The myth about the origins of the name 'Radio Caroline' did not begin until after March 1965, but the myth about the origins of the money to fund 'Radio Caroline' did not begin until ​​1990!

It was in 1990 when Ian Cowper Ross wrote his novel and that is when he recited a tale about driving to Hindhead to see his father who made it possible for Ronan O'Rahilly to get a suitcase full of cash. Then, like sheep in a pen, a flock of anoraks streamed in with vanity publications to republish what Ross had claimed as fiction, is fact.

So come on anoraks, when can you PROVE that the name 'Caroline' was first painted on the ship formally known as 'Fredericia'? By when, we mean MONTH and YEAR. Give us a date supported by proof from an independent source that first published this information.

The explanation why this name was chosen gave rise to a hoax that began in New York during 1965, and the reason was two-fold: One was to obscure the original reason for this name that had absolutely nothing to do with Ronan O'Rahilly, and the second reason was that after October 15, 1964, the original plans for 'Radio Caroline' had collapsed and its original participants were running for cover under an alternative explanation.

Anoraks, give us an alternative story to the 1990 fiction spun by Ross. Surely with all of the books you have published you must be able to explain by now where the money came from - without quoting Ian Cowper Ross. The one clipping so far cited naming John Sheffield and 'Jimmy Ross' won't do. It does not explain anything.

Ian Cowper Ross does in his 1990 novel.

He says that Ronan O'Rahilly had some papers given to him by Crawford which he showed to his father and yet, there is absolutely no mention of Ian's father having anything to do with this venture. The name of Ian's father was not 'Jimmy' but Charles, and Charles Edward Ross had a long career as a director of a dry-cleaning business.

Furthermore, his step-brother was successful in running a show biz career with a partner, and they also ran a restaurant and a car wash business on King's Road. Ian was a wastrel according to his own account and Ian says that his real father had no respect for the life Ian was leading!

So tell us all, when did the name 'Caroline' originally get painted on the ship once known as 'Fredericia'? Show us the proof that will stand up in court as evidence. It has to be something that existed when 'Radio Caroline' left Greenore for the Essex coast in March 1964. Then tell us all about the money to fund 'Radio Caroline', and that too must be information that existed prior to the purchase of the ship once known as mv 'Fredericia'.

It is time for anorak vanity self-publishers like Ray Clark, Paul Rusling and all the rest to put their cards on the table, if they have any, and we say that they do not!

The reason for this challenge is because we will be soon revealing to everyone what the real story is behind the mythology of 'Radio Caroline'.

We are almost at the point where we can begin to reveal what we now know, and what the so-called radio anoraks have never, ever known. We do not mean some anoraks, but all anoraks. This means all of their vanity-driven, self-publishing ventures, and their extremely cultish and anti-learning followers who delight in trying to prevent the real story about the creation of 'Radio Caroline' from ever being told, by anyone, anywhere, at anytime.

The misinformation spread by these trolls has seeped into the Internet like leaking water coming in from a hole in a roof. The damage caused by leaking water can result in harmful mould and destruction of life itself. But trying to find the ultimate source of the intruding and unwelcome water, often involves a very lengthy operation of detection.

In this instance we have not only been trying to document the true story, but attempting to stop the trickling tributaries of harmful misinformation that the anoraks have promoted and which mainstream media has then referenced. But without knowing the true story, it has been impossible to negate the falsehoods promoted for vanity self-promotion by anoraks such as Paul Rusling who stole our research for his totally bogus account about the origins of 'Radio Caroline'.

Now, all of that is about to end.

Please reference the Pebble Theatre link above for more information about our future plans.

Please use the link above.

We have spent a considerable amount of time exposing stories that are untrue, but which others have also spent a considerable amount of time in passing them off as being true. For a number of reasons, which we will explain, vested interests keep on creating and distributing deliberate lies for the general public to believe and then to act upon. Our work consists of attempting to expose those lies, and then present the real story.

Individually these stories may seem to be harmless enough on the surface, even when they are exposed as being totally untrue. But when these same fake stories are viewed as part of a collective campaign, then it is time to ask: Who benefits from the creation of scenarios that are based upon false narratives?

For one answer we only have to go back to World War II and the doyen of authorized lies and deception: Sir Winston Churchill. It is claimed in hindsight that he lied for the good of everyone in order to destroy political and military enemies. But the question is: Did Winston Churchill ever turn off the political machine that funded and created those geopolitical lies?

The answer is no, he did not. His legacy of lies was smothered under classification of a series of laws known collectively as the 'Official Secrets Act'.

In the instance of Winston Churchill, as it relates to our investigations, his key machine of deception was broadcasting. Overtly this machine was headed since its beginnings by a man called John Reith; but in under Winston Churchill its covert aspect was headed by a man named Sefton Delmer.

Under Churchill, what the public saw and heard was an entity called the British Broadcasting Corporation, but what the public did not see and hear was an octopus which reached out in many directions under many different names. The latter operation was under the direction of Sefton Delmer.

Churchill did not restrict himself to a world of lies and deception, he also engaged in warfare on a similar two-tier level: the self-identified Armed Forces, and unidentified terrorists who did not respect any of the treaties surrounding warfare. Churchill also created imitators who picked-up where he left off.

Churchill's deception methodology and his authorized terroristic activities emerged after World War II with the creation of the United States Central Intelligence Agency. The CIA owes its psychological warfare roots to Winston Churchill, but they also owe their 'inspiration' for terrorist warfare to which they publicly deny all knowledge and association.

But for icing on the cake, the supporters of Winston Churchill also made use of "perception management" to create a fake image of Winston Churchill.

You ask: can we prove these accusations?

Yes, we can and yes, we will continue to do so - because that is what our main objective has always been. We just follow the lies, and we keep peering behind them to see not only what, but who is behind them, and who benefits from these lies when the public at large becomes the victim of these confidence tricksters.

There is more about this subject to follow.

In the meantime, please review the latest contents on our 'Pebble Theatre' blog by using the link on the masthead above this editorial.

As part of our ongoing research project we continue to investigate all avenues and sources that become available. One such source will eventually disappear, due to the time-based structure of its Internet hosting site.

That source contains a very interesting note about the character of Ronan O'Rahilly, and so we made a note of its message, in order to examine it further in this editorial. This character analysis of Ronan O'Rahilly was posted by a person calling himself 'Peter Moore', but who really a human being named Malcolm Smith.

Smith has a lot of self-interest to protect from a widely held belief that Ronan O'Rahilly once created an entity called 'Radio Caroline' which over the years has re-emerged in different forms under different circumstances. The latest incarnation involves a project under the financial control of Malcolm Smith.

Although Ronan O'Rahilly is now deceased, his erstwhile supporters continue to fund the 'Radio Caroline' project under the control of Malcolm Smith, which has no relationship whatsoever to the entity that once existed in 1964 under that name which began with an Australian named Allan James Crawford. In 1964, Crawford stated on film that he first met Ronan O'Rahilly sometime at the beginning of 1963, and this statement made in a Grenada TV production, helps to establish a true timeline of the events that both preceded it, and which then followed.

In another Grenada TV program at a later date, Ronan O'Rahilly admitted on camera that he arrived in London, England from the Republic of Ireland, at some time during the year 1961, and in that program he told the audience that his goal in life was to become a film producer. For many years both on film and on paper documents, Ronan O'Rahilly remained consistent in naming his career choice. He did indeed produce a handful of films which did not receive a financially rewarding reception, or the blessings of film critics.

However, as time moved away from the original era of 'Radio Caroline', Ronan O'Rahilly did tell another TV film crew that he was a "marine broadcaster". But that was after the cloak of legal protection for British offshore broadcasting stations had been lifted; the majority of offshore stations had closed down, and the original 'Radio Caroline' stations spluttered into a financial black hole of debt after investors disappeared.

The original ship called 'Caroline' was sent to the breaker's yard and its second ship called 'Mi Amigo' was abandoned in Holland by the Texas owners. This is when Ronan O'Rahilly tried to huff and puff his way into newspaper headlines by announcing new projects using the name of 'Caroline'.

He was unsuccessful.

When Ronan O'Rahilly met Allan Crawford for the first time in early 1963, Crawford had been trying to put together an offshore broadcasting venture to promote his own record labels. Crawford was not alone in attempting to create a British-based offshore radio station.

Prior to Crawford, a British journalist named John Thompson who had lived in Canada, returned to England where he took up residence at Slough after making noises in various publications about starting an offshore radio station. Thompson lacked the finances to make this happen, so he teamed-up with another local Slough resident and they registered a company under the name of Voice of Slough Ltd.

Because of Thompson's Canadian experiences on radio, he had become aware of the activities of Herbert W. Armstrong who had morphed a religious church service program from very local and humble beginnings in 1934 Oregon, into a Hollywood re-styled monologue called 'The World Tomorrow', named after the eponymous  1939 'World Fair'. This program was a mixture of religion and geopolitical commentary and Amstrong's media buyers bought time for airing this broadcast on Canadian stations.

Armstrong had relocated from Eugene, Oregon to Pasadena, California, which is located on the doorstep of Hollywood in the shadow of greater Los Angeles. Half-way between Los Angeles and San Francisco, Randolph Hearst had built his own headquarters for a publishing and broadcasting empire that Orson Welles mimicked with his movie 'Citizen Kane'.

From the turn of the Twentieth Century, Hearst had also established his own business interests in London, England, and that is where he engaged in both a commercial and geopolitical rivalry with Alfred Charles William Harmsworth, 1st Viscount (Lord) Northcliffe. This Lord had his own publishing empire which included titles such as the 'Daily Mail' and the 'Daily Mirror'. Hearst then tried to create his own version of the 'Daily Mirror' in California, but without success.

Politically both men were on opposite sides of geopolitical divide, in which Hearst viewed Britain as America's natural enemy and Germany as its natural friend. When the Twentieth Century dawned, not only had the British Empire been forced by war to surrender its North American colonies, but during the War of 1812, British mercenaries had invaded the USA and set fire to the White House. In the aftermath of the Great War (WWI), military plans were drawn-up in both London and Washington, DC for another war against each other.

At that time the issue was the Navy in both Britain and America, where the Royal Navy was dominant. It was from this military source that radio broadcasting first emerged, and the creation of the General Electric Company of America which gobbled-up the American Marconi Company to create its subsidiary Radio Corporation of America, was only one part of this intense financial and political and near military 'battle'.

It was Hearst who spotted the potential of Billy Graham as a geopolitical mouthpiece, and it was Hearst who groomed him to become a Christian version of the drunk U.S. Senator Joseph McCarthy who was castigated in the United Kingdom for his anti-Communism, while Billy Graham was embraced for claiming that 'Communism was Satanism'. In time even Queen Elizabeth II welcomed Baptist minister Billy Graham to preach to her at religious services held at Balmoral in Scotland.

While all that was going on, Herbert W. Armstrong who had been originally ordained by a different denomination to Billy Graham and then split to form his own brand of religious belief, had begun broadcasting over the original Radio Luxembourg long wave station, before moving to their new and subsequently famous '208' wavelength. But the most time that Armstrong could buy was two nights a week before midnight.

Nevertheless Armstrong's audience grew in Britain, and so he went to the same London advertising agency which had promoted Billy Graham. It was run by two brothers. One managed the Graham account and the other one managed the Armstrong account.

At the time Armstrong was renting a small office in London and as his audience grew, he needed to expand. In Pasadena, California he had opened a liberal arts college, and so he decided to open a second campus in Hertfordshire. The site selected was the former estate of Sir David Yule which had been occupied by his daughter whose interests included a partnership with J. Arthur Rank, and it was the two of them who then built Pinewood Film Studios.

