So What Is Really Going On Behind the Nuclear Programs?

by Miles Mathis

First published February 10, 2017

As usual, this is just my opinion, protected as free speech.

This paper will be more speculative than others I have written. Hidden evidence often forces me to deduce or induce probable causes, but here I will have to induce more than usual. I get better at this induction as I get older, and that is because I have more data in my head to cross-reference. I have been studying a wide variety of questions for decades, and at some point all those questions start to come together. After several decades, patterns emerge in all the lies we have been told, and the tissue of lies starts to unravel. For me, it is now unraveling very fast.

As I often do, I will take you on the same journey I took. I was just researching various questions on the internet tonight when I decided to read the Wikipedia page for the town where I was born – Amarillo, Texas. I had previously found it odd that I grew up in Lubbock, where my childhood house happens to be at 33°33'N. I lived there about 14 years. But since I was born in Amarillo, I wanted to see what the latitude was there. It is about 35°N. Anyway, nothing too interesting in that, that I can intuit, but other things about Amarillo were interesting. One, it was a big center for helium production. Until today, I didn't know that. Two, Pantex is there, which is alleged to be a center for nuclear assembly and disassembly. Since uranium is a producer of helium, I thought that was curious. Uranium produces alpha radiation, and alpha particles are basically the same as helium. That would explain why Pantex is really there. I have shown that nuclear weapons aren't real, so there is no need to assemble them there or anywhere else. But something is going on at Pantex, since I have seen it. It isn't a deserted building.

[Addendum February 21, 2017: I thought to go to the Wikipedia page for Pantex today. I suggest you do so as well. Although the site is sold as the primary nuclear weapons assembly and disassembly site in the US, off-limits to non-workers and with a restricted airspace, we are nonetheless given this picture of it from the air:

Doesn't look too impressive, does it? About half the buildings look temporary, just covered in white plastic. The rest look like common warehouses. In fact, I can personally attest to the makeshift character of the place, since I have been on the grounds (despite not being a worker). My grandfather was a contractor in Amarillo, and in the 1970s – when I was about 12 or 14 – he took me to the site to show me the project he was working on. He was just putting up one of those simple warehouses, and only the supporting columns and the ceiling were up, so the place just looked like small hangar, half-built. There was basically nothing to see, and I remember the most interesting thing to me was that we had to put on hardhats. I had never worn a hardhat before. We certainly didn't have to go through security. My grandfather no doubt had a badge or sticker on his car, but that was the extent of it.

Another problem is that we are told 3,600 people work there. Problem with that is I only see about 150 cars in three small lots. Then we get this picture:

Bunkers at Pantex used for temporary staging of nuclear weapons.

Yes, that is the actual subtext. Note the word "staging".

You will tell me Pantex is small because they now have very little to do. Few new bombs are being produced and few old ones require disassembly. If so, why does it require a $600 million yearly budget? We are told Pantex was operated by Procter and Gamble up until 1956. What were they doing there, making shampoo? From 1956 to 2001 it was operated by Mason and Hanger. Wiki has no page for them, but it is not a military contractor either. It is a provider of architectural and engineering services. We saw from the photos above what level of architectural services they are capable of. Since 2001, Pantex has been operated by Babcock and Wilcox. That's a power generation company, specializing in boilers. That tends to confirm my first guess, and indicates local helium supplies may be being tapped in some way to produce energy. But given the make-up of Pantex, it couldn't be much. Although the place doesn't look like a nuclear facility, it doesn't look like a power plant either. It basically looks like another ridiculous money pit, where taxpayers can be billed $600 million a year for some plastic bubbles and empty warehouses.

More evidence for that is on the Wiki page for Babcock and Wilcox, where the company is listed with 5,700 employees. It is listed as having a headquarters plus 11 "major operations" outside of Amarillo (not including joint venture companies in Beijing and Pune). But since 3,600 employees are listed in Amarillo, the numbers don't add up. That leaves only 2,100 employees for the headquarters and 11 other major operations. So either the 11 other operations aren't really major, or Amarillo doesn't have 3,600 employees.

We have similar problems with LANL (Los Alamos), which is near where I live in Taos. Something is going on over there, since I know people who work there. So what is it? It has to be closely related to the story we are told, since workers can be diverted by the lie so easily. And we know there is nuclear waste being produced, since it causes real problems in northern New Mexico.

