacking those of us who leave their powers of investigation and their knowledge base, in the dust.

Sorry if that sounds arrogant of me. But then I’m not. Why should one apologise for being somewhat more capable and intelligent than a gnat? I’ve recently come to the conclusion that I hold pretty much zero respect for most people on this god forsaken planet of ours and I believe I have pretty good reason for it. I’m just getting a little sick of the shit I see 360 degrees around me.

Anyhow, rant over. I’m sure you get the picture.

So, there’s all these people on the TV, in newspapers and the general mass of incompetent, non-thinkers with very little knowledge of history or just about anything, who will say, when faced with the possibility of the US (and perhaps other western governments, being involved in the hijacking of MH370: “Oh god! It’s a conspiracy theorist! Take off the tin-foil hat” etc etc etc etc “Explain how the hijacking of an aircraft can possibly be connected to a Trans Pacific Partnership deal and be used to destabilise a government?” delivered in their usual, smarmy, fashion. The same old shit (which is getting very old and, as I said at the beginning – a bore) repeated over and over by ignorant little twats.

Well, once upon a time you ignorant little twats (while let’s ignore the Ukraine and Benghazi etc for the moment), there was  President by the name of John F Kennedy. In 1962 there was the Cuban Missile crisis, during which, to attempt the overthrow of Castro, the US Department of Defence, the CIA and the President himself, concocted “Operation Mongoose” to destabilise the Cuban government. That didn’t turn out too successful However, later on, President Nixon came along and he decided to end the use of CIA hijacking for political purposes.

Between 1948 and 1957, there were 15 hijackings all over the world, an average of a little more than one per annum. Between 1958 and 1967, this climbed to 48–an annual average of about five. There was an explosive increase to 38 in 1968 and 82 in 1969, the largest number in a single year in the history of civil aviation. During the third 10-year period between 1968 and 1977, there were 414 hijackings–an annual average of 41.

The increase since 1958 could be attributed, in significant part, to the following factors:

First, the use by the USA’s Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) of inspired hijackings as a weapon of destabilisation against the Fidel Castro regime which had seized power in Cuba in January, 1959, and nationalised all plantations and other property owned by US businessmen. Note that the US government did not like the economic (“communist”) policies put in place by Castro which kept the US and its corporations, from exploiting Cuba. Pretty much an exact parallel, then, with the anti TPPA stance that the Malaysians are taking. Even Anwar Ibrahim SEEMS to be against the TPPA (but this may just be for the purposes of riding the general population’s anti TPPA feeling until he were to ever get in power (we know that strategy well through a man called Tony Blair). I’d still say Ibrahim is CIA.

The hijackers inspired or instigated by the CIA did not make any political demands as a price for releasing the aircraft and passengers. They just forced the pilot to fly to either the US naval base at Guantanamo in Cuba or to the US and sought political asylum after condemning the communist regime at a press conference arranged by the CIA. Now, what if, again as a parallel to GITMO then, our Malaysian Airlines pilot(s) – remember, connected to Anwar Ibrahim – flew not to GITMO Cuba but to Diego Garcia and asked for asylum? What happened to the other passengers and crew? I don’t know. That’s a whole other speculation but, if you’ve read Operation Northwoods, you would have noted that the drone aircraft was substituted having landed the original one. Our MH370 went quiet didn’t it? Radar lost sight of it. This is pure speculation at this point but what if it did drop to 1000 feet (and in fact to 0 feet and landed somewhere? Dropped off the passengers and then took off once more toward Diego Garcia?) Anyhow, I don’t know the detail and neither does anyone but it is not outwith the bounds of plausibility. The point is, here, I’m talking about the bigger picture as to why this event took place. It isn’t just a mystery flight and a mystery as to what happened. The amount of conflicting crap we’re being fed I have never experienced in my life before over an event such as this. We’re getting fed a mass of shit to confuse the entire picture. To keep our eye off the ball and I just so happen to think that “ball” is the TPPA issue and the destabilisation of Malaysia to get the to PLAY ball!

The CIA thus used hijacking as a psychological weapon to have the Castro regime discredited in the eyes of the Cuban people as well as of those of other Latin American countries in order to prevent an emulation of the Cuban communist model. Another CIA objective was to cause a depletion in the Cuban civil aviation fleet strength, thereby causing air transportation difficulties inside Cuba. This was the agenda behind the CIA hijackings during that time. This is not crafted fiction but fact. Why, then, would they not consider precisely the same tactics in this particular circumstance with Malaysia? They would! They repeat their tactics over and over if you ever care to read up on your history! Once you do, you can read these CIA people and governments like a book just about.

The US did not return the planes to Cuba. Instead, these were ordered to be seized by US courts as compensation for the properties of US businessmen nationalised by the Castro regime. And there you have it. The planes were not even returned to Cuba and the American justice system actually made an argument to keep them because the nationalism by Castro had affected US businessmen! Castro hand’t broken the law by changing his policies. Yet here was the US justice system (and government) saying “Well, you changed your policy – as is your right as a sovereign nation – so we’ll hijack your aircraft and keep them because of what we perceive as our loss. We’ll ignore it is illegal and immoral to hijack aircraft.

Second, the retaliatory hijackings inspired or instigated by the Cuban intelligence, involving either US or non-US aircraft carrying a large number of US nationals. Like the CIA, the Cuban intelligence used these hijackings purely as a psychological weapon to have the US discredited. So, just as it was all psychological operations (on both sides) to discredit and destabilise, during the Cuban affair, it can be (and is in my view) the same now with Malaysia.

Third, the emulation of the CIA’s covert action technique by the Taiwanese intelligence in its psychological warfare against Beijing by inspiring or instigating hijackings from the mainland to Taiwan. Again, psychological warfare between Taiwan and China – Aircraft hijackings!

All historical fact so please don’t ask me why or suggest to me that what I suggest is behind this MH370 event is “crazy” and unjustifiable and cannot be taken seriously because all you are doing, I’m afraid, is displaying your very own ignorance and naivety. Something which the mainstream media is doing day after day, either through sheer ineptitude or by design.

Skyjacker CIA

Now if you don’t think “Drone boy” Obama – a man happy to consider himself “good at murdering people” – the man is a jackass! Yet any other President who did what he has done out in the open never mind covertly, would be impeached and imprisoned – would not give the go-ahead to the CIA to hijack a plane, you are, again, incredibly naive.

And one final thing: What the hell do you think was the intention of 9/11? It was precisely for the same reason as the US used against Cuba – to destabilise you! And it has achieved it because the USA is rapidly going down the plughole. The events of 9/11 were NOT (no matter what your government tries to tell you) primarily to kill anyone – that was a secondary issue and they were all just seen as collateral damage. The primary, fundamental reason for 9/11 was to destabilise your nation. And it worked a dream. The sad thing is that you still don’t recognise who did it.

“It is also a fact that America is too democratic at home to be autocratic abroad. This limits the use of America’s power, especially its capacity for military intimidation. Never before has a populist democracy attained international supremacy. But the pursuit of power is not a goal that commands popular passion, except in conditions of a sudden threat or challenge to the public’s sense of domestic well-being. The economic self-denial (that is, defense spending) and the human sacrifice (casualties even among professional soldiers) required in the effort are uncongenial to democratic instincts. Democracy is inimical to imperial mobilization.” – Zbigniew Brzezinski “The Grand Chessboard” 1997.

And if you cannot understand what that paragraph is explaining to you, then screw you you prat!

Fact: In 1973, the Nixon Administration ordered the discontinuance by the CIA of the use of hijacking as a covert action weapon against the Castro regime. Cuban intelligence followed suit. That year, the two countries reached an agreement for the prosecution or return of the hijackers and the aircraft to each other’s country. The Taiwanese intelligence also followed the CIA’s example-vis-а-vis China.

Fact: In the Dymshits–Kuznetsov hijacking affair on 15 June 1970, a group of Soviet refuseniks attempted to hijack a civilian aircraft in order to escape to the West, were caught and spent many years in Soviet prisons. This case is politically distinct in the sense that the government of Israel – which strongly denounced other cases of Aircraft hijacking – endorsed this one and declared its participants to be heroes and martyrs for the Zionist cause. This was denounced as a double standard by left-wing critics such as then Knesset Member Charlie Biton.

Hi boys! Can I help you out in any way with this MH370 problem of yours?

Hi boys! Can I help you out in any way with this MH370 problem of yours?

 

But finally, consider this. IF, as most people think, the CIA works for the American government, then tell me: How does this work?

HC Deb 24 May 1962 vol 660 cc699-728

Mr. Philip Noel-Baker (Derby, South)

Would the night hon. Gentleman comment on what I have been putting to him for several months and what is now dealt with in a message from Washington this morning, in Which we learn that the American Administration is now convinced that the Central Intelligence Agency has been up to its old devices again and must share a large part of the responsibility for the situation in Laos. The message goes on to say that the swarm of C.I.A. agents in Laos deliberately opposed the official American objective of trying to establish a neutral Government. Will he tell us, in view of the work which the C.I.A. has done in places where Britain has vital interests— Burma, Laos, Cuba and elsewhere— what representations we have been making to the American Government against these activities, of which the whole would has been aware?

§Mr. HeathI have told the right hon. Gentleman before that neither I nor Her Majesty’s Government can have any responsibility for the activities of the C.I.A., nor can we be expected to have knowledge of their activities. Of course, we have seen the report in The Times today reporting the views from Washington. What I do know is that the policy of the President of the United States and of the American Administration is to find a political solution to the problem of Laos to help to create a neutral Government, to support Prince Souvanna Phoutma in so doing, and bring all the pressure possible upon General Phoumi and Prince Boun Oun to take part in that tripartite Government. That is the policy of the American Administration, and I am quite certain that the Administration is doing its utmost to pursue that policy. [HON. MEMBERS: “Not the C.I.A.”] We cannot be responsible for the activities of the C.I.A.

§Mr. P. Noel-BakerWhat representations have Her Majesty’s Government made to the American Government against these activities, which were being carried out by an agency under the authority of an allied Government and which were obviously endangering the peace of the world?

705

§Mr. HeathMy noble Friend is the Co-chairman and we, together with our allies in S.E.A.T.O., are in the closest touch, but the responsibility for this organisation rests with the American administration.

Figure that out and you’ll be on your way to understanding things a little better. From 9/11 to who actually runs the CIA.

MH370: Plausible deniability?

Posted in "Terrorism", Disappearance of MH370, Geo-Political Warfare, Politics by earthling on March 20, 2014

Or is it just a case of saying “WE wouldn’t do that! We’re the good guys! It’s just nasty, swarthy, terrorists from countries ending in ‘stan which do that sort of thing. So I think we can rule that one out!”?