Sir David Yule was buried on the grounds of his estate between Watford and St. Albans, and his tomb reflected images of his days in British India where he was a member of the British East India Company. His interests included exporting jute and publishing newspapers which had connections to those of Northcliffe and his publications.

This is when, at the end of the Fifties, a number of interested parties all converged and ultimately gave birth to 'Radio Caroline'. Ronan O'Rahilly was a mere speck of dust down at the bottom of one leg of this totem pole. In other words he was a young kid who was hired to mouth words written for him to utter. That was it. He was a nothing, a nobody in the scheme of things to come. O'Rahilly's job was to bang a symbolic drum telling the media to look at him and away from the real story. Malcolm Smith has confirmed that Ronan O'Rahilly never amounted to anything in his entire life. He feasted off the droppings from the tables of other people.

Meanwhile, John Thompson with his Voice of Slough Limited company made contact with Armstrong's London advertising agency and managed to get a tentative contract to place the 'World Tomorrow' on his own station which he called the 'Voice of Slough'. This contract was based upon hype and bluff, because Thompson did not have the means to fulfill it. Initially he produced a picture of a small vessel then birthed in Scotland, and he claimed that it was big enough to house a transmitter and broadcast recorded programs that he would make in his own studio. A picture of that studio was also produced.

However, Thompson could not pull off his luck and turn it into cash, and so he became desperate. At that moment a former vacuum cleaner con-man showed up in England. He had convinced a shipping heiress from Vancouver, Canada to leave her husband and children and marry him. His name is Arnold Swanson.

Swanson then started bobbing up and down in the British press along with Thompson, and it eventually became clear that neither Swanson nor Thompson could create a successful offshore radio station, because in reality, neither man had any money in his own right. Both slipped out of the headlines and after Swanson and wife left for Canada, Swanson began to engage in more huff and puff non-broadcasting stories that made the newspapers. But his end came when his wife divorced him following his exposure in the press that he was having sex with young girls, and that episode landed him in a criminal court.

While there are many other elements to this story that takes place between the years of 1959 and 1963, here we want to focus upon Ronan O'Rahilly who showed-up in London, England during 1961, when these real events were already taking place. There are several other major aspects to this story and many more major players who all converge into one timeline, the same timeline that Ronan O'Rahilly enters with his arrival in London. Clearly no one else has this story because no one else has ever written and published it before now, and you will have to wait awhile longer until it is all revealed in a part-work library of books.

​But here we want to focus on what Malcolm Smith has written about the flimsy character of Ronan O'Rahilly and we want to dispose of the nonsense that others have written about this person. Malcolm Smith acts as a very able and dedicated garbage man concerning the removal of rubbish created about the life and times of Ronan O'Rahilly.

Ronan O'Rahilly was hired as a detraction to lure investigative journalists away from the true story about the real origins of 'Radio Caroline'. To that end O'Rahilly invented all manner of really silly stories such as the one about 5 years old Caroline Kennedy, daughter of the assassinated President. O'Rahilly claimed that he had personally named both the station and its original ship after this toddler.

In reality Ronan O'Rahilly didn't name anything.

​But O'Rahilly's big lie was wrapped in another lie about him flying to the New York in order to buy transmitters for the new ship station. We know that O'Rahilly went to the USA, but he did not go there to buy anything. He was broke and so was Crawford. He went to the USA to plead on behalf of Crawford.

We know from our own investigation and corroborating sources, that Ronan O'Rahilly was sent to Houston via New York in June, 1963, shortly after meeting with Allan Crawford for the first time. We know the name of the Houston hotel in which O'Rahilly stayed, and we know that he even bought a pair of cowboy boots while he was in Houston.

We know that he went from Houston to Galveston to see a ship docked there. Its name is 'Mi Amigo' and it was under the care of Bill Weaver, Manager of Gordon McLendon's KILT radio station in Houston. The vessel had been stripped by Weaver, and Crawford wanted to lease it together with all of the broadcasting equipment then in storage at Houston.

Weaver was told to refuse any such request. Crawford, who O'Rahilly represented, did not have the kind of money to buy the ship as a broadcasting vessel, and so Weaver sent O'Rahilly packing back to London - empty-handed.

We will be explaining this extremely complicated story in detail within our forthcoming library of books. But now we want to focus upon a very strange post written by Malcolm Smith. On August 27, 2022, Smith submitted this post using the name of 'Peter Moore'. It appeared on the 'Free Radio Forum' at 10:18:37, and in part, this is what he told another correspondent about Ronan O'Rahilly:

'....  you need to understand the Ronan way of doing things. When still almost a child he saw that his sister who owned a donkey was selling donkey rides to raise money for the local convent. He took over the donkey, sold rides and put the money in his pocket. "Money in my pocket" or "Juicy Lucy" as  he described it was how he ran his life and all was like those donkey rides only hugely multiplied.'

Malcolm Smith claimed to have had a very close working relationship with Ronan O'Rahilly, and so when O'Rahilly died, Malcom Smith came into possession of some rather interesting information. It supports the true purpose and aims in life of Ronan O'Rahilly which for the most part went unfulfilled. Smith continued with these words:

'I his lifetime of possessions that were abandoned in storage  and which we rescued, was a letter from his father who says that people were asking what his son was doing but that he was too ashamed to say. Another letter asks Ronan not to discuss any business ventures with his father as they are "just a ploy to get money.'

Smith added this about Ronan's father who was a very successful entrepreneur and manufacturer who had strong business connections to the British Board of Trade via export licenses. Aodoghan O'Rahilly also developed a container port and the revived a ferry service from the Irish Republic to the main island of Great Britain:

'Aodoghan O'Rahilly wanted Ronan to get some sort of conventional career, thus when he said that for a very substantial payment he could buy an executive career in the film industry, Aodoghan loaned him the money on the promise of prompt repayment. Asking later about his money Ronan said that it had been spent paying the wages for a film crew for one week. Even his own father was fair game. .... Money flowed one way, i.e. to him .... I am just saying from long personal experience, how the man lived his life.'

Simply put, Ronan O'Rahilly was a liar and a con-man.

Ronan O'Rahilly was not in any way, shape or form, the originating creator of the twin stations that existed from 1964 to 1967 which became known as 'Radio Caroline North', and 'Radio Caroline South'. There are really serious political reasons why you don't know the real story behind the creation of 'Radio Caroline', and it has nothing to do with pop music, djs or that ludicrous tag line about "Swinging England".

But to read the complete story, and to learn who the other key players were, and how and why they all converged on one moment in time during 1964, you will have to wait until we are ready to announce publication details of our part-work library of books.

There was a man who called himself Lewis Carroll who wrote gibberish either for children, or about children, with an emphasis on very young girls. Today, such interest would be deemed 'unhealthy' and even suspicious of intent to either commit a crime, or even as an indicator that a crime may have been committed. That crime is generally described as paedophilia, which is further explained as being a psychiatric disorder involving adult fantasies about prepubescent children.

Lewis Carroll, who lived between the years 1832 and 1898, wrote his poem 'The Walrus and the Carpenter' as a part of the text in his book called 'Through the Looking-Glass'. At the time that he wrote it in 1871, the Twenty-first Century laws against the creation and even the possession of materials classified as paedophilia were a long way off into the future.

Lewis Carroll was a strange person because he was obviously intellectually gifted in many areas, while religiously attached to the Church of England. But it was others who came after him who took a look at his works and began attributing meanings that defied the advice of 'Occam's razor'. Given the known factors about Lewis Carroll, he might have been considered as more than a mere suspect of pedophiliac activities, had he only recently begun writing about a young girl named Alice.

But what this man wrote, was, on its face, mere gibberish. Others have placed all kinds of interpretations on his words, and perhaps one of the most interesting is in the identity claimed for the Carpenter in his poem:

"The time has come,' the Walrus said,
To talk of many things:
Of shoes — and ships — and sealing-wax --
Of cabbages — and kings --
And why the sea is boiling hot --
And whether pigs have wings.'

But wait a bit,' the Oysters cried,
Before we have our chat;
For some of us are out of breath,
And all of us are fat!'
No hurry!' said the Carpenter.
They thanked him much for that."

According to one author who has researched the works of Carroll, his instruction to the man who was hired to illustrate Carroll's work, makes a mockery out of the philosophers who came later and began attributing a religious identity to the 'Carpenter'. Martin Gardner who wrote 'The Annotated Alice', claims that Carroll gave the illustrator John Tenniel a brief in the form of several drawings from which to chose one of them.

There were three such pictures: a carpenter, a butterfly and a baronet. The character in the poem could have been changed by Carroll to reflect any one of them, because it is not about a specific person. Tenniel picked the carpenter. But that did not stop others from coming along and identifying the 'carpenter' as being a reference to Jesus! Yet the author of the poem was not Tenniel, but Carroll. Had Tenniel picked 'baronet' instead of 'carpenter', the allegorical subliminal connection to Jesus being a carpenter could not have been inferred from the text written by the author of the poem.

This business of attribution by those who were not there and had no part in the event, is extremely mischievous, because it advances an interpretation that never existed when the original event took place. This is especially true when it comes to the study about the origins of broadcasting, which by way, seems to have attracted a number of paedophile disc jockeys.

Too many books and articles and even radio and television programs have been made to assert various storylines about broadcasting, and many of them are totally untrue. One classic example concerns a random reference to a character named 'Jimmy Ross'. The original reference appeared as part of a short news item in connection to another person. No other details were given about 'Jimmy Ross', other than in 1964, he was supposedly one of the two main financiers behind the original 'Radio Caroline'.

Decades pass by, and then in 1990 a novel appeared that referred to a fictitious family named Shaw. The husband was identified by the wife as 'Jim', and a stranger who had never met Mr. Jim Shaw began to call him 'Jimmy'. Naturally the reader was then given to assume that Jim Shaw and Jimmy Shaw are the same person, because 'Jimmy' is but a variation of James.

Now the author of that novel is named Ian Cowper Ross, and the real father of Ian Cowper Ross is Charles Edward Ross. The real mother of Ian Cowper Ross is Phyllis Ross. We know this for a fact because we hired a private investigator to research this family, and we bought a copy of the marriage certificate of Ian Cowper Ross in which both of his parents are identified.

Neither of his parents ever had the surname of 'Shaw', either before or after their marriage to each other. We investigated Census Records and a lot of other authentic and official documentation to learn who Mrs Charles Edward Ross was before she got married. We discovered who her parents were and that her husband had been married before in New Zealand and then got divorced in London. We know that their son Ian had a step-brother who came from the first marriage of Ian's father. We tracked the Ross family residences until the time that Ian left home. We know all about his two vehicle accidents, his hospital stay and his court appearance for reckless driving. Then we traced the entire career, marriage and offspring of Ian Cowper Ross and wife, throughout their lives. In other words, we know all of the essential details about this family.

We also know where Charles Edward Ross worked.

But those who want to create a fictitious account of how 'Radio Caroline' was financed in 1964, then claim that the author of the novel who is Ian Cowper Ross, is the true identity of the person named Paul Shaw in the novel written by Ian Cowper Ross. They do this in order to claim that Paul Shaw, who in reality is the fictitious son of a fictitious father named Jim or Jimmy Shaw in the novel, is really the son of 'Jimmy Ross' - a compound faked name made-up to fit a bogus scenario.

But the true identity of Ian Cowper Ross' father is Charles Edward Ross, and there is no record anywhere about him ever being called 'Jimmy'. If anything, he would be called Charlie. However, one year after his novel about Paul Shaw was released, a BBC-TV documentary was shown featuring Ian Cowper Ross, live and on screen. In that TV program and in subsequent interviews following the TV screening, Ian Cowper Ross began to 'tease' the audience by claiming that incidents relating to Paul Shaw described in the novel. actually happened in real life.

