Previous Update: March 18 - 24
The Inmarsat report depends heavily on the incorrectness of the 2:40 last-radar-contact story that circulated. To put it another way, there must have been a serious effort to demolish / obliterate that report, if it had origin in Malaysian authorities. The Inmarsat report with the yellow line (find "yellow line" on the last page) cannot be respectable so long as last-radar contact was at 2:40 to the east side of the Andaman islands.The following from Wikipedia's article on the flight may be smoke and mirrors to make us believe as best as possible that the 2:40 last-radar-contact report was erroneous due to confusion: "Malaysia Airlines (MAS) issued a media statement at 07:24, one hour after the scheduled arrival of the flight at Beijing, stating that contact with the flight had been lost by Malaysian ATC at 02:40. MAS stated that the government had initiated search and rescue operations. It later emerged that Subang Air Traffic Control had lost contact with the aircraft at 01:22 and notified Malaysia Airlines at 02:40." I see. This is written in such a way as to obliterate the 2:40 last-radar sighting. It's implying that Malaysian Airlines confused the 2:40 written in the time slot of their letter / email from Subang with the time that last-radar contact was made.
That's an unreasonable claim. How can one possibly look at the date of a message and conclude that it was the time of last-radar contact. Let's just round that off to an impossibility. True, it's highly likely that Malaysian Airlines made a mistake with the statement on that first day, for it is highly likely that Subang lost radar contact long before 2:40, but the error that a Malaysians Airlines employee must have made is in confusing Subang radar with Malaysian radar; it was the Malaysian military people who must have reported the 2:40 last-radar time. In my readings on this topic, it had always been the Malaysian military that claimed 2:40 as their last-radar contact.
Yes, the Malaysian military has likely been directed to change it's tune on that report, by changing the 2:40 to 2:15. That's the way I'm looking at it.
Let's keep in mind here that Malaysian Airlines was not at all smiling on the Malaysian government throughout the crisis stage. Malaysian Airlines came out punching the government in the face (media-war speaking) the moment it tried to provide false evidence for the claim that the pilot had turned off the ACARS messaging system as part of a hijack scheme. If it wasn't for that detail offending / tarnishing Malaysian Airlines, the international news may still be reporting a hijacking scenario as an undeniable "fact."
Moreover, it was the Malaysian prime minister himself, days after the flight disappeared, who claimed that the flight had the last ping north of the straight of Malacca. He did not intend to mean a few miles north, or at the north side of the straight, for he was at that time announcing that the plane had flown for some seven hours. This long flight was essentially a new revelation to the world as per his own announcement at that time, and he had the plane flying north. When he said it went north of the straight, he meant as far as Kazakhstan, possibly. So there you have the evidence that the plane was expected, according to the prime minister himself, to cut across as far north as the Andaman sea. No guff, that really happened, in case the Wikipedia's of the world want you to forget it.
CNN: "The radar data don't show the plane over the Andaman Islands, but only on a known route that would take it there, Reuters cited its sources as saying." The mistake by Malaysian Airlines was on the first day (March 8), but as long after as March 23, CNN, a supposedly responsible news organization that should have known about the mistake, wrote: "Military radar tracked the flight between 1:19 a.m. and 2:40 a.m. the day it went missing, the source told CNN, but it's not clear how long it took the plane to descend to 12,000 feet." There you go, it was Subang radar, but military radar that had the 2:40 timing. Whoever CNN's source was, why was he/she repeating the 2:40 time as late as March 23 if it was roundly known to be from a mistake over at Malaysian Airlines.
It may therefore be true on both counts that: 1) Malaysian Airlines told the truth concerning last-radar contact at 2:40; 2) Subang traffic control truly notified Malaysian Airlines of something at 2:40.
Here's how Malaysian Airlines put it in their official announcement:
The airline initially issued this statement:
We deeply regret that we have lost all contacts with flight MH 370 which departed Kuala Lumpur at 12.41 am earlier this morning (March 8) this morning (March 8) bound for Beijing. The aircraft was scheduled to land at Beijing International Airport at 6.30 am local Beijing time. Subang Air Traffic Control reported that it lost contact at 2:40 am (local Malaysia time).That last sentence is not expected to arise from merely looking at the time stamped at the date slot upon an email or some form of instant messaging. It may even be that Subang called Malaysian Airlines by phone so that there was no 2:40 anywhere in sight as per the timing of that message. Therefore, Malaysian Airlines must have been told by some party that last radar contact was at 2:40. Remember, this was Malaysia Airline's official statement on a very lamentable situation. Some care would have gone into creating this announcement.
But Inmarsat ignored this picture, with the wink of the Malaysian prime minister, who had by then changed his mind about the northern-corridor route. Instead of trying to convince his country that the plane was hijacked by Middle-East terrorists, the prime minister decided to go with a southern route to no-where.
There is a story at the top of the article above that concerns a topic not yet mentioned by me:
According to CNN, "the Vietnamese Navy confirmed the plane crashed into the Gulf of Thailand. According to Navy Admiral Ngo Van Phat, a regional commander, military radar recorded that the plane crashed into the sea south of Phu Quoc island" [see map at article].However no debris has been located.
I ask you: what are we going to believe more at this point, Vietnam radar, or the Malaysian government? I've got to say: when a country says they have flight 370 on radar, and that the plane went down, it's doubtful to be in error. It's possible to be in error, but doubtful. The timing, you see. If the timing wasn't right, Vietnam's navy would not have made that claim. How often do we think that Vietnam radar catches a plane going down into the gulf of Thailand? Every couple of weeks maybe? No. Probably not since the war with the Americans.
It's hard to miss on a radar screen that the plane was there, then vanished. It reminds me of what the Malaysian defence minister was saying when he used the "vanish" term; it seemed he was opposed to his prime minister at the time. He was standing at a press briefing with a representative of Malaysian Airlines at his side, both claiming what seemed to me to be a story in opposition to that of the prime minister. Hmm, it makes one scratch the chin. I've never heard from the defence minister again.
The radar can probably see the flight's altitude becoming progressively lower during the fall. How could Vietnam have made a mistake? If we are to take anything from this report, it's that Vietnam didn't shoot the flight down. I assume it wouldn't want to bring rescue teams to its shores if that had been the case. Who did shoot it down, then? We need to ask nations with the ability to ruin transponders in mid-flight. We can rule out China due to the Chinese passengers. And we can ask again why a team of American experts rushed to Malaysia as soon as the flight went down. Is that a normal thing for Americans to do when planes go down elsewhere?
I'm willing to go counter to my own claim thus far that the plane crashed to the south of the tip of Vietnam. The "sea south of Phu Quoc island" is at best (i.e. at least) 150 miles north of where I've suspected the crash (at the seismic event reported by China). On second thought, might a missile that missed the plane have caused the "seismic event"? If the sea is only 100 feet deep or less at the seismic event, could a super-fast missile have caused it? Again, I reject the claim of the U.S. Geological Survey that the event was a 2.7-magnitude, natural tremor. The timing, you see, of this tremor makes the Geological Survey suspect in a cover-up with the U.S. military. We understand, the latter makes friends in all the high places.
A March-10 article:
The closest things to clues in the search for the missing jetliner are oil slicks in the Gulf of Thailand, about 90 miles south of Vietnam's Tho Chu Island -- the same area where the flight disappeared from radar early Saturday morning. A Vietnamese reconnaissance plane, part of a massive, multinational search effort, spotted the oil slicks that stretch between six and nine miles, the Vietnam government's official news agency reported.http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/08/world/asia/malaysia-airlines-plane-missing/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
Tho-Chu is a small island group on my atlas at coordinates of about 9.2 degree latitude and 103.5 degrees longitude. The island group is already some 50 miles south-west of Phu Quoc, but when we go 90 miles south of Tho-Chu, it locates the oil slick to as close as 75 miles from the seismic event. It may be difficult to tell the difference between fuel and refined oil on water, meaning that "oil" slick may have been a general, tentative term.
As "Test results showed the source of the oil slick was a ship and not flight MH370, ", the next question is, who tested the slick's substance? Was it China? If it was Malaysia, should we trust the report? From a March-10 report:
The Malaysian Insider reports that the Malaysian Maritime Enforcement Agency (MMEA) Eastern Region chief First Admiral, Datuk Nasir Adam, said that the oil slicks were not related to the plane......Samples of the oil slick were sent for analysis in the Malaysian capital Petaling Jaya and according to Adam, "the result of the analysis is negative, the samples are not from MH370."
http://www.thewire.com/global/2014/03/oil-slick-apparently-not-missing-malaysia-airplane/358983/
That is very-fast reporting. Too fast? It was March 10, two days after the accident, and perhaps only one after the slick was found. Is that enough time to do the testing and report back to news people? Here's how it reached the West on March 10: "ABC News reported via Yahoo! News March 10 that samples of the oil slick show it was not linked with the jetliner..." Well, with all the money these news organization have on hand, you'd think maybe they could get first-hand information more often than copy-catting the other news people.
How does a ship leak oil from a tank, anyway? Do we imagine a rust hole through the hull? I have no idea how a ship leaks oil miles long. Does it have a tap going to the outside of the hull, and someone forgot to turn it off? I simply can't understand how a ship leaks oil unless it crashes. If it's from a hole in the hull from rust, wouldn't the oil slick continue to shore until the hole could be repaired? Wikipedia: According to this study, most spills result from routine operations such as loading cargo, discharging cargo, and taking on fuel oil. In other words, most spills are at a dock, not in open waters without an oil rig. So, how did the "oil slick" get to the middle of the gulf of Thailand?
Here's some detail:
The Insider adds that chemists performed a series of tests on the sample, one to see if it contained "mineral oil," a second to see whether it contained "light" or "heavy" oil, and a final profiling test to see if the slick is from kerosene, diesel or petrol. MMEA Director-General Maritime Admiral Datuk Mohd Amdan Kurish said, however, that the oil was yellowish, different from oil generally spilled from ships.What if one of the perpetrators got in touch with the oil sample headed to the chemists, and he/she poured in some oil from some other source, to hide the reality? It might then show up as not usually from a ship, as Kurish thinks, but may then be claimed to be from a ship when all other options were eliminated. Or, perhaps, Datuk Nasir Adam just gave a false impression of what the chemists had found. CNN says that the chemist report was from "Malaysia's state news agency Bernama reported Monday." Ah, STATE news. It continues: "The agency cited the Malaysian Maritime Enforcement Agency's eastern region enforcement chief, Datuk Nasir Adam." The entire report thus hinges on the word of Mr. Adam.
A related article says: "A sample from the slick showed it was bunker oil, which is typically used to power large cargo ships, and not aircraft oil, Malaysia's state new agency...[citing]...Datuk Nasir Adam." Mr. Adam could have been lying, therefore.
Why, if it was bunker oil, the typical fuel of ships, did Mr. Kurish say that it wasn't normally used by ships? Doesn't that bring Mr. Adam's bunker-oil claim into doubt? Wikipedia calls it "bunker fuel," which may at first suggest something with a viscosity between that of motor oil and diesel fuel. However, Wikipedia's article on bunker oil says that it has a high viscosity (thick). The article also shows an oil sample with black oil, perhaps explaining why Mr. Kurish pointed out that the oil sample was yellow, i.e. in pointing out that it was NOT bunker oil. Another article on bunker fuel: "The color of resid/bunker fuel is always black, dark brown, or at least very dark." It appears again that Mr. Adam was lying.
http://www.liquidminerals.com/fuels.htmI'm no oil expert, but I have a hard time seeing how anyone out in the ocean, faced with a slick of bunker fuel, could mistaken it for jet fuel. But again, "MMEA Director-General Maritime Admiral Datuk Mohd Amdan Kurish said, however, that the oil was yellowish, different from oil generally spilled from ships." Granted, even though it was yellow, it was still oil rather than fuel. But, again, if Malaysia wanted to disguise the crash in the gulf, it could have poured some yellow oil into the sample before reaching the chemists.
I cannot find more details on this matter in regards to flight 370. But it sure is curious as to there being such a "spill" in the area where Vietnam reported a downed flight with radar evidence. Perhaps Vietnam is keeping quiet on this matter for political reasons.
Under a plot in which the perpetrators had planted bait to mislead the world to the other sea, might they also have planned on wiping up the debris field? Could it be done in a couple of nights? I'm sure that the military has come across the problem before, long before now, on how best to clean up a debris field from an "accident" that it itself has caused. Well, one way is to get some long sticks with hooks to lift the debris painfully onto a ship, item after item, so slow and visible. Forget it.
A better way would be to stick the items with a metal weight, and just let them sink. A suitcase with saturated clothes is near-ready to sink to begin with. Use of submarines with men under water could work all day long. I can imagine tools made for the task of sticking the items with weights.
Concerning the possible orange raft near/at the oil slick: "What appeared to be an orange life raft spotted Monday morning by Vietnam's National Committee for Search and Rescue, had nothing to with the plane. It turned out to be a circular side cover of an industrial cable." Can we imagine why cable might be useful in cleaning up a debris field from an airplane?
NBC said it "turned out to be the moss-covered cap of a cable reel," but the moss part may be disinformation with origin in the perpetrators freaking out.
Could we imagine a sub pulling debris in bulk into the ocean, and dealing with it there? I can. A long rubber tube, for example, say eight or ten inches in diameter, could be laid down by boat in a circular shape all around the debris field, and once filled with air, the tube would trap the debris, keeping it from spreading out. This would work only if the plane crashed on water before releasing debris, and if the boat arrived quickly.
The circular "trap" could be tightened (i.e. reduced in diameter) for to bring all the debris closer together, so as to make the entire lot easier to deal with. I'm not referring to large / heavy items from the aircraft itself, but suitcases, plastics, papers, etc. (many suitcases would sink on their own). If nets were spread over the top of the debris, once it's all pulled close together, the debris could be treated as large lots, each pulled with one cord. If a sub could get the entire lot a few feet below the surface before dawn, the net(s) could be tied more secure underwater by day, out of view from satellites and binoculars. Finally, weights could be applied to the nets sufficient to make the lot(s) sink.
I understand the great risk in such a project. To minimize the risk, it assumes that the ship(s) involved is alone in the area, capable of working with small lights to speed the project. It assumes that a small sub, if needed, is able to be in those waters without attracting attention if seen by radar. The Malaysians have at least two submarines. I'm just looking at the possibility of mopping up a debris field, very important because, if flight-370 debris ever comes ashore at Vietnam, Malaysia or Thailand, it wouldn't bode well for those who called rescue teams to get out of those waters, Obama being one of them.
A New Flight Path Yet, Very Under-ReportedThere is now a question as to whether the West has planting debris about 700 miles from where the vessels have been searching in the past week:
The search for missing Flight MH370 shifted to another section of the southern Indian Ocean on Friday [March 28] after new analysis by investigators indicated that the aircraft was traveling faster than previously thought -- and therefore ran out of fuel much sooner.The new search area is 680 miles northeast of where planes and ships have been scouring the waters...
...Martin Dolan, chief commissioner of the Australian Transport Safety Bureau, said Friday that the decision to shift the search farther north came from a closer analysis of the existing data, rather than from new information.
The yellow line on Inmarsat's globe map is the predicted position at 517.5 mph on average (450 knots). The red line, to the yellow line's east, represents a slower average speed of 400 knots. Therefore, the plane's expected trajectory, if faster than 450 knots, should be to the west of the yellow line. Yet, they are now claiming that a faster plane has ended up to the north-east. Isn't that contradictory and therefore condemning? It's not merely suspicious, it's condemning.
Keep in mind, this globe map (from my files if needed) has not circulated in the media; I have yet to see it anywhere aside from at the Washington Post and Wall Street Journal, and, moreover, it wasn't necessarily released initially by Inmarsat nor the Air Accidents Investigation Branch, but by the Malaysian prime minister under pressure from families of passengers. This new search area / new flight path is itself faint in the news. (If the globe does not at first appear in the page above, scroll down in the page's scroll bar, not your own scroll bar.)
Planting debris to the east of the current site is easier than planting it further west because east is closer to Australia. Planting it 700 miles from where the search teams are located is safer. We can't say for sure that this new twist is for the cause of planting evidence, but at the moment I cannot think of why else they would change the search site based on what looks like faulty argumentation.