Now, with all the official work carried out by Malaysia, its military, intelligence, American intelligence, Inmarsat, Boeing, how many countries now? And perhaps even Scooby Doo’s been involved – by the way, did you ever notice that at the end of Scooby Doo, when they lifted the mask off the culprit, it always seemed to be the last person they’d ever thought of? Like an “Insider” and a “False flag” attempt? Ever notice that? (Oh I’m just spinning my marbles here, don’t worry)  – no mention whatsoever has been made of the FACT that Boeing has patented technology for the automatic take over of the plane by an outside radio source (potentially AWACS again although it may not even be necessary) controlled by the CIA.

Just rule this one out Carney!

JayCarney062113

No, we are not talking theory here one bit. We are talking solid fact. And, as yet, it has never been mentioned by the media or the authorities in any shape or form.

Airline fleets are continuously being re-fitted and updated throughout their lifetimes. Further, the ground collision which MH370 had in 2010, which tore off a section of its wing, necessitated access to the aircraft, by Boeing, for repairs. Either way, there is no good reason to not have, as a line of enquiry, whether this particular aircraft had the upgrade.

FG1

 

FG2

 

If you are a family member of one of the missing passengers and you want answers, then you DEMAND you get a full, evidenced answer to this question!

MH370: I couldn’t agree with you more!

Posted in "Terrorism", Disappearance of MH370, Geo-Political Warfare, Politics by earthling on March 19, 2014

malaysia_2855952b

But you would never agree to even consider my reasoning for agreeing with you would you?

As the search for the missing Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 continued, aviation experts were last night offering several different theories.

Steven Frischling, a US aviation security expert, said he thought the plane had been forceably taken. “Four hours after the aircraft went missing my primary source told me unequivocally that this was a pilot-involved incident,” he said.

He said everything pointed to the idea that the Boeing 777 had not crashed, as there was “no evidence” to support it.

“One of the positions on the plane that would be filled with a large metal cargo container is unaccounted for on the manifest,” he said. “So there is unexplained cargo. I don’t know who or what was on that plane that they wanted, but they wanted the aircraft, I think it’s on the ground, being hidden or dismantled.”

While I agree with this statement too:

“If it had crossed any coastline, even without its communications, it would have been picked up on radar….”

And this:

“It would need a 5,000ft to 6,000ft-long decent runway. If it tried to land on some distant aerodrome or literally a field it would crash and we would most likely know about it.”

And if you wish it spelled out “in code” for you, you couldn’t get much better than the remarks of Robert Mark:

Robert Mark, a commercial pilot and editor of Aviation International News Safety magazine, said:“As time goes on things that seemed outlandish are becoming more plausible. The latest is the theory that MH370 shadowed a Singapore Airlines flight. The Israelis have done this before, shadowing a 747 with a fighter jet so that from the ground radar it looks like one aircraft.

“We are going to find out ultimately that the people who took this aircraft were as good at planning as the people behind 9/11.”

No, he did not say “as good at planning as Osama Bin laden and/or Al Qaeda” he said “the people behind 9/11”.

You just need to ask yourself who was behind 9/11?

Well the Israelis shadowed a jumbo with a fighter jet. Funny how he mentions the Israelis isn’t it? While I have to quickly point out that shadowing a passenger aircraft with a fighter jet is a whole different thing than one passenger jet trying to shadow another.. Size and proximity comes into it.

Yes, as time goes on the more outlandish things become more plausible. Yes indeed. Don’t they Jay, you little creep?

5695433690_587b40b170

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/malaysia/10706848/Missing-Flight-MH370-Aviation-experts-focus-on-hijack-theory.html

 

MH370: “The games we play with people’s lives”

Posted in "Terrorism", Disappearance of MH370, Geo-Political Warfare, Politics by earthling on March 19, 2014

First of all, not having all the facts (and probably no-one ever will), I am not having a go at the Malaysian authorities with this one. That may be due in the future but, contrary to what some people think of their government in Malaysia at the moment, I am giving them a little benefit of the doubt because I am still very much of the opinion that the US is behind this and that Diego Garcia figures in this story. That would, in my view, necessitate the Malaysian officials to be VERY careful about what they say without having full proof and some form of protection for themselves for even hinting at Diego Garcia.

Let me explain…

What we now have is the Malaysian officials stating that they have new radar evidence from a third party country. We have to assume that this is not Thailand since they have already stated they caught sight of the plane with their radar, they say, “flying toward Malacca”. So, I’d suggest we can rule out Thailand as being the country with the new info and being unwilling to divulge which country they are. Logical? I think so.

However, here’s the thing: What do we keep hearing from “experts” and “sources”? That it could be possible for the plane to have flown over certain countries on those northern or southern arcs IF it is the case that these countries radar systems are not all they should be. To admit the limitations, therefore, would put their respective national security at risk. Ok, plausible theory you say and yes, it is plausible. HOWEVER, what we have now is a statement saying that a country DOES have radar evidence. Now wouldn’t you think that country would wish to promote that? That their radar DID have the ability to pick up the plane? So what excuse would these “experts” and “sources” make now for a country who could prove their defence radar system is up to the task? It doesn’t have to give away detail of why. It has already done this, one would guess, to the malaysian authorities. So what do you think could possibly be the reason for not divulging to the public which country saw the plane?

Think about it: If it were a country on the northern arc than that keeps the story going that it was heading in the direction the narrative wishes us to believe it did. Conversely, if it were the southern arc, well all there is is Indonesia then nothing unless western australia picked it up. But what would be the issue for either of these countries stating they picked it up on radar? Absolutely none.

So then, once more, here is the third possibility which, it just so happens, works very nicely into a country not being willing to speak up: It is a country which is on NEITHER of the arcs! Now, where would that lead?

Again, only in one direction. Toward the Maldives/Seychelles and Diego Garcia.

So let’s assume that the Malaysian Transportation Minister is stating that those witnesses in Maldives were talking BS. Does he give good reason for this considering he isn’t in the Maldives and they are? If he doesn’t know where the plane is or went, how can anyone possibly say these people did not see what they say they did? It’s a logical fallacy right now until he explains why they couldn’t have seen it. It’s just like Jay Carney – the Whitehouse Press Secretary – saying “I’ll rule that one out”. There is no justification for it.

Maldives witnesses

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/malaysia/10706853/MH370-Maldives-Islanders-claim-to-have-spotted-low-flying-jet.html

And, of course, we have the pilot’s home simulator with Maldives and Diego Garcia landing stips along with Seychelles. And where, exactly, is Dhaalu Atoll?

Dhaalu Atoll

And there, once again, staring up from the bottom of the image, is the British Indian Ocean Territories including Diego Garcia, waving at us.

However, it could, I admit, just as well be that, if the plane did cross Dhaalu Atoll, that it WAS on its way to Somalia – but, somehow, I doubt it. I doubt it because I don’t think for one moment that Diego Garcia would not have picked up on it. They will have a database filled with the flight plans of all civilian aircraft crossing that part of the ocean for hundreds of miles radius. If there is one that does not conform to the info they have, it’ll be sorry!

However, once again, I have no verification of this report from Maldives. But then neither do you!

So, again, let’s think why one of the countries on the northern arc would not wish to divulge to the public (or to other countries authorities other than Malaysia) that they had picked up the plane on their radar. Could it be because they had a track on where it was heading? So let’s say Northern India picked it up heading toward Pakistan. So? You tell me (because I don’t know) what the issue there would be? Would Pakistan be affronted and decide to drop a nuke on India because they said they saw the plane heading in their direction? Or could it be that in spotting it, India are embarrassed that they did nothing about it to intercept? A rather poor excuse for hiding the fact from the public when they have possibly admitted this to the Malaysian authorities. And why would the latter wish to keep this classified for now? Wouldn’t it be in Malaysia’s interest to publicly state what they know and take some of the heat off themselves?

Sorry if I’ve missed something but none of this stacks up for me.

What if Sri Lanka has spotted the plane flying south/south west though? After all of this talk about being certain it was either the northern arc or the southern arc?

What if they were to now have to come clean that it was seen over the general territory of the Maldives/South of Sri Lanka?

Well, people like me and many others would be vindicated wouldn’t we? And that just will not do! And neither would the embarrassment of the “authorities” who had, for 12 days, fed you shit. 😉

While here’s another thing:

“ACARS is a communication system, not a Global Positioning System (GPS); it does not give positions but only transfer messages.”

How strange (but very true and you can find confirmation of this online from here.

PLUS, here is another interesting little snippet if you give it some thought:

“VHF is the most commonly used and least expensive. Transmission is line-of-sight so VHF is not available over the oceans or other vast expanses of uninhabited surface, such as the Amazon Basin.”

Do you see the subtle little possibility which stares you in the face here? No?

Well what if the reason for the non communication with ACARS SITA by VHF to ground SITA sites had nothing to do with the communications actually having been turned off BUT was actually due to the fact that the plane was flying over a broad expanse of ocean? Hmmm… interesting thought eh?

http://www.nst.com.my/latest/font-color-red-missing-mh370-font-acars-cannot-be-disabled-1.521314?cache=wixtvnujghdrti

MH370: “I’ll rule that one out”

Posted in "Terrorism", Disappearance of MH370, Geo-Political Warfare, Politics by earthling on March 19, 2014

Oh you will will you? Just dismiss it? Best way to handle such a question Carney isn’t it?

120609_jay_carney_ap_605

US officials in Kuala Lumpur are working “in close cooperation with the Malaysian government,” White House spokesman Jay Carney said at his daily briefing, calling the search “a difficult and unusual situation”:

They are in a truly agonizing situation. We remain fully committed to assisting the Malaysians and working with our other international partners … I can assure you we are in a close, collaborative relationship.

Asked about the notion that the plane could have landed at Diego Garcia, the US military base in the central Indian Ocean, Carney was dismissive:

“I’ll rule that one out.”

When no-one is allowed to go anywhere near that island and when it is restricted to Armed Forces such that even the government who owns the island – the British Government – have restrictions placed on them from visiting; Plus, because the island has no “settled population” it does not come under the International Criminal Court’s jurisdiction, it CAN be “dismissed” with impunity by people like you – lackeys for people like Obama and the British establishment. Such questions are simply emptied into the “Black hole” called “Diego Garcia”.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/18/mh370-missing-plane-search-live

Ever heard of the guy who was previously in your position Jay? His name was Robert Gibbs. Just have a quick listen mate then you tell the world why it should listen to you!

You are sociopathic liars Carney. It’s more than your job’s worth (and that is all you are – a “jobsworth”) to even acknowledge the question of Diego Garcia. How many CIA operations have been declassified decades after the event mate? How many fake wars through false flags have your Presidents got us involved with? How many assassinations for political expediency has your government and friendly governments, carried out? The list is never ending Carney. And you’re nothing but a mouth with an arm stuck up your anus!

But the American public are too damned scared of acknowledging it because of what it would lead to! And the rest of the world plays ball with you because you’re the big bad wolf (in sheep’s clothing). Along with your “jewish” buddies!

 

 

Diego Garcia: How it works

HC Deb 21 June 2004 vol 422 cc1221-2W1221W

§Jeremy CorbynTo ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been received from the US concerning the depopulation of the civilian population of Diego Garcia and the Chagos Islands that lie within the British Indian Ocean Territories. [179700]

§Mr. RammellThe US authorities have in the past made clear their concerns about the presence of a settled civilian population in the British Indian Ocean Territory. However, I have received no recent representations from them on the subject.

