The Titanic: the Fraud that Keeps on Giving

The Titanic: 

the Fraud that Keeps on Giving 

by Miles Mathis 

First published October 2, 2018 

I haven't written anything about this one before because I assumed it had been done. See Robin Gardiner's 1998 book Titanic: the Ship that Never Sank. I hadn't read it and still haven't, but I had seen a youtube documentary outlining the major points. It seemed like a slam dunk, so I filed it under “done”. However, now that I go back, I am not as satisfied as I was at first. That is the danger of watching a documentary and not doing your own research. I know not to do that, but in this case I got lazy. I guess I was glad to see that someone had already done the Titanic, so I didn't have to do it myself. I was wrong. 

What got me in here was skimming the Wiki page. That is usually enough to get me going. I noticed several things almost instantly. One, this famous maiden voyage of the world's most famous ship was strangely underbooked. The ship was at a little over half capacity, so it reminds us immediately of the planes that were said to have crashed on 911. They were also about half empty. The Titanic could take 2,453 passengers, but only 1,317 were allegedly onboard. That's 53.7% capacity. Also a red flag is the mainstream's pathetic attempt to explain this anomaly: there was a coal strike in the UK that spring, causing many crossings to be canceled. But wait, wouldn't that make this uncanceled voyage even more dear? They should have had thousands of people on stand-by lists, shouldn't they?—people who had had their other ship canceled and needed to get across the pond? In fact, that is part of the story in other places. 

Another problem is that the mainstream math fails, to this day. They tell us 1,317 passengers were onboard, but 2,224 total were onboard (passengers and crew), with 1,500 dying. If we subtract, that means there was a crew of 907 onboard for 1,317 passengers—so almost every passenger had his own personal crewman? That despite the fact that 709 of the passengers were allegedly in third class, and shouldn't have expected much service. Only 324 were in first class. So, as I said, the numbers don't add up. You will see what I mean if you include one other fact: many of those in first class were already traveling with their own servants, so they didn't need service from a crew, except for food service. For instance, we are told Astor and his wife were traveling with their private valet and two lady's maids. 

More indication of that is the total capacity of the Titanic, stated to be 3,547. That would be with a crew of 1,094. So at full capacity, the ship would have that crew, but with 53.7% capacity, they had a crew at 83%? As I said, it doesn't add up. They had about 320 more crew than they needed, even if we believe the given numbers. 212 crew are said to have survived, so my guess is that was the entire crew onboard. The other 696 were just made up. 

Another problem is that on Madeleine Astor's page, Wiki posts a headline from the New York Herald on the same day (April 15), and that headline clearly states 1,800 onboard, 675 saved. How did the Herald compose this story so quickly? The Titanic goes down in the “wee hours” of April 15, and a few hours later the Herald has a full story, including pictures of all the famous people onboard? That's some pretty amazing work, isn't it? It looks like they already had the story written and illustrated before it even happened, which is pretty much par for the course.

You will tell me that says April 16, but that isn't how it looks to me. Also  see here, where it is confirmed that headline is from April 15. There we see the New York Times also had a story ready to go on the morning of April 15, stating 1,200 onboard and 655 saved. The New York Tribune tells us 1,340 perished, with 886 rescued, putting 2,226 onboard. The Detroit News tells us 1,241 missing and 868 saved, putting 2,109 onboard. Where are all these different numbers coming from? I can see some confusion on number missing, but since all ships are required to have a full passenger and crew list, the total onboard should be a firm number. It should not vary from 1,200 to 2,226. And if we read closely, we find the New York Times admitting its information came from the Olympic by wireless (telegraph). That means these numbers were coming straight from White Star Lines, which should have known a total onboard. At any rate, it would not be telling some newspapers one number and other newspapers another number. Unless it wanted to create confusion. It looks to me like someone decided to inflate the number from about 1,200 to about 2,200 in the first week. 

Another problem is that Wiki gives us a partial list of 68 prominent people on the Titanic, but only 21 are listed as perished. So the survival rate for rich people was still very good, being about 70%. That's very curious as well. 

In fact, that is what led me to my initial assumption: most of the people listed as perished probably faked their deaths, just as it is done today. We saw a long list of fake-dead people in our recent exposé of the  Las Vegas hoax and if they can do it now they could do it then. In that paper, I researched a large part of the names individually, showing a lot of voodoo. In the present case, it is likely that all the rich people that needed to disappear were notified of the Titanic hoax before it happened: in this way they could avoid lawsuits, taxes, or other impending prosecution, while cashing out on their life insurance policies. For other fake deaths in second and third class, the ship could be loaded with Intelligence agents, who would then disappear after the rescue. 

Astor as Henry IV of France

And why would they bother to do this? One, because apparently there were a lot of rich people who needed or wanted to disappear in 1912, including John Jacob Astor IV. Possibly they knew World War I was coming up and they needed to disappear. Two, because the hoax would be a lot more believable with the appearance of a large number of deaths. If such a ship sank with no casualties, the insurance company and public would naturally become suspicious. But when people like the captain and Astor appear to go down with the ship, far fewer people will be suspicious. 

Speaking of suspicious, we find that Astor's nose has been corrected in many online photos. See this photo from Findagrave:

 

And compare it to this later snapshot: 

Do you think he got a nose job to achieve that? No. So what are they hiding here? The usual: he was a crypto-Jew. 

So, it now looks to me like Robin Gardiner's book was either misdirection or mistaken. I still assume going into this research that he was right about the switch of the Titanic for the Olympic and the insurance fraud, but it looks like he quit in the first stages, before getting to the even bigger stuff. That may have been his assignment. For instance, it is curious that Wikipedia has a page for both Gardiner and his theory. It even seems to be promoted, since both on Gardiner's page and on the page for Titanic Alternative Theories, his theory is given ten paragraphs and no rebuttal. Not what you would expect. Do they do that for any of my papers or books? Gardiner himself throws up many more red flags, since he is from Oxford and his father was military. This father's name even throws up a huge red flag, since he is given as Harold Gardiner. You may be interested to know there was a Harold Gardiner Bowen who was US Vice Admiral (3-star) and head of the Office of Naval Research in the 1940s. He had also been in WWI. Which means he was a top spook. ONR is not the same as ONI, Office of Naval Intelligence, but they work closely together. Bowen was also involved in the Manhattan Project via the Naval Research Laboratory, which he directed 1939-1941. Bowen's son also became a Vice Admiral, and he headed the inquiry into the Pueblo incident. The USS Pueblo was of course a spy ship allegedly captured by North Korea in 1968, a week before the TET offensive. It is kept by North Korea to this day as a museum trophy, although officially the ship is still a commissioned vessel of the US Navy! This just means the whole thing was another hoax. 

These Bowens were also Rhodes, since Bowen Sr's mother was a Rhodes, and they were from Rhode Island. Of course these Bowens also come from Massachusetts, since we saw them in  my paper on Lizzie Borden. They are also tied to Salem. However, Geni scrubs the maternal side of Admiral Bowen, preventing us from following the Gardiner line. However, the Gardners/Gardiners are known to be among the first settlers of Rhode Island, marrying the Bowens and Rhodes many times. 

Indeed, we find a Harold Gardiner in the peerage, hidden as  Harry Gardiner. He was the son of Lt. Col. Stephen Gardiner, and he married a Minchin, related to a Fisher. Also related to a John Hamilton Byrne. Also related to Murrays, Clarkes, Bartletts and Kings. This probably links us to the Gardiners of Rhode Island, since they were related to the same families there. . They were also related to the Rathbuns, linking us to the later Lincoln Assassination hoax. Even better, in 1884, we find George Minchin of this family marrying Naomi Clarke, daughter of an unknown female Smith. Why would this Smith be unknown, when her father's name is known as Richard Smith of Australia? Possibly because it would link us to Edward Smith, captain of the Titanic and previously captain of the Olympic. Her brother is also given as “unknown Smith”. So, would this unknown Smith be of the right age to be Edward Smith? Well, if Naomi married in 1884, she would have been born in around 1866. Her mother would have been born in around 1848. Capt. Edward Smith was born in 1850, so we have a possible match. 

Since Robin Gardiner lived in Oxford, we may be able to tie him to Gardiners in the peerage also in Oxford. See Patrick Lancaster Gardiner, d. 1997 at Oxford, whose mother was a Lancaster (scrubbed) and whose aunt married the Baron Robbins. Robbins taught at the London School of Economics and was Chairman of the Financial Times. His parents are scrubbed. His son Richard married a Dobbs, daughter of Brigadier Dobbs, whose mother was an Atkinson. This may link us to Stephen Hawking, who I showed last week was an Atkinson of the peerage. Anyway, Patrick Gardiner married Susan Booth (also scrubbed), but we know what to think of that name. It links us to John Wilkes Booth and much other fakery, including more Booths below. 

We can also link the Gardiners to the Queen, since in 1942 a Charlotte Gardiner married Douglas Gordon Bowes-Lyon, of the Earls of Strathmore. The Queen Mother was a Bowes-Lyon. So it is quite odd to find this Charlotte scrubbed. A nobody does not marry the grandson of an Earl. This also links the Gardiners to the Drummonds, Cholmondeleys, Stewarts and Percy's (Earls of Beverly). Douglas Bowes-Lyons' brother Hubert married a Jacobs of South Africa in 1943, and their daughter went to Tel Aviv University. Which gives us the usual Jewish links here. 

Robin Gardiner's co-author Dan van der Vat also throws up many red flags. He was with The Times and Sunday Times of London back to 1965, topping out as Bureau Chief in Germany. He moved to The Guardian in 1982 and continues to write for them to this day. Not the sort of person you would think would be blowing the Titanic hoax. He has written 14 books, while this one with Gardiner is the only one he has co-authored. All his other books are mainstream history books. 

Capt. Edward Smith is also a strange bird, whose biography is very slight. We don't seem to know much about him. Geni scrubs him very thoroughly, as you would expect. And there are no pictures of him young. But just so you know, there are 27 Edward Smiths in the peerage, and many of them are also scrubbed. In other words, they might be Capt. Edward Smith and we would never know it. However, it is interesting that Frederick Smith, 1st Earl of Birkenhead, just happened to be MP in Liverpool at the time of the Titanic fraud. He has many ties to Oxford as well, having gone there and lectured there. He was also married there. His wife's father was a Reverend and Fellow at Corpus Christi, Oxford. This Earl Smith was already Privy Counsel by 1911. He became a Lt. Col. and was Attorney General during the war. He became Lord High Chancellor in 1919. He became High Steward of Oxford in 1922. He was the head of Tate and Lyle, a large sugar refinery. He was also head of Imperial Chemical Industries after 1926—the largest manufacturer in Britain. He was Churchill's best friend. Even more curious is that his history, like Capt. Edward Smith's, is mostly scrubbed. At thepeerage, he seems to come out of nowhere. Seeing that he was always an arch conservative, this seems very unlikely. He almost certainly comes from one of the Smith Baronets. Possibly the Smiths, Baronets Devon, who were shipowners and also into shipping insurance. See the 2nd Baronet, Sir  Willie Reardon-Smith, b. 1887, director of Leeds Shipping Company, Devon Mutual Steamship Insurance Association, and UK Mutual Steamship Assurance Association. If we could tie these Smith Baronets to the Titanic event, it would indicate the insurance companies were in on the fraud somehow. You will ask how an insurance company can defraud itself, but there are ways. For instance, premiums are supposed to go into a pool, with claimants paid from that pool. But say that pool is drained to pay one huge fraudulent claim, part of the money being kicked back to certain directors of the insurance company. The insurance company then declares bankruptcy and the directors hide their windfall somehow. Well, in that case, the losers are the ignorant shareholders of the company and the ignorant policyholders—whose policies are now worthless. Even if the directors are fined somehow or have to liquidate certain assets, if they run the scheme right their gains will far exceed their losses. 