If the ship planting evidence to the west of all search parties was caught in that area, it would later appear suspicious for being out there at all. But if the ship dropped the items while going to the search area, no one would have cause to be suspicious.
Do not minimize the importance of this claim that the faster flight path is placed by the Inmarsat people themselves on the wrong side of the yellow line. If this is easily understood by the media as being erroneous, it could explain why this tweaked flight path got little attention, in print, anyway. But shame on the media if they know it to be erroneous and are yet not telling about it. Do we just allow Inmarsat / AAIB to change the search area on faulty information? Doesn't that make them all worse than the dubious Malaysians?
I had better repeat, for new readers jumping in here, that the handshakes did not take place at this southern route. It's merely a false claim by the Inmarsat team. I need to entertain their ping locations in order to seek out inconsistencies with their plotting, and until now have not had a map of their plotted flight path in order to analyze what sort of sea monster is being birthed.
Their new positioning (not on the yellow-line path) of the last ping event (680 miles north-east of where they've been searching) is virtually bang-on straight south of their south-turn up in the Andaman sea. A straight south track makes it easier to explain and understand why they are feeding the search parties rotten material. With a straight-south track, as well as their red and yellow flight paths exposed, we now have a way to blow their math and path to smithereens.
The formula to be used is: A + V = compression/expansion level. If one knows A, the plane's angle, one can know V, the velocity, because the compression/expansion levels are known (so say Inmarsat, anyway). It's as simple as that. The handshake signal in itself does not disclose how much of its compression / expansion is due to flight direction (same as angle) versus velocity. As you can see, the velocity needs to be merely assumed in the red and yellow lines, because Inmarsat is claiming that the velocity is not known.
Let's go to the fifth ping event to make the point (the same will apply for the fourth through to the eighth ping). They claim to have a certain level of expansion for the fifth handshake. The trick is to plot the plane's coordinates precisely at that time, the problem being that they don't know the plane's velocity at any ping event. They are saying, here is where the fifth ping-location would be if the plane was flying at 450 knots. So, for making this point, mark any spot on the yellow line for the fifth ping, so long as it's south of the equator.
Now, if one wishes to plot the fifth ping at an increased velocity of 475 knots on a southern trajectory, the angle of the plane must change. The plane's nose must come closer to the satellite, meaning that, with increasing velocity, the plane must turn a little to the west. They had it correct on the globe map, where the yellow line, of higher velocity than the red line, is shifted to the west of the red line.
Now, however, at a very critical time, when nations are becoming tired of searching in the wrong place, Inmarsat and/or AAIB has the plane moving with greater velocity but curving more east than the yellow line. Is this decision based on mere incompetence? Of course not. They already had it right, showing that they know the formula, and the formula is simple: the faster the plane, the more the plane's nose must turn toward the satellite.
Let me explain for those that don't get it. View the Doppler data for any one handshake as a glass filled with water, which is simply to say, "the whole of it." They can't change their Doppler data. It's fixed. Part of the water in the glass is the velocity away from the satellite, with the remainder representing the angle of the plane toward the satellite. No matter how much the velocity amount is altered, the glass must always be full. If we increase the velocity, we need to decrease the angle. It's as simple as that. A decrease in angle here represents the nose pointing closer to the satellite. Zero degrees is with the nose pointing directly to the satellite. Zero degrees means there is zero velocity of the plane away from the satellite, and 100 percent movement toward the satellite.
If the plane moves due south at the equator (along the proposed flight path), the angle factor will be at 50 percent, and the velocity factor will be at 50 percent. Velocity away from the satellite amounts to expansion of the signal wave, while the angle toward the satellite amounts to compression.
So, why does this latest claim have a faster plane curving away from the satellite, thus breaking the Reality Barrier with a boom so loud it's a great wonder that the media are not exposing it?
Perhaps we can entertain the idea that the underlying reason for the tweaked flight path has to do with the previous method of plotting the plane...wherein the handshake signals could supposedly determine the plane's distance from the satellite. Perhaps other engineers working on the signal data pointed out that the plane plotting upon the yellow line did not conform to the expected distances of the plane at each ping. And perhaps they argued their case to the point of threatening to expose the error of the yellow-line theory. I can see why certain, honest investigators, not privy to the criminal plot, would insist on getting this plotting as correctly as possible. Perhaps a compromise was struck between the differing sides, and from that came this new twist.
However, none of the ping data, neither that in regards to the previous distance method, nor of the Doppler-based method, can cause a southern-bound plane to curve east if it's velocity is increased. So what's going on?
It's very revealing that the new search location is almost dead-on where they have the red line ending. Anyone without skill in this area can see the obvious "error" (more like a deliberate hoax). If the red line, representing the plane moving slower by more than 50 mph than one on the yellow line, ends up at the new area for searching, how could they claim / conclude that a plane moving faster than the one on the yellow line ended up at the same area? It's not a wonder that the globe map was not likely released willingly by Inmarsat.
Perhaps the explanation for this new claim is that the Doppler data has taken a back seat to the previous method of plotting the plane. In the previous, only the distance was known (their claim, not mine), not the velocity nor direction/angle of the plane. But that method too fails the Inmarsat team. That method too requires a curve to the west when increasing the plane's velocity. Let me explain briefly, for I can't make a claim and expect the reader to blindly believe.
The recorded distances from the satellite at the ping-four and ping-five locations can be called d4 and d5 (my terms). These distances are fixed; they are not open to alterations at the whims or needs of the investigators. Either the handshake data reveals the distances fairly accurately, or it does not. If it doesn't, Inmarsat was negligent in using the data to create the northern and southern corridors.
If, at a velocity of 450 knots, Inmarsat plots d4 and d5 at two specific locations in the Indian ocean, then an increased speed to 475 knots will force d5 to veer toward the west again, not toward the east. Yes, with increasing velocity (southward), ping after ping, the flight path will curve progressively west rather than east. You can apply your own mind to this easy thing to see how correct I am. The reason is simple, for, in the case of d4 through to d8, all must remain the same distance from the satellite regardless of how much the velocity is altered in various models. Increased velocity creates more distance between pings, and models with increased velocity require a shift of all ping locations further south. But the ping locations cannot retain their requirement of holding the same distance to the satellite if the shifts are made due south. The shifted ping locations need to be plotted a little toward the satellite in order to retain same distance.
Therefore, no matter whether one uses this distance method or the Doppler method, the plane must veer a little toward the satellite rather than toward the east. I'm sure that I'm overdoing this argument, because I know I'm standing on a dead sea monster, and want everyone to know.
It can't be argued that the new location announced this week for the final ping is due to the previous method of handshake interpretation. There is no permissible argument, using data revealed / reported thus far, for plotting the final ping to the east of where the yellow line had it (about 37 degrees latitude, and 89 degrees longitude). There must either be: 1) some other data in use that has not yet been revealed (which makes the Australians the providers of false information, knowingly or otherwise), or, 2) the Inmarsat team is risking an easily-realized faulty flight path on behalf of some devious plot not yet known (suspect for the planting of faked debris).
Here's the globe map if you didn't load it earlier. I would suggest getting it on to a separate browser, and expanding it for the following discussion:
http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/world/images-from-britains-aaib-on-mh370/893/
To Plot the Third Ping Event, FinallyMy fellow humans. Which is easier to believe, that this pilot flew straight south to a suicide mission, or that Inmarsat arranged false ping data as part of a plot to explain why the plane didn't fall into the gulf of Thailand? This section seeks to explain the start of the southern trajectory, the part that hinges on the correctness of the entire southern path. However, this section is based on ping events at 11 minutes after each hour, which is the timing that Inmarsat led us to believe prior to the Malaysians releasing the globe map and its burst-frequency chart. It also assumes that the plane's altitude is holding steady throughout.
The AAIB claims to have provided this chart to the Malaysians, but, as you can see, the pings are NOT 11 minutes after the hour...except for the final ping, which is the sixth or seventh ping rather than the eighth. In the next update, I will revise the discussion in this section with the ping times as per those provided in the chart. There are problems with the chart's information.
On the yellow line, the plane at the third ping event is very near the equator (where the Inmarsat satellite "hovers") and north of it, so that the fourth ping event is near the equator and south of it. That much seems reliable to begin with. The challenge is to find the exact location of the third ping so that it forces all other ping locations to be generally known. One cannot necessarily locate the third ping by knowing the second-ping location because the location at which the plane (supposedly) turned south is not automatically known. Besides, differing reports have the plane at 2:11 ping-time at different locations.
The signals from both the third and fourth handshakes must express nearly zero compression or expansion because they occurred with the plane moving virtually due south at the latitude of the satellite coordinates.
There claim: unless they have Doppler data, they cannot know when the plane turned south to begin with. As they have it, the plane turned south BEFORE the third ping, which can only be due to a third handshake in the range of near-zero Doppler effect. The Doppler-effect levels between the second and third handshakes must be highly different; we have got to assume that the handshakes reveal these differences.
The interval between the south-turn and the third ping depends on how far back from the turn they plot the second ping. The plane traveled one hour between the two pings so that, possibly, it flew as many as 500 miles WEST after ping two. In that way, the long, southern trajectory could be off by 500 miles if they don't correctly interpret the third-handshake data.
The second handshake, which, if we can trust them, has signal data jibing with a westward-flying plane near the Malaysian coast. They didn't know anything after the second ping except what Malaysian radar revealed. Take a look at where they start the red line. Why there? Is Inmarsat claiming by that little detail that Malaysian radar plotted the flight path as far as that point? The red line starts at 96.5 degrees longitude (about 7 degrees N), about 100 miles past (west of) GIVAL.
One would think that they can't put the second ping wherever they wish. One would think that, in the least, the second ping must jibe with the Malaysian radar's positioning of the plane at 2:11 am (the time of the second ping). If Inmarsat's plotting of the second ping is at odds with the same of the Malaysian radar, then what are the Inmarsat people doing using Malaysian radar, at all, for plotting their southern trajectory? If the Inmarsat people wish to alter the second-ping location from where the Malaysian radar had it, they must get the military to agree to changing the "facts." All in a day's work for corrupt politics, I suppose.
Their problem is excruciating now that the Malaysian prime minister has been forced to call for an international panel to review all things pertaining to this lost flight. Everything claimed by Inmarsat is about to go under the electron microscope of a panel that will have, hopefully, some independent members not privy to the criminal plot.
It can be assumed that Inmarsat had the pings prepared for the special purpose of faking a southern flight. It failed to show the all-important plotting of the third ping. For all international teams searching for this plane, it is of ultimate importance that the third-ping location is plotted correctly, and yet Inmarsat has not apparently sent these nations a map showing why they have the third-ping location where they do. If they had sent such maps, they would have made the news. But even one map (the globe map exposed by the Washington Post) used by the Malaysian prime minister failed to show any ping location whatsoever. It's perplexing, unless you realize that a hoax is the underlying reality.
Again, a plane moving directly south at the equator has zero Doppler punch (= compression), and zero Doppler expansion, no matter how fast it's moving. But even zero Doppler effect is a good clue. It tells that the plane is ON the equator...if it's moving directly south. If the path is not perfectly south, as is the case for the yellow line, then zero Doppler effect would indicate a plane NEAR the equator. Depending on how shifted from a perfect-southerly route they plot their flight paths across the equator area, they'll expose the amount of compression at the third and fourth handshakes.
The Doppler details of the third handshake on the yellow line reveals wave compression, because it's flying nearer to the satellite. On the other hand, the fourth-ping event, because flight is south of the equator, may go further from the satellite, wherefore some wave expansion might be possible. Yet, knowing whether it has compression or expansion on the yellow line, the fourth ping is much harder to interpret because the line slightly below the equator moves slightly toward the satellite on the angle/direction factor.
It looks like a 90-degree (perpendicular) line extending west from the general fourth-ping area of the yellow line would go smack to the coordinates of the satellite, suggesting extremely-low Doppler effect. There's a way to plot the fourth ping no more than six degrees from the equator. As you can see, any place upon the yellow line, between the equator and six degrees, faces the satellite. Therefore, the fourth handshake had virtually no expansion or compression.
By comparing the level of compression in the third handshake with the level of expansion / compression in the fourth, one can determine which ping event was closer to the equator. Then, the particular levels in both handshakes can tell how far from the equator each should be. On top of that, it's known that they are one hour apart.
The place on the red line that has no expansion or compression is smack over the equator. It's the only place where the red line faces the satellite. It's indication that the fourth ping on the red line is very near the equator. That locates the third ping (upon the red line) way up, very close to the south-turn. But it also gives a general indication on how far south of the equator the fourth ping must have occurred upon the yellow line.
The red line represents a velocity of 460 mph. At that speed from the loss-of-transponder point, my calculations show that it would reach its south-turn at 2:45 am, i.e. with the third ping 26 minutes later. That locates the third ping 200 miles south of the south-turn. Working backward 460 miles, it locates the second ping 35 miles before reaching GIVAL, about where the Malaysian radar had the second ping (Malaysians had the second ping four minutes before GIVAL).
The fourth ping on the red line then works out at 2.3 degrees below the equator.
As per the yellow line, by locating the second ping at the same spot (35 miles east of GIVAL), one simply measures forward one hour of flight, which is 517.5 miles in this case, to find the third-ping location, about 1.4 degrees north of the equator, meaning that there was, likewise, almost no compression in the third handshake signal. This locates the fourth ping as the plane arrived to 6 degrees S. (My plotting is upon an atlas using a ruler carefully; it's not rocket-science accurate).
All right, my fellow amateur scientists. Let's be careful. What sort of catch have we got here? Safe to say, Inmarsat used the Malaysian radar as its starting point. The very serious problem is that information at Wikipedia's article on this flight has the second ping as far back as the Malaysian coast (see "Pulau Perak" on the last page for that conclusion). That's nearly 200 miles further back from where it's being discussed here. It changes all ping locations by nearly 200 miles. However, Inmarsat's ping data cannot conform to both a second ping near GIVAL and a second ping over the Malaysian coast. If this globe map was given to the Malaysian prime minister before evidence came out to locate the second ping at the Malaysian coast, Inmarsat's team might become tarnished into the color of burnt toast when the international team looks at the data.
One can also work the globe-map lines back to the loss-of-transponder point at 1:21. In my calculations, I've found near-perfect conformity when taking the red line back at 460 mph, though the yellow line taken back at 517.5 mph does not quite get me to the 1:21 point. Inmarsat has both the red and yellow lines working out fairly well so long as there is no time allotted for the pilot's turn on the east side of Malaysia, and no delay of roughly 12 minutes over Bachok. As discussed earlier, it's a bigger problem than the 14 or 15 minutes off-time might suggest, because the plane's maximum speed didn't allow that gap to be filled. It's as simple as that.
If you don't mind doing a little work to prove what I'm about to say, here's something very interesting. The third-ping location on the yellow line is at 90 longitude. When I drew a line on a map from where the Inmarsat people would locate the second ping, some 35 miles east of GIVAL, through the third-ping location, and then created a mirror image of the line, it went through the center of the Andaman islands, exactly where the flight path had been predicted when the last-radar claim of 2:40 am was still in effect.
By "mirror image," I mean a line at the same angle, but in the opposite direction. What I'm trying to say is: suppose that Inmarsat had two sets of ping models prepared, one for a northern corridor and one for a southern corridor (because the perpetrators had not yet decided on which model to use). They could have used the same handshakes exactly, but in reverse. Instead of the third and fourth handshakes having such-and-such compression levels, they would give them the same amount of expansion. Instead of the fifth through to the eighth handshakes each having such-and-such expansion levels, they would be flipped to give the same amount of compression...and so one would have the northern route being a mirror-image of the southern route.
What I'm trying to say is: the third ping in the northern route was slated to go through the Andamans, suggesting that the prime minister started to lay the groundwork for that scenario by having a leak telling that flight 370 had flown north-west from GIVAL for 25 minutes (i.e. until 2:40 am) before the military lost radar contact. After that, Inmarsat was supposed to come out to say something like, "we always felt, from the start, that this flight ended up northward, and here's the ping data to prove it..." Instead, the powers that be came out with the southern route.