§Sir Menzies CampbellTo ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what facilities exist on Diego Garcia for holding human beings against their will; and if he will make a statement. [178580]

§Mr. StrawIn exercise of powers conferred on him by the Prisons Ordinance 1981 of the British Indian Ocean Territory, the Commissioner for the Territory has declared certain specified premises in Diego Garcia to be a prison. This was done by orders made in February 1986 (which replaced an earlier order made in July 1982), July 1993 and December 2001. Under various provisions of the law of the Territory, persons may be arrested in execution of a warrant of arrest issued by a Court or a Magistrate, or in certain circumstances without such a warrant, and any person so arrested may then be detained in such a prison until he is brought before a Court or a Magistrate. Persons who are ordered by a Court or a Magistrate to be remanded in custody or committed to prison are detained in such a prison as also, of course, are persons who are sentenced by a Court to imprisonment following their conviction of a criminal offence.

§Sir Menzies CampbellTo ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many detainees, and how many shipments of detainees, have passed through Diego Garcia, or the territorial waters off it, while in transit between other destinations; whether any detainees have been disembarked at Diego Garcia, and for how long; and if he will make a statement. [178581]

§Mr. StrawThe United States authorities have repeatedly assured us that no detainees have at any time passed in transit through Diego Garcia or its territorial waters or have disembarked there and that the allegations to that effect are totally without foundation. The Government are satisfied that their assurances are correct.

HC Deb 24 September 2002 vol 390 cc26-156

Mr. DalyellThe right hon. Gentleman has used the words “overwhelming force” three times already. Does “overwhelming force” include the use of B61–11s? Those are the earth-penetrating nuclear weapons which, we are told, are based in the British Indian ocean territory of Diego Garcia. If there is to be overwhelming force, and if it is to involve nuclear weapons, with the B2 bombers that are based in the hangars at Diego Garcia, ought not the House of Commons to be told about it?

§Mr. AncramThe force that will be required is that which is appropriate and most effective in achieving the objective. I am certainly not going to speculate at this stage on what that force will be. Indeed, at this particular stage we need to make it clear that the United Nations resolution is the first objective to be fulfilled: only if Saddam breaches that will we consider the second option.

 

 

 

HC Deb 15 October 2002 vol 390 cc528-9W

Jeremy Corbyn 

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what applications he has received from the USA to construct new aircraft hangars on Diego Garcia; and if he will make a statement. [74654]

529W

§Mr. Mike O’BrienThe issue of possible upgrades to facilities at Diego Garcia has been discussed at annual talks between the UK and US governments. The details of these governmental talks are confidential and exempt under section la of The Code of practice on Access to Government Information, “Information whose disclosure would harm national security or defence”.

DG2

 

HC Deb 07 July 2004 vol 423 cc271-96WH271WH§2 pm

§Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North (Lab)I welcome the opportunity to debate what I consider to be a very serious issue. It touches on honesty in politics and in government, and it touches on issues of constitution and law and the way in which a group of people have been grievously treated by this country and, to some extent, the United States for more than 40 years.

The people who lived for hundreds of years on the Chagos Islands were descendents of its first inhabitants who had been dropped off there as slaves and traders or had settled there. They lived a settled existence, fishing and producing copra, and they inhabited an idyllic and pristine environment. Their problem was their location—the Indian ocean. The United States was eyeing it up in the 1950s and 1960s as a potential base, and subsequently decided to build what they euphemistically called a “communications facility” on the island of Diego Garcia. The communications facility turned out to be two of the longest runways that the world had seen and a base from which 4,000 US troops could operate. The base is now routinely used for the bombing of Afghanistan and Iraq, and the United States ‘considers it to be a crucial communications facility.

Prime Minister Wilson and President Johnson discussed the matter in the 1960s and decided to do a deal and evacuate the population of Diego Garcia to make way for the American communications facility. The Americans insisted on the evacuation of not only Diego Garcia, but the entire archipelago, despite the fact that its other islands were some distance from the putative communications facility.

The language used by the then Colonial Office was outrageous beyond belief. Simon Winchester wrote a wonderful piece on the subject in Granta magazine in which he quoted the then permanent secretary in the Colonial Office who described the population inhabiting the islands as a group of “Man Fridays” and stated that it would be simple and easy enough to move them out of the way. The deal subsequently went through and, to make ready for the American base, the British authorities proceeded to remove people from the islands. However, it was never done openly.

Only two days ago outside the Foreign Office, I met a man who was part of a demonstration there. He told me that he had left the islands in 1966 and that he was not allowed to go back, as many others were not. When they went to Mauritius or the Seychelles—mainly Mauritius—for medical treatment or education, they suddenly found that they could not go back.

When the time came for the British to remove the population in earnest, they did so —putting them on a ship, taking them to Port Louis in Mauritius and simply dumping them on the quayside. When my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) speaks, I am sure that he will describe the conditions that he saw when he went to Mauritius at the time. The people were dumped there in terrible destitution. To ensure that nothing was left on the islands, the British commissioner had the problem of what to do with the islanders’ domestic animals and pets. The dogs were rounded up 272WHand gassed, all the animals were killed and the islands were left empty and uninhabited to make way for the American base.

The poor islanders were forced to eke out an existence in terrible poverty in Mauritius and the Seychelles. Ignored by everybody, they managed to survive and they never gave up two things: first, the hope, determination and desperation for the right of return; and secondly, the hope that one day, somebody, somewhere would recognise the fundamental injustice of their treatment.

Time has moved on and it is 48 years since the original and disgraceful deal was done between Wilson and Johnson, but the injustice has not gone away. I visited Mauritius a couple of years ago to meet the Chagos islanders and to see the conditions in which they live. They are very poor indeed. We have to remember, and we should remember, that the compensation that they finally won, some 15 years after the original removal from the islands had begun, was mainly eaten up by debt collectors and land agents. No one was given sufficient compensation and no one was made rich or wealthy by the process. This has been the subject of a court case that is still going on, so I cannot comment on anything more than the original facts of the case. However, it seems that the islanders were cajoled into signing what they did not believe to be a full and final settlement, and were told to accept it as such. The injustice and the poverty go on.

When I was in Mauritius, I spent a week visiting as many Chagossian families as I could. I talked to them about their lives on the Chagos Islands, when they lived there, and their lives now. They described their sustainable form of living, the type of community, religion and schools that they had and their lives in general. It was fascinating to talk to them, but one could see the hurt in their eyes at the way that they were taken from the islands and dumped on the quayside at Port Louis. Many of those families still live in desperate poverty in metal huts with outside toilets and little furniture. Although the current Mauritius Government have been kinder to them than previous ones, they are still very poor people.

Those people, however, were always going to campaign for their hope of a right of return; they would never give up. Eventually, a case was lodged in the British legal system and, in a court order of 2000, they were granted the right to return under British immigration law. It was ruled that they had the right of return. The following year, a further step forward was taken when theBritish Overseas Territories Bill was introduced in Parliament. My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and I raised the question of the eligibility of the Chagos islanders for British citizenship, on the basis that they would be entitled to British citizenship like everyone else in overseas territories had they not been removed from the British Indian Ocean Territory. To their credit, the Government accepted the thrust of our argument, and a Government amendment was tabled and accepted in Committee. Therefore, the islanders were given the right to British citizenship. There is, unfortunately, a grey area in which I hope ministerial discretion will be used to deal with the small number of those who have fallen outside the provisions of that law.

273WHThings looked quite good in 2000 and 2001, and a compensation claim was lodged to re-open the issue. In meetings we had at the Foreign Office with the Minister’s predecessor, Baroness Amos, on the right of return and the possibility of a visit, we thought that things were going very well. Indeed, in the Commons, Ministers have asserted two things. One is that there is a right to return, and the second is that there was no impediment to anyone going back at any time. Things were looking good, and we had hope, as did the islanders.

On 10 June this year, which everyone will remember as election day, staff at the Foreign Office were not out ensuring that people were voting. Instead, they were at the palace asking the Queen to sign an Order in Council. When I was told that an Order in Council had been signed, I misheard or misunderstood. I thought that it was a statutory instrument that I would be able to pray against, as I assumed other hon. Members would, so that decisions made by Ministers would be subject to some form of democratic accountability. I had to reconsider, and I spoke to Sheridans’ Richard Gifford, the excellent solicitor who has represented the Chagossians for many years. He calmly explained to me that I had misunderstood, and that an Order in Council signed by her Majesty was law. It overrides everything in which we believe about the democratic accountability of the Government.

There are two orders: one is the British Indian Ocean Territory (Constitution) Order and the second is the British Indian Ocean Territory (Immigration) Order. I shall just quote a little of one, to give the Chamber a flavour of it: Subject to the provisions of this Order, the Commissionerappointed under the constitution order— may make laws for the peace, order and good government of the Territory”. The order then goes on to declare, without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1)”, that the commissioner in effect becomes the supreme Governor of everything in the territory. The order says: All laws made by the Commissioner in exercise of the powers conferred by subsection (1) shall be published in the Gazette in such manner as the Commissioner may direct. Every law made by the Commissioner under subsection (1) shall come into force on the date on which it is published”. We have handed power over to a commissioner. Never mind the fact that there were islanders living there and that several thousand people until that point had every right to live there; apparently, they now have no rights whatever. So much for the constitution order.

The immigration order was the second one passed, and I shall quote just two of its sections. Article 7 says: An immigration officer, acting in his entire discretion, may issue or renew a permit or may cancel a permit before the expiration, subject to the right of appeal provided in section 10. That is for people who wish to visit the Chagos Islands. Article 10 says: A person aggrieved by any decision of an immigration officer may appeal to the Commissioner, whose decision shall be final and conclusive. 274WHSo the only person to whom one can appeal if one does not agree with a decision to prevent Chagos islanders going to their own islands is a commissioner appointed specifically to control the Chagos Islands in every way for evermore.

The Minister made a written statement to the House on 10 June, although frankly it should have been an oral statement and made at a time when he could have been cross-questioned about it. At least, however, we are debating the subject here in Westminster Hall today. His statement said: Following the departure of the Chagossians in the late 60s and early 70s, the economic conditions and infrastructure that had supported the community of plantation workers ceased to exist. While the judicial review proceedings were still pending, the Government therefore commissioned a feasibility study by independent experts to examine and report on the prospects for re-establishing a viable community”.—[Official Report, 10 June 2004; Vol. 422, c. 33WS.] I have some comments to make on that. The Chagossians did not depart from the islands in the 1960s and 1970s; they were rounded up, taken away and thrown off the islands. Let us not beat about the bush: that was a disgraceful, immoral act. It is time that a Minister stood up and apologised for that act committed by the Government of the time and for the treatment of the Chagos islanders by succeeding Governments.