And this of course reminds us of all the money to be made in this event from life insurance fraud. Since this would qualify as an accident according to the mainstream story, many of these policies would pay double or triple indemnity. How much did Astor's fake widow get for his fake death, for instance? Since he was one of the richest men in America in 1912, it would have to be a stupendous amount. You think Astor didn't know how to defraud insurance companies? He owned many insurance companies, so I think he probably had an inside track, don't you? Obviously, anyone who wants to penetrate the entire Titanic hoax will have to follow Robin Gardiner's insurance fraud hint, but they will have to go far deeper than he did. It already looks to me like he hit level one in a rabbit hole that goes down at least ten levels. 

For instance, we are told that Lloyd's of London insured the Titanic, and had to pay out around 10 million dollars just for the lost ship. That is according to the  Denver Post, 1912. But that same article states Lloyd's only had $15 million on deposit, so they just lost 2/3rd of their value. They should have been devastated, but apparently weren't, so something doesn't add up here. We are told they paid in full within 30 days. That doesn't sound right, either, since none of us have had that experience with insurance companies. They normally drag their feet for the smallest claim. But we are supposed to believe they were able to fully investigate this Titanic fiasco in under thirty days, although it happened out in the middle of the North Atlantic? Also note the date of that article at the Denver Post: April 16, the day after. So we are supposed to believe they wrote this promotion of Lloyd's overnight? They didn't have anything better to report in the first 24 hours than this glowing promotion of the insurance company? C'mon! That by itself is a huge clue. 

Also curious that we are told Lloyd's was involved in the development and implementation of the wireless telegraph that was used for the first time with the Titanic, but which did no one any good. But remember, we don't know what the telegraphs actually said. Wireless could be used to call for help, but it could also be used to coordinate a massive fraud at sea, couldn't it?

[Added October 3: But let us return to Capt. Edward Smith. You will say that if he survived the “wreck”, someone would have spotted him. Actually, some did, and one story  made the papers. The Quartermaster of the Majestic Peter Pryal spotted him in Baltimore in 1921 and called to him by name. And he answered. Pryal went to the newspapers with his story, and some printed it. That link goes to the New York Sun. 

And I have more on Capt. Smith. His ancestry also links us forward to. . . are you ready? . . . J. K. Rowling. If you consult my paper on her, you will remember I linked her to a Major Edward Pelham Smith, whose granddaughter married the grandson of Sir Henry Morton Stanley (Livingston, I presume). Yes, there are a lot of Smiths, but if I can show a link between the two Edward Smiths, it would also link Capt. Edward Smith to the Stanleys, Earls of Derby, which would not surprise any of my readers. Plus, we will find below Capt. Stanley Lord, who just happened to be the captain of the USS Californian. I suspect his name also links us to the Stanleys, though it is difficult to prove. Like the rest of these people, he is pretty well scrubbed online. 

However, we get three very big clues regarding the two Edward Smiths on the Wiki page for Capt Smith. Capt. Edward Smith of the Titanic had one daughter. Her name was Helen Melville Smith. If we go thepeerage.com and look again at Maj. Edward Pelham Smith, we discover his grandfather was Abel Smith. Abel Smith's first wife was Lady Marianne Leslie-Melville, daughter of Alexander Leslie Melville, the 9th Earl of Leven. Not only that, but Lady Marianne's sister also married a Smith of the same family. These Smiths go way back in the peerage, predating the Smith baronets by several centuries (1400). This is strange because for centuries they don't have titles and aren't linked to anyone with titles. So we don't know why they are listed. They don't become baronets until George Smith marries the daughter of the Howe baronet and becomes one himself in 1757. This was a big marriage for the Smiths, because Mary Howe's grandmother Ruperta Hughes was the illegitimate child of Rupert von der Pfalz, AKA Prince Rupert of the Rhine, Duke of Cumberland. His father was Frederick V, Elector Palatine and King of Bohemia, and his mother was Princess Elizabeth Stuart, daughter of King James I, taking us right to the top. Bohemia is also the usual red flag, since through his grandmother Elisabeth of Hesse, Frederick was descended from Barbara Jagiellon. 

So we are starting to get somewhere in understanding these Smiths. As you would expect, they were bankers, and that is what allowed them to marry into the peerage. George Smith's grandfather Thomas Smith was the founder of the Smith Bank of Nottingham. Curiously, George Smith was the Sheriff of Nottingham, which makes us think of Robin Hood. Also strange is that George Smith's son became the 2nd Baronet, but he changed his name to Pauncefote-Bromley, after his grandmother Elizabeth Pauncefote. He married the daughter of the Viscount Curzon, and their son became the 3rd Baronet. He again changed his name, this time to Howe-Bromley. He became Vice-Admiral of the White in 1854. So you may want to remember that these Smiths are the same as the later Bromleys. They are also the same as the Barons Carrington, via the third son of Abel Smith. These Carringtons did just as well as the Bromleys, marriage-wise, linking themselves in the 19th century to the Stanhope Earls, the Somerset Dukes, the Gardner Barons, the Foresters, the Manners Dukes, and the Drummond Dukes. These Smiths also became the Barons of Bicester, with Hugh Colin Smith becoming the Governor of the Bank of England in 1897. I trust you see how these banking and admiralty connections are important to our investigation here. Hugh's daughter married a Baring, of a “rival” bank. The actress Rachel Ward is his 2g-granddaughter. 

I also beg you to note the name Gardner there, since it probably links us to author Robin Gardiner. As it turns out the Gardner Barons were great seamen as well, the 1st Baron being Admiral Alan Gardner. His first two sons also became admirals and his third son was a major general. His son-in law Barrie was also an admiral. This may indicate that Robin Gardiner was closely related to the captain of the Titanic, explaining his involvement in this. More indication of that is that Robin Gardiner's father “was a military man who worked in the Indian Institute”. This is telling since many of the people we have been looking at were involved in running India. Just so you know, the Gardners were also linked closely after the 19th century to the Herberts, Earls of Carvarvon; the Stanhopes, Earls of Chesterfield; the Howards, Earls of Arundel and Dukes of Norfolk; the Stuarts, Dukes of Lennox; the Molyneux Baronets; the Hughes, Barons Dinorben; the Onslows, Earls of Onslow; the Beaumonts, Barons Allensdale; and the Fullers. 

But let us return to Abel Smith, the father of Maj. Edward Pelham Smith. His brother Robert married Isabel Adeane, whose mother was. . . Hon. Matilda Stanley. This gives us a second and nearer link to the Stanleys, since Matilda's father was the 1st Baron Stanley of Alderley. We also find quick links to the Barclays, since Abel's sister Caroline married a Hanbury, grandson of a Barclay. They were also bankers of course, which gives us the Smiths, the Barings, and the Barclays, all in short order. 

With more digging in the peerage, we can link Capt. Edward Smith to these people again through his parents. His mother was a Marsh. Well, in 1840, the Rev. William Marsh of the peerage married Lady Louisa Cadogan, daughter of the 1st Earl Cadogan and Frances Bromley, daughter of the 1st Baron Bromley of Montfort. We have just seen that Capt. Smith was related to these Bromley/Smiths via the Melvilles. And, as you will see below, the head of Lloyd's of London at the time of the wreck was Cuthbert Heath, son of Emma Marsh, indicating that Smith was closely related to the head of Lloyd's. 

We can also link Capt. Smith to the Smith baronets via his mother's middle name Hancock. Geni doesn't give us that name, but Wikipedia does, in the sidebar. The Hancocks at that time were closely related to the Trevelyans, and so were the Smith Baronets. See Rev. Frederick Hancock who married a Woodhouse, daughter of a Trevelyan in 1874; and Robert Smith, 1st Baron Carrington, whose second wife was Charlotte Hudson, daughter of Susanna Trevelyan. You should also look at 1st Baronet Trevelyan, educated at the East India Company. He married the sister of Lord Macauley, linking us to all these same people. His second wife was a Campbell, daughter of a King, ditto. This gives us another link, since the Smiths were related to the Kings through the Adeanes. His brother married a Pleydell-Bouverie, which is yet another link. Maj. Edward Pelham Smith married Dorothy Morton Mansel-Pleydell. Trevelyan's son the 2nd Baronet was Lord of the Admiralty in 1868 and married a Philips. 

But back to Captain Smith. Interesting that his daughter married a Russell-Cooke. This is more evidence they were from the peerage. One of her daughters married a Phipps. By the way, there are Russell-Smiths in the peerage. You should also know that Russell-Cooke is a famous London law firm, formed in 1880 by William Russell-Cooke and Sir Henry Paget-Cooke. The Pagets are high up in the peerage, being the Earls of Uxbridge and the Marquesses of Anglesey. Like the Smiths, the Pagets are closely related to the Manners, Dukes of Rutland. 

So, to sum up, I have linked Captain Smith to the peerage via the names Melville, Marsh, Hancock, Russell, and Phipps. No doubt there are more connections one could uncover with more digging. We have seen how this links him to many dukes, and also to King James I.] 

Which brings us back to Astor. He was said to have been one of 333 bodies pulled from the sea, although his body wasn't identified until several days later. Right. Note that lovely Masonic number of 333. And how could a body be identified later, when it couldn't be identified immediately? Although many eyewitness reports (planted immediately in the press) said Astor's body was badly injured from falling from smokestacks [or fighting with giant octopi, I guess], the mortician reported no injuries. Of course that indicates the body wasn't that of Astor. The funeral service was on May 3, and that adds to eight. That's 18 days later, so we may assume it wasn't open casket: that would have stunk up the whole place. He was buried at Trinity Cemetery. They didn't have a Matrix Cemetery available at the time, I guess. 

Also remember that Mrs. Astor was pregnant at the time of the Titanic sailing, but mysteriously didn't suffer a miscarriage, either from the mayhem or from the alleged death of her husband. We saw a similar mystery in the Lindbergh baby hoax, where a pregnant Mrs. Lindbergh suffered no trauma when her previous baby was dug out of a shallow grave nearby, half-eaten by animals. I suggest Mrs. Astor was never on the Titanic, since in creating such a hoax, you wouldn't wish to have a pregnant billionaire's wife on the ship regardless. She was probably roasting on the RMS Carpathia, eating figs and playing shuffleboard.