If one flips the yellow line around and uses it from GIVAL through the center of the Andamans, it ends at the northern border of Iran on the east side of the Caspian. If the plane is tracked at a higher speed that on the yellow line, it ends up more toward Tashkent.
Per degree latitude, there are about 69.1 miles. As the yellow line takes a southward path from 7 degrees N to 37 degrees S, there are 44 x 69.1 = 3,040 miles in that path. My map may be off slightly, but that distance on a line from GIVAL through the center of the Andamans gets to the northern border of Iran on the east side of the Caspian. It is very close to Tashkent, which place was mentioned in my first page, if you're interested in that discussion. Just find "Tashkent" on that page:
http://www.tribwatch.com/updateIraq4Mar4.htmIn case the globe map disappears from Washington Post:
The flight path for the yellow line:
South-turn at 96 longitude and 7N
94 longitude at equator
92.5 at 10 S
90.5 at 20S
90 at 30S
Crosses circular line 89 at about 37SThe flight path for the red line:
South-turn at 94.5 and 7N
93.5 at equator
94 at 10S
96.5 at 20S
Crosses circular line at 98 headed directly toward 100 and 30 (but shown not reaching that point)For anyone wishing to pursue this further, see a standard AAIB report which amounts to a news release, undated but expected on about March 25:
http://stream.wsj.com/story/malaysia-airlines-flight-370/SS-2-475558/SS-2-490467/
Crying Conspiracy Out LoudFor those who read the above before I inserted material on the "oil spill," you might wish to go back to read it. There was found a reason to doubt the official report.
The United States is not expected to have natural relations with Malaysia because the latter is largely Muslim and even a supporter of extremist Islam. That's one reason to deny the possibility that the two could work together on a plot to down flight 370. Not that there are myriads of writers claiming any sort of murderous attack on the flight by a government.
Take a look at the faked / doctored photos below, released on behalf of what seems to be part of the hijacker scenario. It's hard to pin these photo creations on Americans (expected to be more careful than this). It suggests that the Malaysians are behind this effort, and yet they may have adopted the terrorist idea from the Americans when the latter advanced it in the first few days.
http://www.tribwatch.com/malaysiaFakePhotos.jpgThe photo's are included in the article below, which says: "The passenger who boarded the Malaysia Airlines flight using a stolen Austrian passport was a 19-year-old Iranian who might have been trying to migrate to Germany. He was unlikely to be a member of any terrorist group, said Malaysian authorities at a press conference on Tuesday afternoon." It's not a wonder that this story died with photos so obviously faked (both men have identical legs, feet and tile floor). The idea seems to be that the Americans wished for us to believe that this plane had been hijacked by Iranians.
http://www.straitstimes.com/breaking-news/se-asia/story/missing-malaysia-airlines-plane-one-passengers-stolen-passport-19-year-oThe United States may have chosen to have a flight out of Malaysia downed in order to concoct a terrorist hijacking to Iran / Afghanistan. That's what it truly seems like to me after covering this story extensively. But something went too wrong to continue the effort. Malaysia, rather than being part of that terrorist scam to begin with, latched onto to it for convenience...for explaining why they didn't have jets up to check what the problem may have been after transponder loss (it makes them guilty of the fate of all passengers and crew). I did consider the possibility of Malaysia downing the plane merely to kill the pilot, a political opponent of the prime minister, but such a scenario wouldn't lead to suspicious activity from the West.
If Malaysia is such a low priority for having friendship with the United States, why did U.S. officials fly out to Malaysia, for to handle this crisis, as soon as it took place? Why did Inmarsat's ping data lead the world to thinking that the flight could have ended up in the Iran / Afghan theater? Don't you find that just a wee-bit suspicious? Why did Americans go on international television, crying the blues about Malaysia, when the latter wasn't holding to the radar picture that the Americans wanted? It became clear from Obama's press secretary that Obama wanted the search vessels in the Indian ocean, and thus the O-nited States wanted a radar picture that convinced the world that the pilot had flown to the west side of Malaysia.
With Obama, one can no longer say: the United States is not expected to have natural relations with Malaysia because the latter is largely Muslim and even a supporter of extremist Islam. With Obama, anything is possible that is out of the norm, upside-down, or corrupt. Obama, as a child, even lived in Indonesia (with his Indonesian step-father), smack beside Malaysia (the two countries share a border on land). Indonesia is itself 85-percent Muslim. It's feasible that Obama has made some unknown political connections, and/or political connections of an unknown nature, in Indonesia since becoming president more than five years ago.
There was a report of a "jumbo jet" going low over the Maldives islands to the south-west of the tip of India. These islands were, more or less, in the western path of flight 370 as reported by Malaysian radar. In other words, the plane on Malaysian radar (which wasn't likely flight 370) could have turned south in the bay of Bengal, once clearly out of radar range, to the Maldives. The report is that a plane was low sufficient to make out the door of the plane from the ground. Malaysia ignored this report, it was said, perhaps due to the time, 6:15 am, which was 9:15 Malaysian time, after flight 370 would have been out of fuel (the prime minister said it could fly only until 8 am).
Although we are not tracking flight 370 out to the Maldives, we can take this flight seriously as part of the perpetrator plot. We can entertain this as the fake flight 370...which could have been loaded completely full of fuel. A straight flight from GIVAL (2:15 am) to the Maldives is about 1,700 miles, or about three hours of flight, for an expected arrival at 5:15 (Malaysia time). If the plane first went north-west, to the Andaman islands, thus flying a curved flight, it might stretch it to 6:15, or even 7 am if it avoided the tip of India by a fair distance. But as it arrived at 9:15, it was not likely the fake flight 370 either, unless it circled around for a couple of hours (I'm not entertaining that). Here's the story for your consideration; few other details are known:
[The several witnesses in the Maldives] said that it was a white aircraft, with red stripes across it -- which is what the Malaysia Airlines flights typically look like....Eyewitnesses from the Kuda Huvadhoo concurred that the aeroplane was travelling North to South-East, towards the Southern tip of the Maldives -- Addu. They also noted the incredibly loud noise that the flight made when it flew over the island.
...But the Maldives is not amongst the countries that Malaysian authorities had sought help from in its search for the missing jet. Malaysia has listed the countries that it had appealed for assistance: Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan, Pakistan...
Perhaps the American perpetrators did not know how much fuel flight 370 had. Perhaps they guessed that it could fly until Malaysian time, 9:15. How else can we explain this plane flying so low, so unusually low, at roughly the time that flight 370 was to go down for lack of fuel, and in the correct path, more or less, too?? It does seem that the Americans were using a fake flight 370 to convince us of its flight over the Maldives.
The Telegraph, which carried the Maldives story, and which has the money to visit the islands, and moreover which has the two hands to dial a telephone and hold it to the ear, later said merely: "Authorities in Malaysia have contacted the military in the Maldives and confirmed that reports that the plane was sighted by islanders were wrong" (March 19 article). Well, ahh, that settles it. But do you think the Telegraph, if it truly cares for the truth, could arrange to discover some details as to why we should believe the Malaysians, or even the Maldives leader?? Did the islanders just dream this up, or lie about so they could get on CNN for free?
It is possible, due to the perpetrators routinely mouthing disinformation at the highest levels, even when they sit before Congressional hearings, that they changed the facts of this Maldives story after they decided to abandon their terrorist-hijacking Plan A (for Plan B in the Indian ocean). The original story may have been a fly-over over the Maldives at 6:15 am Malaysian time, which then got changed to 6:15 Maldives time to obliterate any media legs that the story would otherwise have gotten. The masters of disinformation can apply "evidence," as for example the red stripe seen in the quote above, or the door of the plane clearly visible. One can't see a red stripe on a plane at 3:15 in the morning, but one can see it at 6:15, I'll assume. It makes it hard for anyone to argue that it was 3:15 when the plane passed over.
Let's entertain that idea, a 3:15 fly-over, 6:15 Malaysia time. The aircraft yet has two or more hours of fuel at that time. What does that do to the picture? It allows the plane to reach Afghanistan, for example. I'm not suggesting that the flight went to Afghanistan, of course, but that the Americans could have left it to our imaginations as to how the plane got controlled by Afghanistan / Iran. Where Plan A was to convince us of a terror-hijack plot, there's one way to do it.
If we reject this 3:15 argument, then the only explanation (I can come up with) for the plane flying over the Maldives, with nearly an empty fuel tank, is to convince us of a crash near the Maldives shortly after 6:15. That scenario was never pushed by the West.
Why would the perpetrators fly it low over the Maldives so as to attract attention to it? One obvious reason: to assure that search parties would not search the gulf of Thailand. That's number one. The Americans would have expected the Malaysians to pounce on the Maldives story on day one, with the entire world thinking that the plane flew past the tip of India. But the report that the plane flew past the Maldives at 9:15 Malaysia time obliterated that scenario. People just say, that's impossible. Therefore, should we trust the report's details as it now stands?
I don't know when the Maldives story first came out. I imagine that the perpetrators had decided to abandon it from the start, otherwise the CNNs and BBCs of the world would have been carrying it. It was the Telegraph that may have borrowed the story, as we read it above, unknowingly from friends of the perpetrators.
Here's where it gets more than interesting. There is a story circulating in conspiracy-theory circles that flight 370 landed on a runway at Diego Garcia, a British island about 450-500 miles south of the southern Maldives. Coordinates for Diego Garcia are about 7.3 S at a longitude of 72.4 degrees.
The United States Navy operates Naval Support Facility (NSF) Diego Garcia, a large naval ship and submarine support base, military air base, communications and space-tracking facility...[and no doubt a torture / prison facility for Middle East prisoners]The island is in the so-called "British Indian Ocean Territories," apparently off limits to "foreigners." In other words, it has it's own ocean waters all around. It's an obvious spy hub for the U.S. government for that part of the world.
Some of the conspiracy theorists have taken to heart the idea that the plane was hijacked by Americans for to capture high-level engineers on board, to force their secrets out at Diego Garcia. It's very Hollywood, though reality works that way too at times. However, that idea doesn't explain why Obama would have pulled the search parties out of the gulf of Thailand. If the plane truly flew to Diego Garcia, Obama would have been very happy to see the search parties on the east side of Malaysia.
On the other hand, one can argue that Plan A required the plane over the Andamans, afterwhich Inmarsat could take over to suggest (if only to our imaginations) a flight path to Iran / Afghanistan. Could they have planned two different scenarios to make us imagine a flight to the Middle East, one with a flight over land (Inmarsat's part), and one over the sea via the Maldives? Absolutely. But they could not use both. They would need to chose which one to go with, depending on the outcome of the attack.
You may have read where I discredited the Malaysian-radar report due the sighting of flight 370 at Bachok at 1:45. I argued that there wasn't enough time to get the plane from there and into the Malacca straight. Someone might say, well, ok, but maybe the flight made it anyway, a little later than the Malaysians claimed, but so what? It still made the trip west. In that case, we might say that the real flight 370 could have gone to the Maldives and Diego Garcia.
Not so fast. There was that great coincidence of a seismic event 94 minutes after transponder loss, as well as the Vietnamese claim of a plane going down on their radar near the seismic event. The bright flash (10 seconds plus), too, seen in the sky by the oil-rig worker. And the apparent attempt of the pilot to get cell-phone service at Bachok. The latter is in itself an argument against a hijacking by Americans on board. The claim has been three Americans passengers, enough to commit a hijacking, yes, but why in their right minds would they fly low over the east coast of Malaysia, headed north over Bachok? (I haven't verified, but I think two of the three Americans were supposedly children.)
I'm not prepared to believe that the low-flying plane at Bachok was another flight (besides 370), for Flightradar24 showed no other flights that could fit the description. Someone might argue that a plane was taking off from the airport at about 1:15, and slated to fly the same path as 370, in which case this other plane was the one that flew over Bachok at 1:45. It's a flight of about 30 minutes from the airport to Bachok, after all. The problem is, the New Straight Times would have mentioned this other plane, if true, when that newspaper reported the eye-witness account at Bachok. Besides, the same low-flying plane also passed over some fishermen at 1:33...at exactly the time 370 would have been over him had its pilot started turning at 1:22.
So let's face the fact that flight 370 was at Bachok at about 1:45, for it appears that the Americans may have faced it too, in explanation for abandoning their terror-hijack plot.
This is why Alif and the fisherman are so-critically important, for they tend to prove that no hijacking was involved. And so we are demanded by this to realize aircraft failure. If we then go to a conspiracy plot involving Americans out of Diego Garcia, and if we are convinced that the low flight over the Maldives was a fake flight 370, the solution is an electromagnetic pulse attack against flight 370 with a pre-planned design to fake its westerly flight.
Was the attack aircraft a white jumbo jet with red stripes? Not necessarily, if for example there was disinformation to make us believe that the plane arrived over the Maldives in daylight. On the other hand, I would expect a plane looking much like flight 370 to be used as the attack plane if its other mission is to feign flight 370. The Telegraph story above said that the Maldives' residents "noted the incredibly loud noise that the flight made when it flew over the island." I could imagine a military craft with the look of a passenger jet having supersonic-engine capability. They are typically louder than passenger planes.
My claim: the feigned flight 370 initially entered Malaysian (military) radar just moments after flight 370 lost transponder contact with the airport. There's definitely a problem with that picture, for the Malaysians might have seen two planes, the attack one and flight 370, at the same time upon their military radar. Last I've heard, there is no way to keep a jumbo jet off of military radar.
There is a possible solution: the attack plane didn't enter the sphere of Malaysian military radar until after flight 370 had once again flown out into the gulf of Thailand, i.e. after having first flown over Bachok. It explains why the attack plane was late in arriving to the west side of Malaysia, and moreover it has only one flight 370 on Malaysian radar at any one time. Keep in mind that military radar doesn't show the flight number, but only a blip...meaning it doesn't know what particular plane it is.
I cannot bring myself to having the pilots of flight 370 making a westward fly over Malaysia into the Andaman sea. I am simply unable to view the reality in that way. There is some sort of mental block not allowing it. It's like when a strong, underlying understanding simply knows it to be untrue. Certainly, in a picture where the pilots find themselves in trouble, with many instruments on the blink, they are not going to fly to the Maldives for some sort of salvation plan. Even if the head pilot thought that the Malaysian prime minister was seeking to murder him, the pilot could have flown to a nearby, foreign airport on a coast, to circle it and show some a form of SOS. It didn't. It could have chosen a place near a major city on the coast to do as soft a landing as possible, hoping for a few survivors. It didn't. But the idea of flying off to the deep Indian ocean registers in my mind as fallacy.
There are some, including askthepilot.com, who resist, and argue against, any sort of conspiracy theory, and claim that a flight to the Indian ocean is the most-reasonable outcome. For me, that's unacceptable.
The conspiracy theorists now a-buzz over this Diego Garcia theater may be off-track, but I'll quote one anyway: "According to one report, the owners of a valuable patent were aboard MA 370. If they died, the patent would belong to the company, Freescale Semiconductor, which is owned by Jacob Rothschild."
Who owns Freescale Semiconductor? The answer is: Jacob Rothschild. British billionaire owns the company Blackstone, which in turn owns the company Freescale Semiconductors. Several speculations on the Internet now pay attention to this circumstance."http://henrymakow.com/2014/03/what-really-happened-to-flight.html
The problem is, the passenger list should reflect these Freescale employees being on board, but I haven't seen the theorists make the case, as yet, for that claim. Certainly, if they could do so, they would have the ears of a wide population.
The article above happens to have a link to this March-26 article:
BEIJING - A Malaysian team have told relatives of Chinese passengers on board the missing Malaysia Airlines (MAS) flight MH370 that there was sealed evidence that cannot be made public, as they came under fire from the angry relatives at a briefing on Wednesday.The sealed evidence included air traffic control radio transcript, radar data and airport security recordings.
...During the question-and-answer session, a relative said: "Thanks for demonstrating your ability to read every word out of the powerpoint slides."
Another asked: "If the info is from UK satellite firm Inmarsat, does it mean the Malaysia team cannot answer our questions on the MH370 analysis?"