I was kindly given the three volumes of the feasibility study by the Foreign Office when it came out in November 2000, and it said that there were problems with water supply, periodic flooding, storms, seismic activity and so on, as the Minister points out. However, it did not say that no one could live there or that life was impossible on the islands. When pressed on the matter, the Foreign Office retreats into arguments about the potential cost of resettling the Chagos islanders. I have two points on that. First, they have a moral right to return. Secondly, would any Minister stand up in the House and say that the cost of keeping the population on Pitcairn, St. Helena, Tristan da Cunha or the Falkland Islands was such that we were going to withdraw the entire population? They would not dare.

§Mr. Kelvin Hopkins (Luton, North) (Lab)My hon. Friend mentioned the Falkland Islands. Has he made any comparisons between the costs that he is talking about and the amount of money spent on defending the Falkland islanders when the Argentines invaded?

§Jeremy CorbynIndeed, the costs are on two completely different scales. The costs involved in administering the Chagos Islands are very small. At the current time, all the income from fishing licences—about £50,000 a year—is taken up by administration, and other money is paid to continue that administration. Were the islands to be resettled, however, and were there to be serious discussions with the islanders about resettling them, there would be an economy on the islands. There is fishing there, and the possibility of ecotourism or copra. Quite a lot of activities could take place on the islands. However, I do not get the feeling that there is any wish, desire, hope or intention of going down that road. The whole desire is to put the issue to one side and forget about it. That is because of an American base on Diego Garcia, for 275WHwhich I suspect nothing is paid, and because the Americans have said that they do not want anyone anywhere near their base owing to security concerns.

I think that we have every right to ensure the settlement of the outer islands—at least—and that we have a right to know exactly what is happening on Diego Garcia, which is, under the terms of the colonial order, sovereign British territory. Are there any prisoners on Diego Garcia? Is it being used for the sort of vortex of American justice such as occurs in Guantanamo Bay? I am assured that it is not. I want to hear that assurance again today and it would be much better if there were an independent inspection of what is going on.

I will make only a couple more points because I want to make sure that other Members get a chance to speak. On Tuesday, a group of Chagos islanders went to the Foreign Office to demonstrate. They handed in a petition signed by a substantial number of Chagos islanders who are living in this country legally. The petition demands:  

  1. “1. Restoration of our right of abode in the outer islands of the territory.
  2. 2. Restoration of our fundamental rights as British Overseas Territories Citizens.
  3. 3. The immediate payment of compensation.
  4. 4. The setting up of a pilot resettlement in the outer islands.
  5. 5. The setting up of a social survey in Mauritius and the Seychelles with recommendations to support the vulnerable group of our community.
  6. 6. The organising of a visit to the ancestral sites in the British Indian Ocean Territory for the Chagossians living in Mauritius, Seychelles and the UK”

—and, presumably, anywhere else in the world. It seems to me that that is a minimal demand. I had a response from the Minister today and I hope that he will be able to give us further positive news on the possibility of a visit and a return to it.

Mr. HopkinsIt strikes me that there is something of a parallel between what has happened to the Chagos islanders and the highland clearances in Scotland, when the rich and powerful drove the poor and weak from the land. That has scarred and informed Scottish politics ever since. Is it not significant that two of the three speakers here today are Scots?

§Mr. SalmondI am glad that the hon. Gentleman raised that point, because I was about to come to it. One of the first and better acts of the Scottish Parliament when it came back into existence on the mound was in a debate such as this when it apologised collectively for the historic injustice of the highland clearances. They were not the responsibility of any Scottish Parliament, but it was felt none the less by all parties in that Parliament that such an apology should be offered, and that was done by representatives of all the parties. I very much hope that the Minister will do exactly what the hon. Gentleman suggested and proffer some sort of apology to the few thousand Chagos islanders who deserve not just an apology but some sign that future action and policy will be different from that in the past.

The islanders won the High Court judgment in 2000, which was in the days of ethical foreign policy. I shared the hopes that were expressed earlier that at last something would be done to rectify the historical 278WHgrievance and injustice. I accepted, as I think did many islanders, that there was an American base of long standing on Diego Garcia and that it might not be possible for all the islands to be reinhabited. However, basic rights—such as the right to visit the graves of ancestors, to occupy the outer islands and to receive reasonable compensation, and the right of the duty of care that any Government and the Crown should have over these people—should have been respected as de minimis compensation for the wrongs and injustices of the past. In fact, none of that occurred, and instead the Government, in a sneaky, underhand way, passed two Orders in Council on European election day to prohibit debate, to remove what little rights had been won and to rectify loopholes in legislation that allowed the assertion of the human rights of the islanders and their descendants.

The analysis that the islands are no longer capable of sustaining occupation because of global warming must be pretty bad news for the American military base—perhaps the runway is about to disappear under water. I have an overwhelming feeling that if Mauritius could be persuaded to send just one gunboat to the outer islands to establish the Mauritian flag again in what is arguably its territory anyway, we would decide that the islands were worth reclaiming on behalf of the Crown and dispatch a taskforce to the Indian ocean.

Global warming is an interesting concept, because it conflicts rather dramatically with what is on the US navy website. In a welcoming introduction to “The Footprint of Freedom” and Camp Justice, Diego Garcia is described as a paradise on earth and it is said that one of the best stationings that any US serviceman can have is on Diego Garcia. The website states: Although it is a British Territory, there are fewer than 50 British personnel (or Brits as they are commonly known) on the island. The Minister had better explain how the Government claim to know better than many respectable outlets of the US press. The Washington Post, for example, claims that prisoners are held on Diego Garcia for “rendering” before being transferred to Camp X-Ray. How confident is the Foreign Office in the information that the US authorities have offered it on what is happening on Diego Garcia, given that the Prime Minister seems to be revising his previous confidence in judgments that he has made about the international situation? Ultimately, the Minister should accept the collective responsibility of this and previous Governments for what has been done to the islanders. An apology should be proffered, but above all there should be a change of approach and of policy by the Government, who should offer some justice and some compensation to the islanders.

It may be thought that because of indolence or lack of concern among most Members of Parliament—there are a few honourable exceptions, who are here today such an issue is of no great moment, but it is precisely such issues that are of great political moment, because no member of the public could hear and understand what has happened to the islanders without having an overwhelming sense of injustice. If the Government cannot rectify the wrongs of the past for these few thousand people, what hope is there for their having any moral compass on the great issues of the day? Unless the Government are prepared to act and rectify the wrongs of the past, they are, in a moral sense, every bit as homeless as the islanders of Diego Garcia.

Mr. Tam Dalyell(Linlithgow) (Lab)

Let none of us suppose that there is a complete lack of interest in this country on this issue. When the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) had the opportunity to put a question to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, I was in company in Scotland. However, I subsequently heard, not only in university circles but more widely, that it was an important question. Indeed, some people went so far as to observe that it was the most sensible question asked of the Prime Minister for some weeks.

My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) has inspired an important debate, but perhaps it comes 40 years too late. It was in 1964 that the Government began misdescribing the long-settled population as transitory workers in order to mislead the world into thinking that they had no obligations to that population. My clear recollection is that I raised the subject with the then Foreign Secretary, Patrick Gordon Walker. Frankly, having been defeated at Smethwick and about to be defeated at Leyton, his mind was on other things. A later Foreign Secretary was George Brown. When the general problem of the British Indian Ocean Territory was raised with him, he told me, in colourful language, to mind my own business. Perhaps I was not as tough then as subsequently, but George Brown was a formidable operator in his heyday. I raised the subject on the prompting of the late Sir Ashley Miles, the biological secretary of the Royal Society. It was his concern about the Indian ocean that first raised my acute interest.

Article 73 of the United Nations casts a “sacred trust” on a sovereign power to promote the welfare and advancement of the people, but the Government surreptitiously deported the islanders and misled the world about their status. At the United Nations on 16 November 1965, the British representative Mr. F.D.W. Brown, acting on the instructions of the Foreign Office, misdescribed the islands as uninhabited when my government first acquired them”,misdescribed the population as labourers from Mauritius and Seychelles and misled the UN into stating that the new administrative arrangements had been freely worked out with the…elected representatives of the people concerned”. Instead, they bought the plantations, closed them down, forced the people to leave on boats, which incidentally were horribly overcrowded, and led them to exile, where they still remain. Their lives have been a tragedy of misery, poverty and despair, the only alleviation of which has been the heartfelt desire to return to their homeland, where their villages and ancestors lie.

In 1969, on my return from Australia, I stopped in Mauritius to stay the night with the former general secretary of the Labour party, Len Williams. Harold Wilson had wanted him out of Transport house and made him Governor-General of Mauritius. His wife Margaret Williams was a very intelligent and nice lady, and she decided that I should spend a morning with some Ilois people. It made a strong impression on me.

What is remarkable is that in the same speech by Mr. Brown representing the Foreign Office, he described the wishes of the Falkland islanders, whose 280WHrepresentatives were consulted. Here we return to a previous intervention and a proper comparison with the Falkland islanders, of whom Mr. Brown said: It has been suggested that this population is somehow irrelevant and that it has no claim to have its wishes taken into account …it would surely be fantastic to maintain that only indigenous inhabitants have any rights in the Country”. He then quoted Woodrow Wilson from 1918: Peoples and Provinces are not to be bartered about from sovereignty to sovereignty as if they were chattels or pawns in a game”. Within months, the Chagos Islands had been given to the United States and the destruction of the islanders’ homes and lives was soon to follow.

These days, we are all too familiar with conducting foreign policy on the basis of false or misleading facts. The historical record now revealed by the islanders’ legal struggle has after 30 years shown that a small and vulnerable population of British subjects can safely be written out of the history book on the pretext that they are not really a population at all. There is nothing new in deceiving the world while acting in breach of civilised standards of international and constitutional law. That point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North in his powerful speech.

When the islanders finally won their struggle to return in the High Court in November 2000, Lord Justice Laws stated: The people are to be governed, not removed. He also stated that the Immigration Ordinance 1971 was an “abject legal failure”, which had no colour of lawful authority. That is not my view but that of a distinguished Law Lord.

We are supposed to have an ethical foreign policy. The then Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), accepted the Court’s judgment and said: I have decided to accept the Court’s ruling and the Government will not be appealing.The work we are doing on the feasibility of resettlement of Ilois now takes on a new importance. We started feasibility work a year ago and are now well under way with phase two of the study.Furthermore, we will put in place a new immigration ordinance which allows Ilois to return to the outer islands while observing our treaty obligations.The Government has not defended what was done or said 30 years ago. As Lord Justice Laws recognised, we made no attempt to conceal the gravity of what happened”. History is repeating itself with the same moral turpitude. This time, given that the islanders had already been promised that the Government’s policy was to move towards their resettlement on the islands, the new banishment is a cruel change to what has already been offered. Moreover, the reasons given are again based on inaccurate and misleading information.

