Nicola Bulley: More Police Incompetence?

 The disappearance of Nicola Bulley has baffled experts and the Police alike.

It seems pretty clear that on the day of her disappearance the Police had a fixed idea of what happened to her: that she'd fallen in the river and drowned. 

They didn't it appears consider any other possibility, so unfortunately vital evidence may have been destroyed in the days following her disappearance as the Police failed to explore other avenues.

For instance, looking at news footage, the area around where her phone was left was not secured for any great length of time, so forensic examination could not be done after it was proven she wasn't in the river. Vital evidence may have been destroyed.

Secondary to that, searches for evidence in the wider area were not done, so for instance if she had been taken across the river by an abductor, evidence around what I've heard is a disused house may also have been destroyed.

What I'm saying is that thanks to the Police being closed to other scenarios, they instantly focussed on the river to the exclusion of everything else and now it's extremely difficult to track back and find any new evidence that may rule out the river drowning theory.

Looking at the area via Google maps, it appears that there are very few routes from the field where a car can be parked for a while, let alone where an abducted person could be dragged to without being seen.

If she hasn't simply walked out of the area and has been abducted against her will, then whoever did that would have required some premeditation and a fair degree of planning. Which is interesting in itself, because then one has to ask the question: Why her? Was she the actual target, or was someone just waiting for a victim - any victim to present themselves?  

A camera at a local caravan site that supposedly overlooked the field was frustratingly out of action on that day, so does that presuppose the abductor knew about the camera and the opportunity of an abduction without detection? So who knew about the broken camera?

Interestingly, the Caravan park upstream of the field called Rowanwater has a lake. I do hope the lake has been checked and hasn't been ignored in preference to the river. An opportunist could snatch her, take her to cover, do whatever they wanted and then dump her in the lake. 

The best option would be to take her upstream, not downstream. Downstream takes her into the town, with more chance of detection and there is a weir to contend with as well. Which reminds me: the area below the weir is quite shallow, so if she drowned, the body would have to be pushed by the flow over the weir (unlikely) and then somehow be guided along the slightly deeper channels and not end up on a sandbank.

I did have a discussion several years ago with a girl in Yorkshire. Basically a scenario where she either wanted to disappear or was abducted from her town which had a small river running through it and then transported by canoe downstream to a boat which could then take her anywhere in the country via the river and canal network. (She lived in a town where the River Derwent flowed through). So if Nicola was taken downstream below the weir to a waiting canoe, then taken further downstream, they would have had to go through the town, past the pub, under the bridge carrying the main road, then further downstream, past buildings and caravan sites. Not impossible to do that and not be seen on a cold winter's day in a sparsely populated area I grant you. But there is a chance of detection, unless you disguise yourself as a fisherman.

The river below St Michael's is tidal, so the banks are heaped up higher then the land to prevent flooding and the banks are quite steep. Even though there are places to park a car downstream, dragging a person or a canoe over the bank is quite a task. Further downstream where the river widens and the banks become shallower would be an option, but that's a long way from St Michael's to go upstream unless you use the early morning tide.

Next there is upstream. There are a few limited opportunities to move upstream from the dog-walking field. You do have to walk past the Caravan site (the downside being there's a fence in the way), but this time of year the chances of detection are low and of course the cameras weren't working. So that's a possibility. 

Past the caravan park there are a number of smallholdings, which provide cover. So again a possibility, but the chances of being seen are fair. Not good, because on a murky cold  winter's day, the area is not particularly busy. 

However, if a vehicle was parked in any of those smallholdings, it would have been noticed, unless it was some form of farm vehicle like an old Landrover.

So, not down stream, not upstream. What about across the river? Well, the river is according to the divers on the news around 12ft deep at that point. So not easy to cross without a boat. Across from the Rowanwater caravan park is the River Brock. a small stream really, more of a drainage channel. It runs from the Wyre through farmland. I don't think that's viable route because there are no roads near it and usually channels like that have plenty of barbed wire across them as landowners consider the brook as their property.