...They said Malaysia had requested for the British experts to join them for the briefing in Beijing but the latter declined.
It looks like Malaysia isn't prepared to share the radar data. And not a wonder.
Checking Out the Rothschild EffectFirst of all, Freescale Semiconductor has apparently confessed that four men, all patent holders, were on flight 370; otherwise this story has no legs:
With the four co-owners of the patents in the same flight were 20 other Freescale employees who are mostly engineers and experts deployed in their chip plants in Tianjin, China and Kuala Lumpur.Freescale said the co-owners and staff were going to China to improve the firm's consumer products operation.
...The Web site noted that four days after the jet disappeared, the U.S. Patent Office approved the semiconductor patent which is divided into five parts. One was held by Freescale and the four to Peidong Wang, Zhijun Chen, Cheng and Lu Ying Zhijong. All four [now dead] were from Suzhou City.
Mitch Haws, vice president for global communications and investor relations, acknowledged the disappearance of the 24, who had a lot of experience and technical background, is a loss for Freescale.
This is new to me. It begs the question of whether the Rothschild family can "borrow" the U.S. military at any time, even in mass-murder plots, for commercial advantages. It begs the question of whether Jacob and/or others have a large say over globe-trodding agendas. It begs the question of whether the U.S. military is an expensive program by design primarily to further Rothschild commercial purposes that are likely in-part tasked with rulership of the neighboring stars, if possible, but, for the short term, of the entire populations of this planet. Let's make no mistake about it: the Rothschild family is a pig in human form. It never has enough wealth, and it knows it.
How can it be that such a wealthy family rarely makes the news? I understand why no police department would dare jail a Rothschild. It has enough gold in the dog house alone to obliterate many police departments. And so the task of rendering justice to the Rothschild family goes to God alone. And I'm sure that's exactly how He likes it.
But wait. Isn't it hasty to assume that flight 370 was downed on behalf of Jacob Rothschild. Yes. But that doesn't mean we can't look at it, to make a decision as to what level of likelihood.
What would China think in looking at the Freescale situation? Already, China and other enemies of the West have reason to despise Rothschild fingers in globalism. What will story this do to magnify the concept that Rothschilds are at the heart of West-intruding globalism? Isn't China part of that "kings of the east" scenario that destroys the West-supported anti-Christ? Does God lack wisdom on how best to make the Rothschilds cringe when seeing their dreams on the edge of a precipice to Hell?
The patent of concern is useful to the U.S. military, if we believe the conspiracy theorists: "Freescale Semiconductor, launched a new electronic warfare device for military radar systems - the ARM microcontroller KL-03 - days before the plane disappeared." This claim needs debunking by the forces under the accusation. I just want to know the truth, but the media isn't of any help whatsoever on this question of the nature of the patent. Why do you think that is? In the least, the media can come out to say why it doesn't think that Freescale is involved in the flight's disappearance, and why not. Instead, not a word of value has thus-far come from those who seemed all-so eager to cover the many theories for the reasons behind the disappearance.
Rothschild involvement in flight 370's disappearance can explain why Britain would be involved too, but of course. How deeply do Rothschild fingers go into Inmarsat, we should ask. Do I have any reason, to this point in my investigation, to discredit Rothschild involvement in flight 370? No, for I have had no idea what the motive may have been to down this flight. I have not entertained the Freescale story until now. It happens to involve, perhaps, the Carlyle Group:
It struck me as odd that The Carlyle Group invest so much money in Freescale... Obviously, the Carlyle Group and the Bush family connection sets off alarm bells re 9/11 and false flags....[Another speaker:] And a very interesting thing I have found after looking through the shareholders, Freescale's biggest institutional holder is none other than Blackstone who bought out the mortgage for the WTC building 7 in 2000. Curtiss Wright has a similar major institutional holder BlackRock.
http://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/2055s7/freescale_the_carlyle_group_and_malaysia_flight/
Blackstone, BlackRock, are these Masonic codes for the black stone of El-Gabal? Or are they named after the Black / Blake bloodline? I had entertained the Black surname as a version of "Pollock" due to good evidence that "Block" and "Plock" were Pollock branches, and so, in light of the very-recent bloodline topics covering Rothschild roots in Peter Pollock, and in the three Peter surnames at houseofnames.com, by what coincidence do we now find that Blackstone's co-founder was Peter G. Peterson. There is not one mention of "Rothschild" at Wikipedia's article on Blackstone, by the way.
As you can see, Petersons ("sine" motto term, share swan in Crest with Peters) look like a branch of Sinclairs and Works/Werks (the latter are honored in the Sinclair motto). The double fesse bars of the Works/Werks are used in red by the Blackstone Coat, and the red rooster in the Blackstone Crest is in the design of the gold one in the Sinclair Crest. In fact, the Blackstone Coat looks like a version of the Washington Coat, and moreover Blacks share red-on-white stars with the Washington Coat's so-called Chief.
I know what this is, the Caiaphas bloodline ruling over the earth in its typical greed, giving "half" its money away to make appearances, blowing trumpets all the while, and wearing the finest clothes, to be seen by and honored of men.
I don't know what ails our modern fellow humans, if that's what they are. Are they afraid to tell the truth, that families so wealthy as the Rothschilds are pigs? A good man, after he owns a hundred million (this was the case way back in the 20th century), enough for his children's children, and the children of his brother's children, would cease to make profits, and enjoy the fruits of kindness to consumers with low prices. But I have just read that Blackstone is out and about buying up all the properties it can that have been reduced in price, in the Unites States, over the banking scandal a few years ago. If that doesn't sound like an oink...
On August 4, 2010, it was announced that [Peter Peterson] had signed "The Giving Pledge." He was one of 40 billionaires, led by Bill Gates and Warren Buffett [both surnames may trace to Boofima > Baphomet], who agreed to give at least half their wealth to charity [God's going to say, not enough for you fat cats]....He succeeded David Rockefeller as Chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations in 1985 and served until his retirement in 2007. He currently serves as Trustee of the Rockefeller family's Japan Society and of the Museum of Modern Art, and was previously on the board of Rockefeller Center Properties, Inc.
...He was also Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York between 2000 and 2004.
In 2008, he founded the Peter G. Peterson Foundation (PGPF), an organization devoted to spreading public awareness on fiscal sustainability [controlling the world's money tree...]
Look at how long he led the CFR. What do you think he was involved in, all those years, in foreign policy? Emphasis on the global economy, leading to the electronic commercial system? How best to control the global economies? Peterson had also been a US secretary of commerce.
If you had read my emphasis on a certain area of Pennsylvania, as it seemed to be associated with the Bush-associated insiders who felled the NY Trade towers, it should be added here that the other co-owner founder Blackstone, Stephen Allen Schwarzman, was raised a Jew in Huntingdon Valley. "[Schwarzman] attended Yale University during the same period as George W. Bush, one year behind him (both were in the Skull and Bones society)." You can find online that George H.W. Bush was born with a Scherf surname that comes up as "Schere," much like "Schwarz."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_A._SchwarzmanTo be fair, we could quote some of a re-buff to the one above claiming that Freescale is owned by Jacob Rothschild:
Firstly, [Jacob] Rothschild IS NOT a patent holder. Actually his main financial arm, hedge fund Blackstone capital owns 1/3 of the deciding capital stock in the Freescale Semiconductors company...[what's the difference? what the point?]Secondly, the company is a holder of THOUSANDS patents in the field of advanced electronics, because the company is a spinoff of the Motorola company and encompasses all the know-how pertaining to semiconductors, telecom and space technology of this company. This includes key patents on GSM communications, micropocessors and space navigation and telecom {vastly secret}, because it is exactly the team that delivered whole of electronics for Apollo program [how is this paragraph relevant or contradictory to the first writer?].
http://henrymakow.com/2014/03/what-really-happened-to-flight.html
I'm not sure why this writer is head-strong against the original writer's claim that Jacob Rothschild has financial interest in the patent shared by the other four Freescale employees. But neither does this writer appear to be a part of the Rothschild circle.
Military officers in the United States are not the ones expected to make decisions such as the downing of a plane. They may bring the suggestion to a White-House table, but that's about the maximum decisiveness. The ones who oversee global plots are the expected final-decision makers. In the case under discussion, if indeed Freescale and/or Blackstone was the cause of the flight's disappearance, it may not really be a mere commercial profit that's at stake, but something more akin to winning a global war. Technology for cutting-edge warfare is looking a global war straight in the eye. The very goal of such technology is to win a global war.
Still, if these demons think that the innocent passengers are quite expendable for being in the wrong place at the wrong time, that's why they're demons in flesh clothing. Besides, no one but demons strive to win a global war. And that's why Armageddon is phase one of the Second Death. The two are inter-linked because those who bring the world to Armageddon are written in the Book of the Second Death.
It's amazing as to how few typical media are carrying this Freescale story. They know to respect the Rothschilds, right? How else to read this? If there were 24 employees of Dick Cheney on the flight, CNN wouldn't stop talking about until the next election. Therefore, we can't argue that CNN isn't reporting this news due to having no evidence of wrongdoing by Jacob Rothschild, for CNN would do the story on Dick Cheney whether or not there was evidence of guilt. So, you see, who is Jacob Rothschild? Someone that CNN respects, as in fears. Here is a Google search page (March 31) for "CNN 'flight 370' Freescale" showing that Freescale was mentioned in a CNN article "5 days ago" and yet there is nothing at that article any longer about Freescale.
https://www.google.ca/search?output=search&sclient=psy-ab&q=cnn+%22flight+370%22+freescale&gbv=1&sei=5aU5U5KpNcSh2QWZjoHIBgFreescale is expected to supply military components for the coming Armageddon "miracles." Freescale is not a small company:
On September 15, 2006, Freescale agreed to a $17.6 billion buyout by a consortium led by Blackstone Group and its co-investors, Carlyle Group, TPG Capital, and Permira. The buyout offer was accepted on November 13, 2006 following a vote by company shareholders. The purchase, which closed on December 1, 2006, was the largest private buyout of a technology company until the Dell buyout of 2013 and is one of the ten largest buyouts of all time.That's from Wikipedia, not from a conspiracy theorist. The article above ends by claiming: "To bring things further into perspective, putting the icing on the cake, the Rothschild dynasty owns the Malaysian Central Bank which in-turn is heavily invested into the Malaysian government and Malaysian Airlines." Think of how that may apply to the recent decisions of the Malaysian prime minister, or of his defence department.
We can't go about accusing Rothschilds of a crime just because they happen to own something in the pot of the suspected criminals. In this case, a chief suspect should be the patent holder, Freescale Semiconductors (Texas company). When I say "chief suspect," it's speaking in professional terms, in the way that a husband would automatically be a chief suspect in the mysterious disappearance of his wife.
Some bloggers are reporting that the four on the flight did not own the patent, citing typical patent rules not giving creators of an invention the automatic right to own the patent if they are employees paid to devise the invention. However, any company may grant part-ownership of patents to employees. There is no law forbidding it. It's an important point, for if the four did not own 20 percent each of the patent rights, there is no related motive by Freescale to end their lives.
Besides, owning a patent usually entails profit-making by so-called royalties only, usually a small fraction of the company profits. We need to entertain the possibility that Freescale and/or others wanted the patent holders dead for other reasons besides financial. Did they know too much on the political use of this or other inventions?
Consider that the big media are not so much as denying that these four men have died. Freescale has not admitted it, so far as I've found a quote saying so that is from Freescale itself. But shouldn't the media ask Freescale for a statement on these four men, seeing that conspiracy theorists are claiming they were on board the plane?
Some are pointing out, in reducing the motive for murder, that the invention is not of any significance at all. Yet, this could be disinformation. At one discussion forum, the top of the page reads, "Update: MARCH 15: A kind reader who wishes to remain anonymous provided the patent #, which is Patent 8671381. Thank you very much." Let's not be naive, for this can be a false claim to make the patent appear non-important. That is, this is not necessarily the patent number for the patent of concern in this issue. Another website claims patent number, US8650327.
A blogger states that the four employees were not on the passenger list. I recall the early claim that some five passengers who were supposed to be aboard turned out not to be there. From as early as March 9 (the day after), there came the report: "Five passengers checked in but never boarded the flight." I wonder if the four inventors were a part of that. In that way, their names might not appear on the passenger list.
Wikipedia's article of this flight doesn't give the list, but dutifully reports: "Of the total, 20 were employees of Freescale Semiconductor, a company based in Austin, Texas -- 12 of whom were from Malaysia and 8 from China." That explains why some are saying 20, and others, 24, Freescale employees. The four of concern have been dropped by Wikipedia if ever they were part of the flight.
So, what about: "Freescale said the co-owners and staff were going to China to improve the firm's consumer products operation...Mitch Haws, vice president for global communications and investor relations [of Freescale], acknowledged the disappearance of the 24, who had a lot of experience and technical background, is a loss for Freescale." Note that the statement has no quotation marks so that the "24" part is not necessarily from Haws?
Another page mentioning only 20 of them uses quotation marks for Haws' statement: "These were all people with a lot of experience and technical background and they were very important people. It's definitely a loss for the company." It doesn't sound like Haws has much of a head on his shoulders, lamenting the effect on the company. We are so sorry that the company will lose expertise and money. After all, the company doesn't have enough money yet. I feel so sorry for all the shareholders waiting to make money without lifting a finger.
Rebuff by Snopes Not Good EnoughThe Nazi's, you may know, were in a race to advance man-killing machines with the highest-level scientists they could employ. This Freescale charge laid by conspiracy writers, some of whom are ex-military and current military peoples, smacks of that sort of thing. And so we would like to know what the Freescale patent was all about. As was implied in a statement above, the product was launched some five days before flight 370 went missing. Plus, it went missing a few days before the patent was issued, striking up suspicions that four patent sharers were "eliminated" to give Freescale sole rights. It's a very intriguing story, and while snopes.com (no friend of Conservatives) has done a story on it for the purpose of denying it, I have yet to find the ABC's of the media world piping up about it. That's a conspiracy theory in itself.
Yes, if the media know to shut up when it comes to things Rothschilds, just how much are they controlled by Rothschild circles in the entire gamut of their news reporting? The conspiracy theorists have been making this charge for decades, that the big media are vital Illuminati organs. What's the difference between this and the old KGB Soviets controlling their state media??? What's the difference between killers and killers?
Snopes says that the hasty claims concerning Freescale Semiconductors is "FALSE." Yet, Snopes doesn't make the case. Here are the arguments that Snopes makes:
...Several days later, a conspiracy theory was floated on the Internet that four of the passengers on that flight were all co-holders of a recently issued, highly valuable patent and the disappearance of Flight 370 was engineered to eliminate them so that remaining co-holder of the patent could reap all the royalties from it for himself.The improbabilities of such a theory are numerous. For starters, it's not clear the four men referenced as patent co-holders actually were on Flight 370, as their names (as rendered above) don't appear on the flight manifest. (It's POSSIBLE that the seeming absence of some matching names from the manifest could be due to slight differences in the transliterations of those persons' names from Chinese to English, however.)
Why is the statement in round brackets at all? Brackets are often for secondary or semi-relevant points. If it's POSSIBLE that the four names were on the passenger list, doesn't the statement deserve to be outside of brackets, and in a paragraph all its own? Shouldn't the statement be at the top of the paragraph? If it's possible, it's a big deal. Snopes isn't interested in elaborating because Snopes wants only to damage the conspiracy theory.
It continues:
Moreover, the patent in question is dated 11 March 2014 and involves a "system for optimizing number of dies produced on a wafer." That doesn't sound like a highly valuable, "breakthrough" type of patent that would prompt the murder of four people (much less the death of 235 other innocent parties) in order to gain exclusive control of it. It looks to be a patent for a procedure that moderately improves the efficiency of a particular manufacturing process, not something with a huge market base and a vast potential for profit.Snopes has a link (below) to an actual patent application (# 8,689,357), yet the inventors written upon it are "Arora; Mohit (Faridabad, IN), Pandey; Rakesh (Indirapuram, IN), Sareen; Pushkar (Nitya Nand Marg, IN), Bhargava; Prashant (Gurgaon, IN)" Instead of Chinese, they are all Indians. It's not even the correct patent, in other words. Is this from an honest mistake, or did someone council Snopes not to show the correct patent?