The Foreign Office press statement claimed that it was the feasibility study that prevented resettlement. I am glad that this Minister is replying to the debate, and I thank him for his personal courtesy in seeing my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North and me in the Foreign Office. He cited a conclusion, supposedly made by the consultants in their executive summary, that the costs of maintaining long-term inhabitation are likely to 281WHbe prohibitive. However, that was not based on any work of the consultants, whose terms of reference precluded any consideration of cost. Even if he had read only the executive summary, he would know from page 3 that the consultants reported: This report has not been tasked with investigating the financial costs and benefits of resettlements”. I feel entitled to ask where the conclusion came from. It was certainly not from the consultants.

The Minister further stated that human interference within the Atolls…is likely to exacerbate the stress on the marine and terrestrial environment and will accelerate the effect of global warming. However, other things might accelerate global warming. Thus”, he continued,resettlement is likely to become less feasible over time”. Again, that judgment was not based on the work of the consultants, who stated in volume 3, paragraph 8.3: At the present time it is not possible to quantify the risk associated with climate change for the Chagos Islands. The Minister’s conclusion had crept in from somewhere else.

Finally, it is impossible to take seriously the suggestion that only a resettled population will face difficulties. Are we really to believe that the 64 islands offered back to the islanders by the then Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Livingston, are going to sink under the waves, while the one island occupied by the Americans is to provide defence facilities for generations to come? It is the biggest military base outside the continental United States.

Only yesterday, in the Court of Appeal, Lord Justice Sedley referred to the shameful treatment to which the islanders were subjected: The deliberate misinterpretation of Ilois history and status, designed to deflect any investigation by the United Nations, the use of legal powers designed for the governance of the islands for the illicit purpose of depopulating them, the consequent uprooting of scores of families from the only way of life and means of subsistence that they knew, the failure to make anything like adequate provision for their resettlement, all of this and more is now part of the historical record. Moreover, he went so far as to compare those removals with the highland clearances of the second quarter of the 19th century. He stated:Defence may have replaced agricultural improvement as the reason, but the pauperisation and the expulsion of the weak in the interests of the powerful is the same. It gives little to be proud of. Now there has been a cruel new blow to this mistreated population. Their hopes, which were raised by this Government, have been dashed. Nothing in this game of cat and mouse is any less culpable than the lies and inhumanity that characterised the removal of the population.

It is not, however, too late to render justice. The right of the islanders to return to their homeland should now be recognised, and proper scientific studies should be undertaken, with proper, independent input from respected scientists whose conclusions ought to be binding on the Government.

HC Deb 24 September 2002 vol 390 cc26-156

Mr. Tam Dalyell(Linlithgow)I echo what the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) said about the affront to democracy. I shall set an example by making a speech which is much shorter than 10 minutes. It is in the form of a question, and it is apposite that a Minister from the Ministry of Defence should be answering this debate.

My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) and I have been much involved in the case of the Chagos islanders. Their lawyers told us of a problem with the Ilois returning to Diego Garcia because of the building of six huge temperature-controlled hangars. We were asked what we would do to protest to the Government about that. We asked what the hangars were for. Apparently they are for B52 bombers and, particularly, B2 bombers that have to be repaired and maintained in a particular temperature. Why does one have B2 bombers? It is particularly to carry earth-penetrating nuclear weapons, specifically the B61–11.

My question, which I hope will be addressed in the reply, is this: we are talking about a British base, the British Indian Ocean Territory, of which Diego Garcia is a part and which is a House of Commons responsibility. The House of Commons should be told if nuclear weapons, albeit tactical, earth-penetrating nuclear weapons to destroy bunkers—one can understand why the American air force may wish to have this particular weapon in relation to Iraq—are to be launched from British soil, with or without agreement by the United States air force. We should be told in the winding-up speech tonight.

2.45 pm

§Mr. Francis Maude(Horsham)I have only a few points to make and I shall endeavour to be brief.

First, the issue is not about human rights in Iraq. The Foreign Secretary made great play of them and the dossier covers them. We need no persuading that Saddam Hussein’s regime is about the most evil in the world today. It has committed atrocities on a scale unseen almost anywhere else, but that does not justify armed intervention 52in Iraq. If I may say so, it is something of a red herring. The debate is about something wider, more important and of greater application to the world outside Iraq.

Secondly, there can be no controversy about the evidence that Saddam Hussein has developed, and is continuing to develop apace, weapons of mass destruction. The dossier, which puts forward the evidence in a calm and measured way, makes the case conclusively. Surely that can no longer be a matter of dispute.

Thirdly, does Saddam having and developing such weapons amount to a threat sufficient in immediacy and gravity to justify armed military intervention, even as a last resort? As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) said in a powerful, lucid and cogent speech—I am afraid that I did not agree with much of it—the threat issue is a matter of judgment. Everyone has to make their judgment about the gravity and immediacy of that threat.

We must look at other countries that have developed weapons of mass destruction, especially nuclear weapons, and ask ourselves what it is that distinguishes Iraq from, for example, India, Pakistan or even Iran. The answer is that there is clear evidence from the history of the Saddam Hussein regime that it is fundamentally an aggressive regime. He has developed these weapons, not as an instrument of deterrence to deter attacks on Iraq, but as weapons of aggression. In the past 20 years, the regime has twice invaded its neighbours. On a number of occasions, it has launched ballistic missiles against neighbouring states. It is not a regime under external threat that has developed these weapons to create a mutual deterrence, as is the case with India and Pakistan—regrettably, perhaps, but one can understand the reason for them doing so. Those considerations do not apply to Iraq.

In my judgment, this threat is clear, serious and present enough to justify decisive intervention by the international community in whatever shape that takes to enforce a disarmament of the regime.

My fourth point is about the threat to the stability of the middle east and was raised by my right hon. and learned Friend and others. We should be very clear about this: the greatest threat to the stability of the middle east is Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction. Quite apart from the actual attacks that he has mounted against his neighbours in the past 20 years, the fact that he consistently sponsors suicide attacks by Palestinians helps to prevent the peace process that we all yearn to be restarted from resuming. It is hard to see how the successful disarming and removal of Saddam Hussein can do anything other than contribute to the stability of the middle east.

Of course, the same concerns were expressed before the Gulf war, 12 years ago, but in fact the successful conclusion of the Gulf war was the trigger for the start of the Oslo process—

HL Deb 24 February 2004 vol 658 cc121-30

My Lords, first, I thank both noble Lords for the welcome that they have given the Statement. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Howell, that we particularly welcome the context in which he started his comments. However, I think it is only fair to say that none of us envisaged the possibility of two armed aeroplanes being flown into buildings in the way that occurred on 11 September. That was a dramatic shock to the international community……

In relation to the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, about whether there are people being kept at Diego Garcia and elsewhere, the US has confirmed to us that there are no such detainees. Of course, we rely on that assurance.

MH370: Pilot had Diego Garcia included on his simulator

12.46 Intriguing new line from The Malay Mail Online.

Police scouring Capt Shah’s flight simulator – which he installed in his home – have found five Indian Ocean practice runways.

One is in the Maldives.

One is on Diego Garcia.

The other three are in India and Sri Lanka.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/malaysia/10704769/Malaysian-Airlines-MH370-live.html

So, not such a crazy idea after all. We have the Anwar/Globalist issue. Anwar now coming out to admit he’s related to the pilot. We know why the west wants to destabilise Malaysia and we know the CIA are active in Malaysia and have been for some time. We also know the Council on Foreign Relations is happy with Anwar and the west definitely want him as their man in Malaysia.

We know it is highly unlikely that this plane could have travelled across multiple territories such as the northern arc suggests without being spotted. The southern arc leads to nowhere. So what’s left?

Ping DG

 

Why fly over Maldives instead of direct to Diego Garcia? Well it makes sense to me. You see, by doing so (if, in fact it did) it would give the possibility of being spotted by the Maldives. It would then suggest that the plane was heading to Africa. The straight line between Maldives and Africa suggests the flight is heading toward…..

SOMALIA!

Somalia

 

And we all know who live in Somalia don’t we? It’s full of pirates and Al Qaeda! 🙂 So we’re told by our wonderful media programming on behalf of our governments.

So then what do we expect next? Well, what I expect is for Israel to start screaming! “Oy vey! Oy Vey! They have a plane now in Somalia loaded up with nuclear bombs. The Iranians are in on it! We need to destroy Iran before they use it. They’re going to wipe out Jerusalem and the Temple Mount! Oy vey! Oy vey! The International community must now attack Iran and Somalia and destroy half the middle east so we, god’s people, can continue to live on this planet, in peace and suck the life out of every last living human creature with our monetary system!”

Ok perhaps I’ve slightly overdone what the Israeli’s might say and demand but have I? They’re fricking “religious” (yet atheist?!) nutters! And they’re desperate for a war!

MH370: KL to Mauritius Flying time

Why are the officials trying to keep this search in the two arcs (quite massive arcs by the way, suggesting that the satellite really doesn’t have a clue)? A wild goose chase? You see, the likelihood of the plane taking the northern arc and not being spotted is damned unlikely no matter what all the “Talking Heads” say.

Further, the plane would not turn back on itself heading in a south westernly direction right back over Malaysia and Malacca if it just intended to go back up toward that arc. It really doesn’t make much sense if you think about it. Further, yes they can say but then it took another sharp turn pointing, once more, in a more northernly direction. Yes it did but it was flying between waystations for a purpose and then it just disappeared off military radar but it had come way south to then head north again?? Plus, heading northwest from that point (assuming from then on pretty straight) would take it over Indian airspace and there are enough people saying it is highly doubtful it would get through and I, for one, agree with them.

So, my theory (and that is all it is but it’s based a little more on logical reasoning from my perspective) is that it turned south once more, once it evaded radar (AWACS helped or not) and it flew in the direction of Mauritius.

We’re told it was active (flying or otherwise) for another 7 hours after it was lost from radar. Well, here’s the flying time to Mauritius:

KL to Mauritius

 

I’m just saying it didn’t go to Mauritius – it went to Diego Garcia and was led there.

Here’s the “arc” of the covenant they keep showing us:

MH370_Mar17This is based on Inmarsat “pings” to the below cabin ACARS so we are told. Now, Inmarsat is tied to military and government contracts. Yes it provides commercial services but, if the British government says “jump” in the name of “national security”, Inmarsat will do just that.

Here’s what David Coiley had to say:

David Coiley, a vice president of Inmarsat, a British satellite telecommunications provider, said the missing plane had been equipped with an Inmarsat signaling system that sends out a “keep-alive message” to establish that the plane’s communications system is still switched on.

The plane sent out a series of such messages after civilian radar lost contact, he said. Those messages later stopped, but he declined to specify precisely when or how many messages had been received. Mr. Coiley said Inmarsat was sharing the information with the airline and investigators.

“It does allow us to determine where the airplane is relative to the satellite,” he said of the signal, which he likened to the “noises you might hear when a cellphone sits next to a radio or a television speaker.” He said: “It does allow us to narrow down the position of the aircraft” — at the moment when the signal was sent.

