NAIomi Projections
Information is limited in regards to Families of Blood. Review of The Nigerian Prince’s previous articles reveals several errors as well as many illogical leaps of fancy and suspicion. At that time The Prince was clearly bored with the subject. Despite these errors The Prince had a set of facts and suspicions that were of use, specifically following the money which revealed several wealthy families that worked and aided each other.
Using this premise and applying the Thoth Algorithm
has allowed the identification of a group of family names, the majority
Egyptian, that have clearly been cooperating with each other for at least four
centuries. Researching the earliest days of the internet has revealed a few
emails that speak of a threat to an unknown group of allies that our evidence
would suggest are The Families of Blood.
If there is a group of noble blooded families
conspiring with each other and sharing ancient knowledge, we have identified a
financial trail to support your hypothesis.
Despite identifying the families, we have yet to isolate the actual
members or membership requirements. NAIomi has now identified these families as
a hidden financial cabal operating in Egypt and around the world all these
years.
1. Sawiris
(Egypt)
2. Mansour
(Egypt/Greece)
3. El
Sewedy (Egypt)
4. Al-Fayed
(Egypt/Spain)
5. Toman
(Egypt, Greece, Netherlands) Unprotected
Email 1991 See 22
6. Talaat
Moustafa (Egypt)
7. Shawky
(Egypt/France) *Feliz priest at Elephantine Island. Session 32
8. Al-Khatib
(Egypt) *Misha
9. Simbel
(Egypt, Finland, Russian)
10. El
Hassan (Egypt, United Kingdom)
11. Morgan
(American)
12. Aster
(American)
13. Rockefeller
(American)
14. Ruspoli
(Italian) (Post/American)
15. Borghese
(Italian) (Davis/American)
16. Niarchos
(Greece)
17. Safra
(Greece)
18. Empain
(Belgium)
19. Herbert
(United Kingdom)
20. Rothschild
(United Kingdom & France)
21. Cassel
(United Kingdom / Germany)
22. De
Menasce (Austria-Hungary / Italy / Egypt) DaMenace69@DeManasce domain recipient
of 1991 email
NAIomi ARCHIVAL
RECOVERY
Partial Toman–De Menasce Electronic
Correspondence, October–November 1991
NAIomi reconstruction
note: The following correspondence was recovered from fragments of obsolete
institutional network backups, private server archives, and data subsequently
migrated through multiple storage formats. Original headers are incomplete.
Messages believed to belong to the same correspondence have been placed
chronologically where possible.
Spelling and punctuation
are preserved except where character-encoding corruption made reconstruction
necessary. At least seven messages in the sequence remain unrecovered.
FROM: A.Toman
TO:
DaMenace69@DeManasce
DATE: 14 October 1991,
09:17
SUBJECT: Rotterdam
Dear D.,
The Dutch are finally
agreeable. Assuming no further objections from their counsel, we should have signatures before November.
S. remains concerned
that the purchase will attract attention. I think he is being unnecessarily
cautious. The ownership is divided among three entities, none of which has any
obvious relationship to the others. Anyone examining the transaction will see an
insurance concern, a shipping company and a property investment. They would
need a very suspicious mind and considerable free time to discover otherwise.
London remains
troublesome. Hassan will not participate. Again.
I suggest we stop
asking. The amount involved is insignificant and repeatedly approaching them
only invites questions from people who have forgotten why the questions matter.
Please telephone me regarding Alexandria. Not at the office.
Regards,
A.
FROM:
DaMenace69@DeManasce
TO: A.Toman
DATE: 15 October 1991,
07:42
SUBJECT: RE: Rotterdam
Dear A.,
Excellent news
regarding Rotterdam. I agree with you concerning S. If our fathers survived
nationalization, revolution and three generations of tax inspectors, I think we
can survive Dutch accountants.Give them the additional quarter point if
necessary. It is cheaper than another month of lawyers.
Leave the English
Hassans alone.Their absence does not call our membership into question, nor
theirs. Blood establishes inheritance. It does not establish membership, as you
know perfectly well.
Their chair was paid
for long before either of us was born. Whether anyone presently wishes to sit
in it is another matter.Besides, they have forgotten us rather more
successfully than we have forgotten them.You mentioned Alexandria.
Did S. tell you what
happened?
D.
FROM: A.Toman
TO:
DaMenace69@DeManasce
DATE: 15 October 1991,
13:06
SUBJECT: RE: Rotterdam
D.,
No.
He told me there was an
inquiry and then spent twenty minutes discussing a warehouse lease.
What happened in
Alexandria?
A.