With that in mind, I returned to Wikipedia, where I studied the page for uranium. I have been there before for my science papers, but never with this question in mind. What jumped out at me this time was the fact that uranium is very electropositive. What is more, once it splits, it often splits into caesium, which is the most electropositive element. What does that mean? It means that these substances produce electrons very readily. It doesn't take much energy to free an electron, and that free electron can be used for power. In fact, it takes less energy to release it than it provides once free, which is the key here. It is like money from nothing.

Problem is, caesium is very rare. It occurs in small quantities in pollucite, but it costs more to extract than it is worth. I assume it was found it was much more cost-effective to get it from uranium. People think uranium is rare, but it isn't. It is more common than mercury or silver. Caesium exists at three parts per million in the crust, but uranium exists as high-grade ore at 200,000 ppm. That's as common as tin or zinc. Just from that, I would assume scientists have discovered some way to generate cheap power from caesium, via electron production, and the entire nuclear story is just a cover.

[Addendum February 14, 2017: A reader sent me confirming evidence of my guess above, published at a Canadian Government website. See p. 69, where we find that caesium is used for "space propulsion and energy conversion". We are told that to get caesium to release electrons, all you have to do is hit it with light. Also see link at the end of this paper for more confirmation.]

But if so, where is all that energy going? We have seen in previous papers it isn't going to bombs or even production of bombs. It also isn't going to production of electricity for mass use, since in the US they decided to shut down that industry. It now looks to me like they hoaxed the big events like Three Mile Island, to scare people off this kind of power. After early decisions to divert some of the new energy to the public, those decisions were apparently reversed. We can't know why, but I suggest either there was too little energy produced to be used both by the public and in secret, or the secret uses later ballooned, making energy sharing with the public unfeasible.

Before I tell you what I think the secret use is, let me pause to point out that we already have an answer for a previous mystery. That being, why has mass transport been stalled at the level of the 600 mph airplane since WWII? While all other tech has evolved very fast in the past 60 years, air travel hasn't advanced at all. Even the Concorde was mothballed. Commercial airliners look exactly the same as they did in the 1950s. I have never understood that. It makes no sense. Do cars looks and perform exactly like they did in 1950? No. But if the new technology was being denied to the public sector, it makes perfect sense.

I suggest to you that the Manhattan Project wasn't about producing bombs. We had no need of such bombs, since the wars were all managed anyway. They always have been. The project was much more likely about producing a new energy source, and then hiding that energy source behind a big fake story. And the bomb story was just a part of the misdirection. Remember, the alien story started at precisely the same time. Roswell was in 1947, which is not a coincidence.

Why not? Because they were using the new energy source to power a new form of transport. Occasionally, the public would see this transport, so we had to be told those were aliens flying around in those new ships. Not rich people, but aliens.

This explains why Roswell was on the front line for this story: it needed to be, because it was in New Mexico. People were seeing strange things in New Mexico, because LANL was there. So the story hit first where it needed to hit first.

But the new transport isn't esoteric in any way. It isn't back-engineered alien tech. It is just uranium/caesium tech, probably with some new magnetic tech stirred in. In fact, if it were really esoteric, it wouldn't have all the waste. In the next historical step, maybe they will figure that out. Maybe they will read my papers, look at their magnetic tech, and realize they can do the same thing without burning all this uranium. There are hundreds of sources of free energy available, and using electrons from caesium already looks like one of the worst of them.

This would explain why the superwealthy weren't sad to see the Concorde go: they didn't need it. It would also explain why you don't see the superwealthy even in first class. You just see businessmen. I would assume the billionaires and trillionaires are traveling silently at night using the new transports. It is how they get around so quickly and easily, with no jet lag.

It would also explain the Phoenix Lights. It is no coincidence that happened in Phoenix, since Phoenix is built on and around a huge military installation. The area is dotted with known and admitted bases, but those are just the ones above ground and on the map. There was either a technical glitch or someone got drunk and decided to joyride over the city, requiring this ridiculous press conference which you will remember:

That was 1997, and we have seen by that time they were just toying with us. They had decided the American public was too stupid to even bother with, and they just made up the propaganda on a shoestring the night before. Actually, they have since instructed the governor there to go public, seriously proposing it was aliens. But since he had already been part of this joke, which was not serious at all, his words don't mean much. Since he is ex-military, they mean even less. In fact, I take his story as a reverse cue: whatever he says, I assume the opposite.