Such equipment automatically checks in to satellites, much as a mobile phone would check in to a network after passing through a mountain tunnel, he said. Because the pings go over a measurable distance at a specific angle to one of the company’s satellites, the information can be used to help calculate the trajectory of an aircraft and narrow its approximate location — though not necessarily its resting point.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/15/world/asia/missing-malaysia-airlines-flight-370.html?_r=0

So let’s just consider what he’s saying here:

In the same article, it states those pings went on for hours after the plane disappeared from all radar. Some reports have said 7 hours. However, why would Mr Coiley decline to say how many messages had been received and yet, we are provided the “arcs” by the officials? These arcs are the same as saying for how long and how many pings were received but Mr Coiley doesn’t wish to provide that detail. Why? What is so “classified” about such information considering what is at stake and that people wish to know? What could, if anything, such detail give away (either to “bad men” or just the public and, perhaps, other pilots or aircraft engineering people who could then work something out from them?).

He then goes on to say it allows us to determine where the plane is relative to the satellite….narrow down the position. Well does it? Two arcs, thousands of miles long is all we are given and even they are suggested as being the last point or outer edge of where the plane could have flown to. Why just give the arc for the final ping while not being willing to say how many pings? Also, where was the plane, approximately, at the points earlier pings were sent? While, if, as said below, the aircraft could have been hijacked using a mobile phone and a USB stick, then to suggest AWACS taking over is a walk in the park. You see, the “anti terror” expert, Aunty Sally (I once had an Aunty Sally) will promote such ideas because that suits the narrative. Suggesting a British/American/Globalist plot just doesn’t fit does it? And never will of course. But a terrorist may be smart (although I don’t believe they are and very few such entities actually exist. Al Qaeda being CIA for example) but not this smart.

Seems to be an element of planning? Sure honey, you can be sure of that! And sophisticated systems engineering understanding? I have no doubt. You’re actually making it even clearer that this was a sophisticated operation and that’s what was said on 9/11 – that it was believed it took governments to be involved – the Israelis said that to have a pretext to target the governments they wished to target of course, but noone ever wishes to consider that THEY could be that government, or UK or America. Nope! You consider that and you’re crazy. Then I’m batshit nuts!

Mirror 5

But back to the arcs and the position of the satellite (Inmarsat 3F 64.5deg East)

I-3-satellite-coverage-November-2013

Those arcs have been plotted, in fact, by a mix of what we’re told is the last ping on inmarsat and the anticipated running out of fuel. It would seem, from what I’ve read elsewhere, is that all Inmarsat is capable of doing is taking a measurement of the angle and amplitude of the signal it receives and, knowing the output power of the signal from the ACARS equipment in the plane, it works out a relative distance form triangulation. This means that the satellite is, to a great degree, guessing the position of the aircraft AND, furthermore, as you can see from the arcs presented, it cannot locate the actual terrestrial co-ordinates in any way. That means that the reality is that those arcs can be considered to be a complete circle and the plane could have ended up anywhere on that circle. The satellite uses spot beams and a global beam. In this case, it uses it’s global beam which is just one big, massive circle. Now why are they trying to suggested only those two arcs and not a complete circle? Well, I’d guess they want the search area to be as large as possible to keep people searching and searching while they do not wish us to even consider that the plane went south west toward Mauritius, Africa and flying anywhere near Diego Garcia. Because for us to consider that, they know people would be saying “Wait a minute, there is no way that plane would not be spotted by Diego Garcia!” This may just lead people to consider that, in fact, Diego Garcia may have been the destination and was meant to be it’s destination.

If it flew for hours (possibly up to 7.5 hours) then Diego Garcia is no problem to reach.

 

MH370: Mainstream media afraid to tread on dangerous territory?

Posted in "Terrorism", Disappearance of MH370, Geo-Political Warfare, Politics by earthling on March 18, 2014

Malaysia being destabilised by the CIA? https://earthlinggb.wordpress.com/2014/03/13/malaysia-being-destabilised-by-cia/

Blog written 3 or 4 days ago…. now this….

Anwar relative

You’re slow Western mainstream. Or is it just you don’t wish to go where no man has gone before?

Or are you trying to come up with your “spin” and how you’re going to cover this?

By all means MSM, keep ignoring it or trying to spin it but it won’t go away. 😉

 

Tell me MSM? How is it that us “crazy conspiracy theorists” always seem to be two steps ahead of you?

Malaysian MH370: There’s at least one turd in the punchbowl.

Posted in "Terrorism", Disappearance of MH370, Geo-Political Warfare, Politics by earthling on March 15, 2014

All those countries; All those ships and aircraft while, at the very same time, there are people out there, belonging to one or more of those very same countries, who know precisely, the fate of MH370. Just think about that because that, I can assure you, is a fact.

There may be Captains of certain vessels out there from the very country(s) who carried out this example of state (or state sponsored) terrorism/hijacking, who don’t know they are being led on a wild goose chase (or, indeed, they may be fully aware) while they “trawl” the seas for wreckage I believe they will never find.

Which countries are taking part?

Malaysia has deployed around 18 aircraft and 27 ships, including the submarine support vessel MV Mega Bakti which is able to detect objects in water at depths of up to 1,000m.

Huge numbers of maritime police, air force and other personnel are also taking part in the hunt.

China, Vietnam, USA, Thailand, Australia, Singapore, Indonesia, New Zealand, Japan, India and the Philippines are also contributing ships, aircraft and personnel, while other nations such as Brunei have also offered support.

The majority of the 239 people on board flight MH370 were Chinese, and Beijing has dispatched four warships to help in the search and rescue mission.

First to be sent was the frigate Mianyang which was diverted to the south-east of Vietnam. It was joined by the landing craft Jinggangshan and its support vessels.

Destroyer Haikou and amphibious landing ship Kunlunshan set off on Sunday from two southern Chinese ports with a 50-strong marine corps as well as assault boats and rubber dinghies aboard, according to the People’s Liberation Army ( PLA) Navy.

On Tuesday, China said it also deployed four civilian ships, two military aircraft, and up to 10 satellites, to assist the search.

And somebody (or somebodies) – high up in the chain of command of one or a few of those countries – knows exactly what’s going on. Who would you guess that, or those, countries are? If I thought for one second that the truth would come out, I’d lay every penny I have left to my name, my house, my car, everything, on the USA. Either people within the government (most likely), people at the highest echelons of the world banking community (most likely) and the intelligence services. There is no doubt in my mind of that. Not a single one.

The question is why? And what have they done with the plane? Well as to why, I covered my idea in a previous blog on the subject. As to what they have done with the plane? Who knows? Certainly not me. But we can have our suspicions based upon what we sense from all that is being said and all that we know.

If you want me to take a “punt” on what’s happened to the plane, here is my “punt” (but that’s all it is right now and, of course, were it to be correct, we’ll never know UNLESS the USA wishes to start World War 3 that is).

Here is a map of the most up to date understanding (or belief) re the flight path the plane took. I have added my additional flight path belief to it in yellow:

MH370 flight path

Now, here is a line on Google Earth representing the distance between KL and Beijing – approximately 4000Km…

KL - BeijingAnd here’s a similar line between KL and somewhere in the BRITISH Indian Ocean territory – approx 3500Km….

KL - Diego GarciaAnd here IS that BRITISH Indian Ocean territory…

British Indian Ocaen territoryThere won’t be a lot of radar around that area of the world EXCEPT American Military radar. Why American military radar?

Well, because of this. What you’re looking at in the centre of that image is Diego Garcia…

Diego Garcia

A little background on Diego Garcia:

To accomplish the UK/United States mutual defense strategy, in November 1965, the UK purchased the Chagos Archipelago, which includes Diego Garcia, from the then self-governing colony of Mauritius for £3 million to create the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT), with the intent of ultimately closing the plantations to provide the uninhabited British territory from which the United States would conduct its military activities in the region.

On 30 December 1966, the United States and the UK executed an agreement through an Exchange of Notes which permit the United States to use the BIOT for defense purposes for 50 years (through December 2016), followed by a 20-year optional extension (to 2036) to which both parties must agree by December 2014. No monetary payment was made from the United States to the UK as part of this agreement or any subsequent amendment. Rather, the United Kingdom received a US$14 million discount from the United States on the acquisition of submarine-launched ballistic missile system Polaris missiles per a now-declassified addendum to the 1966 agreement.

In March 1971, United States Naval construction battalions (Seabees) arrived on Diego Garcia to begin the construction of the Communications Station and an airfield. To satisfy the terms of an agreement between the UK and the United States for an uninhabited island, the plantation on Diego Garcia was closed in October of that year. The plantation workers and their families were relocated to the plantations on Peros Bahnos and Salomon atolls to the northwest; those who requested were transported to the Seychelles or Mauritius. In 1972, the UK decided to close the plantations throughout the Chagos, including those on Peros Banhos and the Salomon Islands, and deported the Ilois to their ancestral homes on either the Seychelles or Mauritius. The then-independent Mauritian government refused to accept the islanders without payment, and in 1974, the UK gave the Mauritian government an additional ₤650,000 to resettle the islanders.

By 1973, construction of the Naval Communications Station (NAVCOMMSTA) was completed. In the early 1970s, setbacks to United States military capabilities in the region including the fall of Saigon, victory of the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, the closure of the Peshawar Air Station listening post in Pakistan and Kagnew Station in Ethiopia, the Mayaguez incident, and the build-up of Soviet Naval presence in Aden and a Soviet airbase at Berbera, Somalia, caused the United States to request, and the UK to approve, permission to build a fleet anchorage and enlarged airfield on Diego Garcia, and the Seabees doubled the number of workers constructing these facilities.

Following the fall of the Shah of Iran and the Iran Hostage Crisis in 1979–1980, the West became concerned with ensuring the flow of oil from the Persian Gulf through the Strait of Hormuz, and the United States received permission for a $400 million expansion of the military facilities on Diego Garcia consisting of two parallel 12,000-foot-long (3,700 m) runways, expansive parking aprons for heavy bombers, 20 new anchorages in the lagoon, a deep water pier, port facilities for the largest naval vessels in the American or British fleet, aircraft hangars, maintenance buildings and an air terminal, a 1,340,000 barrels (213,000 m3) fuel storage area, and billeting and messing facilities for thousands of sailors and support personnel.

In 2004, the UK applied for, and received, Ramsar Site status for the lagoon and other waters of Diego Garcia.

On 1 April 2010, the UK Cabinet declared the Chagos Archipelago a Marine Protected Area (MPA) and prohibited all extractive industry, including fishing and oil and gas exploration. It is unclear whether Diego Garcia is included in the MPA.

The Ramsar Convention (formally, the Convention on Wetlands of International Importance, especially as Waterfowl Habitat) is an international treaty for the conservation and sustainable utilization of wetlands, i.e., to stem the progressive encroachment on and loss of wetlands now and in the future, recognizing the fundamental ecological functions of wetlands and their economic, cultural, scientific, and recreational value. It is named after the city of Ramsar in Iran, where the Convention was signed in 1971.

