Maddie - The $30 Trillion Tot

[Guest David Guyatt]

F22

oil derrick

MADDIE - THE $30 TRILLION TOT

U-boat

Island

A CHAPMAN PRODUCTION COMING SOON TO A GENERAL DISCUSSION THREAD NEAR YOU

[Guest David Guyatt]

David, My good man....you should have worked for one of those horrid PR firms....

Do you want to elaborate or must we google away and hunt...is this a treasure hunt? What is the first prize? I could really use a trillion or two...I'd settle for a few thousand, actually.

Peter, I'm posting on behalf of Michael Chapman who is under permanent moderation, as suggested n the strap-line to the thread caption.

The rest will be posted daily in installments, if I know Chappers. Yum. Can't wait.

David

PS, I came into a windfall today. Happy to share 50/50 with you, if you'd care to absorb half the duck-egg sized bruise.

Otherwise, it remans a case of robbing what I can from the Church mouse. Such a greedy little bugger. It wants crumbs everyday, not just the day's pickings come late Sunday evening.

[John Geraghty]

Deciphering Michael's code is a extremely annoying thing to do, but I'll give it a go.

The story of Madeleine has increased tabloid sales by a whopping figure worldwide. Close?

The story of the McCann abduction is being turned into a documentary, which is true. Close?

Is it a mix of the two, that Madeleine's abduction has become a media niche in itself, selling papers, books, dvds and the likes.

[Dave Greer]

<snip>

A CHAPMAN PRODUCTION COMING SOON TO A GENERAL DISCUSSION THREAD NEAR YOU

Ooh, I like a good puzzle.

Plane? Symbol of war?

Dare I go for the obvious and say oil?

Not sure about the Maddie reference, but Iraq is sitting on a fortune of oil reserves... $30 trillion to be precise.

Sub. Beneath the waves. Below. Under.

Land?

Putting it all together...

The war is to do with $30 trillion of oil under the land?

Which all makes perfect sense except for one thing - I can't figure out how Maddie fits in, so I may be well off course!

[Guest David Guyatt]

I enjoy a good whodunnit too, Dave. This one looks as though it might turn out to be a cracker.

[Guest David Guyatt]

Maddie - The $30 Trillion Tot

Introduction

‘You should be hung drawn and quartered for posting bullxxxx like this you utter clot. Or is the above intended as an ironic post, cursed as you are with that notorious monicker?’

This ironic rebuke hurled by me at another forum member (a direct descendent, no doubt, of ‘The Hanging Judge’) were the last words that I, Michael Chapman, posted to this board DIRECTLY. Since then I have been placed on permanent moderation.

For those of you who are unaware, the ‘utter clot’ had suggested, on the flimsiest of evidence, that there were certain parallels between the murder of Jon Benet Ramsey and the disappearance of Madeleine McCann; the inference being that Madeleine’s disappearance was a result of either parental negligence or design.

Over the course of the next few weeks not only will I show that the deduction of the ‘ utter clot’ are nothing more than a contemptible libel I will also lay before you clear, unambiguous evidence that Kate and Gerry McCann have been betrayed at every turn by individuals and organisations from whom they have sought assistance and are the victims of a vast international conspiracy carefully orchestrated by the intelligence services of the UK, USA, Portugal and Spain.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank David Guyatt, both for offering his services as ‘forum interlocutor’ as well as for casting a critical eye over my initial findings which spurred me on to unearth the hard evidence for conspiracy.

Finally, a word to the ‘utter clot.’ I hope that when you are fully apprised of the facts surrounding Madeleine McCann’s disappearance you will do the honourable thing and inform the relevant moderator that your ill considered comments constituted a gross provocation and that I, Michael Chapman, a humble timeliner of this parish, should have restored unto him the rights and privileges of forum membership.