Since the vehicle over Phoenix stalled for over two hours, my assumption is they had some electrical problem. They may have flown over a local area of charge nullification, caused either by military bases on the ground or by some natural phenomenon. They had to leave their lights on so that normal aircraft in the area wouldn't fly into them, causing more damage all round.

It is for this reason that I am no longer interested in MUFON or Disclosure or any of those projects. I was intrigued by MUFON and Dan Aykroyd for about two days back in the early '90s, before I sobered up. I hadn't figured out then what I have figured out since, but I felt something wasn't adding up there and turned off that channel. It was probably reminding myself that Aykroyd was an actor, paid to promote fiction. He is a pro, and they hire pros. As for Disclosure, I always smelled a rat. This guy just isn't convincing on any level:

Sorry Dr. Steven Greer, that is just how I feel. Greer's bio as posted on the web doesn't make any sense. We are told he completed his internship in 1988 and was granted his medical license in 1989. But by then he was 34, so we have a 6-year gap in his bio. Instead of starting a residency, he immediately founded CSETI in 1990 and the Disclosure Project in 1993. Since he has traveled and lectured extensively for both from the beginning, it would seem difficult to start and maintain a new medical career at the same time. We are told he was working as Chairman of the Department of Emergency Medicine at Caldwell Memorial Hospital in 1995, but that seems like a full-time job. Plus, if we go to their page, we don't find a Department of Emergency Medicine listed as one of their divisions. Also curious is Greer's claim to be a trained Transcendental Meditation teacher. That would link him to the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, one the biggest spooks and fakes on the planet. "Yogi" got a degree in physics and started out working in a gun factory in India. That should tell you enough to get started. Also curious is that the Yogi was promoted from Harvard, Yale, and Berkeley, just like Tim Leary and Ram Dass. He was also promoted out of Caxton Hall in London, where Aleister Crowley had been promoted back to 1910. It was used by the Ministry of Information during WWII. It was the site of the (probably faked) assassination of Michael O'Dwyer in 1940, by an alleged Indian terrorist. The Neo-Nazi National Front party was formed there in 1967. One of my UK readers has shown evidence it was a fake, just like the American Nazi Party. So Caxton Hall looks like an Intel front.

And what about this lady, another speaker at Disclosure?

Here is what we learn about Carol Rosin:

Dr. Carol Rosin was the first woman corporate manager of Fairchild Industries and was spokesperson for Wernher Von Braun in the last years of his life. She founded the Institute for Security and Cooperation in Outer Space in Washington DC and has testifed before Congress on many occasions about space-based weapons. Von Braun revealed to Dr. Rosin a plan to justify weapons in space based on hoaxing an extraterrestrial threat.

Hmmm. Hoaxing an extraterrestrial threat. Isn't that what she is doing with the Disclosure Project? You see what I mean when I say these people are bold. They tell you what they are doing as they do it.

And what is Fairchild Industries? You're going to love this, given my last paper. It is an aircraft and arms company started in 1930 by Sherman Mills Fairchild. His mother was a Sherman, and his father George Winthrop Fairchild founded IBM. Sherman Fairchild was the largest stockholder in IBM from 1924 until his death in 1971. His father's genealogy is scrubbed in the maternal lines, with a mother given as a Morenus, but nothing before that. But his paternal line yields ore a few lines back, when we find a Bennett. That links him to all my previous research. Also interesting to find George Fairchild friends and partners with Harlow Bundy, head of Bundy Manufacturing company. Bundy was originally a jeweler from New York, the brother of a Willard Bundy. They were in IBM from the ground floor as well. We may assume they are related to the famous Bundys of the CIA, William and McGeorge. McGeorge's great-grandfather was Solomon Bundy, New York congressman. If you look at the genealogies, I encourage you note that the Bundys in both families appear to be Jewish. As you go back, you find many Jewish given names, including of course Solomon. Also notice Carol's last name above: Carol Rosin. Also probably Jewish. Normally spelled Rosen.

Another founder of IBM was of course Charles Flint, which family was originally Chapman. I encourage you to think of Mark David Chapman of the Lennon project, since we are about to find another link to that. Chapman & Flint was a mercantile firm in New York in 1837. Flint formed US Rubber in 1892 and American Woolen in 1899, so he was another billionaire.