 

This is also strange. It is a picture of Astor's Trinity tomb. He is memorialized there as John J. Astor. With a period after Astor, as you see, but no IV. Why do they need a period there? And since he was buried next to his namesakes, how did they differentiate one tomb from another? How did they know this was IV and not I, II, or III? Also, do you really think the richest man in America couldn't afford the extra four letters of his middle name on his tombstone? He needs to abbreviate Jacob as J.? 

Which brings us to the next problem. In these stories, Astor is said to be among the richest men in the world at the time. But John D. Rockefeller was alive in 1912, and according to Wikipedia and Forbes, he was worth $400 billion in 1913. Astor is said to be worth $2.2 billion. So again, they can't keep their stories straight. J. P. Morgan died in 1913 with a wealth of about $3 billion, and Rockefeller said “he wasn't a rich man”. So we are supposed to believe the Astors had squandered their money since 1850, when everyone admits they were the richest family in the US? That is very unlikely, since—like the Rockefellers—they were involved in banking. As bankers, they knew how to earn interest on their money, getting richer every decade. The Rockefellers had about a trillion by 1930, and have multiplied that by many times since then. Likewise, we may assume the Astors were worth at least 500 billion by 1912, making the claim of 2.2 billion another grand lie. If Astor didn't score at least $10 million on his life insurance policy alone, I would be very surprised. 

Do you have any idea how easy it would be for someone like Astor to hide out? These people have huge estates all over the world, so faking a death is no inconvenience at all. It isn't like they have to never leave the house. Astor didn't even need to travel by a public transport like the Titanic. These people have their own private ships, or can hire their Greek billionaire cousins to take them anywhere, with no questions asked by customs agents anywhere. The rules don't apply to them, and they only admit their existences to start with because they want to see themselves in the papers. We may assume there are wealthy people that you have never heard of: they have never officially existed. They don't have to fake their deaths because they have never officially been alive. My guess is it is these people that actually rule the world. 

Anyway, we can already see that the Titanic fraud looks like a con run by the insurance companies themselves. Best guess at this juncture is that Robin Gardiner was linked somehow to Lloyd's of London, and they hired him to throw White Star Lines under the bus. Since White Star no longer exists, it can be the fall guy. So Gardiner makes them the bad guys, while continuing to whitewash or misdirect away from Lloyd's, Astor, and many other parties. 

With that in mind, we should look more closely at Lloyd's. Lloyd's is a towering red flag from the first word, since it isn't really an insurance company per se. It is a group of companies and individuals, or a syndicate, that has joined as underwriters of risk. It was created by Act of Parliament in 1871 (though it had existed since 1686), and is one of the spookiest companies in the world. In 2017 alone, it wrote about £37 billion in premiums, and—like a casino—we may assume it paid out a small fraction of that. 

Curiously, we find that there was a Lloyd's Act passed by Parliament in 1911, just a few months before the Titanic hoax. A clue is even found in the date of the Act: August 18, 1911. Or, 18/8/11. Aces and eights, as usual. This was an act to “extend the objects of and confer further powers on Lloyd's”. One of the objects was to extend Lloyd's underwriting from marine to all sorts of insurance, including life insurance and all guarantee business [clause 3]. Another important extension was to make one of the main objects of the Society “the collection, publication, and diffusion of intelligence and information”. In other words, Lloyd's was being made part of the worldwide Intelligence community by act of Parliament. All this happened just a few months before the Titanic hoax. Coincidence? You have to be kidding me. Also note the “and diffusion” part of that quote. Lloyd's wasn't just approved to collect intelligence, it was approved to diffuse it. What is “diffusing Intelligence?” Wouldn't that be. . . propaganda? 

So, did Astor have a life insurance policy with Lloyd's? Although Lloyd's is usually thought to be British, they do half their business in North America and only 29% in Europe. My assumption is Astor's policy was underwritten by Lloyd's. Ditto for other life insurance policies of the bigwigs, like Guggenheim, etc. 

Also important is section 6, which states that within six months [which would fall on February 18, 1912], the capital stock of the Society would be transferred by the Trustees to the Society itself, with the Trustees giving up their trust. According to section 7, the funds and property of the Society and any income therefrom was afterwards “for the benefit of the members of the Society jointly”. In other words, the previous Trust was dissolved, and the members now owned the company directly, with any money not paid out in claims or spent by the business going directly to them. That may look great for members on the surface, but it actually left them extremely vulnerable, since they were no longer shielded by the Trust. You will see why that is important in a moment.

 

With that in mind, we can look at Cuthbert Heath, one of the famous heads of Lloyd's in 1912. We find him in the peerage, of course, the son of Vice-Admiral Sir Leopold George Heath, whose mother was a Dunbar (scrubbed). Sir Leopold married Emma Marsh in Malta in 1853. Malta gives us the usual Jewish connection, and the name Marsh ties us to Titanic Capt. Edward Smith, whose mother was also a Marsh. This of course indicates the captain of the Titanic and the head of Lloyd's were closely related. Cuthbert's three brothers were also Admirals and Generals. See Admiral Sir Herbert Heath, whose daughter married a Fane de Salis, of the Comtes de Salis. The 4th Comte had married the daughter of Vice-Admiral Francis Drake. Also see Maj. Gen. Frederick Heath-Caldwell; and Maj. Gen. Sir Gerard Moore Heath, who married into the Egerton Baronets, connecting him to the Egerton Warburtons, Spencers, Styles, Boswells, Marjoribanks, and Campbells. Cuthbert himself married Sarah Gore Gambier, scrubbed, and his daughter later married Capt. Hamilton, son of the Duke of Abercorn. So despite already being from nobility, Cuthbert Heath moved up in the world considerably after 1912. 

Also of interest is discovering that Heath and Lloyd's sold tons of air-raid insurance, protecting against the risk of German strategic bombing in WWI. We may assume Lloyd's did the same thing in WWII. 

This plays back into my paper on the Bombing of Britain, where I showed much fakery involved, even suggesting the RAF may have attacked Britain themselves. Well, we can now add to that what we just discovered about Lloyd's being an admitted part of British Intelligence gathering and diffusion since 1911. 

Another head of Lloyd's in this period was Henry Lyons, who later became a Baronet and then Baron Ennisdale. He is probably linked to the Bowes-Lyons and the Queen.  

OK, assuming Lloyd's ran some sort of con here, what would it be? It can't be the one I outlined above, since Lloyd's didn't declare bankruptcy. The go-to con these days would be to have the company “reinsured” by the State, so that if they suffered catastrophic losses they could be bailed out by the taxpayers. Taxpayers and the Treasury are the mark. We saw that con run heavily against the US Treasury in the past twenty years, with TARP and PPIP and so on. Of course this scenario begs rampant corruption, since big companies can fake losses and still be reimbursed for them. Was Lloyd's guaranteed by the English treasury somehow? It is not admitted, but possibly. There was a lot of mysterious re-insuring going on, so those re-insurers—whoever they were, State or private—may have been the mark. A similar scenario is suggested by the fact that Lloyd's had begun expanding their membership base since the 1870s, allowing far more underwriters into the pool. These minor underwriters may have been targeted by the original major ones, and they were allowed to take the losses. How would that work? I don't know, but say the major underwriters made a deal with a huge policyholder like White Star Lines, by which White Star kicked back a large part of the pay-out to them with the agreement that nothing would be investigated? This would leave the minor underwriters— who were out of the loop—holding the bag. They would have to cover the losses themselves. Since they weren't dukes or earls, they would be allowed to fail. 

Any evidence that is what was happening? Yes, because Lloyd's extended the con even further in the 1960s, and that is pretty much admitted at Wiki, though you have to look closely. Lloyd's had around 6,000 members when Hurricane Betsy struck, but the loss of £50 billion led to a mass exodus of members, indicating they had been wiped out. To refill their coffers, Lloyd's first commissioned a secret internal inquiry led by Lord Cromer, who had been Governor of the Bank of England. So of course he was trustworthy. That's also why it needed to be secret. Honest people always need secret inquiries, right? We aren't told what this report discovered, though I suspect they discovered what I just told you, with Cromer being hired to cover it up. He then recommended they open up membership even more, to bring in newer and dumber suckers. They opened membership to non-UK and women, and removed capitalization requirements. Meaning the investors could be quite minor. Most importantly, the liability of these new suckers was unlimited—meaning all their personal wealth and assets were at risk, not just their investment in Lloyd's. Hard to believe anyone signed up for this rape, but apparently many people did. 

In the 1970s, the British Gov allowed Lloyd's to move its assets offshore, avoiding taxes. Only the fact that the same people that owned Lloyd's also owned the British Gov can explain that. Lloyd's immediately became a tax shelter, and all sorts of new fraud was encouraged—which Wikipedia admits. 

This is also admitted in the Sasse scandal story of the 1970s, which somehow came to light. There, it is admitted that the “risks written were rigged: typically dilapidated buildings in slums such as New York's south Bronx, which soon burned down after being insured for large sums.” That just proves that insurance companies can be involved in precisely that sort of scam, and we must assume it worked by part of the money being kicked back to the insurers. They also admit it worked by targeting minor underwriters in the syndicate, who were told they were responsible for the losses. In the mainstream stories, they pretend that head underwriter Dennis Harrison was not an approved underwriter of Lloyd's, instead being a mafioso who had fooled the Society somehow, but that is just cover. Anyway, it looks like this came to light due to lawsuits by these minor underwriters, who figured out they were being scammed. But they were only partly successful, only lowering their losses by about 55%. Amazingly, Lloyd's itself dodged blame. And the major underwriters dodged scrutiny, we may assume by owning the courts. This is because after 1911, Lloyd's was basically a ghost. Legally, it didn't exist at all, except as a name. Legally, the individual underwriters shouldered all the financial responsibility, so “the Society” was untouchable. In court, “the Society” disappeared into a London fog. 

A similar thing happened in the late 80s with the Piper Alpha oil rig explosion. Through re-insurance, many minor underwriters were exposed multiple times, and a large number were destroyed. This of course links us to my paper on the Deepwater Horizon oil disaster, where I suggested it may have been a fake as well. No doubt this was another chance for insurance fraud, though I haven't read anything about it. The fact they made a movie about it tends to support my suspicion. Hollywood always salts in these fakes. 

Tellingly, Lloyd's was also involved in insuring the Twin Towers on 911, and they are among the ones who paid out to Larry Silverstein. This of course gives us a whole new twist on that event, one given little time up to this point. I don't know that anyone has suggested the insurers were involved in that fraud, so let me be the first. I beg you to notice how much that event looks like the Titanic event, from the point of both the insured and the insurer. It has previously been suggested that a main point of the 911 event was to get rid of buildings that were no longer profitable, didn't meet code, and couldn't be brought up to code without ruinous losses. It has been shown that Larry Silverstein made a huge profit from the event, but it was never shown why the insurers didn't properly investigate, finding what private “conspiracy” investigators discovered very quickly without that much effort. Since Lloyd's has an extensive Intelligence gathering department, it should look odd that it failed to discover these things, and never brought any of the anomalies up in court. Also notice that 911 not only looks like a later clone of the Titanic event, it also looks like an analogue of the event described above in the Sasse scandal, where “risks written were rigged: typically dilapidated buildings in slums such as New York's south Bronx, which soon burned down after being insured for large sums.” Don't the Twin Towers now look like just a larger version of the same con? 