But Ian Cowper Ross tried to employ the trick of deceit by tip-toeing up to the edge of validating parts of the novel as a biography, but never conclusively asserting that it was in fact a true account. However, he could never do that because it was obvious from other parts of the novel that it was a work of fiction, and selective validation by inference, is not the same as making a statement that something is true.

Nevertheless, this novel of 1990, published years after the real time period of 1964 in which the work of fiction is supposed to have occurred, merely helped Ian Cowper Ross get over a rather difficult time in his life when he became short of money and short of new networking contacts. The book opened new doors for him as witnessed by the BBC-TV documentary one year later. In other words his novel was a self-serving project that seems to have paid off, for him personally.

On the other hand, what Ian Cowper Ross' novel did for the true story of broadcasting was open a floodgate of new publications about 'Radio Caroline', and all of them began to parrot the falsehoods in Ian Cowper Ross' novel. That included at least one academic work. Up until that moment in time, the original falsehoods spread by the press about Caroline Kennedy becoming the original inspiration for the name of the station and one its radio ships, were being rapidly demolished as invented lies designed to conceal the truth. Therefore Ian Cowper Ross invaded a void in the storyline and filled it with another lie. Because it was a void the media bought the new lie and began to spread it far and wide.

Just as some tried to turn Lewis Carroll's 'carpenter' into Jesus, so a strange cult of radio enthusiasts have now tried to identify Charles Edward Ross as a merchant banker in the City of London. These absurd assertions created a requirement for the authors of this work to digress from investigating the true origins of 'Radio Caroline'  to discover who the real father of Ian Cowper Ross is, and what Charles Edward Ross did for a living.

So that is what we did.

Charles Edward Ross was one of the directors of a parent dry cleaning business that he helped to franchise. The owner was not Charles Ross, and the owner moved to Southern England from Scotland. But none of that has anything to do with the history of 'Radio Caroline'. However, we now have a total file on the life and times of the entire Ross family and we will at some point in time reveal what we know. But since that is not the purpose behind our investigation, that will come later.

We can tell you that this business of tacking on explanations long after the fact has skewed the real story about broadcasting in a big way. To know the history of broadcasting you have to know about the creation of the British Crown and what it is. You also have to know about the creation of the General Post Office (GPO) in England. In addition to that, you also have to know your history about how and why America got its independence from Britain, and how the two nations have been at an on again, off again, on again, off again hot war and cold war cycle, up through the early years of the Twentieth Century.

Forget "special relationship". That is a joke. An insiders sour joke, and it really is a myth.

Broadcasting is an American-British story that has been separated by the Atlantic Ocean. It is a story that revolves around the development of both the U.S. Navy and the Royal Navy, and the emerging dictionaries in both the USA and UK. That is where similar words used in either country can have opposite meanings.

It is within this state of confusion that misunderstandings abound. Even oft-used words in the UK, and corresponding oft-words used in the USA that can have similarity of meaning, can also have a totally different interpretation. Over the course of time, words become so co-mingled that they can sometimes cause dangerous, and sometimes embarrassing results for a speaker when the context of location is ignored. The speaker may be trying to express a meaning that the hearer comprehends as something other than what the speaker was intending to convey.

For this reason the origin of broadcasting has become totally obliterated. In fact, it is this interchangeability in the use of words that has led to a muddied and muddled story. Not only is the domestic story totally garbled and separated from reality, but the international story has just made it worse. It is such a mess that it caused us to go back in time to the origins of the laws that govern broadcasting, and that is why we became engaged in researching such obscure topics as the break with Rome by King Henry VIII of England. Those topic will be included within the context of the story which will be published as a part-series work, similar to the 'Time-Life' Library of books. The mechanics of our version will also follow  a similar page size and formula to the 'Time-Life' blueprint.

This new library will present a new storyline within its many volumes. Right now we are involved with the mechanics of that process. The books will be published one at a time and they will form part of an open-ended library collection. Readers will then be able to add additional volumes from this series to their collection.

The days of British domination of past, present and future events is rapidly drawing to a close, and as a result, big changes are taking place in the geopolitical understanding of current events. The real mouthpiece for British Crown propaganda first appeared in the Twentieth Century, and it was given the name of the British Broadcasting Corporation.

By utilizing the letters 'BBC', this Crown institution has been misleading the world by stating that it is now celebrating 100 years of its existence, but that is a lie. The British Broadcasting Corporation began in 1927 and the present year is 2022, which results in a deficit of years to mark that centenary.

From 1922 to the latter part of 1926, another entity, a British and American cartel, used the letters 'BBC' that referred to the British Broadcasting Company Limited. It was a monopoly which had shareholders; a lot of shareholders, and their interests were protected by the Crown.

But for most of the Twentieth Century a gag was in place that prevented the dissemination of information which would enable entities such as our 'Trio' from bluntly accusing the 'BBC' of promulgating wholesale lies on behalf of the British Crown. Meanwhile, a steady stream of writers have shoveled forth a slanted and heavily redacted version of events for the British public to read about the origins and beginnings of both the 'BBC' as a business cartel, and as a corporation acting as a mouthpiece for the British Crown corporation sole.

However, technical advances have taken place that include bringing the Internet into the homes of millions of people. When it became layered with the World Wide Web, then it also opened the door to the accessibility of information. It then became as simple as turning on a series of switches to uncover the deep, dark and dirty secrets of British censorship when another element was added to this mix.

Several privately run operations made original Content available everyone, wherever they happened to be.

Forget 'Wikipedia' which is both unreliable, twisted and biased due to the fact that anyone, for any reason can 'edit' it with one proviso: no original content. In other words, only the previously biased rubbish that has been in circulation before can be cited as a 'Wikipedia' source. At first 'Wikipedia' sounded like a great idea, but when original material was excluded, it meant that 'Wikipedia' was only republishing slanted, biased and uncorrected information. So from where then, and from when then, has this change, this lifting of the lid on censorship taken place?

There are now several sources available to any researcher. Some require subscription fees that go to maintaining archives, and others rely upon donations. Even 'Wikipedia' relies upon donations, both big and small. But these other archives are genuine and authentic original source archives, and they include many previously unavailable or restricted access books. They also include a huge library of digitized contemporary publications dating back to the Eighteen Century, and some before that.

In addition to those sources, another digital library has opened up a world of published books and articles about the contemporaneous account of how broadcasting developed in both Britain and America during the Twentieth Century. The story that these publications reveal is often at variance with the story that everyone has come to accept about the development of broadcasting in both Britain and America. In fact, the Atlantic Ocean has provided a convenient curtain separating British sources from American sources and vice versa.

However, it took until the dying years of the Twentieth Century for both the method of delivery and the sources from which delivery is made, to come together and make true investigative journalism possible for the first time. Now, in the Twenty-first Century, the floodgates are opened to a pouring forth of a huge stream of knowledge that is now sweeping away the works of censored material.

The censors are the ones who took contemporary material and twisted it to cause misunderstandings that led to false conclusions about many topics that the 'BBC' regurgitated into the ears and eyes of its listening and viewing audience. Then the anoraks, the so-called lovers of 'free radio' got in on this act, and they have continued to spew forth their own sickly and poisonous mess upon a cult-like following.

But while on the one hand the days of this censorship are passing with speed, on the other hand the Crown and its cohorts are reacting with speed. They are coming up with ever more woke means to 'protect us all' from inflammatory, incendiary, 'racist, 'sexist' terminology of the past. But it is all a lie. It is merely a back door means of enforcing censorship.

The Crown censors know that truth is a danger to its existence, and therefore a source of vulnerability in defending its own wealth to the detriment of the majority of people alive today. Truth emanating from contemporary accounts of past events will nail the British Crown and its Secret Service manipulative censors to the masthead of deceit, fraud, torture, slavery and warfare.

Those who believe in true individual freedom and freeborn rights; natural rights that everyone is equally born with, well, 'they' are in a race against time to publish new and comprehensive accounts of past events, based upon this new wealth of information. We are involved in this process.

Our 'enemy' is not only British and other governmental State censors, but those idiotic and foolish minions who fall into line and form cults that worship inventive characters such as Ronan O'Rahilly. He has become more of a cartoon caricature than any form of reflection as to who that person really was.

In his instance, he was a paid conman whose job it became to mislead and misinform, but who then came to believe in the very same propaganda which had been coming from his own lips. To this day, his followers have become even sillier, even more childish, and even more uneducated and more akin to lapdogs serving their Master, the British Crown corporation sole.

The veil of censorship could soon descend upon us all by a backdoor method of preventing all new research based upon original and authentic contemporaneous material. The enemies of freedom are purveyors of propaganda and currently, one of their favourite methods of censorship by denying knowledge is being employed in the name of protecting 'the children'.

Yet these censors are the real child abusers, and the real reason for their censorship is to protect the source of their own financial interests from exposure. Those sources are the same sources that reveal who built the stately homes of Britain by using money derived from slavery. In by-gone years those slaves produced such addictive and health destructive products as tobacco and opium. Today the vested interests dominating Crown management are involved with any and every endeavor that can be restricted via monopoly control to produce income unchallenged by competition.

The BBC was created as a monopoly to restrict, not to further knowledge. The British Crown has never been concerned with 'protecting the young' or anyone else. The British Crown was built on slavery. Not just Black slavery, because the Crown hates all those who oppose it.

The British Crown is wrapped in tomfoolery: such as the religious rigmarole which has just been passed-off as a funeral for its symbolic and now dead Queen. Its BBC went overboard in ramming the nonsense of a State funeral down the throats of all who were stupid enough to listen to it and watch it.

But Elizabeth Windsor was not the only person who died prior to those propaganda broadcasts. However, unless it was someone known to you personally, you probably have no idea who those other deceased people were. Yet you know who Elizabeth Windsor was, and in all probability, she was not related to you.

The British Crown is concerned with protecting itself. It first had to license the printers and the publishers when mass media began to emerge. But its greatest threat came from broadcasting. There had never been anything quite like the 'BBC' unless you want to compare it with the voices of those who control State religions, and England has been bombarded by both State broadcasting and religion, and both invoke the name of a god as their shield. If you challenge the British Crown, you challenge 'God'!

So everyone who believes in individual freeborn rights may be in a real race against time to publish and circulate new information, before a another dark age descends. That could be when the electricity which enables us to not only see in the dark, but to read those electronic characters which appear on computer screens, becomes licensed by the Crown for 'legitimate use'. After all, if we are to 'Save the Planet' we can't have power stations pumping out harmful gasses just to provide frivolous and harmful dissent for the few.

The Crown is our Saviour.

There was a time, not so long ago in the British Isles, when recorded broadcast music was rationed by Crown licensing. The offshore stations of the Sixties, and particularly the ones created by Don Pierson of Texas, helped to force a change in that area. But while Don Pierson opened the airwaves to anyone who wanted to buy time to disseminate religiously orientated political views, today in the British Crown dominated world of 2022 broadcasting, that is still not permissible.

The Crown tells you what to believe because the Crown tells you what is fit for you to see and hear. It needs to protect the financial interests of its inner core and secretive Privy Council membership. They are the censors behind the scenes of all British broadcasting, but you will have difficulty in putting names to most of them.

​This is political propaganda designed to force you into making a decision that is based upon a false premise!

"The Queen was the monarchy, the monarchy was the Queen. Whatever the truth of her life, mythology and deference have shaped how people view this archaic institution."
That statement begins this article, and taken at face value, it is true, but when it is considered within  the context of the Crown institution that Queen Elizabeth represented, it is 100% false!

This same piece of political propaganda continues with these words about Queen Elizabeth, who was only 'number two' in England, because she was only the first 'Queen Elizabeth' in Scotland. However, the writer sidesteps that issue by referring to the Queen as "her" ....