But I haven't even gotten to the most interesting facts here. Sherman Fairchild was involved with aerial photography from early on, and by WWII over 90% of aerial cameras were made by Fairchild. Why is that interesting? Well, we know the government's current obsession with spy tech. So we may assume they aren't just photographing the world from satellites: they are also probably photographing from their new lower-altitude vehicles. Which would explain where and how some of the GoogleEarth images are taken.

But even that isn't the most interesting fact here. Are you ready? In 1964, Fairchild Aircraft became Fairchild-Hiller, which in 1965 opened a division to produce spacecraft and subsystems. See my last paper on Hitler's genealogy, where I suggest his real name was Hiller. I not only suggest it, I show much evidence of it. You may think I wrote these papers in tandem on purpose, but I didn't. It was strictly an accident (unless the Muses are setting these things up for me). But if you think I shouted outloud when I discovered that, you would be right. I said OHO loud enough to scatter the cats. But don't get so lost in that that you forget to notice that Fairchild-Hiller was producing spacecraft. That sort of ties into my theme here, doesn't it? Do you think it is a coincidence that Carol Rosin was working for a company producing spacecraft, aerial cameras, and so on?

And what of Hiller Aircraft, which merged with Fairchild? It was founded by Stanley Hiller, Jr., who allegedly invented the world's first co-axial helicopter at age 15. Right. At age 17, he supposedly opened up a helicopter factory in downtown Berkeley, on Addison Street! Hiller joined with Henry J. Kaiser in 1945 to found Hiller Helicopters. Good old Kaiser again. He just keeps popping up in my papers every week. We first saw him a couple of months ago in my paper on Max Keiser. He was a billionaire involved in many defense contracts, so can work him in here without breaking stride.

How about this for a find: on the page for Hiller Helicopters, we discover that:

The company was renamed Hiller Helicopters in 1948. It was involved in the development of a number of prototype helicopters. From the early 1960s to 1969, its Palo Alto plant served as a CIA cover for the production of the CORONA reconnaissance satellites.

Is this easy or what?

As for Hiller, note his first name. Stanley. We have seen that before, haven't we? These first names are often recycled from surnames, as we have found. Remember John Lennon's mother, Julia Stanley, who I showed you was probably from the Liverpool Stanleys in the peerage. Remember Stanley Ann Dunham, Obama's mother, who I showed you was probably Ann Stanley Dunham, related to these same Stanleys. So let's go to Stanley Hiller's genealogy… which is not there. But we do find a Stanley Hiller who might be his father or other relation, who came over from Surrey. His paternal line is scrubbed, which is interesting. It is usually the maternal line that is scrubbed in our searches. But of course the paternal line would be scrubbed here, since it likely links him to Hitler. We have confirmation in his maternal line, since we find his mother was a Jones. You will say there are millions of Joneses, but they aren't all related to Lewises and Powells, are they? His grandmother was a Lewis and his great-grandmother was a Powell. This links us to the same families, originating in Wales. With more research, we find this memorial for Stanley van Winkle Hiller, who has about the same dates. He is listed as the father of our Stanley Hiller. We find his daughter married a Chadwick in London. That's useful, because there are recent Baronets Chadwick in the peerage, in Bidston, county Merseyside, formerly Cheshire. Just so you know, that is a suburb of Liverpool, which confirms my theories here and elsewhere. Remember that in my previous paper, we found Hitler's brother Alois living in Liverpool. Hitler's nephew William Stuart-Houston was born there. The Chadwick Baronetcy was created in 1924 for Robert Burton-Chadwick, shipping magnate of the firm Chadwick and Askew (later Chadwick and Weir). He was a member of the British Fascist Party. Wow. If that isn't wow enough for you, check out this:

The territorial designation refers to Bidston Hall, near Birkenhead, Cheshire. This is an early seventeenth century house associated with William Stanley, KG, sixth Earl of Derby, who died 1627.

Do you still think my pulling the Stanleys in here was a stretch? Well, it was a bold guess, but as usual it has paid off. And it continues to pay, since at thepeerage.com we find the Chadwicks related to the Stewarts. See Sir James Chadwick, who married the daughter of Hamilton Stewart-Brown. His grandmother was an Abbott. This may tell us where Hitler's nephew William Stuart-Houston got the name.