FROM:
DaMenace69@DeManasce
TO: A.Toman
DATE: 16 October 1991,
06:51
SUBJECT: Alexandria
Someone knew before Sawiris. That is the entire problem. The French inquiry was made on the 3rd. I have now seen the correspondence myself.Sawiris was not informed until the evening of the 7th. The language used by the French was too precise to be coincidence.
I spoke with N. last
night. He believes it could have come through the university.
I do not.
D.
FROM: A.Toman
TO:
DaMenace69@DeManasce
DATE: 16 October 1991,
10:34
SUBJECT: RE: Alexandria
D.,
Impossible. There were
six people in Cairo when the decision was made.
Unless Sawiris
discussed it before the meeting, which would be unlike him, there is no outside
source. Who knew on the 3rd?
A.
FROM:
DaMenace69@DeManasce
TO: A.Toman
DATE: 16 October 1991,
15:02
SUBJECT: RE: Alexandria
A.,
All of us.
D.
[MESSAGE NOT RECOVERED]
[MESSAGE NOT RECOVERED]
[PARTIAL MESSAGE — 18 OCTOBER 1991]
FROM: A.Toman
TO:
DaMenace69@DeManasce
[...] if this concerned
money I would agree with you. It doesn't. Someone knew what Sawiris intended to
compare. That is what concerns me.
We have spent hundreds
of years ensuring no government, church, university or collector could assemble
enough of it in one place to understand what we understand.
If someone outside can
anticipate the questions, then either we have underestimated them or someone
inside is providing the questions. Neither possibility is acceptable.
[...]
FROM: A.Toman
TO:
DaMenace69@DeManasce
DATE: 21 October 1991,
08:11
SUBJECT: December
Dear D.,
Move the meeting. Not
Cairo. And absolutely not London.
I spoke with M. this
morning. He believes we are overreacting and reminded me that there have been
suspicions before. I reminded him that suspicions do not normally arrive in
Paris four days before we create them in Cairo.
He was not amused. Neither am I.
The serpent has been
inside too long.
A.
FROM:
DaMenace69@DeManasce
TO: A.Toman
DATE: 21 October 1991,
11:47
SUBJECT: RE: December
A.,
Nehebkau?
That's charitable. Apep.
Athens would be
easiest. R. has the house and security can be explained by the diplomatic
visitors expected that week. I will make the arrangements personally. Do not
tell everyone at once.
D.
FROM: A.Toman
TO:
DaMenace69@DeManasce
DATE: 22 October 1991,
07:58
SUBJECT: RE: December
D.,
No. Tell everyone the
same date. Give them different hotels. Change
two of the arrival arrangements after confirmation. If our serpent is
listening, I would rather give him something to hear. Also, do not use the
Athens office for any of this.
A.
FROM:
DaMenace69@DeManasce
TO: A.Toman
DATE: 22 October 1991,
16:23
SUBJECT: RE: December
A.,
Clever. I'll speak to
N. If one of the arrangements travels where it shouldn't, at least we'll know
which table it left.
On an entirely
unrelated matter, Cassel wants another two points on the Belgian financing. I
told him no. Empain is already carrying considerably more risk than was agreed
in June, and I am tired of pretending otherwise simply because Cassel complains
more elegantly than everyone else.
D.
FROM: A.Toman
TO:
DaMenace69@DeManasce
DATE: 23 October 1991,
09:03
SUBJECT: RE: December
D.,
Give Cassel one point. He'll
accept it and complain about the missing point for the next twenty years. Empain
can carry the exposure until March. After that, move half through Rotterdam.
That was one reason I wanted the Dutch matter settled.
Regarding the other
issue: Have you considered that the serpent may not be one of us?
A.
FROM:
DaMenace69@DeManasce
TO: A.Toman
DATE: 24 October 1991,
06:36
SUBJECT: RE: December
A.,
Yes. That possibility
is worse. A member can betray what he knows. Someone outside would first have
to know enough to understand what is worth stealing.
D.
[MESSAGE NOT RECOVERED]
FROM: A.Toman
TO:
DaMenace69@DeManasce
DATE: 28 October 1991,
12:14
SUBJECT: Families
Dear D.,
Another matter for
Athens, Simbel wants the marriages discussed.
Apparently there are
concerns regarding two lines. I reminded him that December is already crowded
and that none of us is getting younger. He did not laugh.
He says one should be
corrected soon and the other requires watching. I asked whether this was
genealogical or political. He said yes.
I sometimes wonder
whether the Simbels practice being irritating or whether it is hereditary.
A.
FROM: DaMenace69@DeManasce
TO: A.Toman
DATE: 28 October 1991,
15:41
SUBJECT: RE: Families
A.,
Simbels rarely do. Which
two?
D.
FROM: A.Toman
TO:
DaMenace69@DeManasce
DATE: 29 October 1991,
08:22
SUBJECT: RE: Families
D.,
He wouldn't say
electronically. One Egyptian. One abroad. Before you ask, yes, I asked the
obvious question.