You will say I have no proof Lloyd's was involved in either 911 or the Titanic hoax, which is true enough. Everything I have presented is circumstantial, and stands only as a suggestion. However, my line of reasoning here is pretty obvious. I saw and wrote all this in less than 24 hours, so it didn't take much research to come to this conclusion. It only required I follow a line of pretty obvious clues. No doubt anyone who cared to could make a strong case with more work, and the governors only consolation is that it appears no one cares to do stuff like this. The minor insurers of the Titanic are long dead, and their ancestors have no reason to reopen the case. The lawsuits of 911 are over as well, and since no minor underwriters got a sniff of the fraud there, it is doubtful they will read this paper and have any light turn on. So it all may appear academic. Which is fine with me: I have not been hired by the defense or the prosecution, and I am just here to solve the case for my own edification, as you probably are. Yes, this will further discourage me from buying insurance, but since I don't own any of any kind, that is pretty meaningless as well. I had already decided insurance was a scam before I discovered any of this today, so this won't change my beliefs at all. Besides, I don't believe in betting against myself. All insurance is a bet against yourself, and therefore it is tempting Fate and bad Karma. 

While I am here I might as well return to the Wiki page on the Titanic, to see if I can tease any more information out of it. Everything I look at these days tends to crumble into a pile of salt, so I guess I should continue to do my thing. The first thing I notice is Gladys (Millvina) Dean, alleged to be the last survivor of the Titanic. She was 2 months old in April of 1912. 

First of all, the name Gladys Dean indicates she was probably Jewish. Her page has several anomalies, the first being that her mother was 33 in 1912. The second is that her brother Bertram allegedly died on April 14, the anniversary of the event. The third is that his middle name was Vere, probably linking this family to the de Veres of the peerage. They were the Earls of Oxford, and one was involved in the Shakespeare hoax. The fourth is his first name Bertram, which is another name from the peerage. You would much more likely find the name in first class rather than third class. The fifth is that we are told Millvina and Bertram were raised on pension funds. What pension funds? Their father was allegedly in his thirties, moving to Kansas to co-own a tobacco shop with his cousin. So where does any pension come in? And how could this third-class traveller afford to buy a tobacco shop? The sixth is that Millvina didn't become involved in Titanic promotion until she was in her 70s. I guess that is because the Titanic wasn't famous until the 1990s. 

[Added October 3: In fact, I later discovered a probable link between this Dean woman and the captain of the Titanic Edward Smith. I have linked Smith to the Smith baronets through the name Melville. In making this link, I found an Abel Smith of that Melville line who married a Calvert in 1826. Her brother, the 2nd Baronet, changed his name from Calvert to Verney, and married the daughter of Admiral Sir George Hope-Vere. We just saw Bertram Vere Dean, brother of Millvina Dean. That indicates Dean and Capt. Smith were closely related, and both from the peerage. They don't tell you that, do they?] 

We are told the Carpathia rescued 705 people from the Titanic, so at this point in the investigation we may guess that would be that was all that were ever onboard. Minus 212 crew, that would be 493 passengers, which sounds about right. Since this was a managed event, either the passenger lists were faked, the crew list was faked, or both. The Carpathia list was probably also faked, since that ship was part of the hoax. It may have picked up more than 705 [or none]. The Titanic lists could be padded in several ways, which we have seen in more recent hoaxes. They could include people that had recently died from other causes, so we should look for a preponderance of elderly onboard. They could include the names of agents throughout the world who needed to disappear as part of their cover that year. And they could include names simply made up from scratch. These made-up names often include some sort of inside joke. 

Further down the page, we have a huge anomaly. Canadian ships were allegedly the first to arrive on the scene after the Carpathia took the survivors away. These Canadian ships were supposed to collect bodies, but there were too many to collect. So Captain Larnder of the Mackay-Bennett decided to preserve the bodies only of first-class passengers, dumping second and third-class passengers and crew back into the sea. Of course this makes no sense on any level. What it indicates is that these second and third-class passengers never existed. In fact, there is no proof of their existence, or at least of their deaths. All evidence was conveniently “buried at sea” as usual. Plus, how exactly did Captain Larnder and his men figure out who was from what class? Did they all still have ticket stubs in their pockets after floating for several days in the ocean? Or did he just pull in those wearing tuxedos or top hats? Despite the Canadians only collecting the wealthy-looking, one-third of the bodies were never identified or claimed. Really? One-third of the first-class passengers had no relatives and no one was looking for them? Almost half the bodies gathered (150) were never collected or claimed, and were buried in-masse in Halifax. Again, really? That is what we are expected to believe? Despite picking out only first-class passengers from the floaters, 150 were never claimed and were dumped into a mass grave in Nova Scotia? That alone proves this was fake. 

Three more bodies from collapsible A were unceremoniously dumped at sea by the RMS Oceanic, with no effort to identify them. The Oceanic didn't have the lame excuse of the Mackay-Bennett, since she picked up only a dozen survivors. So she couldn't claim there was no room onboard for three more bodies. Then we are told that in June, the last support ships were reporting that life jackets were failing, and the last bodies were sinking to the ocean floor. Again, WHAT? We are supposed to believe that not only did Capt Larnder order the bodies to be thrown back in the ocean with their life vests still on, someone ordered all other ships to leave the bodies out there, with no effort at retrieval? Does that make any sense to you? Because these hundreds of bodies were third-class or crew, they were just flotsam? No one was looking for these people or their bodies? There was no outcry in the US or Europe from family members? Just think if this happened today. Do you think hundreds of bodies in life-jackets would be left floating for two months, in the sight of many rescue ships? Of course the fact that no one was looking for these people and no one was raising any outcry in the US indicates these people did not exist. The whole story was manufactured. And yet, despite the absurdity of the story, it is still being sold 106 years later, and I guess most people are buying it. 

The story fails in yet another way. Sharks. Remember the USS Indianapolis, referenced in the film Jaws? Quint tells us there “1100 went into the water. . . 316 men come out: the sharks took the rest”. That was in four days. But according to the ridiculous story above, the Titanic went down in the warm fertile waters of the Northern Gulfstream, which is stiff with sharks, but the bodies were still in their life vests two months later. Bodies don't last for two months on the surface of the ocean: they get eaten! 

Next, I tried to access a death list at titanic facts.net, but was denied access, even to a cached page. So I went instead to the Belfast Telegraph, but it only has a list from A to Pa. So I returned to Wikipedia. The first thing I noticed is that the list does not include Astor's butler, though he is listed elsewhere. This Victor Robbins is also not listed with second or third-class passengers. Rather, we are told Mrs. Astor had both a maid and a nurse. This is curious since Mrs. Astor had no child. She was only pregnant. So why did she need a nurse? You will say “because she was pregnant. She might need medical care or a midwife.” No, she was in the first stages of pregnancy, not even showing, so there would be no need for a nurse. 

The next thing I noticed is that whoever faked this list didn't like vowels, especially the letter “E”. 

Statistically, there are far too few surnames starting in vowels, especially in first and second class. Only the letter “A” is representing in anything like a statistical manner. All other vowels are used far too infrequently for this to be a real list. 

Another curious thing we find on that page is that some numbers were not used, just so the total could stand at 333. For instance, they skip the numbers 324-5, for no apparent reason. 

I encourage my readers to study this list for more anomalies, but I don't have the stamina for it right now. I want to return to the high profile passengers like Astor. One of these was Benjamin Guggenheim, father of Peggy Guggenheim of the Guggenheim museums. We can be sure he faked his death. Why? Here's why: on his page we are told he put his women on lifeboat 9. This was a huge wooden Harland and Wolff lifeboat, with a capacity of 65 people. Wikipedia has very little to tell us about Benjamin Guggenheim's life, but they are keen to tell us he bravely went down with the ship: 

As Aubart and Sägesser reluctantly entered Lifeboat No. 9, Guggenheim spoke to the maid in German, saying, "We will soon see each other again! It's just a repair. Tomorrow the Titanic will go on again." Realizing that the situation was much more serious than he had implied, as well as realizing he was not going to be rescued, he then returned to his cabin with Giglio and the two men changed into evening wear. 

That is quoted from the New York Times, April 20, 1912. But it turns out it is hogwash, since all he had to do is step on that boat with the women. No one was fighting for the extra seats, not women or children of any class. If we check the stats, there were only 22 people on lifeboat 9, so 43 seats were empty when it lowered. There were four people from first class, 16 from second class, and two from third class. So please tell me why Benny didn't jump on. He just had a death wish? Of course Guggenheim's body was never retrieved or identified. Although Capt Larnder pulled 306 first-class looking bodies out of the water, and although only 118 men from first-class died and 154 from second class died, he wasn't able to locate Guggenheim or any of the other important people. Amazing, isn't it? I guess they thought life vests didn't look good with their evening wear. 

Which brings us finally to that pesky iceberg. If we study the path of the Titanic, we quickly come to realize she was never far enough north to hit an iceberg in mid-April. 

She wasn't taking the polar route, was she? No, as you can see, the Titanic site is at about the same latitude as New York City or Madrid, Spain, or Rome, Italy. The exact latitude is given as 41.7° north. New York City is at 40.4. Have you ever spotted an iceberg off the coast of New York in April? I didn't think so. How about Boston? No. Also remember that the Gulfstream is warm, and it moves north in the North Atlantic. You may wish to visit the Wiki page on Gulfstream, where you will see this lovely graphic: 

The subtext there is: 

Surface temperatures in the western North Atlantic. The North American landmass is black and dark blue (cold), while the Gulf Stream is red (warm). Source: NASA 

NASA tells us: Warm. More research tells us red is 25°C, yellow is 20, green is 15. Even at green, that is a water surface temperature of almost 60°F. 25°C is 77°F. Hello! Are you awake? Ships follow the Gulfstream across the Atlantic on purpose, and always have. Check out old Ben Franklin's map of the Gulfstream, noting how it curves and goes over toward Europe. Also note the little ships on it. 

Ships simply don't hit icebergs at 41.7 N in mid-April in the Gulfstream. No ship before the Titanic ever had. And of course the Titanic didn't either. Only complete idiots would believe such a story. For the Titanic to encounter icebergs in April, it would have had to be hundreds of miles off-course, up north by Newfoundland. There, around the shallow Great Banks of Newfoundland, the Labrador Current comes down and nullifies the warm water of the Gulfstream. But the Titanic wasn't within 400 miles of that area.

 

I got that from the National Snow and Ice Data Center, on its page called “quick facts on icebergs”. See how far north those little red dots are? The subtext to that graphic is: 

Icebergs are commonly found near Antarctica and in the North Atlantic Ocean near Greenland. 