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=freescale&OS=freescale&RS=freescaleI've tried to get to the passenger list twice, once from the "flight-manifest" link offered at the Snopes page, but in both instances, my computer will not allow me to view the page. A box pops up saying "Your current security settings do not allow this file to be downloaded." I wonder how many other people are unable to get to this passenger list, and why.
The article continues:
Additionally, the [Chinese] men listed are not actually the patent holders: they're the inventors/applicants, with the patent itself having been assigned to Freescale Semiconductor, Inc., of Austin, Texas. Presumably Freescale Semiconductor is their employer, and it's typical that engineers working in the employ of companies are required by the terms of their employment to assign ownership of their discoveries and inventions to their employers (and thus usually do not receive royalties from any resulting patents).Did you spot more round brackets above as part of the explanation? "...USUALLY do not receive royalties" is open to debate. Snopes could have added, "in some cases, employee-inventors do get royalties, bonuses, patent rights, credits or even say on how the product must be used." In some cases, inventors will want no part in inventions going to dastardly use, in which case, they may need to be "eliminated."
Snopes again, this time highly irresponsible:
It's also not a given that if all but one of the co-holders of a patent dies, "then the remaining one patent holder gets 100% of the wealth of the patent" as if a patent were some form of tontine to be awarded to the last man standing. Unless prior arrangements had been made in that regard, the share of the patent held by the deceased may pass to his heirs or estate through the usual inheritance process.But wait. If they died on the plane, they died before the patent was issued. There is therefore a question as to whether any rights they had as patent holders would go to heirs. You will see a copy of the patent below, with the date of issue. Even if they were not patent holders, they could have had rewards that, with stipulations on their contracts, end with their lives.
At this time, the last argument made at this Snopes page is:
Finally, although the Rothschild name may be a talisman for many conspiracy theorists, it isn't true that Jacob Rothschild "owns" Freescale Semiconductor. Freescale is a public company whose stock is held, in part, by 152 different institutional shareholders. The Blackstone Group, at which Jacob Rothschild serves as a member of the company's International Advisory Board, is one of the largest of those institutional holders (with over 196 million shares), but the Carlyle Group and TPG Group Holdings both own a number of Freescale shares equal to that held by Blackstone.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/conspiracy/malaysiapatent.aspThe implication is that because Jacob Rothschild sits merely on the advisory board, he therefore isn't an owner. Rather than merely creating doubts, perhaps Snopes could have extended itself to get the facts. A phone call to Blackstone to ask, does Jacob Rothschild own Blackstone, might have done it. Certainly the possibility is there. The argument brings up a good question: how much of Freescale not owned by Blackstone is owned by other Rothschilds by other surnames due to marriage? Here's something Snopes could have found easily enough in addition to what little it said:
Randall Rothschild is a Managing Director of Blackstone and the Chief Operating Officer of Blackstone Real Estate Debt Strategies. He is based in New York.Before joining Blackstone, Mr. Rothschild was with Merrill Lynch from 2004 to 2008 where he originated, structured, and executed real estate investments for the firm's Real Estate Principal Investment Group -- Americas...
https://www.blackstone.com/the-firm/overview/our-people/randall-rothschild
As Blackstone was co-founded by a Schwarzman surname, how be it that the Schwarz Coat is nothing but a rose on a black Shield, used also by the Sachs surname? It looks like this Schwartz family had already been in a marital merger with the co-founder of Goldman-Sachs bankers. (Goldmans and Schwartz's were first found in Thuringia.) The Sachs rose is in the white-on-black colors of the Blackstone logo. The same colors are used by Nash's (white greyhounds), who can certainly be a branch of Ness' using the double fesse bars of the Blackstone Coat, important because "Michael B. Nash has been a [Blackstone] director since 2012 and is the executive chairman of the board. Mr. Nash is a senior managing director of Blackstone and the chief investment officer of Blackstone Real Estate Debt Strategies....Before joining Blackstone in 2007, Mr. Nash was with Merrill Lynch from 1997 to 2007 where he led the firm's Real Estate Principal Investment Group -- Americas."
http://www.blackstonemortgagetrust.com/our-teamAs per that real-estate company, here's an online quote: "Ms. Appiah-Korang worked for the Real Estate Principal Investment Group of Goldman, Sachs & Co. in New York [on Wall Street]..." Blackstone is in New York too, as were the twin towers owned by a Mr. Silverstein, a Jew.
The Blocks share white roses with Sachs, as well as the tree stump with Watsons. While Sachs' were first found in Breslau/WROClaw (Poland), Nash's were first found in the same place (Worcestershire) as Watts...whom I trace to "WITkowo" (Poland). It's the Pollock > Rothschild line. "Wrocester" is probably related to "Rochester," and Rochester, New York, is the origin of the presidential Bush family. It's a Rockefeller-suspect entity. As I identified Peter Pollock with Roquefeuils directly, by what coincidence does the Crest of Pitts/Petts (another black Shield) use the stork (identical design and white color) in Crest of Rochesters/Wrocesters? The scallops of the latter are in the colors of the Arms of Roquefeuil, with a green background, used by Bauers / Bowers and Pollocks.
The Blackstone-mortgage page above also says: "Douglas N. Armer is our Treasurer & Head of Capital Markets and is a managing director of our Manager and of Blackstone Real Estate Debt Strategies...Mr. Armer holds a B.A. in Political Science, magna cum laude, from the University of ROCHESTER, where he was inducted into the Phi Beta Kappa honor society." The Armer Coat happens to use three fesse bars in the colors of the two in the Blackstone Coat. The Armers are a branch of Scotts (first found in ROXburghshire, where other Pollock kin lived) with which the Peters had associations. Moreover, I was able to trace Armors (with an 'o') to Pollocks some two months ago or less. The other Scott surname was first found in the same place (Kent) as Rochesters.
The Pollock boar is pierced with an arrow, as is the stork (enter "Quinlan" to see the description) in the Quinlan Crest. The same Blackstone-mortgage page: "Mr. Quinlan, serves as our Chief Financial Officer and Assistant Secretary. Mr. Quinlan also serves as the CFO of Blackstone's Real Estate Debt Strategies group...From 2004 until joining Blackstone in 2010, Mr. Quinlan worked as a Director in the Global Principal Investments Group at Bank of America Merrill Lynch..." The Quinlan lion is also that of Dutch Bush's.
MERRIL Lynch has crept up a few times at Blackstone, important because Peter Pollock's daughter, Muriel, styled as "Lady Rothes," became heavily suspect as the proto-Rothschilds. Her family had married Watt-suspect Watsons, and the all-seeing-eye typically assigned to Rothschilds thus became suspect as the one in the Watt Coat and in the Arms of Witkowo. Merrils are expected to be a branch of the Muriel surname stemming from Lady Rothes. It was recently shown that the peacock in the Merril/Muriel Crest is code for the Peacock surname, a known sept of Pollocks. Peacocks were first found in the same place (Durham) as Blackstone's.
Quinlans use the motto of the Home's/Hume's, who in-turn use the white-on-green lion of Mariels/Mariots. The latter use "nos" twice as a motto term, and then the Nos surname is registered with the Ness/NESH/NASS surname (yes, the one using the Blackstone / Washington fesse bars).
Note how "PUGlisi" could be a version of some of the Pollock variations, for Michael A. Puglisi was/is a Chief Financial Officer of Blackstone. The Puglisi/Puglia Coat (could be Fuller kin) likewise uses three red fesse bars. Puglisi's were first found in the same place as Italian Fulks (a Pollock-like term). I have often considered a trace of "Pollock" to mythical Pollux, who was in ancient times a so-called pugilist (a boxer), for which reason I traced him to Puglia...otherwise known as Apulia, across the Adriatic from Pula, the Illyrian origin of both Pollocks and Alan-Stewarts.
Blacks, first found in the same place (Lincolnshire) as Peters and Sinclair-related Rhodes', use a red crescent with a red star, as does the Quinlan Coat. A Conrad Black, who claims that he was framed when put in prison, owned the Jerusalem Post, by the way.
Yet another surname on the same Blackstone page is Ruffing, using what could be a version of the Scottish Walker Coat.
Having shown all of that, have we yet discovered whether it's true that Rothschilds own Blackstone? Well, sometimes conspiracy theorists use "own" loosely when it comes to Rothschild companies. Rothschilds like to remain as invisible as they can, according to me too. The page below: "Lord Nathaniel Charles Jacob Rothschild Director at Blackstone Group" A Director is an owner, isn't it, in this case, for how illogical is it to view Lord Jacob Rothschild as merely an employee-director?
http://executives.findthebest.com/l/4318/Lord-Nathaniel-Charles-Jacob-RothschildDid Snopes look into whether Jacob may have been an owner when it claimed that he wasn't? Does being on the advisory board mean that he cannot also be an owner? If he's on the advisory board, then, at least, it's because the family is in the company. Is it unthinkable at Snopes that Rothschilds own Blackstone stock? Think again, and maybe there needs to be a snopes on Snopes to keep it in check. Snopes knew darn well that the message was this: "Patent holders can alter the proceeds legally by passing wealth to their heirs. However, they cannot do so until the Patent is approved. So when the plane went missing, the patent had not been approved." I get it; why doesn't Snopes? A lawyer wouldn't sign a will transferring patent rights / awards to heirs until the patent was issued.
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread1002628/pg1The page where the above quote was found shows the top of the first page of the patent application with the four Chinese men listed as both "Applicants" and "Inventors." The correct patent number is US 8,671,381 B1. The date of issue is March 11, 2014 (file date, December 21, 2012). Freescale Semiconductors is not listed as an applicant, but as an "Assignee," which is the one having patent rights. I've just read that, in other countries, the applicant is also the patent holder, but not necessarily so in the United States. Also this:
...US law, unlike foreign law, requires a patent application to be in the name of the inventor. A company cannot be the inventive entity....The inventor maintains intellectual domination over the invention...
The assignee is the entity that has the property right to the patent. Patents are property. The inventor and the assignee may be one in the same but an employee will more than likely assign a patent to a company.
The assignment of a patent is independent from the inventorship. A patent may be assigned to a series of different entities but the inventorship, once properly stated, does not change.
http://www.cosmeticsandtoiletries.com/research/patents/11623111.html
Unfortunately, this article pays no respect to "Applicant." Apparently, a company cannot apply for a patent because it cannot be the inventor. If I'm reading this correctly, only the inventor can apply. What if the inventor refuses apply? There must be some sort of written agreement between companies and their inventions-department employees beforehand as to what rewards the inventors get, and their inability for refusal to apply so long as they receive the rewards agreed upon. The Assignee is the one to whom the patent is transferred by the original owner, and the inventors are the original owners. "Sometimes an assignment is mandatory, such as where employee inventions are assigned by an employee to the employer because of the contract that the employee has signed."
Had the four Chinese men not died, if indeed they did die, the patent would have belonged to Freescale anyway. But until we discover the details of the deals made between Freescale and the four men, we may not have the clearest picture. Royalties may have been involved.
If these men are alive, wouldn't they just saying so? The Chinese government knows for sure, but will they leak the truth? Freescale also knows whether these men are dead or alive. How could it possibly be that Freescale has not come out with a statement, "By the way, the four men are alive." Why doesn't CNN just call and ask, "are they dead or alive"? Is the phone too heavy? Doesn't CNN want to know? The silence on the matter tends to convince me that they died.
One blogger, having read the introductory parts of the patent's usefulness, shrugs: "Kidnapping/killing everyone on a plane seems a bit extreme over a fairly mundane patent? Its not as though they have patented cold fusion or anti-gravity or powering cars using tap-water .... or even anything of military significance." I don't think we can jump to conclusions on the lack of military importance of this invention. The inventive devise promises to fit a number of "dies" (I don't know what that entails) into a smaller volume of space, and, besides, Freescale is into microcomputers for all sorts of spy-gadget possibilities. To say that the military could not use this invention is premature, and perhaps deliberately ignorant. And remember, any blogger might be Jacob Rothschild himself.
But even if it's not for the military, the usefulness or money-making potential may be great.
The Bush Circle at InmarsatAha! Just found: "The Harbinger Group controls 28% of Inmarsat. That name should set off some alarm bells. The Harbinger Group was formerly known as Zapata Corporation, George H.W. Bush's company. A CIA document obtained from a FOIA request also seems to suggest the agency had a hand in, or at least an interest in, the creation of Inmarsat." The latter statement is certainly not unbelievable.
The same blogger: "Permira is one of the major shareholders for Freescale semiconductors, which had 20 employees on the plane, and also a major shareholder of Inmarsat..." It's interesting here that the Mormons, whose founding (in Joseph Smith) seemed to be linked closely to the Smith kin of the Rochester Bush's, were from Palmyra (Rochester neighborhood), a term like "Permira." Palmyra was named after Palmyra in Syria, says Wikipedia, and then the Palmers (Yorkshire, same place as Bush's) use the double fesse bars of Ness' / Washingtons / Blackstone's in black on white, the colors used by the same bars of Flecks, the latter being a Fulk-suspect branch. The Palms are also "PARM" while Palmers are also PARMer," which can explain "PERMira." Note in the link above that Palmers are listed as "Permer."
It needs to be repeated that both president Bush's supported the Mormon, Mitt Romney, for the Republican nominee against Obama, and that the Romney surname uses the Pula/Pullen Coat.
Permira is a British company that has invested in two fixed-satellite companies, though nothing on Inmarsat is mentioned in Permira's Wikipedia article. It looks purely like a hawkish, money-making machine. The Permira founder (Nicholas Ferguson) is now the Chair of: "British Sky Broadcasting Group plc (commonly known as BSkyB; trading as Sky) is a satellite broadcasting, broadband and telephone services company headquartered in London..." Only 24,000 employees. This satellite company was previously chaired by the Murdoch family that became lately involved in a spy scandal. The "murs" motto term of Mariels/Mariots can rationally be for the Murdoch surname ("secundo" motto term), which borrows the Stewart checks and the Mackie / Rothes raven.
Palmyra of Syria was an Amorite entity with a capital at Mari, and Peter Pollock's Rothes castle was at Moray. I've been tracing Moray's namers for years to the Mures/Maros river of what is now Romania. There were Khazars / Kabars on that river with the name of MenMAROT, and so the Mariel/MARIOT surname applies. In fact, the Murs surname is listed with the Murat surname. The Lamure variation is how the Amore surname (branch of Marina's) can apply to Pollocks. It seems highly likely that Amorites in Palmyra were on the Maros river.
The Khazars of the Mures were kin, in my opinion, of the royal-Khazar side of Melissena Rangabe, and of the Fer/Ferrat-related Cohens / Hohens. The latter (expected in big-banking) use the checks of the Rochesters/Wrocesters. Melissena was identified by me with the mythical Melusine in the Crest of the Moray surname (uses the Cohen/Kagan stars), she being the mythical dragon woman (comes with a fish tail at times) honored by the late Nicholas de Vere von Drakenberg. Compare "Nicholas de Vere" to "Nicholas Ferguson," for I identify Ferrari's and Fergusons with Vere's / Fers.
Now, Nicholas Ferguson also chairs the banking organization, SVG, wherefore it's logical that SVG Private Equity has significant investments in private equity funds managed by Permira, which comprise over half of the firm's portfolio by value. "SVG" stands for Schroder Venture Group, and it just so happens that the Crest of the Schroder surname (Schere / Scherf branch?) uses the three ostrich feathers in the Crest of this Arms of Rothschild (uses the Petty quarters). Both Crests have a central white feather with two outer blue feathers. Therefore, consider the white-on-blue ostrich of the Lois surname, for the Mariel surname uses a "lois" motto term. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SVG_Capital
It's no secret anymore that Rothschilds are from the Khazar Jews, but my latest treatment of Khazars suggests them to be named after "Caesar."
For new readers jumping in here: in recent weeks, in these Iraq updates, I identified mythical Melusine with a line from Joseph Caiaphas, the high priest who had Jesus crucified. I didn't do it on a whim. It all worked out that way, with his line leading to Freemasonry. it was found that Caiaphas was a descendant of Julius Caesar, with a high likelihood of being the son of Aemilia Lepida, granddaughter of Junia SECUNDA Caepio (hence the Caiaphas surname). I've capitalized "Secunda" because MURdochs use a "secundo" motto term.