"Her death leaves the monarchy in trouble, with the uninspiring Charles and William carrying the flame, while Andrew and Harry – for very different reasons – pour fuel on embers of discontent. But it isn’t just about one family, this is an institution well past its time, one that sets itself against the principles most of us think are important, values such as democracy, equality and the rule of law. It is, by its very nature, undemocratic." 

Now this is where the 'magic' sleight of hand takes place:

One minute we are discussing a 'royal family', which is interchanged with the term 'monarchy', and the next minute we are discussing an 'institution'. But the 'institution' in question is not this 'royal family', but an institution called the 'Crown' which is defined in law as a corporation sole.

In lay terms a corporation sole is where the non-human artificial entity is linked to one human person as its sovereign representative, and when that human person dies, another human person immediately takes their place: "The Queen is dead, long live the King!"

One minute the representative is named Elizabeth, and the next minute the representative is named Charles.

But the institution of the Crown is not terminated, it continues on because under the system of law that created this corporation sole, it is in fact a dictatorship: it is the law and there can be no higher power - except for God - which is where the Crown in England claims to derive its authority.

So if the monarch dies, then who is running the Crown?

The Privy Council.

It has a large membership, but at is core is a very secretive form of continuing organization and that is where the power behind the Crown actually resides. Years ago Tony Benn discovered this anomaly and he even wrote a booklet for the Fabian Society about it. We have a copy of it in our library! Benn wanted to scrap the House of Lords and replace it with the ready-to-go Privy Council. He was obviously unsuccessful and he was then attacked (often unfairly) at every turn. The Privy Council does not want this true account of what the British Crown is, to be revealed to the hoi polloi. You might get upset if you know the true story.

To trace back the history of the Crown in England, we have to go back to its King Henry VIII, who was on England's throne from 1509 until his death in 1547. King Henry VIII was the King of England, he was not the King of Scotland.

In Scotland, during the time of England's King Henry III, King James IV sat on the throne. He was there from 1488 until his death in 1513, but there was a big difference between those two monarchs and what they individually represented.

King Henry VIII of England claimed supreme power over both the 'spiritual' (religious) and political lives of "his" subjects. He claimed that his authority came only from God. But in Scotland, King James IV only claimed to be the 'King of Scots', and not the boss of everything and everyone. King James IV knew that he ruled by the grace of the political machine that represented the people living in Scotland.

King James IV of Scotland was followed by King James V of Scotland while King Henry VIII was still on his throne in England. It was not until a quirk in the dynasty of King Henry VIII occurred upon his death in 1647, that for his next-in-line, the Crown in England looked to the Kingdom of Scotland for help. That help came when Scotland's King James VI moved his base from Edinburgh to London, and that is where he also became King James V of England - while still remaining as King James VI of Scotland. This is why calling the now deceased Queen, Elizabeth II when she was the first Elizabeth in Scotland, is a sham. That myth was concocted by none other than the deceased Sir Winston Churchill. But the now departed Queen Elizabeth II of England was in fact the first Queen Elizabeth in Scotland!

So where did all this confusion come from?

We invite you to read our monologue on this blog that preceded this edition.

The sham began not with King Henry VIII, but with the Papacy in Rome and the bogus claim which the Papacy now freely admit was a fraudulent claim. It goes like this: The Roman Emperor Constantine who came from York in England, ended up in what is now present-day Turkey.

This man, according to a fraudulent document called the 'Donation of Constantine', gave one of the Popes the Western half of the Roman Empire, and that is how the Popes allegedly became both Head of a Church and Head of all lessor rulers such as kings and queens. It was this myth in which Constantine made Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire by which the Emperor ruled the spiritual and temporal lives of everyone under his jurisdiction. So when Constantine allegedly gave away the Western half of the Roman Empire to the Papacy, well along with it went the power to rule the spiritual and temporal power of the Emperor.

Now the Pope was the 'big boss' representing God on Earth.

Not everyone bought into this nonsense. Both Luther and Calvin continued to harp on about this lie, long after its falsity was admitted, because the political machine kept it alive for political purposes. Even the Scottish 'Declaration of Arbroath' of 1320 told the Pope of that day to get his vassal King Edward I to stop invading the Kingdom of Scotland, or else the Kingdom of Scotland which in theory was also subject to the power of the Pope, would simply take matters into its own hands.

But in reality the Western half of the Roman Empire was never ruled by any Pope on behalf of God, and today at Vatican City they will proudly show you the fake documents in their 'secret' library. It is a present-day tourist attraction!

In fact, while a lot of the European kings gave no thought to the 'Donation of Constantine' in England it came to serve a sinister political service. It was England's King Henry VIII who grabbed hold of that fake Papal claim, and this is how King Henry VIII became both the Head of his new Church of England, and Head of the political realm in England.

To make sure you do not grasp any of this, the Crown and its broadcasting child called the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), have rammed this fiction down the throats of everyone using so-called 'historical drama' to do it. What the BBC is covering-up is the irrelevant back story about Henry VIII who ordered ax men to chop off the heads of women he did not like.

It is a horror story, and everyone focusses upon the brutal and thuggish actions of this idiotic man who really did order that the heads of women he did not like, to be chopped off. So everyone focuses upon that, and not on the really important back story - the source of his claimed power.

It was made up. He didn't have it, except by de facto 'might make right' power of dictatorship. The rule of a thug. Chopping off heads was a distraction. It was not about divorce. It was about political power - the power to control money, the treasury: What's mine is mine and what's yours is mine! Say otherwise and you will die!

Now how the current movement for Scottish independence is ever going to achieve victory by telling people a lie that their loss of sovereignty began in 1707 with Scotland becoming part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain, is a mystery. The year 1707 was long before Ireland was added to the mix in 1801, or even the earlier succession of the thirteen North American colonies. They declared independence in 1776 from the British Crown in order to initially create a confederacy called the United States of America. (The federal nation of the same name came later.)

But it is from this same murky, deceitful and totally fictitious story involving King Henry VIII that the British General Post Office was born under the direction of King Charles II and his boss, General George Monck from Coldstream in Scotland. Monck is the man who pulled off this fraud in 1660, and he was so successful in switching sides from the Cromwellian republic that proceeded Charles II, that over in America it inspired General Benedict Arnold to do the same thing, and fail.

Using the code name of 'Monck', Benedict Arnold dumped Washington's forces because he thought they were going to lose, and Arnold then began fighting for the British, but unlike the English under Charles II, they lost. So on the one hand General George Monck became the hero of the new Crown royalists under Charles II, while one hundred years or so later, General Benedict Arnold went down in patriotic stories told to American kids, about how Arnold became an American traitor.

But what does any of this have to do with 'Radio Caroline'?

Everything.

This is the real story of how the British Crown came to claim that all forms of communication in the British Isles had to be licensed by the British Crown. It is the back story of how Freeborn John Lilburne became a 'pirate publisher', and how we first stumbled on to the truth about these wild and spurious claims about authority claimed by the British Crown.

King Charles III is merely today's Crown puppet.

Charles III must surely know the real story and he must surely know that he is a fake - another great pretender claiming to be what he is not you see. Charles III should tell everyone the real story. He should spill the beans and tell the truth. But will he?

What Charles III will do is anyone's guess, but if Charles III attempts to tell the truth, would he then meet a fate similar to the one his deceased former wife met one night in a tunnel?

Time will tell, and so will we.

[CORRECTIONS: If you spot copy-related typographical errors, please report them via our Comments link.]

To answer that question a person has to know that the claims are false, and that the hoax that it supports is controlling their every day life in a most undemocratic manner. Voting in or out a political party will never effect change, and for this reason we now identify the fact that you own one of those two keys, but it was stolen from your possession by a polemical machine which in bygone years tried to rule much of the world.

Back in 1988 that is what the movement called Charter 88 eventually discovered: you cannot impose change upon a de facto power that claims superior power of sovereignty. So we now offer you "one key free" to unlock this mystery: look at the symbol of the two keys. One of them represents the falsely claimed power to control your religious views, and the other one represents the falsely claimed power to control your political views. But it is the political key that unlocks the power of the military which can enforce the idea that 'might make right'. This is the reason why under this system, weapons that will protect an individual are confiscated, while combined weapons of war that randomly seek to kill and destroy are left in the hands of a political machine that is unelected and which makes its decisions in secret.

The original symbol of this power are two crossed keys. One representing organized State religion, and one representing organized State political power. It is not a new symbol, it is a symbol that is hidden in plain sight.

The idea that the spin-off entity in the British Isles which was created by using the powers represented by the symbol of those two keys has been reformed by democratic rule, is not just a farce, it is also a lie. But it is a lie that is smothered in obfuscation.

The original lie involved a man name Constantine who gained his power while he was at York in England. The next part of the lie involves Constantine claiming control of the world and giving away the western half to the Papacy in Rome. It is their symbol of two keys that is pictured above.

The next villain is England's King Henry VIII. He has been drowned in a sea of tales about women he liked, did not like and women he murdered. But that story is a means of distraction. After breaking with Rome, King Henry VIII of England merely assumed the 'spiritual' and 'temporal' powers of the Papacy which are symbolized by those two keys. But of course the Papacy never had those powers to begin with. Even though Henry VIII was only the King of England, that same idea that the monarchy in London obtained those powers means that this myth had to have been 'passed-off' to the monarchs who followed so that when the Kingdom of England initially entered into a partnership with Scotland to form the Kingdom of Great Britain, it became assumed that collectively, the British monarchy also had those powers.

But it does not.

What the Kingdom of Great Britain had created was form of dictatorship, which has left minor decisions to the hoi polloi. The governance that mattered once enabled the British military to enslave, kill and destroy wherever and whenever they could, in order to plunder and steal, and it enabled the select few to begin building stately homes all over the British Isles.

In North America there was a rebellion, and due to the Atlantic Ocean it made it easier to form a defence against the marauding British troops and their supporting mercenaries who killed and destroyed for pay. While the initial break took place in 1776, the British kept on attacking the United States of America, so that by the dawn of the Twentieth Century, massive war plans were being drawn-up for the United Kingdom as it was now known, to attack the USA once more.

Those plans swirled around during the aftermath of World War I, and they were only scuttled by the approaching clouds coming from the beginnings of a World War II.

The idea of 'Special Relationship' between the USA and UK is nonsense, unless you mean the on-again, off-again spy information shared because of the threats of a nuclear World War III.

Whereas the USA created a written constitution to spell out the organic laws which underpin that nation, the UK has no written constitution and its mass of messy documents dating back to the first Magna Carta, are nothing more than factions dictating terms to the Crown. But they are not foundational documents protecting your rights if you live in the British Isles because you are a subject, not a citizen and you have been bluffed into thinking that you have no organic freeborn rights. You only have privileges to be given and taken away.

King Henry VIII brought this farce to a showdown using women he married and murdered as a means to an end of separation from the Papacy in Rome. King Henry VIII of England was previously a mere vassal of the Papacy, and so were all the Scottish kings prior to the establishment of a unified kingdom. So Henry VIII terminated the game in which he was a lessor king to the superior ruler in Rome. 

But what England's King Henry VIII did was merely shun the primary ruler in Rome, and take for himself the same powers that the ruler in Rome claimed to have.

​However, the ruler in Rome never had those powers in the first place, because his claim was based upon a hoax whose origins began at York in England. It is a hoax still commemorated in York by a statue dedicated to the Roman Emperor Constantine:

From a convoluted and totally false tale, now freely admitted by the owner of the symbol of the two keys, comes the fake authority to which Britain's new King Charles III has submitted himself to. It was one of his very first public acts that he in engaged in as the new monarch.