[Guest David Guyatt]

Foreword (the kind that can follow an Introduction but not a Preface and not normally seen before or after a Prologue I think)

Not many takers for this thread is there (like most topics on which I have posted: does BO waft through the ether?). Now I wonder...if the events that took place at Apartment 5a in Praia da Luz on May 3rd last had occurred in, say, Kennebunkport, how much more interest might Madeleine McCann's disappearance have aroused on both this and similar forums? How many more timeliners might have been persuaded to see Madeleine's disappearance as the result of a corporate/state conspiracy rather than a local crime?

The prevailing common sense view(s) of Madeleine's disappearance is that she was probably abducted by a paedophile or was procured for a paedophile ring and that the subsequent investigation has been hampered by police incompetence, legal technicalities and dubious witnesses (principally Madeleine's parents and their associates). All this, of course, is what the thinking person is meant to conclude.

And thinking people are bounced into believing this version of events because mainstream media insists that there is only one other realistic scenario: that Madeleine McCann was killed by her parents. This disturbing counterpoint (accepted, unfortunately by far too many high minded types) only makes the truly sagacious follow the principal theme even more attentively - to the point that they are all but deaf to the arhythmic cacophonous shrieks that drown it out. It doesn't seem to occur to them that there might be another tune with more predictable intervals to which they can hum along.

So, in keeping with the finest traditions of old Byzantium, The Madeleine McCann 'Mystery' has a great red herring at its centre (that slippery oily fish that sharpens the faltering mind to the literal 'how' rather than the sub textual 'why'). And on the narrative's periphery, the patsies wander fearfully, enveloped as they are in the gathering gloom of self incrimination. The hallmarks of conspiracy are engraved all over this episode but are virtually invisible to the naked eye of the conspiracy connoisseur because Madeleine's disappearance is more often than not examined in vacuo or analysed within a narrow and misleading context (Portugal's recent history of state sanctioned child abuse).

But the hallmarks of conspiracy did (eventually) become clear to this forum's ego-in-residence. Why? Because he put in the hours, he had a hunch and he managed to get what all timeliners need - a lucky break (his whole case rests on a single Wiki entry carelessly/deliberately left online by the Portuguese Ministry of Information).

His searches took him to some pretty exotic locations: archives of a 'forgotten' (ie still largely classified) operation of WWII (which, our lucky timeliner is pleased to say, cast a long shadow over a much vaunted theory on this forum about the 'true' conduct of a certain war time leader); a deeply tedious USAF journal for a unit stationed in the middle of nowhere; gossip sheets for ex pats exiled in the Algarve; projected visitor stats for the Portuguese Ministry of Tourism.

But all of this is putting the cart before the horse - none of it explains why there were grounds to suspect that a lot more than basic criminality lay behind Madeleine McCann's disappearance. The giveaway here was the nature of the media coverage - it had little in common with other child abduction cases. But the way in which it continually manufactured theories without any supporting evidence, recycled events and represented them as breaking news and collectively developed that eerie myopia about standard operational procedures in criminal investigations was very reminiscent of the Litvinenko and Woolmer cases.

So that's your foreword folks. Next time out we'll be on the trail of the plotters. But as I've already hinted - it starts in the middle of nowhere.

Toodeloo!

Chappers

[Guest Gary Loughran]

Michael I hope this one has a good ending. Really I do.

There are those of still awaiting resolution to such things as the Woolmer case, Litvinenko and especially a full rebuttal of John's Hess/Churchill story.

Could you indicate if any of this will be forthcoming...ever?

I appreciate your understanding.

Thanks

Gary

[Dave Greer]

Wow - the white rabbit has bolted for the hole!

I look forward to further installments with eager anticipation. I love a genuine "whodunnit". Sounds like you're gunning for the "whydunnit" approach as well.

Keep us posted!