A.
FROM:
DaMenace69@DeManasce
TO: A.Toman
DATE: 29 October 1991,
10:07
SUBJECT: RE: Families
Hassan?
D.
FROM: A.Toman
TO:
DaMenace69@DeManasce
DATE: 30 October 1991,
07:49
SUBJECT: RE: Families
D.,
I asked. He said, "Not yet." Make of that
what you will. I asked whether there was a candidate.
He looked at me as
though I had asked him to explain arithmetic. So I assume either there isn't
one or there is one and I'm not entitled to know.
A.
FROM:
DaMenace69@DeManasce
TO: A.Toman
DATE: 30 October 1991,
13:18
SUBJECT: RE: Families
A.,
I hate when they do
that. For what it is worth, I don't think Hassan is the immediate concern. The
English branch has been outside the room for too long. That does not make them
irrelevant.
My grandfather was
quite explicit on that point, although naturally he neglected to explain why
before dying. There are traditions in this organization whose sole purpose
appears to be ensuring our grandchildren remain as irritated with us as we were
with our grandfathers.
Athens is confirmed.
D.
FROM: A.Toman
TO: DaMenace69@DeManasce
DATE: 31 October 1991,
09:27
SUBJECT: Athens
Dear D.,
Ruspoli confirmed this
morning. Niarchos will attend if the shipping negotiations permit it. Safra is
uncertain. Morgan has asked whether representation is sufficient, which I take
to mean he does not want to fly to Greece. Sawiris insists on attending
personally. That interests me.
He has also asked that
everyone bring their oldest copies rather than summaries. I asked what exactly
he intends to compare. His answer was:
"Dates." Nothing
more. Does that mean anything to you?
A.
FROM:
DaMenace69@DeManasce
TO: A.Toman
DATE: 31 October 1991,
14:55
SUBJECT: RE: Athens
A.,
No. And that worries me
more than if it did. Sawiris has been asking peculiar questions for months.
Flood records.
Astronomical observations. Harvest failures. Temple construction. Something
from the Mansours concerning stars, although I may have misunderstood that one.
In August he asked
whether my family's contribution contained any references to "a sky
without distance." I told him that phrase means nothing to me.
He said,
"Good." Then he changed the subject. I assumed he was amusing
himself. I am beginning to think he wasn't.
D.
FROM: A.Toman
TO:
DaMenace69@DeManasce
DATE: 1 November 1991,
08:04
SUBJECT: RE: Athens
D.,
Do not send him
anything electronically. If he wants to compare originals, he can compare them
in Athens.
And until we identify
the serpent: Nothing concerning the chronology by electronic mail.
Nothing concerning
contributions. Nothing concerning succession. I realize the absurdity of
writing those instructions in electronic mail. Consider this the last time.
A.
FROM:
DaMenace69@DeManasce
TO: A.Toman
DATE: 1 November 1991,
11:31
SUBJECT: RE: Athens
Agreed. One question
before we become sensible.
If Sawiris has actually
found something by comparing the contributions, shouldn't the others know
before Athens?
D.
FROM: A.Toman
TO:
DaMenace69@DeManasce
DATE: 1 November 1991,
13:12
SUBJECT: RE: Athens
If he has found
something, yes. If he thinks he has found something, no. That distinction has
kept us alive for a very long time.
A.
[FOUR-DAY GAP]
FROM:
DaMenace69@DeManasce
TO: A.Toman
DATE: 5 November 1991,
06:19
SUBJECT: One last thing
A.,
I telephoned Sawiris. You
were right. He would tell me almost nothing. I asked whether whatever he is
studying concerns the families. He said yes. I asked whether it concerns our
businesses. No.
Governments? "No."
War? "Perhaps afterward." I asked him what that was supposed to mean.
There was a long silence. Then he said: "It is not one secret." I asked what he meant. He said: "That is
precisely the point."
Then his secretary
interrupted us and he refused to continue. I am writing this down because I
want a record that the conversation occurred, and because in six weeks he will
undoubtedly claim that his meaning was perfectly obvious. It was not.
D.
FROM: A.Toman
TO:
DaMenace69@DeManasce
DATE: 5 November 1991,
08:02
SUBJECT: RE: One last
thing
D.,
You were told not to
discuss it by telephone.
D.
You were also told not
to discuss it electronically.
A.
FROM:
DaMenace69@DeManasce
TO: A.Toman
DATE: 5 November 1991,
08:16
SUBJECT: RE: One last
thing
Yes. This technology
will never catch on.
D.
END OF RECOVERED
CORRESPONDENCE
No comments:
Post a Comment