The power represented by those two keys is the means by which the freeborn rights of every person living in the British Isles have stolen and in place of the obfuscated truth, is domination by means of false claims that are still administered by the British Crown corporation sole.

​Decades ago we joined Charter 88 after learning about Freeborn John Lilburne, because we thought at the time that Charter 88 (formed in 1988), could create a supreme written constitution for the people of the United Kingdom, but it could not. Power of the people from the bottom, can never be imposed on the secret power of the inner core workings of the Crown corporation sole at the top. Proof of our own education in this regard can still be heard on our old 4FWS documentary broadcasts, and you can hear them at:

A few days ago we began this Blog with these words: "While we began this research project in 1985 with the question: “Why can you play rock and roll all day on the radio in America, but not in the United Kingdom?” - we have continued to move on in a step by slow and methodical step - until we have now arrived at a point in time of being able to define the foundation of our research project."

Our research has now revealed a story that has remained untold elsewhere, and while it spins-off into the chronology of broadcasting events in both the United States and the United Kingdom, at its core is the story of individual freeborn rights. Those are the equal cerebral rights that every human being is born with, but which few people seem to exercise.

A human being may lose mobility any number of ways, but the 'spark' that separates human beings from the animal world has yet to be defined by anyone in a scientific and provable manner. Yet the fact that we can't define it does not mean that it does not exist. Over the centuries many have tried and many have turned those attempts into religious fervor. But that is not our purpose.

Our questioning focuses upon one of the people who claim hereditary rights in order to enslave and dominate millions of other human beings. That was the 'spirit' behind the creation of the British Empire. It was not a 'spirit' of freeborn individuality. But it was this issue that led to our question about rock and roll and a man named John Lilburne. We were introduced to John Lilburne by the writings of the late U.S. Supreme Court Justice Hugo L. Black, and his written Opinions that are recorded in the published U.S.  Constitutional decisions that have been issued by the U.S. Supreme Court.

But John Reith came from the stock who worshipped a king over the temporal world that governed land and people, while distancing themselves from any king or queen who placed himself or herself over the spiritual world as the head of a State church. That is where King Henry VIII came in. He broke with the Papacy in Rome which claimed to govern by State and Church, and so he claimed to be the King of England and the Head of the Church of England.

John Reith was a contradiction. While his father celebrated a King who broke with the dual idea of temporal and spiritual governance promoted by King Henry VIII, by claiming only to be king of the earthly kingdom of Scotland, and not the Church of Scotland, that same king had invaded and conquered both England and Scotland and retained control as head of the Church of England. When John Reith took up his second position as Director General of the Crown licensed British Broadcasting Corporation, he did so in London, England.

The King that John Reith served at the BBC in London, was Head of the Church of England. Reith was first named Managing Director of the British Broadcasting Company Limited, a cartel modeled along lines of the General Electric Company of the USA. The British version, like its American parent, was designed to be a Trust where patents could be pooled in order to overcome the problems of competition.

Reith used his 'bully pulpit' at the BBC to tell everyone how they should live, and he did this in writing within his 1924 book called 'Broadcast Over Britain'. That book was published one year after the formation of the current manifestation of the United Kingdom, which makes the UK considerably younger as a nation than the United States of America.

The BBC is not an institution based upon telling the truth, but it promotes the idea that it is a conveyor of truth and understanding. However, in 2022, the BBC is going out of its way to tell the world that it is 100 years old, when in fact it was created in 1927, and the years in between do not add up to one hundred. If the BBC plays mind tricks, so did John Reith.

According to his daughter Reith's lifestyle was nothing like his propaganda regarding the teachings of the Church in Scotland. Reith's father was an esteemed Church minister, and in 1914, before John Reith was born, his father Rev. Dr. Reith went to the Scottish islands of the Outer Hebrides on missionary business.

This song celebrates the legacy of the Covenanters, who the English enjoyed murdering by the hundreds because they would not accept the King of England as head of the Church in Scotland. The 'problem' with these people was that their religious views did not conform to the views of the English. The Covenanters were like the Jews who had settled in England centuries before. They had previously fallen victim to England's King Edward I, and that was centuries before Heinrich Himmler entertained similar ideas about exterminating people he did not like.

The song that Reith's father sang about the Covenanters has lyrics that tell a story about being outlaws fighting the King of England, and then making peace with the Crown when King William of the land we now know as Holland, invaded and  conquered the British Isles. The reigning King James II was forced to flee and the invading Dutch army chased him through the island of Great Britain to the island of Ireland.

Today, King William is known in the northern counties of Ireland as 'King Billy', and due to Brexit and the semi-liberation of Ireland, the remaining counties in the north are still a hotbed of controversy that could flare-up into a civil war once again, as they did during in the Nineteen Seventies.

This entire fiasco relates back to King Henry VIII who broke away from the domination of the Pope who was both Head of a Church and the Head of a State. Henry VIII and his counterpart in Scotland, were both subservient to that authority. But that authority claimed by the Papacy was itself a fraud resting upon a document called the 'Donation of Constantine'. However, that did not stop King Henry VIII from basing his authority to rule his breakaway Church of England and his earthly kingdom upon a power which had been faked by a bygone Pope's cronies.

The mythology behind this story begins with Constantine at York in England. Constantine eventually became Emperor of the Roman Empire, and it is a convoluted story stretching over centuries that resulted in the myth that he had given a Pope, the western half of the Roman Empire. With the weird world of Henry VIII of England and the women who he married and murdered, the tabloid 'historians' have focused upon the sensational account of his sex life, rather than the means by which he established his own theocracy in England. That is the story we are untangling, because it is a complicated story behind Reith, the BBC, and the reason why the Post Office was formed in 1660 as a means of censoring all communications.

The war against individual freedom in the British Isles is a war founded upon a lie that the Establishment has admitted is a lie, and yet, that lie is passed on from generation to generation and it will soon become a part of the coronation of King Charles III.

It is also the central lie that we intend to strip down to its basic rhetoric in order show how it also forms the backbone of the war that was fought and lost, by the original 'Radio Caroline', and may yet rear its ugly head in violence within the unresolved saga involving the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland in the wake of Brexit. It is a lie that goes back to London, England, and the reign of its King Henry VIII.

To understand the geopolitical world of today as seen and heard via the British Broadcasting Corporation, it is necessary to put all of these events in context, without trying to sound like 'historians', which we are not and do not claim to be. However, it is only by understanding how this corrupted story of political life in the British Isles has evolved, that you and everyone else, will be able to make sense of the Crown dominated Acts of Parliament, such as the one that follows. Note its wording. We have intentionally redacted the text to focus upon the words: "consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal" ....

Our recital will continue on both Blogs. On the Fragile Forum we will deal with in-depth issues that arise in the podcast formula that will appear on the Pebble Theatre Blog. Comments will only be posted if they specifically relate to information that appears on either of our two Blogs, and real names must by used.

While we began this research project in 1985 with the question: “Why can you play rock and roll all day on the radio in America, but not in the United Kingdom?” - we have continued to move on in a step by slow and methodical step - until we have now arrived at a point in time of being able to define the foundation of our research project.

We gave it the name of YesterCode.

The year was 2003, and from that new starting date we moved on to expand the focus of our research to include an examination of the roots of law in the British Isles. Those laws then became the roots of law in the United States of America. Consequently we have restructured our organization to incorporate a library, a screening facility and conference room with the combined name of the JLRI Center.

By only focusing upon events, and by not placing those events within the boundaries of genealogy; chronology, and geography, events are taken out of context. Why that omission is important is because when we first began our quest with that very first question: “Why can you play rock and roll all day on the radio in America, but not in the United Kingdom?”  - we did not understand that question within the context of life itself.

In fact, at this very moment in time and while writing these words, in the background can be heard the Crown licensed entity called 'BBC', and they are broadcasting a repetitious hailing of "God Save the King!". The BBC coverage has included reference to the "Lords Spiritual and the Lords Temporal", which dates back centuries to  1531 CE, and grab for power by King Henry VIII of England from Pope Clement VII.

That Pope based his authority to rule both his church and his state upon a fraudulent document called'The Donation of Constantine'. It is document concerning an alleged conveyance of the western half of the Roman Empire by Emperor Constantine. But that document is a fake.

The event was alleged to have taken place during the reign of Pope Sylvester I. He occupied his throne from 315 to 335 CE, but in reality, The Donation of Constantine' was probably written during the time of Pope Steven II (752-768 CE).

It was not proved to be a forgery until a priest and scholar named Lorenzo Valla (1407-1457 CE) came along. However, the fraud lived on, and in 1531 CE, King Henry VIII of England used this big lie to his own advantage in order to create his combined Church of England and Kingdom of England.

But the bogus history of the United Kingdom does not begin there. The UK was still way off in the future. There were many more lies upon lies to be added before the creation of that entity.

The first intermediary phase ended with King Charles I having his head chopped of in 1649 CE, and then the Kingdom of England ceased to exist. That event was followed by a dictatorship which continually morphed its way until the former Kingdom of Scotland was fused for a very brief time into a united republic!

General George Monck then gathered his army in Coldstream, Scotland and staged a coup d'état that placed the son of the executed King Charles I on a new throne. He became King Charles II. One of his first acts was to sign the 'Act of Oblivion' which made it a crime to refer to anything that happened between 1649 CE and 1660 CE. The Crown called that period the 'Interregnum'.

That is when King Charles II created the General Post Office as a means of censoring the mails.

This was the foundation for banning (censoring) all stories that are not acceptable to the Crown, and that included the creation of 'Radio Caroline'. On a more serious topic today, it is also provides the foundation for banning all media that originates in Russia. Only one side of a story can be officially told, and that story is the official story as told in the name of the British Crown.

"God Save the King"!

'Radio Caroline' came in 1964, but the true story about why it was created has yet to be told. It was then banned on August 14, 1967, using a barrage of fake information. It is not information from Russia that the peoples of the British Isles need to fear, but misinformation from the British Crown.

"God Save the King"!
  
The Crown is a corporation sole, it is not King Charles III.

But Charles, today, on BBC, you had your opportunity to tell the truth, but the BBC carried your own message of misinformation with the farce of so-called British "history" and "tradition". It is a tradition of lies and a history of misinformation, as you must know only too well.

There is no official "content within context" within your message, and no wonder: your message does not make logical sense. It is a disjointed mix of various fables all spun with the help of pageantry. The masses love the deaths of famous people. They love to gather at the gates and bid farewell to the departed. They did this for another king whose first name is Elvis.

We do not gather at the gates of the departed by in the libraries of the world. We do so because those who have stolen our research material and then republished it under their own name in vain self-glory - do so without understanding what they had stolen. They redistribute it to be absorbed by a gullible and foolish cult called anoraks.

We are engaged in a war against misinformation war that is being waged by the those who are now screaming at full volume: "God Save the King"!

Today, in London, the Privy Council gathered once more to serve the Crown with their new figurehead named King Charles III. They went through a ceremony of reciting words that the idiot anorak community claims do not matter. Yet, these same anoraks are now paying homage to the departed Queen. They do not seem to grasp the fact that the past is also their future, and yet, the anorak past never happened.

By not being stampeded into publishing an overarching and comprehensive account of our work at this time, but by methodically documenting it in published monologues, we have now established a foundation upon which we can publish an authentic and overarching and comprehensive account of past events.

We will continue to update the progress of our work on this Blog, and present even more focused accounts of our research on our 'Pebble Theatre' Blog.

It is time to put away your hankies and face the cold, hard facts of life, there is now a King Charles III waiting to get the stamp of approval from the Crown corporation sole. You can read what this means for everyone who wonders why the airwaves of the British Isles are censored. Click the 'Pebble Theatre' button above to read today's Blog.