Now isn’t that just “delicious”? Have the place protected, “for marine life you understand”, from “extractive industry” while then protecting a billion dollar Military site. “It’s for the birds and the fish you know!” Meanwhile, 1,151 people were displaced from their homes and the Mauritian government were paid £650,000 to resettle the the people. That’s roughly £565 per person. For the upending of their entire lives. But remember, this was paid to the government not to the people themselves. I’ll let you ponder that and wonder how much the people got. Yet the Mauritian government got paid £3m just for the land itself half a decade before. I wonder whose pockets that money went into? These people were ROYALLY (yes her again) fcuked. They had no choice, they didn’t wish to be resettled and they were told “We’ve agreed with your government. Cause any problems and you’ll find a bullet in your head.” And that’s international law for ya!

So now Diego garcia is used by the US/UK for extraordinary rendition flights. Things and people just disappear around that area you know. It’s like a man made Bermuda Triangle!

Diego Garcia 2

And yes, I just happen to think that there is a VERY good chance that MH370 has been “diverted” there. Just to give Malaysia a warning? No, there’s never just one reason for anything. 9/11 was staged for multiple reasons and I entirely believe this was too. For instance, just as Larry Silverstein made a shitload of cash for the double “terrorist” strike on the WTC which he owned and had just insured for precisely such an event(s), I have a sneaking suspicion that money was made from this event too. For example, as described in a previous article, the volume of trading in Malaysian Airlines shot up just the week before the event. The shares plummeted. Insider knowledge?

Secondly, there are reports that suggest there was a heavy load of cargo on that MH370 plane. So much so that, while the actually number of passengers was not to capacity of the aircraft (over 50 vacant seats), reports have suggested that there were a number of the passengers who flew standby. The reason given for this was that cargo uplift may have limited passenger capacity.

Question – how often does routine cargo on a passenger flight displace this much passenger uplift capacity?

If it was revealed that the cargo included a heavy valuable substance weighing as much as 50 passengers and their baggage, would this give pause for thought?

Passenger list also contained some 30 odd state of the art cyber warfare techies and execs from 5 global organisations, many with direct links to China. Coincidence?

Has anyone at the intended destination spoken up about not receiving any of their expected (valuable) cargo? There are two things they are not divulging (and yet must be known): Amount of fuel and the cargo onboard. Yes, fleeting mention has been made of the possibility of lithium batteries or something but that was just for the sake of another theory of how the plane may have caught fire. The Airline will know PRECISELY how much fuel the aircraft had AND what cargo was on it.

Just for the sake of an example:

If the flight was carrying a consigned gold cargo:
50pax * (75kg + 23kg) = 4900kg
Gold is approx US$1300/oz,
4900kg = 172842oz, therefore,
172842 * 1300 = US$224.7mil

The aforementioned figures are for example only, and intended just to highlight the scope of wealth that can be transported on such an aircraft.

Diego Garcia 3Now, I’m not saying that there is a Malaysian Airlines 777 sitting on the tarmac in Diego Garcia right now. DG may well have just been a stop-over.

Think about it: The radars showing the new flightpath are suggesting what? That someone knew exactly what they were doing for one thing. But, in flying west, where were they thinking of taking it and landing without being intercepted? India? Sri Lanka? Iran? Saudi? To reach Iran would have necessitated flying over Indian airspace. If not, it would have had to have taken one hell of a detour and used up fuel (and fly closer to Diego Garcia with the chance of being picked up on their radar). Flying over Indian airspace would be a death sentence. Not only that, whoever “hijacked” it truly expected to be in the air for a substantial number of hours without being noticed or intercepted by radar and then military planes? Could it even have made Saudi or Iran on its fuel?

Missing Malaysia plane may have run out of fuel over Indian Ocean – source

BY MARK HOSENBALL

WASHINGTON, March 14 Sat Mar 15, 2014 1:30am GMT

03/14/2014
 (Reuters) – Analysis of electronic pulses picked up from a missing Malaysian airliner shows it could have run out of fuel and crashed into the Indian Ocean after it flew hundreds of miles off course, a source familiar with official U.S. assessments said on Friday.

The source, who is familiar with data the U.S. government is receiving from the investigation into the disappearance of the Malaysia Airlines plane, said the other, but less likely possibility, was that it flew on toward India.

The data obtained from pulses the plane sent to satellites had been interpreted to provide two different analyses because it was ambiguous, said the source, who declined to be identified because of the ongoing investigation.

But it offers the first real clues as to the fate of Flight MH370, which officials increasingly believe was deliberately diverted off its scheduled course from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing.

Too many “sources” these days who decline to be identified in so many of our media’s stories!

Exclusive: Radar data suggests missing Malaysia plane flown deliberately toward Andamans – sources

BY NILUKSI KOSWANAGE AND SIVA GOVINDASAMY

KUALA LUMPUR Fri Mar 14, 2014 8:27am GMT

(Reuters) – Military radar-tracking evidence suggests a Malaysia Airlines jetliner missing for nearly a week was deliberately flown across the Malay peninsula towards the Andaman Islands, sources familiar with the investigation told Reuters on Friday.

Two sources said an unidentified aircraft that investigators believe was Flight MH370 was following a route between navigational waypoints – indicating it was being flown by someone with aviation training – when it was last plotted on military radar off the country’s northwest coast.

The last plot on the military radar’s tracking suggested the plane was flying toward India’s Andaman Islands, a chain of isles between the Andaman Sea and the Bay of Bengal, they said.

Waypoints are geographic locations, worked out by calculating longitude and latitude, that help pilots navigate along established air corridors.

A third source familiar with the investigation said inquiries were focusing increasingly on the theory that someone who knew how to fly a plane deliberately diverted the flight, with 239 people on board, hundreds of miles off its intended course from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing.

“What we can say is we are looking at sabotage, with hijack still on the cards,” said that source, a senior Malaysian police official.

All three sources declined to be identified because they were not authorised to speak to the media and due to the sensitivity of the investigation.

Officials at Malaysia’s Ministry of Transport, the official point of contact for information on the investigation, did not return calls seeking comment.

Malaysian police have previously said they were investigating whether any passengers or crew had personal or psychological problems that might shed light on the mystery, along with the possibility of a hijacking, sabotage or mechanical failure.

The comments by the three sources are the first clear indication that foul play is the main focus of official suspicions in the Boeing 777’s disappearance.

As a result of the new evidence, the sources said, multinational search efforts were being stepped up in the Andaman Sea and also the Indian Ocean.

LAST SIGHTING

In one of the most baffling mysteries in modern aviation, no trace of the plane nor any sign of wreckage has been found despite a search by the navies and military aircraft of more than a dozen countries.

The last sighting of the aircraft on civilian radar screens came shortly before 1:30 a.m. Malaysian time last Saturday (1730 GMT Friday), less than an hour after it took off from Kuala Lumpur, as the plane flew northeast across the mouth of the Gulf of Thailand. That put the plane on Malaysia’s east coast.

Malaysia’s air force chief said on Wednesday an aircraft that could have been the missing plane was plotted on military radar at 2:15 a.m., 200 miles (320 km) northwest of Penang Island off Malaysia’s west coast.

This position marks the limit of Malaysia’s military radar in that part of the country, a fourth source familiar with the investigation told Reuters.

When asked about the range of military radar at a news conference on Thursday, Malaysian Transport Minister Hishammuddin Hussein said it was “a sensitive issue” that he was not going to reveal.

“Even if it doesn’t extend beyond that, we can get the cooperation of the neighbouring countries,” he said.

The fact that the aircraft – if it was MH370 – had lost contact with air traffic control and was invisible to civilian radar suggested someone aboard had turned its communication systems off, the first two sources said.

They also gave new details on the direction in which the unidentified aircraft was heading – following aviation corridors identified on maps used by pilots as N571 and P628. These routes are taken by commercial planes flying from Southeast Asia to the Middle East or Europe and can be found in public documents issued by regional aviation authorities.

In a far more detailed description of the military radar plotting than has been publicly revealed, the first two sources said the last confirmed position of MH370 was at 35,000 feet about 90 miles (144 km) off the east coast of Malaysia, heading towards Vietnam, near a navigational waypoint called “Igari”. The time was 1:21 a.m.

Malaysian PM says lost airliner was diverted deliberately

BY ANSHUMAN DAGA AND SIVA GOVINDASAMY

KUALA LUMPUR Sat Mar 15, 2014 8:19pm GMT

(Reuters) – A missing Malaysian airliner appears to have been deliberately steered off course after someone on board shut down its communications, Prime Minister Najib Razak said on Saturday.

A week after the disappearance of flight MH370, Najib said its last transmission of satellite data came nearly seven hours after it disappeared from radar screens.

But the new satellite data gave no precise location, and the plane’s altered course could have taken it anywhere from central Asia to the southern Indian Ocean, he said.

Minutes after the Malaysian leader outlined investigators’ latest findings, police began searching the house of the aircraft’s 53-year-old captain for any evidence that he could have been involved in foul play.

The Malaysia Airlines Boeing 777-200ER vanished en route from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing in the early hours of March 8 with 239 passengers and crew aboard.

Najib, giving his first statement at a news conference since then, confirmed reports that investigators believe somebody cut off the plane’s communications reporting system, switched off its transponder and steered it west, far from its scheduled route.

“In view of this latest development the Malaysian authorities have refocused their investigation into the crew and passengers on board,” he said.

“Despite media reports the plane was hijacked, I wish to be very clear, we are still investigating all possibilities as to what caused MH370 to deviate.”

Search operations by navies and aircraft from more than a dozen nations were immediately called off in the Gulf of Thailand and the South China Sea to the east of Malaysia, where the plane dropped off civilian air traffic control screens at 1:22 a.m. last Saturday (1722 GMT on Friday).

Malaysia said new data showed the last communication between the missing plane and satellites at 8:11 a.m. (0011 GMT), almost seven hours after it turned back and crossed the Malay peninsula.

The data did not show whether the plane was still flying or its location at that time, presenting searchers with a daunting array of possible last locations. Seven hours’ more flying time would likely have taken it to the limit of its fuel load.

TWO CORRIDORS

Najib said the plane’s final communication with satellites placed it somewhere in one of two corridors: a northern arc stretching from northern Thailand to the border of Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan, or a southern one stretching from Indonesia to the vast southern Indian Ocean.

“Clearly, the search for MH370 has entered a new phase,” said Najib, whose government has come under criticism for its slow release of information surrounding one of the most baffling mysteries in aviation history.

India stepped up its search in two areas at the request of Malaysia – one around the Andaman and Nicobar Islands and another further west across the Bay of Bengal – but found no evidence that would indicate that the plane had come down in its waters, the Defence Ministry said.

A senior military official in Port Blair, capital of the archipelago, said Indian aircraft had combed waters stretching up to 300 nautical miles (550 km) offshore and overflown all 572 islands in the chain but “we don’t have anything so far”.