As I said, nowhere near the fake Titanic wreck site. And those icebergs aren't 400 miles away, they are more like 1000 miles away. The wreckage site is 370 miles SE of Mistaken Point, Newfoundland, and the southernmost of those red dots is another 500 miles north of that. [he is absolutely correct, the evidence is overwhelming that it did not hit an iceberg at 41.7 N DC]

Also return to the NASA graphic. Notice that the waters are actually colder near the coast of New York and Boston than further out where the Titanic was. So if you haven't seen any icebergs floating around off the coast there in April, you would be even less likely to see them hundreds of miles out. 

[Added April 2020: One of my readers checked the surface water temperature on the anniversary of the Titanic. He found it was 68 degrees

F at that latitude and longitude, confirming what I said above. That is the north gyre of the Sargasso Sea, if you want to look it up yourself. That was confirmed again in a more recent paper of mine, where I discovered that in a 1976 National Geographic article, Dr. Mitchell from NOAA admits that the northern hemisphere went through an era of significant warming from 1880 to 1940. Furthermore, on March 2, 1975, the Chicago Tribune reported that “for the first time this century ships making for Iceland ports have been impeded by drifting ice”. Do you see what that means? That contradicts the Titanic story, doesn't it? The Titanic allegedly hit an iceberg in 1912, which is the same century as 1975. And it allegedly did so far south of Iceland. The Titanic wreck is supposed to be at 41.7 N. Iceland is at 64.8 N. That's about 1600 miles difference in latitude, or the same as the width of the US, from the tip of Maine to the tip of Florida. There was no drifting ice at 64.8 N from 1900 to 1975, but we are supposed to believe the Titanic hit ice in 1912 at 41.7 N?] 

They have an alleged photo of the iceberg that hit the Titanic:

They would need to, wouldn't they, since all the rescue ships could easily photograph the thing? However, that couldn't be a more obvious fake. Nothing about it looks real. Even the water looks fake. There is no resolution, lots of fake pixelation or something, and no depth of field. The light also makes no sense. On your far right, the light appears to be coming from low and right, giving us a bright spot on that small wall. But none of the other facets match that reading, telling us this was faked by someone who had never studied light falling on an object. Wikipedia tells us there is a red spot indicating where the Titanic hit it. I see a shadow on the thing, but since the shadow continues on down across the ocean in a line, it can't be either the mark they are talking about, or real. Regardless, the iceberg doesn't look large enough to sink the Titanic, surviving with only “a red smudge”. That ship had a displacement of above 50,000 tons and a cruising speed of about 25 mph. The force of such a collision could easily split an iceberg that size. The Titanic's prow was very pointed, remember, and was the most heavily reinforced part of the ship, for obvious reasons. Prows always are, since they will usually take a first hit. 

Plus, you have to compare that iceberg to the stories we have been told about the hit. We have many survivor stories, you know. We are told some passengers felt the hit and others didn't. They were asleep and slept through it. So we are led to believe it was a glancing blow by a submerged iceberg, with the ship just passing over it and being ripped into. If the ship had hit an iceberg much larger than it, as hitting a wall, no one would have slept through it, no one would have survived, and no stories would have been told. If you stop a 50,000 ton object cold from 25mph, the devastation would be enormous, both on the ship and on the iceberg. The iceberg would have pieces of ship buried in for many feet, and other parts would have exploded all over the front of the iceberg. So that photo is just proof the story is false and that we are looking at a huge fake. 

We are now told the ship simply nudged the far edge of the iceberg with its starboard side, not puncturing the hull, but only breaking the seams of five outer compartments. The ship could only survive the breach of four, we are told in a bit of irony. However, this conflicts mightily with what we are told of the Titanic's miraculous design—and why it was considered unsinkable. These outer compartments were sealed off from inner compartments, so pretty much all the outer compartments on the forward starboard could have been breached without sinking the ship. The outer compartments were like bumpers, and they weren't connected to the inner ship. This “unsinkable” idea is now sold as a myth, but even those selling it as a myth admit that White Star VP Franklin called the ship unsinkable. The publicity brochures for the boat called it unsinkable. So it was hardly a myth. And it was basically true. The Titanic's twin Olympic was rammed by the 8000 ton military cruiser HMS Hawke, crushing the Hawke but never imperiling the Olympic. These huge ships were built to withstand incredible collisions, and the Titanic should have easily withstood the collision, even as it is now sold in the literature. This malarkey about four compartments maximum has no basis in fact: it does not match what was said of these ships before 1912. And besides, if the Titanic hit the right edge of that iceberg above, it would not compromise more than four compartments. It would also not just leave a little red dot on the iceberg. Whoever composed this story is an idiot, or thinks you are. 

Plus, where does the “red” come in? The Titanic was red below the water line, but black above, and yet they have indicated a red smudge above the water line on that stupid fake iceberg. I now see it is the dot on the far right wall, in the bright patch, about halfway up. But for the iceberg to be large enough to damage the Titanic, that dot would have to be twenty or thirty feet up—above the water line. So why would it be red? 

As a bonus, I include here the images we are given of the Olympic and Hawke after the collision. 

Strangely, those are fake as well. The picture of the Hawke is obviously a painting: look at the funny little men onboard, and note how the water looks like an impressionist painting! The picture of the Olympic isn't a painting, but it looks like a manipulated paste-up with fake damage drawn in. If this collision was also a fake, that pushes us down yet another level in the rabbit hole, doesn't it? 

And another part of the story falls with our Gulfstream graphic above. The mainstream admits the Carpathia arrived less than two hours after the Titanic went down. So why couldn't she rescue the people in life vests as well as the people in boats? Why did the Canadians have to find them all dead a few days later? We are told they froze to death in less than two hours, but our Gulfstream graphic puts the lie to that as well, doesn't it? This was 50 or 60 degree F water, which is quite cold but not cold enough to kill you in less than two hours. So the lie here is huge: the mainstream story tells us the water temp was subfreezing, being -2°C or 28°F. Not even close to being true, as we have seen. The Titanic was traveling in the warm Gulfstream, which was around 15°C almost all the way across the Atlantic. Even the cooler parts of the Atlantic at that latitude aren't subfreezing on the surface. 

Of course the movie Titanic was made to push again all these old lies. We saw Leo DiCaprio freezing to death in icy water in a short time, didn't we? Impossible, because he would have been floating in NASA's “warm” Gulfstream at latitude 41.7° N. But they want you to think he was floating at about 60°N, up by Greenland. I am just surprised director Cameron didn't CGI in some polar bears swimming by. 

Actually, this idea was used to sell the event. See Daisy Spedden's children's book Polar the Titanic Bear, published in 1994. Spedden was an American heiress who supposedly survived the Titanic and she allegedly wrote the book in 1913 to amuse her 7-year-old son. He allegedly died in a car accident in 1915, boo-hoo, so the book was shelved. It was allegedly found by a relative and published by Little Brown in 1994 and then republished by Scholastic Books in 1998. This by itself indicates we are dealing with another Intel project, since Scholastic Books publishes both Harry Potter and the Hunger Games. The first Potter came out in 1997, the year before Scholastic began pushing this Polar the Titanic Bear rubbish. 

[Addendum February 10, 2019: a reader just sent me to a cache of Titanic photos from The Star (Toronto) from 2012. Most are generic and prove nothing either way, but a couple are proof of the fake. 

That's obviously a paste-up/drawing, and it is difficult to believe they still allow it to be released. I assume they need it because it is the only photo in the set specific to the event in any way. The others could have been taken from other events and re-tagged, but this one at least shows people who look cold in life vests. Unfortunately, they are outlined in a strange a way, and many look drawn or painted. Notice how the boat and oars are outlined, and the hats and scarves of several people are also outlined clumsily. 

That one is tagged “Carlos Hurd and his wife”, Hurd being a reporter for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch allegedly on holiday on the Carpathia when it rescued Titanic survivors. Two problems: 1) that isn't onboard the Carpathia, it is in a town square (probably Florence in front of the Duomo). 2) It is also a paste-up. Notice the lighting on the two faces is inconsistent, with his face lit by a sun low to your left, while hers is lit evenly from the front. Or, he has a hot spot to the left, while she doesn't.

 

That one is tagged as Stuart Collett, Christian minister and Titanic survivor. Nothing there indicates he is a minister, but we do have indication he is a spook. See the strange hand position in the coat, or the “hidden hand”—indicating the great hoax. ] 

Which brings us to the USS Californian, famous for failing to respond to flares seen from the Titanic. Several inquires were made into this, but the only possible answer is that the Californian was ordered to stand down and not to assist. Ordered by whom? By J.P. Morgan, who owned the Leyland Line as well as the White Star Line. Despite both the British and American inquiries finding that the Californian could have saved all or most of those who perished in life vests, the officers were never charged with negligence or any other crime. They were never sued. This also can only be explained by top-down pressure by the billionaires, who wished to bury this part of the story. 

We are told the Californian was so close she could see the Titanic and the Titanic could see her. But we are supposed to believe neither ship was able to signal the other. No one thought to wake the sleeping wireless operator on the Californian! Oh, the things they expect you to believe! 

The story of the Californian has since been tweaked to sell the story that there was ice in the area, and the ship was stopped due to it. But we have seen that was impossible. 

Also interesting to my readers is the name of the captain, Stanley Phillip Lord. His son Stanley Tutton Lord was a banker in Liverpool. This reminds us of agent Sterling Lord, from my paper on the Jeffrey MacDonald fake, doesn't it? I showed Sterling Lord was from the peerage, and we may assume the same of Stanley Lord. He is not listed in the peerage, but that doesn't mean they aren't related. Lord is very scrubbed, but I did find one possible clue. His wife was a Tutton, and there are Tuttons in the peerage. A Francis Robert Tutton, b. 1874, married Lucy Evans Chavasse, her mother being Frances Evans. This is curious because Capt. Stanley Lord's wireless operator was one Cyril Evans, indicating the two men may have been related. In fact, we do find a Cyril Lloyd Evans in the peerage, possibly of the right age for a match. He is scrubbed, the only thing we know about him being that his daughter's middle name was Murray—which may have been her mother's maiden name—and that she married the Baronet Bowen. Of course that is a clue, since that name already came up above. See Vice-Admiral Harold Gardiner Bowen of the ONR, possibly linked to Robin Gardiner who wrote the book on the Titanic switch. Anyway the first Baronet Bowen ran the Great South Railway in Argentina at the time of our story. His daughter married the son of Lt. Gen. Sir Alexander Cobbe, who in turn was the son of Nuzzeer Begum Khan. 

[Added October 3: Also remember Walter Lord, who published the bestseller A Night to Remember in 1955, about the Titanic event. He was later a consultant to James Cameron for the 1997 film. Wikipedia admits he was OSS, the precursor to CIA. Lord's mother was a Hoffman, making him Jewish, and his grandfather was Richard Curzon Hoffman, President of the Baltimore Steam Packet Company—a steamship firm. Do you recognize the name Curzon? We saw it above, didn't we? We saw the 2nd Baronet Smith/Bromley marrying the daughter of the Viscount Curzon. This pretty much proves Walter Lord was related to all these people.] 