Back on February 12, 2002, a man name Donald Rumsfeld gave an answer to a reporter that gained as much notoriety as it did wonderment: what did he mean when he said:

"Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because, as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we now know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we do not know we don't know."

We know that Jimmy Ross is a myth.

We also know that the events he is associated with came from a novel written in 1990. That is what we know. There was a time that we did not know that Jimmy Ross is a myth.

Now there are known unknowns about the true origins of the financing of 'Radio Caroline' in 1964

That is to say, there are things that we now know we don't know. But knowing that we don't know the things that are to be known causes us to continue our research. But while there are also unknown unknowns, there are things we did not know that we do know now.

Where the entire anorak 'Caroline' cult gets shipwrecked is when it tries to explain who funded 'Radio Caroline' in 1964, and why?

Here is their problem:

Although the radio ship named 'Caroline' went on the air about a month after February 27, 1964, the only company associated with Ronan O'Rahilly and 'Radio Caroline' was not formed until February 27, 1964. But the ship and its transmitters had all been bought and installed long before February 27, 1964.

How was that possible?

The anoraks turn to the myth of 'Jimmy Ross' for an explanation.

That is why the anoraks need the mythology of 'Jimmy Ross', but although this phantom name had been reported in a news item in 1964, that is all that had been reported. The details about this fantasy figure were not published until 1990, and then they appeared in a novel.

More than this, the novel never mentioned a 'Jimmy Ross', the latter-day cult of anoraks have invented that name and joined it to the fictitious story in the novel. The novel never mentions Ronan O'Rahilly, and it never mentions a ship named 'Caroline'.

There is a mention of a man named 'Jim', but his last name in the novel is 'Shaw'.

The anoraks have created a religious cult about the man in the novel who is also called 'Jimmy'.

Paul Rusling's fictitious 'bible' gives the anoraks a fairy story to follow and recite - which they do.

Because we know for a fact that a radio ship named 'Caroline' did begin broadcasting in 1964, and because we also know for a fact that in 2022 no one, that's right, no one has offered any authentic documented explanation as to how that happened in such a way that a court of law would accept it as the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

On the other hand, we know that the anorak yesterday never happened, so we have been and we still are working on finding out who started 'Radio Caroline' and why they started it.

You will soon find out the real story and why the so-called tribute station on '648' is a tribute to a myth.

While Malcolm Smith ("Peter Moore") has temporarily emerged as the 'winner' in the Bob Meade ("Freddie Archer") game of lies and distortions among con men, it is time for us to move on. Those who have been attempting to replace fact with fiction on two rival anorak Forums, have now turned to mystification about how they will both deal with the legacy of fraud created by their patron saint, Ronan O'Rahilly.

From a strictly business point of view, Smith has now begun to distance himself from the fake stories spun by Ronan O'Rahilly, and he has turned to the textbooks written by the authors of entrepreneurial businesses.

Malcolm Smith has already hived-off the future repository of a pile of scrap metal called 'Ross Revenge' by dumping it onto a charity. Smith can now concentrate on building his small AM into an FM broadcasting business. What began as a fraudulent claim by Smith to turn 648 into a link with 199, has now evolved into the acquisition by Smith of an FM station as a pointer to his future endeavors.

Where Smith goes in the aftermath of the micro-world anorak squabble is not clear. He has burned his former fraudulent links to Ronan O'Rahilly. There can be no going back to that, and why would he? It belongs to the mythology of his past, not to his financial future.

Whatever Smith decides to do, O'Rahilly's grave will have no impact on his own struggle to get established in the world of mass communications. Only a hoped-for increase of deposits into Smith's personal bank account will mark Smith's future success. Right now he is still in a transition mode, and that is one of the most difficult phases for any entrepreneur to succeed in completing.

In this anorak mess Rusling has already drowned as the 'Joke-in-Chief'. No one wants him.

Therefore it is now time to now lay out the framework of our own investigation, although specific focal points will be held back until the first in a series of volumes is published. So, we encourage you to click the 'Pebble Theatre' button above and take note of what is about to be revealed on our companion Blog site.

The anorak cult is now engaged in a sort of internal war which is anything but civil.

It began with a Forum that became concentrated upon featuring the tribute recording venture by its owner called 'Garry Stevens', and he caused a split to occur in the ranks of those who wanted to concentrate upon a tribute station called 'Radio Caroline'. So 'Garry Stevens', ejected his 'trouble-makers' and they created another Forum. Then the two factions began yelling at each other on their two forums.

Then along came Paul Rusling. He claimed many things about many things and most of those 'things' were 'things' that he latched on to to squeeze money out of. Rusling claimed to be a radio engineer while pulling pints behind the bar of a pub, or two. That led Rusling to think of a new way, an easier way of gaining money from others.

So, Rusling began straddling the fence of both anorak forums in order to push his own print-on-demand book about 'Radio Caroline'. The conclusion of his slapped-together book that he audaciously called a 'bible', claimed that in 1964 'Radio Caroline' was begun by a man named Ronan O'Rahilly. But Rusling did not stop there, he then claimed that this 1964 venture lives on under a UK government license awarded to Malcolm Smith who calls himself 'Peter Moore'.

That did it for the anoraks at war with Malcolm Smith who had also got hold of a hulk called 'Ross Revenge'.  It was a former fishing boat converted into the floating home of a station which borrowed the name of 'Radio Caroline' - even though it had no connection to the original 'Radio Caroline'.

But now add yet another wrinkle in this childish game played primarily by aging, grumpy men who spend their lives arguing about issues with no relevance to anything of concern to the average human being living life in the real world.

A person called 'Neil Gates' has created a worship site dedicated to his guru Ronan O'Rahilly, and Gates is claiming that because he played the last record on board the 'Ross Revenge' while it was at sea, then what Malcolm Smith has done with both the ship (now hulk) and the name of 'Radio Caroline' is akin to blasphemy in the 'Church of Caroline', as 'Garry Stevens' calls it.

Finally, it should be noted that the 'Ross Revenge' was bought and paid for with money stolen in the USA from investors who were conned into believing a lie. The con man involved was arrested in the USA and put on trial in Philadelphia. It was a court action euphemistically styled as the 'Radio Caroline Criminal Case'. Ronan O'Rahilly was a 'person of interest' to the USA legal authorities, so O'Rahilly stayed away from entry into the USA. The case reached its verdict and the man charged was sentenced to prison. Case closed, and the anoraks either forgot all about it, or they knew nothing about it because it took place in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Of course the original investors lost their investment and the fruits of this ill-gotten gain have now degraded from ship of value to floating hulk as a liability in the possession of Malcolm Smith. He probably wants rid of it in such a way that the blame for destroying this icon is not placed upon his shoulders. However, that hulk, being a liability serves no real purpose in the real business plans of Malcolm Smith.

This brings us to now.

'Garry Stevens' does not like the truth so he severed relations with us at an early stage, without ever telling us that he had done so. Now Malcolm Smith is revealing from documents in his possession that Ronan O'Rahilly was a fake and a fraud, a liar and a conman.

One set of anoraks are now livid at Malcolm Smith.

Paul Rusling has been exposed as the fool that he is, because his 'bible' that straddles the fence acclaims both O'Rahilly and Smith, while 'Neil Gates' is frothing at the mouth trying to gain attention to his ethereal worship center that is a web site singing the religious praises of Ronan O'Rahilly. In all probability Malcolm Smith not only wants the hulk to sink without trace, but he also wants mention of Ronan O'Rahilly in the context of 'Radio Caroline' to cease as fast as possible. So, Malcolm Smith is now exposing O'Rahilly as the fraud that he was.

Out of this sick bunch of yahoos, the only person making one kind of business sense is Malcolm Smith. The UK has officially endorsed what he is doing, and this grease-monkey is busy trying to create his own little broadcasting operation called 'Radio Caroline'. We have no problem with that, especially since Malcolm has now decided to tell the truth about Ronan O'Rahilly.

Meanwhile, those primarily aging old men and a handful of duped women who seem to be in love with the nondescript fantasies of the old men, are now engaged in a growing war of words about .... nothing.

In the real world Malcolm is trying to emerge as just an ordinary small businessman promoting an ordinary small radio station, while we now look on at the quagmire that Paul Rusling is now sinking into after having stolen from us and supporting a cause that is ripping itself apart. That means both Rusling and his rants are tributes to tears that Rusling is now dispensing on living a life which is not of any sympathetic interest to anyone.

In the end Malcolm will survive, and O'Rahilly will become an insignificant footnote. All of the waring old men will just die off and be forgotten (unlike old soldiers.)

What a sad state of affairs when all that energy and wasted money could have been put to use uncovering the real story about the original and real 'Radio Caroline'.

Of all the Head Cooks and Bottle Washers who have an authentic anorak base, only one person can fill those shoes today. That person is Malcolm Smith (who has falsely identified himself as Peter Moore on UK government documents).

Malcolm has at least two Ofcom licenses in the name of a 2022 venture known by the name 'Caroline'. He also has a once-sea-going ship that is now a floating hulk which goes by the name of 'Ross Revenge'. He obtained his hulk after a series of swindles by the original owners, and the legal kick-back by criminal investigators had caused them to vanish from the scene, leaving their hulk behind. So Malcolm grabbed it, and he is now peddling it to the public as a charity in order to solicit financial donations under false pretenses.

But it is the first of his two Ofcom licenses granted for a venture that he calls 'Radio Caroline' that has become the cause of frothing anger at us by the anoraks. They hold the deceased Ronan O'Rahilly in such high esteem that his holy name cannot be blasphemed by telling the truth about him.

Ronan O'Rahilly is still their hero, even though he is now dead.

When this investigation began to reveal that Ronan O'Rahilly was a fraud, a fake, a liar, and a scheming con-man, the anorak community frothed at their mouths in unison, while denouncing this investigation. Then something rather strange began to happen.

Not once, but several times and with increasing frequency, Malcolm Smith began to admit the very same character analysis of Ronan O'Rahilly that we have been publishing. He confirmed that what we were publishing about the character of Ronan O'Rahilly, is true.

In other words, Malcolm Smith has also confirmed that Paul Rusling's so called 'bible', which Rusling has been self-publishing, is nothing less than a book of lies intended to gain money from anoraks under false pretenses of being a true story. In other words, Rusling is a thief on many levels since he also stole our own bought and paid for research, and then after twisting it to fit his fiction, he self-published it under his own name.

What is now unclear is the future of the anorak community who have begun to split into two factions.

One faction is now denouncing Malcolm Smith for admitting the cold hard truth about Ronan O'Rahilly, and the other faction is doing what all religious cults do: it is glossing over the demolished status of it founder, while still clinging on to their original belief. They explain their bizarre reaction to Malcolm Smith's 'Book of Revelation' this way: If Ronan O'Rahilly did these awful things that Malcolm is telling us that he did, well, Ronan O'Rahilly must have had some sort of deep and sacred reason for doing so.

Of course the problem is that the original source of money for the original 1964 'Radio Caroline' was never revealed, and it was not until 1990 when a novel appeared and the idea of a bogeyman named 'Jimmy Ross' suddenly became the source. The trouble is that 'Jimmy Ross' did not exist, and the anorak myth was not fleshed out until 1990, and even then it was in a novel.

However, there was a real 'Jimmy' behind the original 'Radio Caroline', but he was not 'Jimmy Ross' who others then claimed was Charles Edward Ross. That man was in the dry-cleaning franchise business, and he neither fit the description nor the shoes of the fictitious 'Jimmy Ross'.

On the other hand, the true identity of the real 'Jimmy' has been known for decades, and he was merely the conduit to another person who had the money and the same area of business interests to finance the original 1964 'Radio Caroline'. But the anoraks seem to gloss over this link because its timeline does not fit in with their own bogus narrative.