India’s Eastern Naval Command was investigating a separate rectangular ‘box’ 15 km wide by 600 km long, some 900 km east of Port Blair, but had found nothing.

About two-thirds of the passengers on board the flight were Chinese, and Beijing has been showing increasing impatience with the speed and coordination of the Malaysian search effort.

On Saturday, China said it had demanded that Malaysia keep providing more thorough and accurate information, and added that it was sending a technical team to Malaysia to help with the investigation.

China’s Xinhua state news agency said in a commentary that Najib’s disclosure of the new details was “painfully belated”.

“And due to the absence – or at least lack – of timely authoritative information, massive efforts have been squandered, and numerous rumours have been spawned, repeatedly racking the nerves of the awaiting families,” it said.

The fate of flight MH370 has been shrouded in mystery since it disappeared off Malaysia’s east coast less than an hour into its scheduled flight from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing on March 8.

But investigators have increasingly discounted the possibility of an accident due to the deliberate way it was diverted and had its communications switched off.

EXPERIENCED CAPTAIN

Investigative sources told Reuters on Friday they believed the plane was following a commonly used navigational route when it was last spotted early on Saturday, northwest of Malaysia.

Their suspicion has hardened that it was flown off-course by the pilot or co-pilot, or someone else with detailed knowledge of how to fly and navigate a large commercial aircraft.

No details have emerged of any passengers or crew with militant links or psychological problems that could explain a motive for sabotaging the flight.

The experienced captain, Zaharie Ahmad Shah, was a flying enthusiast who spent his off days tinkering with a flight simulator of the plane that he had set up at home, current and former co-workers said. Malaysia Airlines officials did not believe he would have sabotaged the flight.

The 27-year-old co-pilot, Fariq Abdul Hamid, was religious and serious about his career, family and friends said, countering news reports suggesting he was a cockpit Romeo who was reckless on the job.

As the search enters its second week, several governments are using imagery satellites – platforms that take high definition photos – while data from private sector communications satellites is also being examined. China alone says it has deployed 10 satellites.

“The area is enormous. Finding anything rapidly is going to be very difficult,” said Marc Pircher, director of the French space centre in Toulouse. “The area and scale of the task is such that 99 percent of what you are getting are false alarms.”

The corridors given by Najib represent a satellite track, which appears as an arc on a map. The plane did not necessarily follow the corridor, but was at some point along its path at the moment the signal was sent.

Officials at Kazakhstan’s state air navigation service were not available for comment while in Turkmenistan, state aviation officials referred queries to the Foreign Ministry.

Afghanistan‘s ministry of aviation said its controllers were certain the plane had not crossed their airspace. A spokesman for Pakistan’s civilian airspace authority said: “We have not received any requests from Malaysia authorities for help, nor have we any information on the plane’s whereabouts.”

SATELLITES

Earlier, a source familiar with official U.S. assessments of electronic signals sent to geostationary satellites operated by Britain’s Inmarsat said it appeared most likely the plane had turned south over the Indian Ocean, where it would presumably have run out of fuel and crashed into the sea.

If so, just finding the plane – let alone recovering the “black box” data and cockpit voice recorders that hold the key to the mystery – would be a huge challenge.

The Indian Ocean has an average depth of more than 12,000 feet, or two miles (3.5 km). This is deeper than the Atlantic, where it took two years to locate wreckage on the seabed from an Air France plane that vanished in 2009, even though floating debris quickly gave an indication of the area of the crash.

Any debris would have been widely dispersed by Indian Ocean currents in the week since the plane disappeared.

“We have many radar systems operating in the area, but nothing was picked up,” Rear Admiral Sudhir Pillai, Chief of Staff of India’s Andamans and Nicobar Command, told Reuters.

“It is possible that the military radars were switched off as we operate on an as-required basis. So perhaps secondary radars were operating, which may not have the required range to detect a flight at an altitude of 35,000 feet.”

The other interpretation was that the aircraft continued to fly to the northwest and headed over Indian territory.

The source said it was believed unlikely the plane had flown for any length of time over India because it has strong air defence and radar coverage that should have allowed authorities to see the plane and intercept it.

It is extremely rare for a modern passenger aircraft to disappear once it has reached cruising altitude, as MH370 had. When that does happen, the debris from a crash is usually found relatively quickly, close to its last known position.

In this case, there has been no trace of the plane, nor any sign of wreckage.

The maximum range of the Boeing 777-200ER is 7,725 nautical miles or 14,305 km. It is not clear how much fuel the aircraft was carrying, though it would have been enough to reach its scheduled destination, Beijing, a flight of five hours and 50 minutes, plus some reserve.

Malaysian PM’s statement (15th March):

Seven days ago Malaysia Airlines flight MH370 disappeared. We realise this is an excruciating time for the families of those on board. No words can describe the pain they must be going through. Our thoughts and our prayers are with them.

I have been appraised of the on-going search operation round the clock. At the beginning of the operation, I ordered the search area to be broadened; I instructed the Malaysian authorities to share all relevant information freely and transparently with the wider investigation team; and I requested that our friends and allies join the operation. As of today, 14 countries, 43 ships and 58 aircraft are involved in the search. I wish to thank all the governments for their help at such a crucial time.

Since day one, the Malaysian authorities have worked hand-in-hand with our international partners – including neighbouring countries, the aviation authorities and a multinational search force – many of whom have been here on the ground since Sunday.

We have shared information in real time with authorities who have the necessary experience to interpret the data. We have been working nonstop to assist the investigation. And we have put our national security second to the search for the missing plane.

It is widely understood that this has been a situation without precedent.

We have conducted search operations over land, in the South China Sea, the Straits of Malacca, the Andaman Sea and the Indian Ocean. At every stage, we acted on the basis of verified information, and we followed every credible lead. Sometimes these leads have led nowhere.

There has been intense speculation. We understand the desperate need for information on behalf of the families and those watching around the world. But we have a responsibility to the investigation and the families to only release information that has been corroborated. And our primary motivation has always been to find the plane.

In the first phase of the search operation, we searched near MH370’s last known position, in the South China Sea. At the same time, it was brought to our attention by the Royal Malaysian Air Force that, based on their primary radar, an aircraft – the identity of which could not be confirmed – made a turn back. The primary radar data showed the aircraft proceeding on a flight path which took it to an area north of the Straits of Malacca.

Given this credible data, which was subsequently corroborated with the relevant international authorities, we expanded the area of search to include the Straits of Malacca and, later, to the Andaman Sea.

Early this morning I was briefed by the investigation team – which includes the FAA, NTSB, the AAIB, the Malaysian authorities and the Acting Minister of Transport – on new information that sheds further light on what happened to MH370.

Based on new satellite information, we can say with a high degree of certainty that the Aircraft Communications Addressing and Reporting System (ACARS) was disabled just before the aircraft reached the East coast of peninsular Malaysia. Shortly afterwards, near the border between Malaysian and Vietnamese air traffic control, the aircraft’s transponder was switched off.

From this point onwards, the Royal Malaysian Air Force primary radar showed that an aircraft which was believed – but not confirmed – to be MH370 did indeed turn back. It then flew in a westerly direction back over peninsular Malaysia before turning northwest. Up until the point at which it left military primary radar coverage, these movements are consistent with deliberate action by someone on the plane.

Today, based on raw satellite data that was obtained from the satellite data service provider, we can confirm that the aircraft shown in the primary radar data was flight MH370. After much forensic work and deliberation, the FAA, NTSB, AAIB and the Malaysian authorities, working separately on the same data, concur.

According to the new data, the last confirmed communication between the plane and the satellite was at 8:11AM Malaysian time on Saturday 8th March. The investigations team is making further calculations which will indicate how far the aircraft may have flown after this last point of contact. This will help us to refine the search.
Due to the type of satellite data, we are unable to confirm the precise location of the plane when it last made contact with the satellite.

However, based on this new data, the aviation authorities of Malaysia and their international counterparts have determined that the plane’s last communication with the satellite was in one of two possible corridors: a northern corridor stretching approximately from the border of Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan to northern Thailand, or a southern corridor stretching approximately from Indonesia to the southern Indian ocean. The investigation team is working to further refine the information.

In view of this latest development the Malaysian authorities have refocused their investigation into the crew and passengers on board. Despite media reports that the plane was hijacked, I wish to be very clear: we are still investigating all possibilities as to what caused MH370 to deviate from its original flight path.

This new satellite information has a significant impact on the nature and scope of the search operation. We are ending our operations in the South China Sea and reassessing the redeployment of our assets. We are working with the relevant countries to request all information relevant to the search, including radar data.

As the two new corridors involve many countries, the relevant foreign embassies have been invited to a briefing on the new information today by the Malaysian Foreign Ministry and the technical experts. I have also instructed the Foreign Ministry to provide a full briefing to foreign governments which had passengers on the plane. This morning, Malaysia Airlines has been informing the families of the passengers and crew of these new developments.

Clearly, the search for MH370 has entered a new phase. Over the last seven days, we have followed every lead and looked into every possibility. For the families and friends of those involved, we hope this new information brings us one step closer to finding the plane.

ENDS

The Malaysian PM is briefed, so what he says he thinks he knows isn’t what HE knows but what he is led to believe by the briefing team.

There’s only two airstrips in the Northern Indian Ocean (besides DG) – CCK (8000′) and XCH (6900′).
Both of these are well-established Australian territories with top-class communications, and I’m sure we’d have heard by now if a stray B777 rolled up to either. 

Reports say that MH370’s last ACARS pings were received by Inmarsat.

If it’s a fact that the pings were received by Inmarsat only, and not by ACARS ground stations, couldn’t you deduce that MH370 was not in range of an ACARS ground station when it sent its last pings?

SITA ACARS ground station coverage:

SITA_ACARS_coverage

So, pretty much covered then by SITA ACARS isn’t it? However, where is one place which just so happens to be located in British Indian Ocean Territory far away from SITA ACARS? Diego Garcia!

But then something keeps coming back to haunt me and that is the statement made by the Malaysian Embassy official in Beijing on the day of the disappearance: Flight MH370 landed in Nanning, China. It was stated by an official of the Malaysian Embassy then it was discarded by another official in Malaysia itself and the statement was forgotten rather than people ask why an official would make such a statement so erroneously?

Why I mention this once more is because, when you look at the Inmarsat pings, the satellite is suggesting two possible arcs with the plane’s last “known” / possible position. Which, in itself makes me think “How good is satellite data and the spying capabilities if this is the best result of triangulation it can come up with for a massive Boeing 777 aircraft?

Anyhow, note that Nanning lies very close to the bottom/east point of the top arc while, for the aircraft to be on any other point on that arc as a last known point, it would have crossed any number of radars in multiple countries. The southern arc wouldn’t really make sense.

But then, with all the deliberate confusion which is going into this event (and it certainly is deliberate), nothing makes sense. Just how they like it. 😉

Final destination? How about South Africa? With DG a stop over?

Why?

Oh I don’t know! Just a hunch!

_73602229_possible_plane_area3_624(3)

cv