#16 "Wouldn't it be best to leave things as they are with the royals, they are in enough trouble as it is."


The basic premise of your question is not unacceptable but is not necessary. I do not believe the royal family is in more trouble than most families and the tenet 'Don't complain: Don't explain' is merely the royal option in dealing with the eccentricities of Man, which sometimes make the eccentricities of God look tame. You may have been reading the work of clever writers who translate conflict in a family, real or imaginary, into drama for the page, stage and a wage. No such risk here! What I do is the most outrageous and anti-social activity on the Net. I ask you to think, and if you are asleep, then I have to wake you! Nearly five hundred years ago the most famous intellectual in the reign of Henry VIII and, perhaps, the greatest Englishman of all time, Thomas More, wrote in the most published and widely read book of its day, Utopia, that the common wealth of England was a conspiracy of rich men.


I have to draw attention that this monstrous conspiracy of rich men in the spotted and deeply stained velvet and ermine of the judiciary, executive and administration killed an English king at Bosworth Field, Richard III, and in the morning of the last day his enemies saw the dead man walking.


In this last century, a conspiracy of rich men killed an American ‘king’ in Dallas, JFK, and there is a conspiracy of rich men in many countries. Keep thinking! Thomas More also wrote, and mark it well! (p. 97):


'Yet for this cause you must not leave and forsake the common wealth; you must not forsake the ship in a tempest, because you cannot rule and keep down the winds...But you handle the matter wittily ['cleverly, intelligently, ingeniously', OED] and that which you cannot turn to good, so to order it that it be not very bad.'


My odd study is Education, Education, Education, (meaning what can be drawn out and not what we stuff in!) and if I can persuade just one child to study history in a scientific way, using new technology and the Internet to familiarize the new methods -- if I succeed in this, I succeed indeed. Two children would be better. Three, better still!



#17 "I do not see how you can say from the evidence in this painting that there has been a plan of deception."


This statement is based on a false premise and is incorrect. I am not saying there has been a plan of deception because of the evidence in Sir Thomas More and his Family. I have to draw attention to old and newly discovered documentation and other circumstantial evidence pointing to a highly successful game plan, played by professionals, from the fifteenth century onwards in England, which the evidence in the Nostell painting seems to confirm.



#18 "You have showed only one picture and I am convinced. Are there two?"


If I show you two pictures, will you be twice as convinced? If I show you three, will you be three times as convinced? Prepare yourself! There are at least 74 paintings and drawings discovered to date out of more than 150 works variously attributed to Hans Holbein the Younger containing personal and political information in a secret method of communication, not pure code and not purely scientific, developed from a simple idea first invented by Leonardo da Vinci. The criteria of the theory of the unconventional symbols (TOTUS) are linguistic equivalents, which make sense (they must make sense!), relevant to known history. Since the anomalies had not been seen and examined before now, which is simply astounding, the phenomenon is systematically examined for the first time.



#63 “You have claimed that the late Sir John Masterman, formerly vice-Chancellor of the University of Oxford and member of the wartime "XX Committee" (also known as the "Double-Cross" Committee) had virtually been running the normally wide-awake German Abwehr (Military Intelligence) for the last four and a half years of the war. Did he tell you this?”


Buy my book on the detective work and I’ll tell you! For the present, Masterman made certain boastful claims in The Double-Cross System in the War of 1939-1945 by J. C. Masterman, publ. YALE UNIVERSITY PRESS, NEW HAVEN AND LONDON, Second Printing, 1972, which MI5 overlooked and, in hindsight, he acknowledged as a ‘give-away’ and wished he had never made. For those interested in the secret history of the war of 1939-1945, these are the passages:

(1) ‘For the greater part of the war we did much more than practice a large-scale deception through double agents: by means of the double-agent system we actively ran and controlled the German espionage system in this country.’  (p. xiv, FOREWORD)

(2) ‘This book was written during the months of July-September 1945. At that time I had been participating in double-cross work for four and a half years.’ (p. xvii, PREFACE)

(3) ‘The Twenty Committee itself held its first meeting on 2 January 1941, and its last on 10 May 1945. It met every week and held in all 226 meetings. It thus exercised a steady and consistent supervision of all double agent work throughout the last four and a half years of the war.’ (p. 63)

(4) ‘Any layman, however, can appreciate the fact that, though we were in wireless communication with the German SS for more than five years and using German procedure, our wireless experts never, so far as we can tell, made a serious mistake which could “give away” a case to the enemy.’ (p. 67)






Reviewed 090900

Last Revision 010401


Click “Back”