What this indicates to me is that Lord and Evans on the Californian were related and were both MI5/6. They were planted on the ship specifically to oversee the wreck. Along with the Carpathia, they were on hand to make sure the event went as planned. So I don't think Lord was falsely accused, but I do think he was just following orders. Lord didn't pick up anyone because there was no one to be picked up. The Carpathia was the designated pick-up ship, and she picked up all crew and cast, leaving no one in the water. The Californian wasn't there to pick anyone up, she was there as the coordination vessel, and possibly as back-up. She may have warned off any other ships, telling them this was a military exercise or something. 

Then Wikipedia tells us the next stunning lie. The captain of the Carpathia described the area around the Titanic wreck as a vast ice field with many icebergs and ice floes. If so, then what were all these other ships doing there in the first place? Why was Carpathia there at all, and how did she get in to the Titanic? Are we supposed to believe she was an icebreaker? We are then told that this area is now called Iceberg Alley. However, all we have to do is take the link to see that isn't the case. Iceberg Alley exists, but it is far to the north. It isn't at 41.7° N, it is in the Labrador Current, up between Newfoundland and Greenland, as I showed you above. It is about 800 miles north of the Titanic site, running from the 50th parallel to the 60th. Tens of thousands of sailors, navy men, geographers, and historians must know this, so why are you having to hear it from me? For that matter, why didn't author Robin Gardiner mention any of this in his “hard-hitting and ground-breaking” book? I think you now know why. 

Continuation, October 7, 2018: I have been sent by a reader to research William Stead, famous Pall Mall Gazette editor who allegedly went down with the Titanic. I could insert all this above nearer the sections on Astor or Guggenheim, but even as I go in I can tell it is going to spin out into its own story, so I best tack it on here, where it can expand to any length necessary. Just by skimming Stead's Wiki page, one can tell he was a major spook, and I recommend you do so. And so this entire section will— in my opinion—act as confirmation that these major first-class passengers faked their deaths to a man. Our first clue to Stead's origins is his birth in Embleton, Northumberland. My readers will know that Northumberland is a red flag by itself, and Embleton is just north of Tyne and Wear, a place that has come up many times in my recent research. See for example my paper on Star Wars star Daisy Ridley. We saw that many noble seats were in the area, including the Liddells, Barons Ravensworth—linked closely to Lewis Carroll—and the Earls Grey. Also the Percys, Duke of Northumberland, of course, and the Viscounts Ridley. Also the Viscounts Allendale and the Viscounts Devonport. Also the Barons Hastings. Also the Blacketts, the Ogles, the Selbys, and the Trevelyan Baronets—whom we have already seen above. Just to jog your memory, the Trevelyans were closely related to the Smith Baronets, and therefore to the captain of the Titanic Edward Smith. The 2nd Baronet Trevelyan was Lord of the Admiralty in the late 19th century, and his mother was a Macaulay. These Trevelyans lived in Wallington Hall in Northumberland, which is about 15 miles from Embleton. Alnwick Castle, the seat of the Percys, is even nearer, being about five miles from Embleton. 

This leads us to search for William Stead in the peerage. Guess what, there is one listed, but he is almost completely scrubbed. All we have is his daughter Emily who died in 1907. That is the right time period. Strangely, Wiki doesn't tell us anything about Stead's family, though it posts a photograph. Geni tells us Stead had two daughters, but neither is named Emily. There, his mother is scrubbed, though we are told she was a Johnson (Wiki says Jobson, to add to the confusion). On the paternal side, his grandmother is also scrubbed, although we are told she was an Earnshaw. Reminds us of Wuthering Heights, doesn't it? Stead's grandfather was from Howden, which is about 2 miles from Ravensworth Castle, the seat of the Barons Ravensworth, and William moved to Howden as a young child. Anyway, Emily Stead of the peerage married a Johnstone, which is curiously close to Johnson, the name of our William Stead's mother—leading me to guess the name was fudged at Geni. That guess is given weight when we discover this Johnstone's grandfather was Vice-Admiral Sir William Johnstone Hope, who had married the daughter of the Earl of Hopetoun and Lady Elizabeth Carnegie—herself the daughter of Admiral George Carnegie, Earl of Northesk. I guess you continue to see why finding admirals involved in the backstory of the Titanic is important. Also of interest is the wife of Admiral Carnegie, Lady Leslie, daughter of Alexander Leslie, 7th Earl of Leven. I remind you that we saw that name above as well, since the 9th Earl of Leven was a Leslie-Melville, related to Capt. Edward Smith of the Titanic. Smith's daughter's middle name was Melville, remember? We also saw the name Leven in my paper on Hawking, since his colleague Atiyah was the son of a Leven. Atiyah is the one now claiming to have solved the Riemann hypothesis. 

Anyway, since all these names are tightly tied together, we may assume William Stead is related closely to these Steads in the peerage. We also find a Sydney Vere Stead in the peerage, scrubbed himself, but with a daughter who married a Montagu, 10th Duke of Manchester, in 1927. This Duke's mother was a Zimmerman, whose mother is not given, though her father was Eugene Zimmerman from Cincinnati. He was a railroad magnate and sat on the board of Standard Oil. His wife was an Evans, which name we also saw above. It ties us to Capt. Stanley Lord of the Californian and his wireless operator Cyril Evans. But I paused on the name Vere because it also links us to Millvina Dean above, whose brother was Bertram Vere Dean. We also find a Redmond Vere-Stead in the peerage, whose mother was a Heineken. 

Also of interest is Dorothea Stead, who married Norman Leslie-Melville in 1918. Leslie-Melville's mother was also a Stead, meaning Dorothea married a cousin. Leslie-Melville's grandmother was a Ball, linking us to George Washington. Edwin Stead married Emily Hamilton in 1876, and she was the daughter of the Baronet Hamilton. That name also keeps coming up. The Steads were also related to the Bells, Bennetts and Milners. This links us to Alexander Graham Bell, whose father was a Melville. It also links us back to the 3rd Baronet Trevelyan, who married Mary Katharine Bell in 1904, the daughter of the 2nd Baronet Bell.* The Steads and Milners have been marrying for centuries, with the first one I found being in 1669. 

So this is where William Stead came from. He was closely related to all the other players in the scene, just as we would expect. His bio is the usual pastiche, and reminds us of Mark Twain, Jack London, and many others. He supposedly became editor of the Northern Echo newspaper at age 22, coming from nowhere. The Echo was founded in 1870 by. . . John Hyslop Bell. Which explains Stead's promotion, I guess. Nepotism. Also a big clue is Stead's father-in-law, who Wiki tells us was a merchant and shipowner. That sort of ties in here, doesn't it? Geni tells us his name was Henry Wilson, but his wife is not given. He was of the Thomas Wilson Sons Company, AKA Wilson Line of Hull, which merged with the North Eastern Railway in 1906. They had 75 ships by 1903, and were among the largest shipping companies in the world. One of these Wilsons was the Baron Wilson of Nunburnholme, and he may the Henry Wilson, father of Stead's wife. If so, this would tell us the mother of Stead's wife: Jane Wellesley, of the Dukes of Wellington. So I trust you are starting to see the lay of the land here. Stead wasn't just a newspaper editor, he was tied to shipping in a major way, as well as to the top levels of the peerage. 

In his early 30s Stead became editor of the big Pall Mall Gazette, where he sold a series of fake stories —just as they do it now. One of these concerned his friend Major-General Charles George Gordon, of the peerage Gordons of course (think George Gordon, Lord Byron). The Gordons were also dukes. Gordon, like his namesake Lord Byron, was gay and a boy chaser, as well as being a major spook. His biggest assignment was being the fall guy in the famous Gordon Relief Expedition hoax of 1884, which Stead sold to the hilt for months. This was a fake war in Sudan against fake Muslims, just like the fake wars in the Middle East and Northern Africa now. Nothing much has changed in over a century. It was waged against the puppet Muhammad Ahmad—the Gaddafi of his time. We are supposed to believe he had declared a Mahdiyya, preparing the way for the second coming of Christ. Because Muslims always prepare the way for a second coming of Christ, right? He also gathered an army of 50,000 to take over Khartoum and liberate Sudan from the whites and Egyptians. As the story goes, the British decided to abandon Sudan and sent Gordon in to oversee the evacuation to Egypt. Instead, Gordon decided to disobey orders and try to save Khartoum with a small garrison. The British then decided to send in Gen. Wolseley (later Viscount and Field Marshall) to relieve him, but assigned only about 5,400 troops to go against 50,000. This is the biggest red flag in this ridiculous story. The next absurdity is that we are told Wolseley hired a few hundred Canadian First Nations “voyageurs” (Natives) to help him paddle up the Nile. This insured their progress would be glacial. Wolseley then split his men, sending only 2,400 by camel to try to reach Gordon before the Muslims did. Sounds like a great idea, right? 2,400 against 50,000? In January 1885, the Muslims allegedly took the city, slaughtering everyone including Gordon. Now get this: 

Two days later the relief expedition entered the city, only to find they were too late. 

No, seriously, that is what it says in the history books. That is what we are taught with a straight face. One question: where were the 50,000 hostiles that had been there two days earlier? Did they just ride off from the city they had just captured? Or did they allow this relief expedition to come in without battle? Strangely, Mohammad Ahmad died six months later at age 40 of typhus, which is convenient. I guess they didn't need him for the part anymore. But for some reason Lord Kitchener came in a few years later and took Sudan back. We aren't told why the British wanted Sudan in 1895, but didn't want it in 1885. They admit that the Great Powers (England, France, Germany, etc.) had controlled Sudan up until that time, planting their puppets as rulers (see Tewfik Pasha). So why the Gordon story? My guess is something was going on in England in 1884 they needed to cover up. So they created this big hoax in the Sudan to fill the headlines for months. That has always been the modus operandi, up to the present time. And what was this event in England? I don't know, but it is interesting the Fabian Society was founded in that year. A little research leads me to believe the Sudan story was planted to cover up events in Egypt, not England. See Evelyn Baring, 1st Earl of Cromer, the consul-general of Egypt at the time, overseeing the Egyptian bankruptcy. Please note his surname, which links us to Barings Bank. Cromer had de facto control over all Egyptian finances and government from 1883, indicating the country was being looted by the banks. The Egyptians had borrowed millions of pounds from British banks to build the Suez canal, then defaulted, turning over the entire country as collateral. To keep this off the front pages, this fake war in Sudan was manufactured, so that people could follow the Gordon saga. And William Stead led the way. 

But before we move onto the next Stead hoax, let's go back to Lord Kitchener. Kitchener later became an Earl and Field Marshal, and like Gordon he was gay. His “constant companion” and aide de camp was Captain Oswald Fitzgerald, who just happened to “die” at the same time and place at Kitchener. And yes, he links us not only to JFK, but to Lee Hervey Oswald—since Oswald and JFK were related. Kitchener had a famous “band of boys” as his constant entourage in the army. Kitchener was also a Cripps, a Fisher, a Clarke, a Green and a Robinson on his father's side. Kitchener's older sister Frances married in 1869 a Parker, whose grandparents were a Macaulay and a Campbell. This links us to the people above involved in the Titanic hoax, including Stead himself. Yes, Stead was related to Kitchener. 