However, across from the dog walking area I believe from reports there is a disused house. If that's the large house I can see on Google maps, then that's an option. The immediate bank is not sheltered or covered though, so detection might be an issue, although down around the weir there is enough cover. But again, getting a struggling person into a boat, across a river and then up another bank is a bit of a tough call. 

I did think there was an option of crossing the river, then meeting a car at the car park next to the school (the only car park where a strange car could be located without arousing suspicion). There is enough cover (just) to manage that on your own, but not with a struggling victim.

The most likely scenarios are she walked away on her own, or voluntarily with someone else, or she was taken to cover, then dumped in the lake or possibly under one of the caravans in the immediate area.

There's an outside chance she was taken to a boat or canoe just below the weir and then floated out on the outgoing tide. But then there's deciding where a vehicle could park near the tidal river. If I was a guessing man, I'd say the Shard Bridge where the tidal river widens and there is plenty of cover and a shallow bank. But then there are several caravan sites along the way where an abductor could be spotted. 

Or optionally, there is a small beach by the dog-walking field. Could she have been snatched, taken to the boat, transported a way downstream and then across the river to the opposite bank once there was enough cover? It's plausible given the river is lower than the field so can't be seen from the field, but at one point it goes awfully close to the path round the field where the bench is where the phone was found. Detection at that point is high unless you are sure there is no-one on the path. And also there is a corresponding easy route out of the river on the opposing bank.

Finally I still can't get my head around how someone could disappear during a teams call. According to reports she was on the call whilst she disappeared. So how does that happen? 

A final, final thought would be that maybe she was abducted by more than one person. One doing the catch and then meeting another driving a car.

A very strange case indeed. 

Removal of Dissent to One World Government and a Realisation of Who Globalists Really Are.

For a long time I've suspected that the Powers that drive the "One World Government" Globalist agenda are financing dissenting voices, but only on their terms.

A new example of this is Mark Steyn on the GB News channel and his refusal to return based on new contract terms handed to him that basically make him liable for the outcome of any "wrong-speak".

I've seen a trend for various actors to pop up as the "True Voice of Conservatism" and sound like they mean it, but several times when they come close to delivering a true alternative to the OWG/WEF, fail to deliver. 

GB News is just the latest in a long line of fake Conservative platforms and political parties.

I'd lump in Nigel Farage in with that, because when he came so close to winning, he quit. I understand he wanted Brexit, but after getting the referendum vote, he just up and quit. He could have ridden that wave all the way to the 2019 election and could and should have had an MP in Parliament, especially after the actions of MPs after the Brexit vote to weaken it with second referendums, constitutional malfeasance, etc.

Nope, he copped out and left. Then he created a new party, the Brexit (later Reform) party in competition with UKIP. Splitting the Brexit vote further. That's not the actions of a person that wants to win.

Now we have UKIP, Reform and Reclaim all vying for the same votes, weakening the anti-Globalist vote. Even David Kurten (ex-UKIP) has jumped in and formed the Heritage party FFS.

Not one party has bitten their tongue and agreed to form an anti-Globalist alliance. Too many egos? No idea, but the sponsors of these parties, if they really believed in the cause would knock heads together and push for a unified party.

It's almost like it's a deliberate policy to keep those of us wanting an end to globalism tied up and forever muted, because our split vote will never overcome the pro-globalist united front of the Labour, Liberal and Tory parties. (Yes, whichever one of the main parties you vote for, neither of them will change the course of the country).

Well GB News viewers, UKIP, Reform and Reclaim voters, enjoy the prison your globalist sponsors have created for you. A prison where various actors promise sunny uplands, better times ahead and a dissenting voice to the globalist narrative. But never, ever deliver their promise. Almost like the carrot on the stick in front of the Donkey. You never get the prize.

Don't forget, Turkeys don't vote from Christmas, and very rich political donors are very likely to be Globalists, not anti-globalists.

Oh you might say, we got Brexit done. And it's true, the Globalist's eyes were like saucers on the day of the result. 