[Guest David Guyatt]

Part 1 of 4 (this post has been split into 4 parts to accomodate the associated images that cannot be posted in one shot -- due to board restrictions -- David)

Chapter One

The Black Pit

Over 40,000 British and American merchant seamen (over 30,000 British) lost their lives in WWII. This chart shows the most lethal waters for the merchant services:

This one shows the deadliest year for allied merchant shipping losses;

and this one the principal existential threat to the merchant fleets;

Edited February 9, 2008 by David Guyatt

[Guest David Guyatt]

Part 2 of 24

In 1942 over 5.4 million tons of allied shipping was lost in to the 'Wolf Packs' marauding the North Atlantic and the greatest number of 'kills' occurred approximately within co ordinates 45'-60'N & 15'-30'W - an area roughly the size of the Sudan to the south of Iceland;

this hazardous stretch of ocean, supposedly out of range of fighter, bomber and reconnaissance aircraft is now referred to in war lore as 'The Black Pit.' The terrible losses inflicted on the allied convoys carrying food and munitions were to cause Churchill to remark in his dubious but bitterly ironic memoir 'The Second World War (read the SUBTEXT oh ye of literal minds!)':

"The only thing that ever really frightened me during the war was the U-Boat peril."

Before war broke out, Churchill had railed against Chamberlain's government for restoring to Eire the naval bases at Berehavan (Bantry bay) Cobh (formerly Queenstown in County Cork) and Lough Swilly in County Donegal (all as part of the Anglo Irish Trade Agreement signed on the 25.4.38). The radius of action of British destroyers ranging westward to hunt U-boats was thus reduced by about 400 miles. But it wasn't just Churchill who was taken aback by the seeming generosity of the British pre war administration as he observed in 'The Second World War':

'... Mr de Valera announced in the Dail that no conditions of any kind were attached to the cession. I was later assured that Mr de Valera was surprised at the readiness with which the British government had deferred to his request.'

Edited February 9, 2008 by David Guyatt

[Guest David Guyatt]

Part 3 of 4

But it wasn't only the operational range of the Royal Navy being reduced by the denial of refuelling facilities at the 'Treaty Ports' that was bothering Churchill as this memo dated the 6.9.39 to the Director of Naval Intelligence shows:

'What is the position on the West coast of Ireland? Are there any signs of succouring U-boats in Irish creeks or inlets? It would seem money should be spent to secure a trustworthy body of Irish agents to keep most vigilant watch. Has this been done? Please report.'

The answer to the above is not known. 'Pug' fired out another missive on the 24.9.39 to the First Sea Lord and the Deputy Chief of Naval Staff and raised the matter again:

'... there seems to be a good deal of evidence or at any rate suspicion (poster's comment - note the back tracking), that the U-boats are being succoured from West of Ireland ports by the malignant section with whom de Valera dare not interfere (poster's comment - Churchill is referring to the IRA). And we are debarred from using Berehaven etc. If the U-boat campaign became more dangerous we should coerce Southern Ireland (sic) both about coast watching and the use of Berehaven.'

These decrypts, declasssified with unusual haste surfaced in 1961 in Gerhard Stalling Verlag's 'Geheimauftrag Irland in' (translated into English by Enno Stephan and published by Macdonald & Co as 'Spies in Ireland'). For many years after the war the prevailing view was that Ireland's neutrality had led directly to allied merchant losses in the Atlantic. In my own exalted opinion, with specific regard to convoy losses, Irish neutrality, at worst, had only a marginal impact at a time when the U-boat threat had yet to fully materialise.

Part 2 of 2

As we have already seen, 1942 was the nightmare year in the North Atlantic for the convoys. For Doenitz and his wolf packs though it was 'Happy Time.' With a fleet of 393 boats and up to 240 of them deployed in the North Atlantic at any one time, the ocean should have become a no-go zone for merchant men but go they invariably did to Davey Jones' Locker (June was the bleakest month when nearly 850,000 tons were lost).