The second Baronet Chadwick's daughter Wendy married a Palmer, which also ties us to previous research and the same families. The Chadwicks are also related to the Spencers, with Caroline Chadwick marrying Frank Spencer-Nairn, whose grandfather was Alfred Rimington Spencer of Surrey. We saw Surrey above, linking us back to Stanley Hiller.

For a humorous break, we find Daniel Chadwick marrying Lady Georgia Byng, daughter of the Earl of Strafford. So if you wondered where Chandler Bing from Friends got his name, now you know. Friends was created and acted by Jews, and they reference their own, as we have seen. They know we Gentiles won't get it, but it is a way to wink at one another. Just so you know, I like Friends. I think it was very well written, and the propaganda levels are actually quite low compared to other shows. But facts are facts. Anyway, the first Earl of Strafford second creation was Field Marshal (5-star) John Byng, b. 1772. In the first creation, the earls were Wentworths, the first being Lord Chancellor of Ireland under Charles Stuart I.

We find Chadwicks of the peerage living in Anglesey. See T. S. Chadwick. The Chadwicks also married Booths. See James Chadwick, husband of Hannah Booth. The Chadwicks are also related to the Macartneys. Helen Mary Chadwick of the peerage married Edward Ellwood, whose mother was Evelyn Macartney. Her grandfather was Sir John Macartney, 3rd Baronet of Lish (Belfast). The Chadwicks were also related to the Austens, Mellons, Willoughbys, Yorkes, Wades, Fowlers, and Coopers.

So we have found the Chadwicks living in the old Stanley manor outside Liverpool. They then married with the Hillers, and we have a Stanley Hiller. We also have Chadwicks marrying Stewarts at about the same time. In those same years, Hitler's brother is in Liverpool, and his son changes his last name to Stuart-Houston. Later Hitlers then change their name to Hiller. If you think that is all just a coincidence, I don't know what to say. You may need to cut down your dosages.

To remind you of the older ties here, let's return to William Stanley, 6th Earl of Derby, mentioned in the last quote. He was the grandson of Henry VII. Stanley's mother Margaret was first in line to the throne in 1596, but died before Elizabeth I did, possibly avoiding civil war. The 1st Earl of Derby is the one who had put Henry VII on the throne, as we saw in my paper on him. Stanley was the richest and most powerful man in England, being a kingmaker.

The 6th Earl fits into this paper as into a glove, since he was the beneficiary of a famous faked life-story. Before the modern age, the biographies of William Stanley claimed he spent 21 years touring the globe, killing tigers, insulting Mohammad, being bailed out of jail by a Muslim noblewoman who wanted to marry him, whaling in Greenland, and so on. Compare this story to the story of Jack London still being told (and believed). But with Stanley, the story is old enough and far enough away from current propaganda that historians now admit it is all false. Stanley is known to have spent only a couple of years abroad, and there is no indication he traveled so far or did anything so interesting.

The Stanleys married into money even earlier, when John Stanley married Isabel Lathom in 1385. We are told John of Gaunt, another billionaire and part of the royal house, opposed the marriage, but aren't told why or why he was overruled. These Lathoms owned large parts of Lancashire – immediately making Stanley one of the wealthiest men in England – but what should interest you is that name. Do you remember who wrote the recent biography of Fitzgerald, entitled Crazy Sundays: F. Scott Fitzgerald in Hollywood? It was Aaron Latham of Spur, Texas. In a paper on Fitzgerald, one of my guest writers found that mystifying: that this guy from the tiny town of Spur, Texas, should be able to not only write a best-selling book on Fitzgerald as his PhD thesis, but that he should be able to get access to documents and to old stars who had known Fitzgerald. He also later married Leslie Stahl. I showed there that he was probably Jewish, but we are now seeing there may have been more to it than that. Apparently this name goes back to Lancashire in the 14th century, and links him to the highest levels of the peerage. The Stanleys built Lathom House in 1496, and it had eighteen towers.

The castle was so strong it was the last stronghold of the Royalists in the English Civil War.

Since Latham is from Spur, and Spur is just a few miles from Lubbock, we have completed the circle. We are back to my home town. If you don't understand how I started out researching my birth town of Amarillo and ended up a few pages later in Liverpool looking at Stanleys and Hitlers, you aren't alone. I had no intention of winding back around to my previous paper, but there it is. Once you start researching just about any modern mystery, all roads lead back to the same people.