But now I believe Brexit has been given some ulterior motive for the globalists. I haven't quite worked it out yet, but the detail is in the various agreements made with the EU. I suspect that for some Globalists a United Ireland and an end to the issues there would be an advantage. Also fomenting the separatist movement of the SNP in Scotland is another way to neuter the UK. 

By watering down Brexit and making it as bad as it can be, it forces us to either re-enter the globalist cabal, or we end up torn apart and neutered. 

Why would a neutered UK be of interest to the one-world-government types? Could it be revenge?

Globalism and Globalists in general are very dangerous people and you need to understand how dangerous they are. They are willing to kill millions of people, they are willing to crush major countries. They want the World. One World, One Party, One Government. 

Now that sounds familiar.... where have I heard something like that before?

Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Führer!

Ah, that's where. Definitely revenge then...

I understand why the acolytes of the globalists follow them. It was an attractive ideology back in the 1940s and it's an attractive ideology now. The idea that you are above all, you belong to the elite, a super-race, among the supposed super-intelligent. Back in the Germany of the 1930's the Germans put themselves as a race above others in a similar way. 

Germany had superior ideas, superior scientists, superior technology. Sound familiar to the Globalist ideology? The science is settled, we own the science, do as we say...

As I said, VERY dangerous people, these Globalists.

Up, Up and Away in My Chinese Spy Balloon... And Crashing Down to Earth Way to Late.

 Ah, the saga of the spy balloon, that China say isn't a spy balloon, but most definitely is a spy balloon.

Apparently, the balloon is not a configuration that is a weather balloon. It has solar panels, which means it's designed to be in flight a lot longer than a weather balloon. It also has motors and propellers fitted, which means it has some station-keeping and manoeuvring capability, not a capability required by your average weather balloon. The give-away was China calling it a "Civilian Airship" 

The fact that another balloon is also over South America means that the releases were pretty deliberate.

The US said they had taken steps to mitigate any surveillance the Chinese could do. I take it that amounts to spreading out big white sheets over the snow-covered Montana silo sites. 

The real question is why are the Chinese using balloons, a relatively old and primitive technology to do surveillance? The answer may be in their past military space projects. They've already successfully trialled satellite-killing capability. If they went to war with America by Invading Taiwan, the Chinese would immediately deny space to the Americans (and the rest of the world) by killing a few Satellites and enveloping the Earth with debris. If it ever came to China invading Taiwan, if I were a Russian Cosmonaut on the ISS I'd be very worried as I don't really have a lifeboat at the moment.

A cascade of failures would occur and global surveillance from space would be stopped in it's tracks. 

Ah, you say... wouldn't satellites be needed to receive the signals from the balloon and send them back to China? Not necessarily: China could have a setup that used secure comms over the cellular network. Unless you're going to switch off the cellular network across North America including Canada, China could just do that. But then the U.S. could shoot the thing down immediately, rather than let it fly over some of the most sensitive sites in the country.

At which point, using the prevailing winds and balloons would give China an advantage. America would be using high altitude drones for their surveillance. The cost of losing and replacing a drone is a lot higher than a balloon with some scaffolding, solar panels and some clever tech attached.

Even killing the balloon isn't cheap. The US this weekend used an F-22 Raptor and an AIM-9X missile to shoot the balloon down. The AIM-9X on it's own accounted for close to half a million dollar's worth of exploding technology used to down something that probably cost a fraction of that.

You can begin to see why a balloon might not be technology of the past. 

Anyway, hopefully the U.S. fish the bits of Chinese kit out of the waters off Carolina and confirm what tech was actually fitted to the spy/not spy/spy balloon.

It's a shame they didn't go all James Bond-sy and have a group of jumpers ready to jump out of a high altitude aircraft and rendezvous with the falling lump of metal, attach a parachute to it and then pull the cord so it drifted down rather than slammed into the sea. 

Maybe next time. And no, I won't be doing it, I'm way too old for that shit.