The funny part is that Ronan O'Rahilly never trumpeted any of this.

Ronan O'Rahilly was merely a low-level crook who his adoring fans have elevated into the stratosphere to become worthy of deification as the 'Saint-in-Chief' of their crazy cult religion.

That being the case, then how does Malcolm fit in? He must be a kind of 'Anti-Christ' or the anorak equivalent of Satan, although the anoraks seem to have  awarded that definition to us.

Therefore we watch in mild amusement as these two anorak cult religious denominations now fight it out, while 'Saint Malcolm' actually has control of their two icons: the new 'Radio Caroline' and their floating hulk.

The words in the title above, minus the question mark, are from lyrics penned and released in 1973 called 'Time'. It was performed by Pink Floyd.

Back in 1973, our 'Trio' was over a decade away from meeting for the very first time, and the only "half page of scribbled lines" had already appeared in 1966 as a feature article published by the 'Wolverhampton Express and Star' newspaper. It had the title: 'Birth or Death of a Broadcasting Era'?

In 1966, its author, who was to become a member of 'The Trio', was not at the end of his investigation, but at the beginning. Now, in 2022, as a 'Trio' we are coming to the end of our investigation as a unit. It may be that for some, as Pink Floyd's lyrics tell listeners: "Hanging on in quiet desperation is the English way", but we three we are a transatlantic breed, and only one of us was born in England. We are full of calm hope, and not desperation, we are certainly not trying to be quiet. It is our hope that our work will become part of a much larger body of work that seeks to bring peace and understanding to this very confused world.

Unfortunately there is a larger body of brainwashed humanity that seems to believe in one of Orwell's mantras that his legendary 'Big Brother' government preached, whereby 'War is peace', 'Freedom is slavery', and 'Ignorance is strength'. In this way, the loss of one child due to an act of domestic violence and proclaimed on a domestic newscast, blots out all of the many dead children killed by acts of violence when tax money financed bombs and shells are dropped with financing by tax money, upon young inhabitants who die on 'foreign' soil.

To overcome the psychological 'difficulty' of this dilemma, the USA and UK have imposed upon themselves the kind of censorship that Orwell described in his novel 'Nineteen Eighty-Four', whereby 'Ignorance is strength'. Ignorance can be created by 'spin', so that what you see and hear you interpret in such a way that the connecting dots between your tax money and those bombs and shells killing 'foreign' children has nothing to do with you.

As a 'Trio' we first met in the Dallas and Fort Worth Metroplex of Texas during the Nineteen Eighties. We were not influenced by a common theological or political thread, but by the insight of Eric Blair who wrote under the name of George Orwell. To get an idea of how Orwell inspired this project, we set down in print both a chronology of past events and a published monograph about its application to the present. After all, Orwell's novel 'Nineteen Eighty-Four' which was published in 1949, is actually all about a future event to take place in the year 2050, although that dateline seems to be something that most readers skim over and fail to understand.

Orwell's book is more about the use of 'Newspeak' censorship in this year of 2022, than it ever was in 1949!

Back in 2015 we set down and wrote about our endeavors in relation to George Orwell and his own views of the past: http://yesterversity.com

Prior to that we even began make our own documentary broadcasts, and one of them that was made on May 12, 1987, is about this very topic and it is still available to listen to at: https://www.mixcloud.com/mervyn-hagger/4fws-may-12-1987-big-brother-part-one/

It was originally recorded on cassette tape in Texas for broadcast by land-based unlicensed stations in Europe; the UK, and one station in New Zealand. (We even created that station's Kiwi logo!)

Part One ends with instrumental music, which after a short break, the usually unmonitored cassette began to play in reverse as Part Two, and its output was fed into an unattended transmitter. Part One was intended to establish the broadcast, and Part Two delivered the documentary: https://www.mixcloud.com/mervyn-hagger/4fws-may-12-1987-big-brother-part-two/

Since the overseas  transmitters were illegal, the tapes were made to play the second side after a very short break and so linking instrumental music was played up to the moment of silence, and then automatically resumed by the cassette player. Meanwhile, in Texas, these broadcasts were also heard over licensed stations.

Most of our response came from countries behind the so-called 'Iron Curtain', and we received very detailed letters from listeners about the program content. Unfortunately the idea of questioning the political system that created the problem in the first place was not generally speaking, of the same pressing importance to British listeners.

Much later, after we stopped making both radio and then television programs. The latter were for U.S. cable systems, and we then began to devote our attention to academia. In 2015 we wrote a monograph which deals with underlying core issues surrounding the quest for Scottish independence. You can read that published work at: http://foundthreads.com/03.html

It has taken decades to finally begin to answer the question 'Birth or Death of a Broadcasting Era?' - because as Eric Blair wrote: "... history has in a sense ceased to exist, ie. there is no such thing as a history of our own times which could be universally accepted."

But the absence of a universal understanding about past events is no accident, it is by design, and although the peoples of the United Kingdom and the United States of America like to believe that they are the bastions of freedom of speech and expression, they are in fact just as guilty of lying about past events as any other nation on this Planet. But more than that, within the lifetime of at least one member of 'The Trio', the vaunted statesman Sir Winston Churchill deliberately set out to mislead and deceive his enemies, but in so doing he could never tell the truth to his own nation about what he was doing, because he was also manipulating them and the citizens of the United States of America.

Over the decades drips and drops of information have surfaced from the classified secret vaults of the UK to reveal this charade of lying about the past. But the primary medium used to promote Churchill's lies and deception was broadcasting, and so the wheel has turned full circle.

As much as the 'hip' and supposedly 'swinging' generation of the Nineteen Sixties likes to believe that off south-east England a radio station called 'Caroline' smacked the previous generation in the face by at last throwing off their shackles of censorship, they were in fact merely being used to promote that same censorship in a different way. That is what 'The Trio' have now uncovered through constant research, and it is what they are now about to document in a series of books, rather than individual monographs.

However, frustration arises when the brainwashed generation of the Sixties refuse to even consider that they merely continued the geopolitical past into the geopolitical present. But then, that generation and the children they spawned do not seem to grasp the fact that they are now fulfilling the lifestyle that Orwell predicted would reach is dystopian climax in the year 2050. 'Nineteen Eighty-Four' is not about the past, it is about the age yet to come by 2050!

So there is still some time left to wake up and smell the roses, the coffee, and everything else, while taking a fresh look with an open mind about what we are now revealing for you to read free of charge and paid for at our own expense.

Maybe, at some point in the near future, our small group will finally succeed in establishing an Online YesterVersity that will have no hidden political or theological agenda in mind, just a quest to uncover that which should never have been hidden.

This investigation is the result of documenting the life experiences of several people, each one individually born to different parents. (For an in-depth explanation please read this academic monograph.)

If you can't be bothered to read that monograph, then nothing you will read here will make sense to you because you have already been programmed to see and hear and interpret your own life according to the information that is already installed in your brain. In other words: "garbage in and garbage out." You should now move on to something else that will not trouble your defaulted mindset.

For everyone else, this is the key to understanding what we are doing and why we are doing it: Education and learning is an ongoing process that involves critical thinking.

We are constantly analyzing the information that we are receiving, but we are still receiving it and analyzing it as individuals, three distinct individuals from three distinct and separate backgrounds. Yet the subject matter of our analysis is not uniquely individual in its preparation and receipt. It is common to all three. It is the individual interpretation that is different.

So, we, as three individuals, have asked: "How can we, individually and simultaneously come to understand as a collective unit what we are learning, if we have individually been programmed with three different lives?"

This is where the analogy of the pebble being thrown into a body of water comes into play.

There is not one pebble being thrown, but three separate pebbles and thus the individual resulting ripples are also different, and yet, these three individual pebbles are creating ripples within the same time and space.

The only way to see these three sets of ripples in context, is to also see all of the ripples created by all of the individual human beings who have ever lived on this Planet, and without getting into theological definitions, the only entity that could do that is the Entity that human beings have tried to define and understand ever since human beings first appeared on this Planet. Not being a party to that knowledge means that we three individuals have to then look anew at what we are seeing, hearing and learning by attempting to switch-off our own biased pre-programming.

In lay terms it means having an "open mind".

"Switching-off" is not easy to do, and it probably can never be achieved with total success. So if the pebble analogy refers to our own individual lives, then the only way to try to achieve an unbiased understanding of what we three are learning is to compare notes.

In academia this process results in footnoting all sources of information received so that other human beings can read them. In the legal process, it means laying down foundational evidence upon which more evidence can be laid. Clearly that process is not perfect, because innocent people are convicted by false evidence.

As detectives looking at the past record of human events, we have to be aware that some 'evidence' may have been falsely created in the past, and when 'historians' come along and selectively assemble new conclusory works based upon that false 'evidence', they can only create a false account of the past.

So, as 'YesterTecs', not as 'historians', we are treating the entire accepted record of the collective past as a 'cold case' where prior conclusions (verdicts), have resulted in the creation of new documentation that does not make logical sense.

Now, apply all of this to the subject of broadcasting.

We began with the topic of 'Radio Caroline' which lasted from 1964 to 1967.

It was a 'ripple'.

The documented account of that 'ripple' claims that it was financed by a person named 'Jimmy Ross', but after a thorough investigation into this person who has been alleged to exist, we failed to find any supporting evidence to show that such a person did exist. Therefore, if 'Jimmy Ross' did not exist, then the source of funding alleged to have been supplied by 'Jimmy Ross' did not exist, and yet, 'Radio Caroline' did exist from 1964 to 1967, and that fact can be documented by numerous supporting sources of evidence.

Some individuals have been programmed to the point that their entire being is fixated upon the idea that 'Jimmy Ross' did exist, and therefore their entire being is centered upon trying to prove a negative, which is that 'Jimmy Ross' who did not exist, did exist simply because their preprogrammed mind will not accept the fact that 'Jimmy Ross' did not exist.

This 'Jimmy Ross' factor then results in defending the idea that 'Jimmy Ross' who did not exist, did finance the creation in 1964 of 'Radio Caroline'. Entering into such an illogical discussion about a phantom, other than for purposes of a mind game, it ludicrous because each human life has such a short time span that to waste it, is to defeat the opportunities involved with living life itself.

You might as well be dead, or never born in the first instance.

But if 'Jimmy Ross' did not exist, and 'Radio Caroline' did exist in 1964, then the questions must be asked: "Who financed 'Radio Caroline', and why did they finance it, and why was the true account of that financing deliberately concealed?" Those are the questions that we have addressed and found the answers to. But like ripples in a body of water, those answers collided with more ripples.

While we are constantly aware of the false interpretations that have been conjured-up to divert attention away from the real stories about the past, we have been successful in stripping away some of those falsehoods and revealing a different account, and we are now at the point of mind-mapping a new set of focal points (pebbles) that can unlock the past. It is now a matter of time and available resources, and both are limited: One by the individual lifespans of the three core human beings involved in this project, and two: by the limited amount of funding available.

Because outside funding has neither been solicited nor accepted, the three core individuals who we refer to as 'The Trio', are only able to progress as fast as time and circumstances permit. The good news is that we now have enough material to begin to present in lay terms an explanation about the past as it relates to broadcasting. However, that past does not begin in 1964, it begins at a point in time during the Nineteenth Century.

But if all of this is too much for you to comprehend, then you should have complied with our advice at the beginning of this post and moved on to something else. For those individuals who are interested, we have now reactivated our 'Comments' board with terms of access clearly stated and enforced.

Origins of this Forum are to be found in an unlikely chain of human events that began in Orwell’s year of 1984, for that is when news coverage of pirate radio engineers and broadcasters of the Twentieth Century briefly collided with the history of pirate printers and publishers of the Seventeenth Century.