Now for some bonus material. A reader sent me some old links to mainstream material, including this link to a HuffPost article from 2011. In it, Jewish writer Bernard Starr confirms some of my recent research on the royals. To start with, he admits Kate Middleton's mother's maiden name is Goldsmith, a Jewish name. He admits an Orthodox rabbi in Israel has stated Middleton is Jewish on both sides. He goes on to say this:

But wait, the plot thickens. Could Princess Diana, William's mother, have been Jewish? One source maintains that Princess Diana's mother, Frances Shand Kydd, was Jewish – born Frances Ruth Burke Roche, a Rothschild.

That's very similar to what I said in a recent comment in the paper on Ned Kelly, though I suggested the name Roche was a variation of Rockefeller, not Rothschild. So what is Starr's source there? Is it reputable? Of course not, which is why Starr linked to it. He was blackwashing his own research, because of course he doesn't want you buying this theory. We actually find several sources at that link, including Grace Powers, Tina Brown, and others. But what is most curious is that Grace Powers, the author of the linked article, never says or even suggests that Roche is a variation of Rothschild. It is Starr who tells us that himself. It seems that he is (accidentally?) giving us some extra information. Could all three names be linked? That would mean Rockefeller is a variation of Rothschild. But with a bit more thought, we see Starr is again blackwashing his own story. He is misdirecting us away from Rockefeller and toward Rothschild, since he knows the second answer is false and will be shown to be with further research. The link is more likely to be between Roche and Rockefeller, since of course it only requires dropping the ending and swapping a "k" for an "h". Plus, roche means rock.

Circling back, we can link the Rockefellers to the Disclosure Project, since Laurance Rockefeller has been pushing it for decades.

What about the rest of the linked article? Well, I haven't researched the larger theory myself, but I confirm a strong resemblance between Zac Goldsmith and Princess Diana. Powers isn't making it up based on some flawed ear biometrics. Anyone with eyes can see the similarity. But, remember, we must be witnessing some opposition control here, since why else would the Jewish Starr link to it? As usual, they are leading with a lot of truth before trying to spin us off. The article ends in the usual morass of pedophilia, porn, and drugs, which confirms what I just said. Powers gives us some good information and then derails the article, seemingly on purpose. She knows people don't want to read about the Queen abducting schoolchildren, so they will quit reading, dumping the good information with the bad.

For myself, I take it as more confirmation these folks are Jewish and know it. But I don't need Powers' slender and polluted research to tell me that. We have gone back to 1500 and before with many lines in many countries, finding much evidence wherever we looked.

