Thread by @MrGoldstein7

The Titanic: the Fraud that Keeps on Giving

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.

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. poynter.org/reporting-edit…

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.

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.

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 like Robin Gardiner's book was misdirection. 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 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.

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. 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.
thepeerage.com/p33955.htm#i33…

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?
thepeerage.com/p33956.htm#i33…

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.
thepeerage.com/p68636.htm#i68…

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 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.

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, Cholmodeleys, Stewarts and Percys (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 till his death.

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 archconservative, this seems very unlikely.

He almost certainly comes from one of the Smith Baronets. Possibly the Smiths, Baronets Devon, who were shipowners and 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.
thepeerage.com/p55712.htm#i55…

If we could tie these Smith Baronets to the Titanic event, it would indicate the insurance companies were in on the fraud somehow.

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.
blogs.denverpost.com/titanic/2012/0…

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?

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.
encyclopedia-titanica.org/thinks-he-saw-…

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.

J.K. Rowling can be linked 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. Plus, we will find 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 LeslieMelville, 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. 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 Stanhope Earls, Gardner Barons, Foresters, Manners Dukes, and Drummond Dukes.

These Smiths also became the Barons of Bicester, with Hugh Colin Smith becoming the Governor of the Bank of England in 1897. Hugh's daughter married a Baring, of a “rival” bank. The actress Rachel Ward is his 2g-granddaughter.

Also 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. 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; thepeerage.com/p59886.htm#i59…

and Robert Smith, 1st Baron Carrington, whose second wife was Charlotte Hudson, daughter of Susanna Trevelyan. thepeerage.com/p1473.htm#i147…

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.
audubonparkperspectives.org/2012/04/15/h-w…
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?

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? 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?

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.

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 EgertonWarburtons, 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 the Bombing of Britain, where much fakery was involved, and even 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 decades, 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's 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.

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.

Notice how much the 911 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.

911 not only looks like a later clone of the Titanic event, it also looks like an analogue of 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?

@threadreaderapp unroll