Why InMARsat?
The Second surname even uses the quarter colors of the Schroder quarters. The Second surname is listed with Segurs, from the snake god, Sugaar, husband of Mari. This tends to identify "SCHRoder" as a SEGUR-oder version, but why do Schroders use a so-called "SCARab beetle"? Is that for the Scherf / Scarf bloodline? The Scarfs (borrowing the Macey Coat) are said to be from "corMORANT," but that's mere Masonic code. As you can see, the Beetle's share lozenges with Murs/Murats, and are using the Rockefeller rock.
http://www.free-coat-of-arms.com/Sugaar and Mari were Basque gods, and while Basques lived in Gascony, so the Murs/Murat surname was first found in Gascony. At Sugaar's Wikipedia article, someone gave him a symbol that looks like a Nazi swastika. The Seconds were first found in Limousin (north side of Gascony), very traceable, with the neighboring Santones, to the Sintians on Lemnos, where there was a major city, Myrina. The Mormons used "Latter Day Saints" as code for the Santones city of Saintes. The Mormons also used a "Lamanite" code (in their Book of Mormon) for the Lemnites (of Lemnos). If you don't know my work in heraldry and Masonic history, you would be astounded at the vast system of codes used by Masons in tracking their cherished bloodlines. These codes are everywhere, sometimes obvious.
I'm not sharing the page where the quotes above were found due to the typical foul language at godlikeproductions. I'm referring to the quotes concerning Harbinger and Permira links to Inmarsat. Let's just take these statements for further investigation, and lets see where this goes from what little can be found online. First:
Former US President George H. W. Bush co-founded the [Harbinger Group] company as Zapata in 1953....Incorporated: 1953 as Zapata Petroleum Inc.
...Slated to become one of the ten largest Internet companies in the world, Zapata Corporation is involved in Internet and electronic-commerce businesses, operating an Internet portal and two on-line magazines, Word and Charged. Formerly an international oil and gas conglomerate, Zapata suffered profound financial losses during the 1980s, which eventually led the company away from energy-related businesses and toward its new identity, adopted in April 1998, as an Internet-related business...
The first thing to say in this regard is that I personally am convinced that George Herbert Walker was born George Herbert Scherf(f) Jr., son of a Nazi who sought to steal the scientific secrets of Nicolas Tesla on behalf of the Hitler war machine (it's online for anyone to read). It was similar, in those days, to stealing a stars-wars invention today. It falls in line with the current Freescale discussion.
Now, Zapata became a business dealing in hundreds of millions of dollars, which for me attests to some Nazi backing of this Bush-family business. The Nazi's had stolen much of Europe's assets, and may be suspect is stealing much Rothschild holdings in Poland. Hitler was anti-Rothschild, but suspect as a Rothschild liner himself. His mother (Polzl surname) was a Pollock liner, for example, and the Hiedler/Hitler/Hudder surname even shares the stars of the Bauers (and French Julians). Look at how the Julian cross looks like the makings of a swastika.
The Hoods/Hudds, suspect by me as a Hitler bloodline for multiple reasons, shares a so-called "fret" symbol with Cattle's, and then Black-suspect Blake's use the Cattle fret because Blake's are shown also as "Caddle." I don't know what caused the business to be called, Zapata, but there is a Zapata surname using what should prove to be the Watt oak tree, for in front of the oak is the arm in armor used by Mieske's (and Schroders). The Zapata Coat is split vertically in half, as are the German Schere/Scherf and German Walker Coats.
It's no secret that I traced these Nazi elements under the Bush family to the Islip/Haslop surname, first found in the same place (Yorkshire) as Bush's and Walkers, which uses a version of the stag and "holly BUSH" of Maxwells, the latter being the mother trunk of the Pollocks. But here I now find that Harbinger's president / director is one Omar M. Asali, with a surname that could be construed as a HASLop / Hazel variation.
Of further interest is that Harbinger's chairman is a Falcone surname, while the Falcons use crescents in colors reversed from the same of Scottish Walkers. Compare "Falc" with "Walk." Spanish Falcone's (CATALonia) use the black eagle design of Austrian Schere's, and the latter use a vertically-split Shield in the colors of two Falcone surnames as well as the Italian Fulks. One of the Falcone Shields could be a colors-reversed version of the Hazel Shield.
The page lists three Harbinger competitors, one being Blackstone. What are the chances of that?
All right, so Zapata morphed into Harbinger group under financial strain when gas was cheap. And it went into Internet themes instead. But is it true that Harbinger is in bed with Inmarsat, and what could that mean in regards to cutting-edge spy technology? Another conspiracy-theorist website: "In 2005 Apax Partners and Permira bought shares in the [Inmarsat] company. The company was also first listed on the London Stock Exchange in that year. In March 2008 it was disclosed that U.S. Hedge Fund Harbinger Capital owned 28% of the company...Harbinger Group Inc. (NYSE:HRG), formerly Zapata Corporation, is a holding company based in Rochester, New York,"
https://2012thebigpicture.wordpress.com/tag/george-hw-bush/Wikipedia's page of Harbinger confirms it: "Harbinger has owned large stakes in The New York Times Company, Cleveland-Cliffs, and 28% stock ownership of satellite communications company Inmarsat..." Isn't that something? I didn't know this until now. It looks like the same basic circles that demolished the Trade towers are involved here in this Inmarsat scam. In both cases, human life was immaterial. Who in Hell do these guys thing they are? Don't they yet know their bed in Hell? Mutter to us at that time of your great achievements.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harbinger_CapitalThe same people who deny that something akin to an Illuminati exists are the same ones blind to those robbing them daily. It's due to do-nothing blind bats that Illuminati rats exist and fester. But that's part of the end-time condition, because God has permitted the rats to be empowered over the masses who have forsaken Him. It's their coming punishment...that has already arrived, raping them as we speak. It's no different than Obama voters blind to how Obama is robbing them. To underscore their blindness, they would vote for Obama a third time. And so the time will come when it's too late, when they see the horrible truth, as Armageddon approaches, as per the wickedness whom they have supported. Revelation 13 speaks on this, and here we are watching it happen.
Perhaps I'm being hasty. Perhaps Harbinger is not to be lumped in with Bush globalists. But the fact that it has a large share of Inmarsat makes that the leading suspicion at this time. A March-25th Breitbart article, "Hunt for Flight 370 Resumes in Calmer Seas," had this statement: "The satellite info is provided by Harbinger > Zapata > Bush-CIA front ...". But the statement is no longer in the article. It's basically saying that Inmarsat is a Bush-CIA front.
https://www.google.ca/search?q=%22satellite+info+is+provided+by+Harbinger+%3E+Zapata+%3E+Bush-CIA+front+%22+&btnG=Search&gbv=1I had found a Nesher cement company in northern Israel in the Megiddo theater, founded in 1922 by a Michael Pollack...from Russia, where Rothschilds had been getting most Jews for the re-settlement of Israel. The cement company was from Germany. Why NESHer? I theorized that the cement was a mere tool for entering Israel as a spy organization. Wikipedia's article on Nesher no longer has the vulture topic, after I mentioned it in my first update in May, 2012, and thereafter. I had quoted Wikipedia:
In modern Israel, some ten miles to the west of NAZAReth, smack in the valley near Carmel, there is a NESHER location...that Wikipedia says was named after "vulture." It's all too-curious that "Nesher" and "Nazareth" look alike, however. The Nesher article: "The town was called Nesher, Hebrew for vulture, from the Nesher Cement factory, which may have been so named after the German company Geier (vulture in German)." "May have" is not exactly a hard link to the Geier company, but geier = vulture can be confirmed by the vulture in the Geier Coat.After this find, I came across a second surname using the vulture, the Slings. I had traced Slings with the Shots to the sling shot in the Arms of Dachau, that location (beside Munich) being headquarters for Nazi concentration camps. It just so happens that the Shots are also "Shoot" while Schroders are also "Schoter."
The Shots/Shoots (in Fortuna and Schroder colors) are the ones using a "guerre" motto term for the Geier bloodline, apparently, but they also use "Fortune," a term in a recent update (the last one I think) that had been pegged with Aemilia Lepida. Adolph Hitler's father not only married a Polzl surname, but a Glassl surname, and then Lady Fortune (naked, like the Ellis Holle), which is what introduced the Fortuna theme, is in the Klass/Klaasen Coat (while Melusine is in the Glass Crest).
The Geiers were first found in PADEborn, and then Pade's are listed with Petts/Perts, using the Peter mascles (hollow diamonds). From this, it can be construed that the Geier vulture (likely code for WALTER Stewart, first High Steward of Scotland) is in the colors of the Lois ostrich for a kinship reason. The surname may be from "Oise," the area at northern Paris where the Chappes surname (in Lois colors) was first found. The Austrian Schere's, by the way, shares "ears of wheat" with Scottish Chappes'/Chaips.
Why would Inmarsat be interested in having a military man on its board: "Satellite communications services provider Inmarsat has appointed General C. Robert Kehler, US Air Force (retired) as an additional non-executive director. He will join the board on 6 May [2014]. Kehler retired from the USAF in January with over 38 years of service. Prior to his retirement, he served as Commander, US Strategic Command from January 2011 to November 2013. In that position he was directly responsible to the president [Obama]...
http://www.stockmarketwire.com/article/4776306/Retired-US-Air-Force-general-to-join-Inmarsat-board.htmlGerman Kehlers/Kellers use buzzard-like eagle heads in the colors of the Sling vulture, and, moreover, Scottish Kehlers (link above) are in Nash colors. That allows us to peg the Nesher company as a Nash-bloodline entity that's also part of Blackstone. The Kehler/Keller eagles are in the colors of the HOHENstaufen / HOHENzollern eagle (i.e. Melissena Rangabe bloodline), and then these Hohens had been out of Swabia, where Kehlers/Kellers were first found. I had identified Khazars from proto-Caseys, and so see that the Kehler/Keller eagle-head design is that of Caseys too. It's also notable that Keele's/Kills use the black-and-white quarters of one of the Hohen groups above.
The KELNer variation of Kehlers/Kellers is suspect by me at the family of CILNius Maecenas (elite Roman in the court of Augustus), the family that I think named the Maccabees proper of Israel.
It was thought by me that anti-Israeli elements had been infiltrating as Israeli-friendly elements into the Megiddo area, explaining why Armageddon was named after Megiddo. It may be that these Rothschild-suspect groups working in the Megiddo theater will catch the ire of the "kings of the east" (Revelation 16). As I showed, the Arms of Haifa use a tall, solid chevron link-able to the Chappes chevron likely due to the Caiaphas bloodline being at Haifa, and perhaps even naming it. Nesher is in greater Haifa.
The page above has this story: "Global mobile satellite communications services provider Inmarsat has appointed Tony BATES as chief financial officer. He will join the company on 2 June [2014] as an executive director." It also has this story: "Inmarsat non-executive Admiral James ELLIS Jr (rtd) has stepped down from the board following his recent nomination as chairman of Level 3 Communications." The Ellis surname uses "A naked woman her hair disheveled," which is the same as mythical Holle, honored by the "holly bush" of Maxwells and the "holly tree" of Islips, and then the Bates/Batts surname, first found in the same place as Ellis', Bush's, and Walkers, uses "A naked man holding a willow wand."
The Holly surname (in Nash colors) shares a white talbot dog with Fortuna's and the Santa-CLAUS-important Comforts/Comerfords sharing the Merril/Muriel peacock (same design and colors, both in their respective Crests). The Wands/Wantons were first found in the same place as Hollys (and Fulke's), and use a chevron in the colors of the Bush fesse, important because both show the same spread gold eagles.
SUDDENLY, Inmarsat is starting to appear merged maritally with Bush-circle families, and this was not known until after finding the Breitbart claim above that the Bush-CIA is at the heart of Inmarsat. There are only so many heraldic coincidences allowed before we burst through the Coincidence Barrier into Realm of Fact.
The willow wand is not by some fat chance. The Willow/Will Coat shares a so-called Enfield griffin with the Hiedler/Hitler Crest because the Bates' had linked to the bloodline of Adolf Hitler. How close, I don't know, but this is being found while on the topic of the Bush Nazis, and a Mr. Bates is slated to lead Inmarsat as of this June. Obama is himself of the Batt bloodline, and of the Badens/Battins using another human eye.
English Willows use fretty lattice, and therefore go back to the Cotta bloodline of Julius Caesar's mother, as does the white dolphin in the Holly Coat (i.e. used by the Caesar surname).
For those who understood the importance of the Medley / Maud / Monmouth link to Maccabee lines as they go also the fretty-using Modens/Modeys, here's something: Inmarsat's board has agreed the date chief financial officer Rick Medlock's departure will be 3 January [2014]...MEDlocks/Matlocks share a tiger in Crest with Medleys. Inmarsat chose Mr. Bates to replace Medlock.
Frets are suspect with Ferte-Mace, in Normandy near Gace, and the latter location constitutes the proto-Washington surname that shares thin, horizontal bars with Medleys / Mauds / MonMOUTHs. George Washington was a Mason for being part of the Macey bloodline.
The Medlock "fretty" is in the colors of the Horrocks so-called "fret," important for exposing bloodline lust at Inmarsat further because Alison Horrocks is/was the General Secretary of Inmarsat. The Horrocks Chief uses the Maxton bees, important because Maxwells (Maccabee bloodline) were first found in Maxton of ROXburghshire, and then I think it's fairly obvious that "Horrock" is a Rock variation, perhaps ultimately from "Hros," the Biblical Rosh.
http://www.4-traders.com/INMARSAT-PLC-4005306/company/The Inmarsat CEO is a Pearce surname, traceable, as per recent updates, to the Percival bloodline that goes back to the Biblical Joseph Caiaphas. The Horrocks motto is likely for the Hope's.
For the record, the page above shows that Inmarsat is split into two companies, Inmarsat Global (59.6%) and Inmarsat Solutions (40.4%). It didn't quite make a billion dollars in 2012, and so it's setting its sites higher, like a typical pig would.
Foreignpolicy.com has released an article this week (April 1) telling that the British have sent a nuclear sub to the Indian ocean for to look for flight 370. I'm putting this here in case evidence for the flight suddenly pops up. A sub can release the "evidence" and then even find it. The British know darn well that flight 370 did not go into the Indian ocean. The article also tells that US submarines may be there too. Alternatively, this could be part of a maneuvering project for to get nuclear subs into the Malaysia theater to check the Chinese.
See the two horizontal black-on-white bars in the top-left of the foreignpolicy.com page below. Is that code for Palmers? The Flecks (likewise using the two black-on-white bars) had been identified with mythical PHLEGYAS, an ancient Lapith to the Lepidus family of Aemilia Lepida. The Arms-of-Trebizond, highly suspect with the 666 bloodline of ostrich-using Trabys, use three black on white bars.
http://complex.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2014/04/01/why_us_navy_submarines_may_already_be_hunting_for_missing_flight_370Here's the foreighnpolicy.com logo, in the colors of the Blackstone logo. Both use white writing in a black rectangle. Colors matter a great deal to Masonic clowns. Logos and symbols matter a great deal to Masonic clowns. Basically, that's why they're buffoons in the first place. The problem is, no one laughing with joy. The clowns who entertained us were always the criminals behind their make-up.
A 2007 Breitbart article had this: "Apax and Permira teamed up in 2003 to buy London-based Inmarsat Plc in a deal that valued the company at about $1.54 billion." as well as:
Apax Partners Worldwide LLP and Permira Advisers LLP are considering a sale of Intelsat Ltd., the world's biggest commercial-satellite operator......Dianne VanBeber, a Washington-based spokeswoman for Intelsat, declined to comment, as did officials at Apax, Blackstone and Permira. The Wall Street Journal reported the possible sale earlier today.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a18xr44tP1ZY
We just can't get away from Blackstone, and now we have the VanBEBER surname to contend with. The English Beber/Beaver surname (beaver) is suspect with the Babel surname using Melusine because the latter look like a branch of German Beavers/Beibbels. The latter could be borrowing a colors-reversed version of the Hiedler/Hitler Shield. The latter uses the three Bauer/Bower stars, and while "Beaver" smacks of a Bauer variation, it's not likely coincidental that the English Bebers/Beavers are using the colors of this Arms of Rothschild as well as a red-on-gold upright lion common to both.