Stead's next famous assignment was the Crawford scandal, in which the Baronet Dilke was targeted by his fellow peers for not being enough of a fascist. Amazingly, the Smiths are involved here again, linking us to the rest of this paper. The Baronet's younger brother married the daughter of shipping magnate Thomas Eustace Smith. Note that we have another Smith as shipping magnate. There were six Thomas Smiths who became baronets, and our Thomas Smith here is also in the peerage. He married into the Dalrymple Baronets, which also linked him to the Hamiltons and Stewarts. Anyway, Baronet Dilke was the lover of this Martha Dalrymple, art patroness wife of Thomas Smith. But he was accused of seducing her daughter from a previous marriage, Virginia Crawford, age 19. Virginia's husband filed for divorce, and the Dilke relationship was put forward by Crawford as evidence. The judge granted the divorce but exonerated Dilke, saying there was no evidence against him. Well, Stead was not satisfied with that, for reasons never given, and began a smear campaign against Dilke. Dilke fought the smear in court, but due to collaboration against him, he lost. It is now admitted the whole thing was a fraud, with Neville Chamberlain's father Joseph and Earl Primrose destroying Dilke on purpose. Primrose's father had been First Lord of the Admiralty and Primrose himself would be Prime Minister in 1894-5. Obviously, this indicates Stead was their agent in the media, publishing false information. Given that, you should ask yourself if such a person as Stead would have any problem faking his own death on the Titanic, under orders from above. Of course not. 

Stead's next fraud was his claiming to purchase a 13-year-old girl. Follow this story if you can. Stead paid an ex-madam to procure Eliza Armstrong for £5. But first she was taken to a female abortionist, who examined the girl and attested to her virginity. The girl was then drugged with chloroform and taken to a brothel to meet Stead. To act the part, Stead first got drunk on champagne, though he was a teetotaler. He entered the room of Armstrong and waited for her to awaken. When she did she screamed, and Stead left—hoping the scream would indicate to those outside he had boinked the girl. She was then turned over to Bramwell Booth, General of the Salvation Army, who took her to France to be taken care of by a family there. Stead then wrote the whole thing up and published it, in order to prove you could buy a girl. 

Yep, that is the story they decided to go with, and that they are still telling in the mainstream. You can read it at Wiki. One question would be why Stead thought he needed to get drunk on champagne for this story. Another would be why anyone would think he boinked her just because she screamed, or why he would need anyone to think that. Another would be why she was taken to France. Shouldn't it have been easier to place this girl in England? She didn't speak French, so why send her to France? Obviously, because they needed to get rid of her. If she had been in England someone would have tracked her down and cross-checked this ridiculous story. 

We are told Home Secretary Sir William Harcourt begged Stead to cease publication of this lurid story and others to prevent rioting, but Stead refused unless Parliament immediately passed a bill to raise the age of consent to 16. Both Harcourt and Parliament caved, passing the bill. Now, does that sound like a true story to you? You don't think the Home Secretary or Parliament could beat one noisy editor? They couldn't have shut him down or arrested him? To see why that wasn't done, we can look more closely at Harcourt. His grandfather was the Archbishop of York, and his grandmother was a LevesonGower, daughter of the 1st Marquess of Stafford. Her grandparents were the Egertons, Dukes of Bridgewater, and the Russells, Dukes of Bedford. Harcourt became Chancellor of the Exchequer (banking) in 1886 and again in the 1890s. So he was a major spook even overlooking his time as Home Secretary. This indicates again that the entire Armstrong story was planted by British Intelligence, to make sure this bill passed. And why would they wish to raise the age of consent? So that they could blackmail and control more people. Most men they wished to blackmail were not attracted to girls under 13, so the previous law was bootless in that regard. Girls of that age hadn't even gone through puberty, so most men would find them sexually useless. But with 16 year olds, it was a different story. Some of them were sexually willing creatures, fully capable of putting an older man in a compromising situation on purpose. So these girls could be hired by Intel to do just that. Or I assume that was the point. Other points could probably be discovered with more digging, but this will do for now. 

Amusingly, in order to drag the story out even further, Stead had himself arrested and allegedly thrown in Coldbath Prison for three days. We can be sure this was theater as well, since he was prosecuted by Attorney General Webster—of the same families. He then orchestrated protest groups against his fake imprisonment. The abortionist involved in the story was also convicted and allegedly died in jail— although her term was only six months. We can be sure she didn't. Since she was named Mourez, they probably just sent her back to France. Stead then allegedly spent another three months as a first-class inmate at Holloway Prison, where he was allowed to continue to edit the Pall Mall Gazette. We are supposed to believe that would be allowed, and that the owners of the newspaper never considered firing him for drugging and kidnapping this young girl? On the way out, I remind you to notice the name of the head of the Salvation Army: Booth. His father had organized it a few years earlier. Were they related to John Wilkes Booth? Of course. 

To see how the Booths link to our current question, see 1st Baronet Booth of Allerton Beeches, Liverpool, director of the Cunard Steamship Company—the main rival of the White Star Line. Due precisely to the arrival of White Star in 1902, the British government began to heavily subsidize Cunard. And what does that mean? It means Cunard got to drink straight from the treasury. Baronet Booth was closely related to the Nobles as well as to Maj. Gen. Benjamin Franklin Butler, Governor of Massachusetts. His son was named Ben-Israel, just so you know. And his business partners were Fisher and Webster. The Booths had previously been Barons Delamar, when they were closely related to the Greys (Earls of Stamford) and Egertons (Viscounts Brackley). See the marriage of William Booth and Vere Egerton, and note the name Vere once again. The Booths were also related to the Clintons, Earls of Lincoln; the Fiennes, Viscounts of Saye and Sele; and the Cecils, Earls of Exeter. We saw the Fiennes above. In total, there are about 1,100 Booths in the peerage. 

For another laugh, I send you to Abraham Lincoln Booth of the peerage, son of Franklin Booth and Rebecca Gechter. These Booths come from Suffolk County, NY, and before that from Dunham Massey, Chester. They were originally Bothes, related to Warburtons and Breretons. So it is the same Booths. But just consider that name Abraham Lincoln Booth, which he got in 1867 in Pennsylvania, two years after the fake assassination. They are pretty much admitting the connection aren't they, as well as the hoax? 

So the Booths and their creations are not to be trusted. Like everything else, the Salvation Army was a huge scam from the beginning, and this just proves it. If you don't believe me, just ask yourself why this alleged Christian organization was modelled on the army. To the best of my recollection, Christ was the Prince of Peace. Could the Salvation Army have been modelled on the army because it was another creation of military intelligence? Also ask yourself this: isn't the work of the Salvation Army something that should be done by the government, using our taxes? Aid for the poor, help for drunkards, homes for fallen women and released prisoners: great, but why isn't the government already doing that? Why do we need these private organizations to do what should already be done? I will tell you: to soak you all the more. They spend all your taxes on the military and paying interest to bankers, so they have nothing left for doing real work. So they create these bogus charity organizations to soak you a second time. And these various organizations are just as inefficient and corrupt as the government itself. Whenever one is audited we find most of the money unaccounted for. You might as well just send your donation directly to the bankers. These organizations weren't founded by banking families by accident, you know. 

Here's a nice painting of William Booth: 

Do I need to tell you what to look at? His mother was a Moss, from a wealthy family. They admit he got his nose from his mother, but then try to tell us she wasn't Jewish. OK. He was born in Nottingham. But wait, we saw that above, didn't we? The Smith Baronets, close relatives of Capt. Edward Smith of the Titanic, were from Nottingham. They founded Smith Bank of Nottingham and George Smith was also Sheriff of Nottingham. Booth was also linked to Stead in another way: Stead helped Booth write In Darkest England, and some even claim he ghost wrote it. You should also know that Booth's son Bramwell married a Soper, whose mother was a Levick. That is Jewish, being a variant of Levi. 

But we aren't finished with this scumbag agent Stead. In the 1890s he was hired to promote the spiritualism movement—a spook promoting spooks. In the quarterly Borderlands, Stead claimed to be in contact with the spirit world, bringing us much wisdom from beyond. Even here we have the hidden family links. See Stead's promotion of spirit photography, where he claimed to publish the photo of the ghost of deceased soldier Piet Botha. The story is not worth responding to beyond that, but just notice the name Botha. Botha=Booth. They are both in the peerage, being from the same lines. Which gives you a new way to look at the Bothas of South Africa. 

Speaking of South Africa, Stead was closely tied to Cecil Rhodes, being his friend and confidant. Stead is said to have mentored Rhodes, passing along many of his ideas of government. This is interesting, because Rhodes was tight with Viscount Alfred Milner, who founded the famous Round Table. Rhodes was gay and Milner probably was, too, marrying late in life to a 47-year-old society lady and having no children. The Round Table was physically held at Plas Newydd, Lieutenant Colonel Charles Paget's estate in. . . Anglesey, of course. Paget was the Marquess of Anglesey, remember? And why do I bold the name Milner? Well, we saw it above, didn't we? The Steads and Milners of the peerage have been marrying for centuries. My best readers will also remember Yuri Milner, who I wrote about many years ago on my science site. He is the Russian billionaire who funds the Fundamental Physics Prize. So we continue to learn more about his background, don't we? 

And, most of you know the story of the Titan, from an 1898 novella by Morgan Robertson. It was a fictional account preceding the wreck of the Titanic, foretelling it in many ways. What is less known is Stead's 1892 story “From the Old World to the New”, in which a ship called the Majestic rescues passengers from an iceberg collision. So I guess we now know where the malarkey about icebergs in the Gulfstream comes from. What's even stranger is that White Star Lines came out with their own Majestic after the war. This ship was a Titanic look-alike except it had one less smokestack. At Wiki, we are told it was a German ship “laid down” in 1913, less than a year after the Titanic allegedly sank. It was originally named the SS Bismarck of the Hamburg America Line. Although it launched in 1914, it never sailed due to the war, but was awarded in mysterious circumstances to Great Britain in 1920 as part of war reparations for the German sinking of the HMHS Brittanic. While the Titanic was constructed by Harland and Wolff in Belfast Harbor, the Majestic was allegedly built by Blohm and Voss in Hamburg. So it is strange they look so much alike: 

I don't know about you, but to me it looks like they just removed the forward smokestack and built another level on top. On Cutting through the Fog forum, I suggested maybe the Titanic wasn't sunk, only being relocated to the Far East. But on further research, it looks like they didn't even bother sending her to Russia or China. They just sent her to Hamburg port for the war, and then brought her back in 1920. You will tell me the Majestic is supposed to be 50 feet longer or so, but who measures these ships? Have you? 