Beginning in that fabled year of “Big Brother,” a series of international news stories about plans to revive a floating commercial offshore (“pirate”) station slated to broadcast from a ship anchored off the coast of southern England called “Wonderful Radio London International” (WRLI), appeared in both broadcast and print media. These reports appeared over numerous dates following March 1984 (e.g., on the Media Network program of Radio Netherlands’ World Service; in Broadcast magazine on 23 March and in Hörzu’s radio section on 3 August in 1984, as well as on the front page of the Dallas Times Herald on 8 July, 1985).

The original demise of Wonderful Radio London took place on August 14, 1967. “On that day millions tuned in to the last few hours of broadcasting …”. That station died as a result of a drought in advertising revenue that had been brought about by a new draconian censorship law which made it a criminal offense for British citizens to work for, or to supply an offshore broadcasting station in any form or manner, whatsoever.

The station’s second coming had been heralded as though it was a new shoot from an old root attempting to break through the same parched soil that had killed the original venture. In the following years, however, that drought had only intensified and by 1985 it raised a basic WRLI question: “Why can you play rock and roll all day on the radio in America, but not in the United Kingdom?”

To read the original, full and unredacted published version of the core text reproduced above, click here.

Since 1967 the broadcasting laws of the United Kingdom have changed several times, and yet the underlying premise of those laws has not. Over the decades since this project began, it has now uncovered the hard and documented legal evidence to reveal an underlying premise in both U.S. and U.K. legislation that created a means to censoring the airwaves in both the United States and the United Kingdom.

One of the earliest attempts to circumvent restrictions placed upon the U.S. airwaves involved the contracting of time on radio stations located south of the U.S. border in Mexico. A similar attempt was made in France to circumvent restrictions placed upon the U.K. airwaves. Those two events are connected, and we now have the details.

For the very first time the real story of British and American broadcasting can now be told as one story.

In August 2022, our own investigation reached a breakthrough by refocusing our attention back on those so-called "border-blaster" stations. That is where our own story began with a question about 'rock and roll' on the airwaves of the USA and UK. That question arose after August 13, 1984, which is when we made our own first broadcast over XERF in Mexico.

The account of those stations with call letters that begin with the letter 'X', has been poorly reported to date, and yet, it is in Tarrant County, Texas where we recorded our first program which was aired on August 13, 1984 over XERF, where this story really does begin. Our radio studio was located next door to a Tarrant County radio station whose legacy is indirectly tied to the radio station at Ciudad Acuña. Those two locations, one in Texas and one in Mexico provide the combination that unlocks this entire broadcasting saga.

It is a story which spans the Atlantic Ocean.

It is one story.

It is not two separate stories.

To date, no book; no newspaper or magazine, has ever reported this story in context. It is a unique story because in part, it is also the life story of the authors!

This is the story behind the story of both American and British broadcasting.

But the story of British broadcasting cannot be understood without first knowing about both precursory and sequential events that took place in North American broadcasting. Those events explain the corresponding foundational events that subsequently took place in the United Kingdom. However, the ultimate foundation of this story is to be found in events that led up to the creation of the United Kingdom itself, long before the first advent of the United States of America!
 
That is the story that we have now uncovered and which is now being published as a part-work.

It has taken us decades to put together, and this research has been self-financed by the authors.

For a long time we accumulated several major storylines that appeared to be unconnected. Now, at last, we know that they are not, because we know that this is one story, and it is the real story about the advent of broadcasting in both the United States and the United Kingdom.

To hear recordings of the first two WRLI broadcasts heard on XERF in Ciudad Acuña, click here. 

[The authors retain all rights under law to international copyright control regarding this work in progress.]

Welcome to our new forum. It is intended to provide a platform which links together all of our many themes that began with initial research into the origins of government censorship and broadcasting in the United Kingdom and the United States of America. Our research led to a foundational discovery regarding the family interconnectivity within the lives of John Liburne with Thomas Jefferson, and several key Opinions of the U.S. Supreme Court concerning the subject of freeborn rights and politically guaranteed individual liberties.

Within the last few weeks several news events have converged into one issue that for decades we have defined as being: "Fragile Rights And Guaranteed Individual Liberties Everywhere". But until now, those issues appeared to be unrelated subjects, and the only analogy we have been able to use to describe this phenomenon is that of a pebble cast into a body of water causing ripples to radiate in all directions.

Years ago this project began with a question about freedom of the airwaves. We memorialized that 1985 event in a 2008 academic monograph which you can read here.

Our continuing and relentless research into the subject of freedom of the airwaves took us into many different areas of study, and they all came to converge around the life of one man: John Lilburne. 

Now, due an interesting turn of current news events, questions are being raised by other people that could soon lead to a new study of 'Freeborn John' (as he became known.) Regardless of how soon renewed legal interest into the constitutional legacy of John Lilburne takes place - it could be within hours of you reading this latest post, or it could be weeks or even months away - we don't know - we are certain of one thing: At some point in our future, attention will be drawn to a serious study of existing U.S. Supreme Court published Opinions, and some of those Opinions dating back to the Nineteen Forties and continuing into the Nineteen Sixties, all began to footnote aspects of the life of John Lilburne that became foundations for America's 'Bill of Rights'.

As our colleague Genie Baskir is fond of saying: "Everything old becomes new again", and with regards to  ongoing events reflecting upon the U.S. Constitution, Genie may well be right, once again. The news may yet bring the world of today to confront world of John Lilburne once again, just as it did within living memories several decades ago.

It began with one U.S. Supreme Court Justice who was soon joined by two more, and one of them was Chief Justic of the U.S. Supreme Court. They in turn referred to several U.S. Constitutional academics to for supporting documentation regarding the life of 'Freeborn John'. This when Lilburne was rediscovered and acclaimed as the foundation of America's enshrined basic freedoms.

So what happened?

An official backlash from the United Kingdom was coupled to a major sponsored promotion by 'American Express' of the various versions of 'Magna Carta' which bypassed Lilburne, and 'Magna Carta' was then falsely attached as the foundation of America's Bill of Rights. Those were the days of the Texas maverick Ross Perot and the original 'Braniff International Airways'.

​We (our 'Trio') protested this blatant and false geopolitical propaganda machine. School textbooks in the USA began proclaiming the same false message. We made the news, but no one listened. The British Crown made sure that we were drowned out, and our complaint that their yesterday never happened, was never heard by the majority of people.

But 'might' does not make 'right', even though might can muzzle the truth.

Since then, others have stolen our work. They have even twisted it into false narratives as a form of self-aggrandizement and then self-published it under their own names. Others copied those fakes and then the abuse began when we complained about their deceitful plagiarism. But now, in August 2022, world events have taken an interesting turn that may yet bring John Lilburne into world focus.

Therefore, the time has now come for us to focus all of our research upon our core issue that began with our original research linking John Lilburne to Thomas Jefferson and the U.S. Bill of Rights. We can now do this by coordinating our work into a central theme, rather than leaving it as scattered topics akin to radiated ripples in a vast body of water.

The new name for this site will be announced very shortly, and it will become part of a central hub in which all of our research will now begin to appear within contextual relationships.

It is the 'day after' the day that the Marine Offices Act' came into force on August 14, 1967, and a lot of very sad people, sick people really, the kind who support 'tributes' to this, that, and the other, while missing out on what made the originals unique.

You can't reproduce an original work of art. There is only one.

Radio London only began to get cranked-up on January 1, 1965 and by August 14, 1967 at 3PM it had come and gone - forever.

So, those sad and sick djs, and those sad and sick kids who were not even around in 1967, now 'commemorate' the coming and going of that radio station - the one that shook up the BBC, by championing 'Radio Caroline', which was a flip-flop farce.

But to the nitty-gritty.

Who paid for all that?

Herbert W. Armstrong.

​Not Wrigley's Chewing Gum.

Who put Radio London on the air?

Don Pierson.

Who?

Don Pierson.

"Never mind about him", say the anoraks, we worship the lying swindler (now dead), named Ronan O'Rahilly who couldn't even tell the truth to the world about his dad - who was a successful businessman.

That's why we washed our hands of the idiot anoraks and began delving deeper and deeper into the real story behind those offshore stations, and by not wasting more time on the anoraks, we have made some amazing discoveries: Nothing you think you know about the legacy of British broadcasting is true. We mean nothing. Not even the stories about Captain Plugge and Radio Normandie!

This investigation began sometime during 1966 when we read a book by Gleason Archer called 'The History of Radio' in the Public Library at Birmingham - in England. Its author is Gleason Archer and you can read it free of charge because it is available Online. Click here.

The section in this book that attracted our attention concerned a lawsuit centered upon New York. It was brought by AT&T against radio station WHN. The book was published in 1938, but its history only goes to the year 1926, and why we found that section to be of interest, is because it involved a major 1924 case built upon claims of 'outlaw' or 'pirate' broadcasting.

​But that was not all.

While AT&T won their case, which claimed that WHN was violating its copyrights and patents under the terms and conditions of a transmitter sale, the person responsible for policing US broadcasting use of the airwaves also had something to say. His name is Herbert Hoover and he became President of the United States just as the Great Depression began.

The word 'FRAGILE' as used in the heading refers to "Freeborn Rights And Guaranteed Individual Liberties Everywhere". For something organic like a birthright to be claimed, it refers to an entitlement not granted by a human government, but by a Higher Power. However, it is within the powers of temporal governments to prevent the exercise of basic human rights, just as it is within their powers to guarantee their access.

It was in the discovery of John Lilburne's quest to enshrine basic liberties within a written constitution that we then began to couple our knowledge of Gleason Archer's work with the work of Lilburne as highlighted by the U.S. Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black. A third factor was the work of Don Pierson of Eastland, Texas. He is the person who forced a change in British broadcasting.

It was Don Pierson's intervention in British broadcasting that caused the UK government in power to lean upon the British Broadcasting Corporation to both revamp its existing networks, and to create a new addition called 'Radio One'. The two offshore stations called 'Radio Caroline' were not influential factors at all, but the people who created the original and authentic 'Radio Caroline', did attempt to mislead and obfuscate the history of British broadcasting by creating a fictious yesterday - which events prove quite clearly and profoundly - that it never happened.

Because we are about 95% into uncovering the true story of British broadcasting as it relates to that period of time from 1964 to 1967 when 'Radio Caroline' came and went from the world stage never to return we are also at the point where we can now begin to explain what we now know, and begin to quash the bogus and often very silly and childish fake storylines that anorak supporters of bogus operations called 'Radio Caroline', have continued to push into the public media.

Unfortunately, these anoraks have a number of thieves among their number and they have repeatedly stolen our research, and then they have twisted it to support their own fake narratives. For this reason we have been careful to publish what we know in such a way that these anoraks either have no knowledge of its existence, or they find the parts that they are aware of too difficult to relate to their own fake messages.

The reason for the reprehensible actions of these 'quasi-Luddite' people is to obtain money by false pretenses from a public that is unaware of their fraudulent motivations. To date, everything shared by us with the public has been offered free of charge. However, we are now approaching the time for us to commercially exploit our work which we have paid for.

​Details will be published on this Blog.

We can now claim that we have completed about 95% of this investigation. What makes it different from other accounts covering the same time period, is that we are not following 'things' but people in their relationship to 'things'. That is how we have been able to debunk people like Ronan O'Rahilly by discovering who he really was and what he was really doing and why he was doing it. In addition to the now aging offshore radio fans who have worshiped 'things' like transmitters and ships, is another segment who have turned ordinary human beings into phantoms that have no resemblance to the lives they once lived. Both of these groups miss the real story which is a lot more compact and related than they could possibly imagine, and the problem is due to their own self-deception.