The article also says: "'Being private has been good for us so far,'' Intelsat Chief Executive Officer David McGlade said in an April 13 interview." The Glade's just happen to use the sword design, in the same colors, of the Dachau-suspect Shots/Shute's. That makes the Glade's suspect as a Glassl branch from Adolf Hilter's mother-in-law.
The Glade's are using the Shield-and-Chief color combination of the Saluzzo's, important as per the Busca location beside Saluzzo. The Shield-and-Chief color combination of both Glade's and Saluzzo's is colors reversed to the same of Glaze's/Glasiers (DuGLASS heart in Crest), first found in the same place as Bush's and Walkers...and heart-using Wagers.
Apax RomanaNew readers jumping in here might think I'm crazy, but, no, it's based on much research and logic that Masonry traces to pharaoh APACHnas, a Hyksos king that evolved into mythical Ixion, a Lapith entity. There are many surnames, including the Payens/Pagans, that apply to "Apachnas," but then perhaps also "APAX," you see. The article even has a quote from a Baugh surname, listed with Welsh Bachs. However, we will see that APAX was named after a Patricof surname in such a way as seems to obliterate an Apachnas basis in "APAX"
The big story is that we now have the evidence needed to prove a link of Apax, Permira and Intelsat to Inmarsat. Plus, Wikipedia's article on Inmarsat: "Originally, the [Inmarsat] model was that of Intelsat, an international consortium..." However, Wikipedia may have been deliberately shy when saying, "In 2005 Apax Partners and Permira bought shares in the company." Just shares??? Is that all? From Breitbart above, we saw: "Apax and Permira teamed up in 2003 to buy London-based Inmarsat Plc in a deal that valued the company at about $1.54 billion." It doesn't sound like they merely purchased a few shares. Why did the Wikipedia writer give that impression? Why didn't Wikipedia reveal the buy-out of 2003? It turns out that the APAX people got into trouble with unethical, criminal practice.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apax_PartnersLook at how the Khazar Cohens are fitting into APAX:
...Meanwhile, in 1972, Sir Ronald COHEN and Maurice Tchenio ["Maurice" traces with "Marot" to the Mures-river Khazars], along with two other partners, founded Multinational Management Group (MMG) with offices in London, Paris, and Chicago...By 1977, two of the original four founding partners had left MMG, leaving Cohen and Tchenio in need of a partner to help rejuvenate their firm. In that year, Cohen approached Alan Patricof [a Russian Jew from Manhattan] to join them and run the new firm's investments in the U.S. The new firm would be known as Alan Patricof Associates (APA) and ultimately come to be known as Apax Partners (based on a play on Patricof's name: Alan Patricof Associates Cross (x) Border). Following the merger, MMG abandoned its advising business, and the new APA shifted its focus exclusively to investing in start-up companies
(article above)."Start-up companies" refers to venture capitalists or money-making machines for money's sake. It's expected in the world of hoggish greed. There's no thought for the fact that, the more that the few suck up wealth, the less the rest can have.
I have seen it over and over again that in commercial Masonry, names of products, companies, and even cartoons are in honor of bloodlines, or, more simply, of surnames. It sounds ludicrous to anyone not familiar with my work, but I've revealed this again and again: With Masons, they are always thinking on how to shape their company / product names into honoring a chief Masonic god. The Apollo space program, for example, or the Atlantis space shuttle, and on and on it goes. Apachnas is very important to Masonry. Hugh de Payen married Elizabeth Chappes as evidence of his ancestry in the Lapith bloodline of Joseph Caiaphas. The Lapith line of Ixion was made the father of Centaurs anciently, and these peoples trace to the horse-based and horse-using Cantii, founders of Kent, where the Patrick surname was first found.
And so, let's entertain the idea that, with Apachnas' descendants tracing as the Ixion line to Kent, a PATRICof surname used "APAX" as his company name for that reason. But, of course, Mr. Patricof would need to claim, for public purposes, that the four letters stand for something else.
It was recently shown that Peter Pollock was linked to the Orrs, and that Orrs and related Orells trace to the Aurelia family of Julius Caesars mother. And, by the way, Caesars (the surname) were first found in Kent too. The Caesar dolphin was traced to Dauphine, where Pagans/Payens were first found, who use three Zionist stars in the colors of the three French-Julian stars.
I don't want to repeat myself too much here, but just a few more points to help identify APAX with the Apachnas Hyksos. The Patricks likely trace to the Patrician bloodline of Julius Caesar (grandfather or great-grandfather of Aemilia Lepida, in this theory), and to "Patmos," where the city of Chora can be identified with mythical Coronis, sister of Ixion, and daughter of Phlegyas. Coronis was a crow, and Peters use the crow, as do Rothes. Peter Pollock lived in the same place as where Orrs were first found.
I had traced Apepi, the Hyksos ruler immediately after Apachnas (the latter is more-commonly known as Khyan), to the Pepins that I say named Papia, more-commonly known as Pavia, a city that was in earlier times, Ticinum, on the Ticino river, which smacks of Maurice Tchenio's surname, the co-founder of APAX. Hyksincidence?
Here's the Patrick surname, with an "Ora" motto term, and roses in the colors of the same of the Sach's. Look at the red border around this Patrick Coat, for RUTHERfords, highly suspect as the Rothes entity of Peter Pollock, use that very border, calling it an "orle" as code for Orr-related Orells. Illuminatist Masons are clowns who do nothing but play with their symbols when not striving to rule the entire earth.
As Rutherfords were first found in Maxton, where Maxwells were first found, we understand that the Patrick saltire is the Maxwell saltire too, and that the Orells are using a version of the Holly Coat, for Maxwells use a holly bush in Crest.
Due to the footless martlets used by Rutherfords, we can know that their "fato" motto term is code for the Fatts/FADEmore's, in the colors of the Pade's/Petts, first found in Kent. They are also "FATEmore," and so it's interesting that Pate's were first found in the same place (Cambridgeshire) as English Julians.
The "orle" is called a BORDER. I have found that proto-Masons liked to use borders in honor of the Border / Bordeaux / Bord / Burd/Byrd bloodline. The latter two use footless martlets, and the Bords are obviously using a version of the Sadducee-suspect Saddock/Sedwick and Chaddock Coats. The latter one, along with the Burds/Byrds, are sharing in their Crests the Rutherford-Crest martlet design. Borders were first found in the same place as scarlet Treasure's, and the BOWRder variation is suggesting the Bowers / Bauers. The only other surname I can think of using scarlet is the Saxon surname, using what looks like a version of the Orell Coat, and smacking of the Sachs/Sax surname (i.e. that shares the Patrick roses).
The Sach/Sax Crest is partly described as "woman dressed in black"; anytime there is simply a woman, she's suspect as Melusine, the Aemilia line of Lapiths.
Did you happen to notice that small saltire (= a x-cross) in the Patrick Crest. That's how we can know that Alan Patricof had his heraldic symbol on the brain when he named APAX. Let's read it again, that "APAX" is said to be "based on a [word]play on Patricof's name: Alan Patricof Associates Cross (x) Border..." Yeah, I get it, Mr. ALAN Patricof. I totally understand your wordplay.
Word play could have arranged the Leap/Lapp surname to have created the Lepage surname to come up as "Lapp." The Lepage's are likely a branch of Pagans/Payens, and yet the Lapp variation can be due to their expected merger with the Lapps where both surnames were from Apachnas lines. The white Patrick / Sachs rose can therefore be in the German Lapp/Lape/Labbe Coat, and the Labbe's can be suspect with the Labrador species of dog that heraldry calls a "talbot."
JUST DISCOVERED! French Page's (gold bars), first found in the same place as Payens/Pagans, use the same Coat as French Lapps/Lepage's, first found in the same place as Chappes'!!!
In a recent argument, I thought that the "Labraidh" term of Irish Lowrys (Sachs colors) was responsible for the Labrador species, but here I now find that the Lapp/Labbe Coat is split horizontally in two, with red on the top, as with the Scottish Lowry Coat!!! This is very important because both Lowry Coats use a white grail, as do Emily's!!! Plus, Lady Fortuna suggests the Fortuna surname using the Labrador dog!!!
Probably, the Lapps/Labbe's are using the Deck/Decker Shield in colors reversed, for I trace the latter, with Tecks/Tess', to the namers of the Ticino (also called "Tessen"). I've been claiming for years that the saltire of the Tecks/Tess', and their leaves, are code for a merger of Ananes Gauls with Laevi Gauls (the latter co-founded Ticinum), and that the Ananes named Annan(dale)...in Dumfries, where Scottish Lowry's were first found.
I've just looked up the Ambers (in Emily colors!!) due to the EMBERley variation of Emily's to find the Lamberts, first found in the same place (Dauphine) as Payens. EXCELLENT, for the Ambers/Lamberts are using the Moray stars while Melusine is in both the Lapp/Leap and Moray surnames! It's suggesting that Mieszko II Lambert was an Aemilia-Lepida liner (no surprise, this had already become evident, and I've been tracing Mieszko Poles to the Moray stars for years).
The two Amber chevrons could be a colors-reversed version of the same of Hyksos suspect Hucks. AND ZOWIE, the Huckaby's, showing five of the Huck chevrons, even use "A falcon holding in the dexter claw a rod of AEsculapius," thus identifying the Huck liners as Lapith AND Hyksos liners from Skala of Patmos!!!
AHA!!!! All in a nutshell right here in this paragraph. The Huckaby's use a "staple" on the end of some of their variations because they were first found in the same place (Devon) as Staple's (share a blue fesse with Scotts). The Staple's had been traced to Catherine Roet's father, Payen, in the Somme-river area, at an Etaples/Estaples location (beside Montreuil) that is "Stapel" to the Dutch. You now need to keep in mind that the Catherine wheel, symbol of Catherine Roet, was also the ancient symbol of Ixion. Both Scott Coats are versions of both Talbot Coats, and then both a Talbot and a Scott Coat has so-called "borders" and compares to the Bord Coat, while Roets were first found in the same place (Somerset) as Borders and Pearce's. One of the Scott Coats uses Catherine wheels. This is important because Scotts (one branch first found in Kent) are Peter kin, and because the Staple's use the Peter motto!!! It wasn't too long ago when I traced the Staple's with Stubbs and Stubbings to Stobi, a major city of the Paeoni/Paioni...where the Payen/Pagan/PAION surname traces!!!
It's important here that Stubbs use a reversed version of the Stirling Coat while Scottish Chappes'/Chaips were first found in Stirling, and while the Stirling Crest used the Moor head of French Chappes'.
Note that Peers' are listed with Pearce's while German Peers are the Peters. By some fat coincidence, English Peers are listed as Leapers.
So what you have there is a circle of surnames tracing to Asclepios, the Lapith on Patmos, with the inclusion of the Peter surname so as to certify that Peter Pollock does trace to Patmos. He was given the name Peter because those using it, along with Pattersons and Patricks, had been from Patmos elements in their various forms. KilPatricks (share the Deck-suspect DEXter code with Huckaby's), if you don't know, were first found in Dumfries too, where the Lapith line of Lowrys was first found.
I have claimed over and over again that the Alan > Stewart line (close kin of Petty's) controls the U.S military, and probably the British military too. The elite Stewarts (not all of course) are very energetic, ambitious demons who control the U.S. military, let me assure you. Peter Pollock was a son of Fulbert, a friend if not kin of the Alan-Stewarts. This is your Illuminati base. This is the end-time fire from the sky that the whole world will "worship" like blind rats to a hell hole. It's not as though Christians haven't tried to reach out to them, but the more they did, the more the Western world slandered my brothers and sisters, mere lambs wishing to remain human in the way that God had meant for us. But the technocrats are designing something quite inhuman as we speak.
The Ticino river is where I traced the proto-Magyars, a fascinating revelation (as in totally unexpected) in my eyes. The Magyars proper were allied in the east with both Khazars proper and PECHENegs. Can't you see the APACHNas Hyksos in that mix? "Pavia" traces to "Peebles(shire)," where the Bowers (use the Rothschild arrows) were first found, and where the Petty parrots trace. Where have you just seen a version of the Shield of Geddes' using a motto in honor of the Caiaphas > Major bloodline? Why does the pike fish of Geddes honor the Pike and PICKEN surnames???
If you're not taking the time to spot the messages I'm bringing you, that's why you're confused. Scroll back through the Coats (put them on a separate browser) and understand the obvious links and their meanings. It's all prophecy-important unto a real, satanic system now hanging a dark cloud over humanity.
In light of Magyars likely being in the Major/Magor and Megrue surnames, how about this:
In 2005, Apax announced it would acquire middle market leveraged buyout firm Saunders Karp & Megrue to augment its buyout business in the United States[.] Saunders Karp, formerly based in Stamford, Connecticut, was founded in 1989 by Thomas A. Saunders III and Allan W. Karp. John Megrue, who today heads Apax's operations in the U.S., had worked as a principal at Patricof & Co. before joining Saunders Karp in 1992. Saunders Karp had received capital commitments from institutional investors including AT&T Corporation, the General Electric Pension Trust, Goldman Sachs Private Equity Group, HarbourVest Partners, JP Morgan Fleming Asset Management, New York State Common Retirement Fund and Verizon, among other [greedy rats].Can you guess who the Karps are? Amazingly, the Saunders share elephant heads with one Petty Crest, of the Petty surname using the quarter colors of the quarters in the Arms of Rothschild, which itself uses "elephant trunks" (those horns in the upper left are called elephant trunks at times, and more rarely prairie buffalo horns; Pohls use a "buffalo"...though it's the Mieske bull). I have been tracing the Rothschild arrows for years to the Hungarians who, in their ancestry, are from "ten arrows" (three of them from Khazars/Kabars on the Mures).
The Sanders and Sands are lines expected from the Santones. Compare the Sand Coat to the Maxton Coat, for this is surely the line from the Quints, and therefore from Quintus Caepio, the father of Servilia Caepio (great-grandmother of Aemilia Lepida), mistress of Julius Caesar though whom Joseph Caiaphas came. The father of Quintus Caepio, another Quintus Caepio, had found a huge cache of gold bars (50,000 of them, 15 pounds each, according to Wikipedia) that could create the wealth needed to make international bankers of the Templars under Hugh de Payen. And that's what I think happened.
You may have figured out that the Karp surname was from the Carpae / Arpii, the namers of the CARPAThians around which the Hungarians and Mures-river Khazars lived. ARPAD, in other words, a Magyar who founded Hungarians proper, was of the same peoples as the Karp surname. You don't have to be a satellite scientist to figure that out. (See Trebecks/TrowBACKs/TRUEbecks and the Gobel fish too, and then see "True to the End" motto of Quinlans while noting the three arrows of Enders, probably from "Andrew/Anders" of Hungary.)
The fish used in the Karp Coat is in Chappes colors, important because the Karps are also "Karpff," like the Kaipff variation of Kaips. It suggests that the Chappes / Chaip bloodline was merged with the Karps. As the far-north Apollo line goes to the Carpae, it could explain the wolves in the Kaip/Kaipff Coat. The Apollo harp or lyre went to the line of mythical Charops > Orpheus; it just so happens that Orpheus' head and lyre floated down the Hebros river (not really, just fanciful myth symbol for people-group migration) to Lesbos, the latter an island founded by Lapiths.
Alan Patricof also co-founded Greycroft with a Settle surname, that being likely a branch of Stars (another human eye). Where have you just seen a Shield like that of the Greys? The Roets had ancestry in the Croy / Groy variation of Greys.
For new readers, Patmos had another city (besides Chora), Skala, identified with mythical ASKLepios, son of Coronis and therefore a Lapith line. This Coronis line was an Apollo-crow line, you see, so that Lapiths are expected to be fundamental with Apollo liners. Migrants from Skala trace with Asclepios to Scylla, a wolf-depicted monster in the Muse-infested land of Messina (the surname of which shares a PATEE cross with Peks/Pecks), and this monster was paired in myth with CHARIBdis, that being the Charops line in western Calabria.