Also interesting is that the Majestic was bought jointly from the British Government by the White Star and Cunard lines, which tells us something important: they were no longer competitors. Take note that Cunard brings the Booths into it as well. Furthermore, White Star and Cunard also bought the SS Imperator, another German Titanic clone that was only 24 feet longer. That's only a 2% difference, invisible to the naked eye. You would have to measure them on site to tell the difference. The Imperator was launched in 1912. . . after April of course. We are told the Imperator was mothballed in Hamburg for almost five years, and then was taken after the war by the US in the Allied Agreement. She was sailed to the US, but for some reason not given was immediately decommissioned and given back to the British. She was taken charge of by a Capt. Charles A. Smith, who sailed her back to Liverpool. What an amazing coincidence, right? Another Capt. Smith. Couldn't be our old Edward Smith under an alias, could it? If not, you can be sure it was a nephew or something. 

Want to know what the Imperator looked like outside New York City? 

Gee, it looks exactly like the Titanic, with the smokestacks moved. It also looks like a paste-up. If it is the Titanic, they would change a few things in the paste to throw you off. The Imperator had previously been to New York in June 1913, on its maiden voyage. So the Titanic may have finally made it to NYC a bit more than a year after its fake sinking. They also admit the Imperator got many makeovers, both before and after 1913. In October of that year, the smokestacks were reduced in height, allegedly to help her center of gravity, which was too high. But wait. Shorter smokestacks would weigh less, further raising her in the water, so the story makes no sense. The real problem is that she was riding too high in the water, and lowering the smokestacks would be counterproductive. So this may be further indication of the fraud. Here's more:

 

That's supposed to be the Imperator leaving Hamburg. Oh my god, what a ham handed fake that is! Let's see, a fake zeppelin, a fake sailboat with black sails, a fake flag flying as product placement, and a fake smokestack on the shore casting no reflection in the water. Amazing! The zeppelin kind of reminds us of the fake Lindbergh flying over Paris, doesn't it? 

Added January 19, 2019: Which brings us to the end. The Titanic never sank at all. It was simply refitted and stored in Hamburg during the war, posing as the Imperator. So Robin Gardiner's title is correct: Titanic: the Ship that Never Sank. Now that we are at the end of our investigation, you can notice that he told you the truth, while misleading you into thinking the Olympic sank instead. No, no ship sank that day. The whole story was a hoax, run as cover for a series of insurance scams far beyond the one he suggests. 

“But what about the ship on the bottom of the sea, that we have seen footage of from Robert Ballard?” you will scream. Also faked. Ballard is another from these families, and his bio is likewise full of red flags. His mother is scrubbed at Wikipedia. His father was chief engineer of the minuteman missile program (ICBM), another fake. Robert was commissioned out of ROTC into Naval Intelligence. He was liaison between ONR and Woods Hole. The footage of the Titanic wreckage is faked, which becomes obvious once you study the story for sense. Lead-ups to the mission in 1979-80 were funded by British billionaire Sir James Goldsmith (Goldschmidt), a Jewish banker of course. His family founded the bank that became BNP Paribas. They are closely related to the Rothschilds, Bourbons, and Khans. This links Goldsmith to the other players in the Titanic fraud. He was involved with other scams before this Titanic wreckage scam, being part of SlaterWalker when it was “rescued” by the Bank of England in the banking crisis of the 1970s. He became Chairman of SlaterWalker after the bailout. For this rape of the British taxpayer he was knighted. He soon became one of the most hated corporate raiders in the world, known for union busting and shady dealing. He retired to Mexico in 1987, beating the market crash of that year. He later became involved in fake environmentalism, used as a cover for more treasury dips. 

In the early 80s, another billionaire got involved. Texas oilman Jack Grimm—who had previously funded expeditions to find the hole at the north pole, as well as to find Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster—led the way this time, taking a monkey named Titan onboard to tell him how to navigate. The monkey actually did find the ship, according to the mainstream story, since Ballard used Grimm's mission for his coordinates. Some say the monkey didn't come on the final voyage, but since all the stories are fiction, it hardly matters. In the final analysis, anyone onboard was a monkey. 

If that isn't enough to blow the whole story, simply read the Titanic wreck page at Wikipedia. There we learn that the wreckage is too fragile to be saved or lifted, and that it is now protected by UNESCO convention. Convenient. We learn that although it has survived a century on the sea floor, it is expected to disintegrate very soon. 

A newly discovered species of rust-eating bacterium found on the ship has been named Halomonas titanicae, which has been found to cause rapid decay of the wreck. Henrietta Mann, who discovered the bacteria, has estimated that the Titanic will completely collapse possibly as soon as 2025. . . . Analysis by Henrietta Mann and Bhavleen Kaur, both of Dalhousie University in Halifax, Nova Scotia, in conjunction with other scientists and researchers of the University of Seville in Spain, has determined that the wreck of Titanic will not exist by 2037 and that preservation of Titanic is impossible. "Unfortunately, because Titanic is 2.3 miles down, it is very difficult or impossible to preserve. It is film which will preserve it for history now," says Mann. "It has already lasted for 100 years, but eventually there will be nothing left but a rust stain on the bottom of the Atlantic... I think Titanic has maybe 15 or 20 years left. I don't think it will have too much longer than that."[citation needed] Other scientists have estimated that Titanic will last no longer than 14 years, as of 2017. 

Also convenient, since it prevents later forensics. Note how the estimates for a complete disappearance of the wreckage keep getting moved up, with the last date mentioned being 2031. Both statements conflict with other parts of the story, don't they, where we are shown “remarkably well preserved interiors”, with chandeliers still hanging from the ceilings. So we are supposed to believe the steel eating bacteria weren't hungry from 1912 to 1990, but suddenly got famished in the last decade or so. As soon as the Jewish bankers had unloaded all the salable crap off the wreck and installed it in Las Vegas, the hungry bacteria arrived in force. What a coincidence. 

We are told the coordinates given by the Titanic's distress signals were inaccurate, explaining why the wreckage wasn't found there, but that makes no sense. More likely, the wrong coordinates are now being published to explain why the wreckage wasn't found earlier, and to prevent other private parties from blowing this project. The “right coordinates” are given only to those who can be trusted to continue to propel the hoax. They are sent to coordinates in a lake a few miles east of Glendale, where our teams from Hollywood have located their sets. 

Also notice this major discontinuity in the story: When Ballard was trying to raise part of C-deck in the late 1990s, he was accompanied by cruise ships filled with people keen to watch history. These included celebrities like Burt Reynolds and Buzz Aldrin. Note that all mention of iceberg alley has now disappeared. Did any of these ships have to be on the lookout for rogue icebergs? Of course not. You will say that is because this was in the summer, but in the real iceberg alley that wouldn't matter. Where icebergs exist, they exist all year long. 

Here's another snag in the story you are told: Although the Navy is supposed to have funded the initial expedition of Ballard that discovered the wreckage, when this section of C-deck was finally recovered, it wasn't exhibited at the Smithsonian or some such place, as one would expect. Rather, it is exhibited at Luxor Hotel and Casino in Las Vegas. We are told this is because the piece is owned by RMS Titanic, Inc., but that makes no sense. If Ballard was initially working for the Navy, the wreckage should belong to the US Government, and thereby American taxpayers. They should be able to view the wreckage for free at a National Museum of History. Notice that in the mainstream story, this glitch is never explained. How exactly did this go from being a Navy project to a private project? Did the US Government sells its rights to these artifacts, and if so for how much? Did the money go into the treasury, lowering your tax bill? Of course not, since nothing was recovered. It was just manufactured and antiqued somehow. 

Here's another problem: in the Wikipedia section on “Condition and deterioration of the wreck”, they admit that it is completely dark at those depths. But above, we were told the wreck was found not by sonar but by visual cameras [see the section on “Discovery”]. They illustrate this section with this photo: 

which fools you into thinking visual cameras would work for wide-area scanning. But that photo was taken near the surface. In the pitch black depths, the problem would be lighting for the cameras, wouldn't it? At those depths and pressures, light doesn't penetrate very far, so even insanely bright floods would fail after a few feet. Which is simply to say that you couldn't use visual cameras to scan the ocean floor. It wouldn't be possible, so we know the story is false. They are lying. 

This is also how you can tell the underwater footage is fake. The wreckage is said to be at 12,500 feet, but in the films that have been published, the lighting contradicts that. The light penetrates the water far too well, indicating they are filming at much lower depths—where the pressures are much less. If you don't want to watch hours of footage, just watch this five minute video on youtube. It isn't convincing at all, since nothing looks right. Everything is far too small. The prow looks ridiculously small. And there is no sea life. I guess you are supposed to believe the ocean is dead at that depth, but it isn't. You will tell me everything was scared away by the light, but of course creatures at that depth can't detect light, since there normally isn't any. I assume they had to film somewhere where all life had been removed, since they couldn't fake it. They couldn't very well capture a lot of live deepwater fish and other creatures and insert them into this fake film shot in a lake. Nor could they allow native life to encroach on their production here, since that would prove they weren't at 12,500 ft. So apparently they walled off some patch of water somewhere and cleared it of all life. 

Some saw that problem later, which is why you can witness a shrimp CGI'ed into this History Channel footage. See minute 50:31. That is Titanic at 100: Mystery Solved, in case that particular link gets broken, as I predict it will. That is just pathetic, since any fool can tell that isn't a real shrimp. The fake even comes up in comments, so I am not the only one who noticed it. 

This is also why they now claim that 

It used to be thought that the depths of the ocean were a lifeless desert, but research carried out since the mid-1980s has found that the ocean floor is teeming with life and may rival the tropical rainforests for biodiversity.[92] . . . The Canadian geophysicist Steve Blasco has commented that the wreck "has become an oasis, a thriving ecosystem sitting in a vast desert”. 

They really can't keep their stories straight, can they? Is the ocean floor a desert or tropical rainforest? And since they have admitted the ocean floor is teeming with life, they still need to explain why we don't see any in the films. The texts now tell us the life is there. . . but we don't see it. We should just trust them, I guess. 

Here's your next laugh: 

When the debris field was surveyed in Robert Ballard's 1986 expedition, pairs of shoes were observed lying next to each other on the sea bed.[98] The flesh, bones, and clothes had long since been consumed but the tannin in the shoes' leather had apparently resisted the bacteria, leaving the shoes as the only markers of where a body had once lain. 

So, we are supposed to believe that leather isn't an organic substance when surrounded by seawater? It turns to plastic and becomes inedible, even for bacteria. Of course this is absurd, since they just told us that all organic material was the first to go. Obviously, they now regret placing those shoes in the debris field, and are trying to cover that magnificent blunder. We are supposed to believe the bacteria don't like the tannin in the leather. OK. 

In the next paragraph they try to explain a similar anomaly: the furniture filmed in the first class reception area. They tell us it was teak and so saltwater and bacteria have no effect on it. Right. All the steel will be gone by 2031, but I guess that teak will still be looking new for centuries. Same for that “mattress still on the bed and the intact and undamaged dresser behind it”. We are supposed to forget that mattresses in 1912 were made of organic matter. Maybe we are supposed to believe that all mattresses back then were heavily impregnated with tannins? 

The Wikipedia page just goes on and on like that, assuming you are a complete moron who will believe anything. 

* His mother was a Pattinson, linking us to current vampire actor Robert Pattinson. 

http://mileswmathis.com/titan.pdf