[A reader prompted me that Zac Goldsmith is a good friend of Max Keiser, linking us back to my recent paper on him. They started a hedge fund together against Coca-Cola in 2004. This also pulls in Russell Brand – who I have warned you about before – since Brand famously dated Goldsmith's sister Jemima after she split from Imran Khan. She was probably just a beard, but the connection still exists. The name Khan also links us back to a previous paper on Kurt Cobain, since the name Larry Khan mysteriously exists on his suicide note. Any relation between Larry Khan and Imran Khan? Grist for future research. Imran Khan is said to be Pashtun, but he doesn't look Pashtun. His full name is given as Imran Khan Niazi. His maternal grandmother is scrubbed at Geni. His paternal line ends at his grandfather. My first guess would be they are both Kahns, related to Kuhn/Kohn/Cahn/Caan/Cohen. Which would mean we could drop the first "i" from Niazi. In support of that, we are told Imran Khan was born in Pakistan. He not only was born there, he played cricket for the national team and is now a member of their National Assembly (Congress). Do you know how many Jews live in Pakistan? Zero. As in Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia, they aren't allowed. But we are supposed to believe this famous Pakistani politician married a Jewish girl and the whole country didn't panic? And do you believe this Jemima Goldsmith converted to Islam, and the entire country of Israel didn't revolt? Her father is Sir James Goldsmith, formerly Goldschmidt, of the famous Jewish banking family. I will be told her mother is a Stewart, making her English, but not so fast. When we ask what Jemima converted to Islam from, we are told she was "technically Anglican, but was made familiar with Jewish traditions". Really? That doesn't sound too convincing, does it? If her father wasn't practicing and her mother wasn't Jewish at all, why would she be made familiar with Jewish traditions? We have found that the Stewarts, like many lines in the peerage, were captured by Jewish marriage centuries ago. Don't believe me? Look up Jon Stewart of The Daily Show, admitted to be Jewish. You will say his real name is Leibowitz, but his middle name is Stuart, so he only changed the spelling. His pages at Geni are run by Erica "the Disconnectrix" Howton. But we don't have to use him to prove anything. We can go straight to Jemima's maternal grandfather, Edward Vane-Tempest-Stewart, 8th Marquess of Londonderry. His wife was Edith Chaplin, daughter of the first Viscount Chaplin. (This is most likely where Charlie Chaplin came from, although I won't have time to hit it here. Note that Charlie Chaplin's middle name is Spencer. These Chaplins we are looking at here were related to the Spencer-Churchills, Dukes of Marlborough.) Anyway, Edward's sister married Oliver Stanley, son of… yes… the Earl of Derby. Oliver's mother was Lady Alice, daughter of the Duke of Manchester. Edward's grandfather Charles, 6th Marquess, was the 1st cousin of Lord Randolph Churchill (father of Winston Spencer-Churchill). Charles was the son of Mary Edwards. She was the daughter of the 1st Baronet Edwards and the granddaughter of Richard Owen. This is where much of the money of the family came from in the 19th century, since it included the Van lead mines and the Peniarth Estate in Powys, Wales. This Richard Owen was the father of the famous biologist, but he himself was probably a billionaire merchant, being part of the British East India Company. I say probably because his whole bio has been scrubbed. Although berkeley.edu tells us he was not wealthy, Wiki admits he was a West India Merchant. We know berkeley.edu is lying, since Wiki just told us the Edwards' money came from marrying into the Owen family. Remember the Van lead mines, about four sentences back? Wiki has a page for that mine, telling us it was the most productive lead mine in Europe. And the biologist Owen's bio makes no sense in other ways, since we are supposed to believe that although he was one of six children of a "not wealthy" person who died when he was five, he was nonetheless educated at the Lancaster Royal Grammar School. Note the first two words there, which tell us all we need to know. The school was founded in 1235. A clue is given us by Owen's mother, who is listed as Catherine Parrin. I suggest that is a fudge of Catherine Parr. Does that ring a bell? She was one of the wives of Henry VIII, indicating Owen's wife may have been of that line. At any rate, this proves we are looking at the wealthy Owens of Wales that we have studied before. See my paper on Engels and Owen. Which proves that Jemima Goldsmith descends from these Owens on her mother's side, which indicates these lines are partly Jewish. Since the influence comes into the family on the maternal lines, it tells us why Goldsmith married Stewart in the 20th century.]

In closing, I have a final tidbit for my science readers who may be here with us. Along with most people, I hadn't understood until today how prevalent uranium is in the Earth's crust. Discovering that made me suspicious once more, because it doesn't make any sense, given the current theory of element production. Elements are said to be produced by fusion in stars. But most stars don't fuse past element number 2, helium. None fuse past iron. Since uranium is element number 92, it could only be produced by the very largest stars in collapse. It would spread out across the galaxy when they went supernova. But given how diffuse the galaxy is, you wouldn't expect planets to contain so much uranium. I will be told that the galaxy is very old, so we have uranium left over from eons of big stars going nova. Yes, but the half-life of uranium is about 4.5 billion years, which is about half the lifespan of a star like the Sun. So while the Sun is alive, ¾ of the existing uranium will break down. So you see, uranium doesn't persist to be recycled through several star-cycles. We can't get that sort of buildup over time. Plus, since the Earth is said to be exactly that old, it would have originally had twice as much uranium as now, doubling our problem.

This indicates to me that larger elements like uranium may be created continuously in the galactic core, being ejected in large quantities into the galaxy from its center. Either that, or celestial bodies – even small ones like the Earth – must have some way of attracting uranium. Since I have shown that all celestial bodies recycle the charge field, it may be that large elements are channeled very strongly to celestial bodies on the ambient charge field, being deposited constantly as the charge moves through the bodies from their poles.

[Addendum February 14, 2017: A reader has sent in some corroborating research on this, which you can see here. It also includes further brief commentary by me.]

www.mileswmathis.com/caes.pdf