Trust me without having to repeat the entire evidence for these things. My poor regular readers can't take much more repetition. I can't take much more either. I'll just repeat one more thing, that I identified the household of Apachnas from Mus of Lake Van, which named Moses because he was raised in the family of Apachnas, which should explain "PatMOS."
It is hard to find online that pharaoh Khyan was also Apachnas, and this may be by design. But it is online; I've shared the quote several times (it's hard to find in my files) that identified Apachnas as Khyan. Not all historians do so, though I don't know their reasons. Take a look at the Keon and Kane fish and compare with the Karp fish.
One of the portfolio companies of APAX is listed as Capio. Hmm.
Intelsat has the U.S. military as a customer. Smart missiles (yes, fire from the sky) can be programmed within the missiles themselves, or guided by satellites. You see, the "fire from the sky," and the 666, are both found in Revelation 13, along with a Roman dragon that refers to Leto, Apollo's mother, otherwise known as the seven-headed Laton dragon of Syria, probably out of Arpad/Arados, the line to the Hungarian Arpads (and to Arad off the Mures). The point is, Revelation 13 was written in Patmos. Why of all places in Patmos? We even find Apollo in Revelation 9 as a destroyer of those having the 666.
Arados, the Greek name of Arpad/Arvad in Syria, was an island off the shore from TARTus. The Karp surname goes back to this Arpad location while Oeagrus, a mythical member of the Charops > Orpheus line, was code for Ugrians (= proto-Hungarians) from Ugarit in Syria. Palmyra was inland in the Syrian theater from these coastal locations where Lotan lived (Lotan represented proto-Latins on the Syrian coast as they developed in the Greek Ladon dragon). It's therefore interesting that the Italian Palmers use a white-on-red fesse, the symbol of Darts (Devon), for darts may trace to "Tartus." Sometimes, the Pollock arrow in the boar is called a "dart."
In other words, to be expected, the Hyksos at Arpad/Arados and Tartus were also at Palmyra. This is not a difficulty. And so one can expect that the namers of Permira were fundamental in ancient times with the line to Karps. The Mus-rooted Masseys are likely in the fleur-de-lys of the Palms/Parms, in Dart / Palmer colors. In the Dart Coat, a CANTon, likely the Cantii line from Ixion. I've suggested that "Lapith" was the namer of Aleppo, another Syrian location.
Get ready world, the Exodus pharaoh is about to roar, to make some noise...until, in an instant, his armies are swallowed up, followed by silence and peace. The Exodus pharaoh is about to stride like a peacock, making the entire world proud of his military "miracles." Who can fight against, and defeat, Apachnas, they will ask? And he will become drunk with the blood of the saints.
Mr. Pearce Speaks His Native LanguageI'd like to take issue with the Inmarsat CEO, Rupert Pearce. Here is what was written about him, with his comments thrown in:
...That, at least, is the shorthand version [of the ping analysis]. Pearce won't be drawn on the finer details of an exercise that has impressed aviation experts: "You dig down a fraction beneath the apparently facile surface and it's incredibly complex and skilful engineering and extremely complex to understand requiring a lot of thought and discussion," he says. "It isn't straightforward. We haven't done anything like this before."The reluctance to discuss details, he says, is to minimise misleading noise: "The blogosphere is full of rumours, innuendo, supposition that will take the slightest bit of information and turn it into conjecture. I can only imagine how wounding and damaging and chaotic that is to those people who have potentially lost loved ones. So we are trying to restrict our information to channelling it through the investigation."
Actually, the Guardian is not speaking a truth when it says that Inmarsat has impressed aviation experts. Rather, these experts await the ping data to be set forth so that it can be analyzed by them.
Mr. Pearce's final comment above is referring to conspiracy theorists who think that Inmarsat is in bed with the criminals who downed flight 370. Pearce is using a typical attack method when he portrays conspiracy theorists as those who have no compassion for those who died. It's as though our speaking out is somehow hurtful toward the families of the dead. Quite the opposite is true: conspiracy theorists are angry for the loss of life, and wish to keep it from happening again by exposing them. The theorists despise the powers that be who create loss of life for political ends. I certainly do.
Mr. Pearce can't hide behind his lengthy tassels. I know why he won't give details on the ping data. Because it's false. And he doesn't want experts to go over it in order to discover it. The big story in the article is the writer pointing out that Inmarsat has not been forthcoming with the ping data. Mr. Pearce has given a very bad response to that concern, even showing his fear of the theorists. If your science has nothing to hide, show it on table for all to see; don't use conspiracy theorists as your excuse to keep it under your hat. Nobody buys that.
I have seen the same comment by Pearce used by bloggers seeking to vilify those who thought the Boston Marathon and the 9-11 disaster were government programs. By what coincidence is he doing so? I'll bet he's part of the same circle that sends out bloggers to make conspiracy theorists appear heartless for even creating their theories. Excuse me, but if people have a genuine belief that government is the true perpetrator of a disaster (to be blamed on others), how does that make them heartless toward the loved ones of those who die in the operations? If that's the best Pearce can offer the Guardian as to why he had best not reveal the ping data, I would say that he's an offense to the families of the dead passengers. It makes him suspect as the guilty party more than he was before. You can't be more offensive than being part with the murderers.
It's the Guardian that was asking for more information, and it's the Guardian that has lately been opposed to government snooping. That's easy enough explanation as to why Inmarsat doesn't want the data in the hands of the Guardian. Can't trust it.
The article verifies: "[Inmarsat] was privatised in 1999, bought by private equity houses Apax and Permira in 2003..."
A blogger laments: "At this point, everybody except conspiracy-theorists accepts that the plane is somewhere in the southern ocean. But where? The only lead we have is the INMARSAT pings. Otherwise the search area would effectively be the entire ocean. So: why has this data not been disclosed?" You need to ask the obstinate Mr. Pearce.
The blogger above thinks that suicide by the pilot is the logical explanation. He/she blindly accepts that Inmarsat is telling the truth, even while lamenting that the released data is scanty. Why can't Inmarsat at least show the ping locations, everyone is asking? Is Mr. Pearce really going to blame that on his fear of conspiracy theorists running amuck with the data? Yes, you just read him doing so.
Just to clarify, I'm not taking anyone's conspiracy theory as my own, and do not agree with all the theories out there. One may be correct in blaming a disaster on a government, but trying to explain the particulars of how the plot took place comes with multiple, even conflicting, theories. My purpose is not to change the world, nor Inmarsat, but to expose the dragon cult leading this world to Armageddon. Others call it a cabal, or the powers that be; I call it a cult. It has leaders like any cult, and the leaders are "god". They pretend to operate on good for humanity, and yet are slaves to depravity. I know where to look for this dragon, at the financial and military sectors steeped in computerism. The computerized future is their magic world, and they want us all obedient to their magic world, like zombies obedient to a cult leader. I see where this is going. As for me and my house, we will remain human, and the God who is forever will be our Guide to the real future. The sons of the wicked will never rise again, after this dragon is slain. I put no faith in it. I will await its end. I will shut the door, and await the fury of God against it.
Here's a blogger discussing the ping frequency levels (with the Inmarsat globe map showing) who doesn't want to be viewed as a conspiracy theorist for fear of not seeming intelligent:
Just to be clear, I do not subscribe to conspiracy theories. I do believe that it may have been premature to exclude the possibility that the aircraft made an emergency landing and remained intact in a remote area not far from the location of its last transponder signal, but I may very well be wrong about this. However, I do think that a little more transparency [from Inmarsat] would be useful.It seems that, to the writer above, so long as there is foul play, it's a conspiracy theory, but so long as there is a stretch of the imagination without foul play being called upon, then it's an intelligent proposal. His intelligent idea is that the pilot flew all the way to the southern Indian ocean (thus keeping within the non-conspiratorial sea of ideas), and landed on Gilligan's Island. The reason he comes up with this idea, in my opinion, is because he finds the other two "intelligent" options (pilot suicide and auto-pilot crash) un-swallowable.
In my opinion, any intelligent idea ignores this southern flight and looks to Inmarsat for fake ping data. The writer above trusts the ping data, by and large. And that's the Armageddon Problem: the masses will trust their cult leaders. They will believe the lies.
If I were to accuse GM for conspiring to keep a faulty ignition switch in Chevy Cobalts even though it knew people would die, I'd get called a wacky conspiracy theorist. If GM people don't mind people dying, even when it's their own customers, in their own cars, just to save a few cents, try to imagine how much less pity the hard-core military has when its important goals are at stake. Conspiracy theorists are such that they see governments killing, and covering up their killings. Is that too hard to believe?
In a case of this missing plane, theories are to be expected. My theory that the plane fell in the gulf of Thailand requires the additional theory that the debris field was mopped up, and that Inmarsat is lying. Someone else's theory that the plane was flown to Diego Garcia requires the additional theory that Inmarsat is lying. Inmarsat's apparent belief that the pilot simply committed suicide requires that Inmarsat is telling the truth (about the ping data). The theory that all people on board died for lack of oxygen requires a theory on how the radio, transponder radar, and automatic messaging systems went on the blink at the same time. Can a fire do that? But then there's the problem of the pilot flying the plane, supposedly, to the other side of Malaysia, tending to show that the oxygen in the plane was good enough for that part of the flight.
The biggest part of this mystery includes Inmarsat. People need to decide whether it's telling the truth. If it isn't, it plays right into the true cause of this "accident." That is, Inmarsat becomes a willing, conscious, premeditating player in a criminal plot. You could then expect Mr. Pearce to vilify conspiracy theorists. No surprise, Mr. Pearce.
Malaysia is also important in this mystery. Is its radar claim true? Why hasn't it shown the people the radar picture? All it is, is a plane, with other commercial planes, flying over Malaysia. How does that reveal anything to Malaysia's potential enemies? It doesn't. It reveals nothing of the sort, yet Malaysia won't come clean. Why should I believe that this plane flew west over Malaysia? Where is the evidence? How can the world blindly accept this evidence? It's just a few minutes away, as soon as Malaysia reveals it. Until then, it's suspicious. Malaysia has been asked to reveal the radar. It refused. Doesn't that play for my theory?
Imagine if the world discovered that Malaysia lied about having the plane on radar to the west side of the country. Imagine how bad that would be for the United States and Britain. Imagine how great it would be for the conspiracy theorists. These are the stakes in this game. Once the West is exposed in performing a major theater involving mass murder, with the help of the media, it will take decades to repair the damage. We people who speak out are endangering ourselves, speaking to the passions that we have, for goodness.
It was predictable that Inmarsat would not reveal the data, if it was part of the plotters, and here we are.
It is very difficult for me to believe that the Malaysians do not have something on radar that crossed the country to the west, something that can be mistaken for flight 370. Boeing and Malaysian Airlines would want to see that. The Malaysians either fixed the radar with a pasted plane, or someone provided an alternative plane to act like flight 370. But something is wrong, because Malaysia doesn't want the radar to be seen.
By the way, Malaysian Airlines and Boeing are forbidden to make public comments on the investigation by Malaysia into the disappearance until the investigation is finished; it's convenient for the perpetrators to shut the mouths of those who know much of what's going on.
A few days ago, the entire transcript of the pilot's messages to the airport was released. It turned out that the pilot's last words were not, "All right. Good night." Malaysia had lied about that. Why?
The list of Inmarsat executives can be seen in the page below. We have one Bax surname on the page, as well as a Flaherty surname. This is not meant to vilify these people, but to show what I find routinely, that the choosing of surnames for company executives follows what I call, bloodline lust, keeping it in the family.
http://www.inmarsat.com/about-us/investor-relations/board-of-directors/The Flaherty surname could be a Fleck / Flech branch, which plays right into the Phlegyas Lapith line. It may even trace to an ancient PELEGonia location beside Paeonia and Stobi. The FLOWERs (Devon, same as Huckabys, Darts and Staple's) are a branch of Fletchers/FLAGERs (in Fleck/Flack / Palmer colors) who may apply to "FLAHER(ty)."
The Flaherty Coat uses two upright lions facing one another and holding up a red hand. Keons use it too, as well as eight-pointed Ishtar stars. The Pollocks, evident in the Mieske arm in the Keon Crest, trace by their Fuller ancestry to Pula on Ishtar-suspect Istria, and then the Pollock progenitor, FULBERT, smacks of the FULLBRIGHTs/Alberts, using the eight-pointed star too. "Mr Pearce received an MA (First Class) in Modern History from Oxford University and won the 1995 Fullbright Fellowship in US securities law..." We shouldn't under-estimate the Pearce link to Fullbright elements.
"Khyan," we may read in some places, was from "John," and while that isn't true, it's notable that both the Hands and Keons are said to be from "John." In other words, the Khyan line to Keons was merged strongly with the John / Jones surnames.
I can't recall mentioning or stressing the idea that "Arthur" is a term going back to "Tartus." This idea just entered my head due to the new idea of tracing Darts (in Irish-Arthur colors) to "Tartus." That idea contradicted my previous claim that the "Darth" variation was to be understood as D'Arth(ur). But the contradiction vanished when realizing that the related ARADos location named Arda on the Hebros, where Arthurs must trace. Tartus is likely the place that named the mythical Tartarus of the Greeks, a term used in the New Testament to indicate Hell.
English Hands share the red hand with Keons, and are thus obvious candidates for the hand symbol of other surnames, including the Flaherty's. The Hands happen to use a chevron in the colors of the Huck / Huckaby chevrons, two surnames that traced hard (shortly above) to the Lapith line to Aemilia Lepida. The Irish Hand surname is also "Lavin" while Flaherty's/Flaverty's are also "Laverty."
It's not too hard to realize that "Hand" may have been a line from Hannibal Carthaginians that used wordplay because it was merged with the Palms/Parms. If the Palm/Parm fleur-de-lys are those of Masseys, then note how the latter were first found in the same place (Cheshire) as the Hands. The FLEUR-de-lys might actually be code for the Flaherty bloodline. There are two Fleur surnames (possible Massi and Fulk kin), and the Dutch Fleur's look like they use a version of the Palm/Parm Coat. The Quints can then apply as a Palm/Parm branch because Masseys and Quinns share the PEGASus (suspect with "Apachnas"). That brings us around to Quinlans at Blackstone.
The "vair" symbol of Fleur's, Quints and Palms is used by Welsh Bachs/Baughs, and, like was said, the Inmarsat board includes a Bax surname. The Chairman of Inmarsat, with SukaWATI surname, is not Oriental, as I once thought. His photo is at Inmarsat's executive page, and he's white. That allows his surname to be from the all-seeing-eye Watts. A satellite company with an all-seeing-eye team could be half-expected from those who do nothing, when not seeking to control the planet, but play word games with their favorite bloodlines.
If you want to know what conspiracy quacks look like, look at the majority of the British government:
Ministers who question the majority view among scientists about climate change should "shut up" and instead repeat the Government line on the issue, according to MPs.The BBC should also give less airtime to climate sceptics and its editors should seek special clearance to interview them, according to the Commons Science and Technology Committee. Andrew Miller, the committee's Labour chairman, said that appearances on radio and television by climate sceptics such as Lord Lawson of Blaby, the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, should be accompanied by "health warnings".
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/environment/article4051905.ece
Therein you have part of the conspiracy to control the masses, to make them believe the lie, in order to slip the hand into the back pocket for to slip out the wallet unnoticed. But the money to be used when stolen to save the world from climate upheavals will be used instead to control the masses all the more, as all the fat hogs take more and more of the available wealth. May God make them explode their guts all over the parliament walls. And the queen, for all she's done to stop these imposters, can lick it up.
On this page, you will find evidence enough that NASA did not put men on the moon.
Starting at this paragraph, there is a single piece of evidence
-- the almost-invisible dot that no one on the outside was supposed to find --
that is enough in itself to prove the hoax.
End-times false signs and wonders may have to do with staged productions like the lunar landing.
The rest of the Gog-in-Iraq story is in PART 2 of the
Table of Contents