And, after a relatively quiet end to '42, and a relatively quiet start to '43, the prospects for the rest of the year began to dim with 627,000 tons lost in March. But then the tide started to turn. The critical month was May when only 34 merchant vessels were lost (180,000 tons) but 43 U-boats sunk (seven alone in the notorious encounter with convoy ONS 5). On the 24th, Doenitz ordered his wolf packs out of the North Atlantic. Although the 'Lether Group' equipped with anti radar equipment re-entered the theatre in September it, too, was forced to pull out. The four year year boat campaign was effectively at an end (Q4 '43 losses amounted to 146,000 tons - a 90% reduction on the previous year).

Many different reasons have been submitted for this sudden change in fortune. FDR's decision to over rule his 'idiosyncratic' Fleet Admiral, Ernest J. King, and deploy 250 aircraft in the Atlantic theatre and create the Tenth Fleet had a significant impact. King was a particular 'friend' of all allied merchant men as the American merchant navy website is keen to point out:

'For inexplicable reasons, the U.S. did not arm the ships, nor provide escorts or air cover, nor organize convoys along the Atlantic or Gulf Coasts or in the Caribbean. Fleet Admiral Ernest J. King was responsible for this inaction. The U.S. Government did not order a blackout of seacoast cities until June 1942, leaving ships silhouetted against the shoreline. Allied ships were "sitting ducks" for the well-armed U-Boats lurking in U.S. coastal waters. U.S. beaches soon became littered with bodies and burned-out ships.'

The site doesn't say, though, whether the decision to deploy ALL 112 long range aircraft in the Pacific that could have patrolled the ENTIRE Atlantic Ocean, west to east, was 'Ernie's' alone.

[Guest David Guyatt]

Part 4 of 4

As well as FDR'S planes and ships, British escort ships released from North Africa, ASDIC (latest underwater radar) and advances in depth charge technology all contributed to obviating the U-boat scourge. And then, of course, there's the enigma that is Enigma. The fashionable, convenient, retrospective explanation for everything.

Well, certainly the timing(s) of Enigma machine captures appear auspicious (the British seizure of U-110 south of Iceland in May 1941 with an Enigma machine and Hydra cipher and U-559 in the Mediterranean with a short weather Enigma cipher book in Oct. 1942 that allowed the British to break the new German Triton cipher). But it is doubtful whether the sudden and massive input of resources into the North Atlantic (that had been demanded at the highest levels and mysteriously denied for virtually the entire campaign - maybe one day I'll be allowed to tell you my 'Grand Theory of Everything!') had anything to do with the crypto geeks in Bletchley.

And the injection of resources, whilst they go a considerable way to accounting for the turn around in the Allies' fortunes in the North Atlantic, do not explain fully how the wolf packs could hunt at the limits of their range for prolonged periods. The explanation of this seemingly miraculous feat of submarinership was one of the war's best kept secrets (and not so much a German secret as an Allied one - as was the remedy).

And, by a cruel irony, sixty four years later a British toddler's disappearance from a Portuguese holiday resort has the same sinister explanation.

To be continued...

Chappers

Edited February 9, 2008 by David Guyatt

[Guest Gary Loughran]

Very very interesting. This will be finished won't it - is this also a case of cannibalism?

Are the graphs your own, and would you be so kind as to direct me to your source for tonnages lost, ships built during this period. If all your own work it is nearly as impressive as your ability to heighten suspense

Dev wasn't Irish though Michael, was he? He seemed to spend inordinate time in New York when more important things were occurring in his 'own' land.

Without being certain, I would be surprised if Churchill actually believed the IRA were a maligant force that Dev wouldn't tackle. Unless of course this was more over egging of the potential ability of the IRA. Though in the 30's this was nothing more than a few catapults and at least one bow and arrow. Then again, there is the tale of exchanges weapons for landing spots with the German's. I'll admit though to have no thorough knowledge of this.

[Guest David Guyatt]

Gary, You might want to step over to the following for the charts: http://www.usmm.org/ww2.html

I do intend to deal with ALL matters arising out of this topic but I don't want to be distracted from the prinicpal narrative at this point because it might go the way of Litvinenko and Woolmer.

Chappers