Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Can we lay this Diana nonsense to rest now?
-
11-12-2006 12:16am#1
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
UnHolyMoe wrote:What have most of the theories here got to do with this country? Is Bertie a reptile?
Diana's importance stems from the fact that she was the most profiled member of the royal family. What she did would have an effect on how people looked the royal family. If she was pregrant with Dodi Fayid's baby would also serious effect on the succession to the throne if both her children with Charles died without an heir.
A) Diana wasn't pregnant.
Any Child of Diana's wouldn't inherit the throne, in pretty much any circumstances.I wonder if the Zapruder film had anything to do with the censorship involved with the Diana crash pics? What don't they want us to see?
Woa two non sequitur's in one. What's wrong the Zapruder film? What's wrong with the Diana pictures? What possible connection is there between the two.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
Diogenes wrote: Any Child of Diana's wouldn't inherit the throne, in pretty much any circumstances.
Being pedantic, I assume you mean that any child of Diana's but not of Charles' would not inherit the throne.
While I agree with you, the "problem" with this explanation is that conspiracy theorists generally never accept findings by the authorities when they have decided that it was the authorities who did something that they are covering up.Fratton Fred wrote:I don’t know much about the MI5, but I suspect if they want to kill someone, a car crash is a pretty hit or miss way of doing it.
It was a car crash, plain and simple.
If it hasn't already been done, I'm sure someone will borrow the remote-control-car notion from that Bond movie to "prove" that there would be nothing hit-and-miss about a car crash.
As for it being hit-or-miss....I would point out that part of the investigation involved modelling the crash, which showed that with the speed they were allegedly doing, the laws of physics dictated that they hit that column at that speed. Nothing to stop you doing that in advance, and calculating that the chances of them walking out alive are as close to nil as you get.
And if they did walk out alive, who'd believe a drunk driver when he claimed that some mysterious force took control of the car and it didn't respond any more.
Gosh...this is easier than I thought. I could write a book and launch a website.0 -
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Diogenes wrote:A) Diana wasn't pregnant.
According to Dr. Frederick Mailliez an emergency doctor who arrived shortly after the crash and spoke to Diana and she told him that she was 6 weeks pregnant but he later retracted those comments. Why? Any Child of Diana's wouldn't inherit the throne, in pretty much any circumstances.
Yes they would. If William became king and died and Harry also died both without heirs then the next in line would be a half brother or sister to the king who would share the same bloodline from their mothers side. To become king or queen is based on your descendancy from the current ruler.Woa two non sequitur's in one. What's wrong the Zapruder film? What's wrong with the Diana pictures? What possible connection is there between the two.
Exactly! What is wrong with the Diana pictures and why were most of them confiscated by the french authorities and never returned to their owners? Are there people hanging around the crash scene that they don't want us to identify? "Back and to the left" maybe?0 -
-
-
-
-
-
billy the squid wrote:The fact that you know which thread I mean means you understand the warning.
That is good enough for me.
Not really billy, there's only a handful of threads in this forum, pointed at a thread I just posted in, and muttering about a warning doesn't seem to make any sense to me?
0 -
Diogenes wrote:Not really billy, there's only a handful of threads in this forum, pointed at a thread I just posted in, and muttering about a warning doesn't seem to make any sense to me?
I think you know damn well what I'm issuing the warning for.
Now if you have nothing to add to the subject matter of this thread then stay out of it!
End of discussion.0 -
A fundamental question about the diana official inquiry and other such inquiries (eg JFK) has to be, what mechanisms are in place to ensure the integrity of the inquiry in the event that those carrying out the inquiry are themselves corrupt? The answer is none. Which means that if they are corrupt, they have the power to skew the terms of reference and depth of the inquiry in favour of their desired outcome, without challenge. The outcome of the official inquiry is then accepted as fact.
I'd like to post David Icke's December newsletter in relation to the Stevens inquiry. Its an interesting read. (There are some pictures with this that I cant seem to insert - you can see the whole article with pics heres http://www.davidickeforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=42434&highlight=stevens) Enjoy
The Heart sees what is essentially invisable to the eyes.
OFFICIAL 'INQUIRIES' ...
DAVID ICKE NEWSLETTER DECEMBER 23RD 2006
... SPEAK NO TRUTH, SEE NO TRUTH, HEAR NO TRUTH ...
Hello all ... George Orwell's Newspeak works on the principle of describing something in the very opposite terms of what it is really there to do.
For example, in his novel, 1984, the Ministry of Plenty was responsible for food rationing and control; the Ministry of Truth was the government's propaganda machine; the Ministry of Peace ran a perpetual war; and the Ministry of Love was the place where dissidents were tortured.
We see the same principle in what are called 'official' inquiries, Congressional 'investigations' and 'Royal Commissions'. They would appear on the face of it to be efforts to establish the truth of what has happened, but, as they are Newspeak phenomena, they are actually there to do the opposite.
The blatant examples of this are legion, including the 'inquiry' into the death of Princess Diana that reported a few days ago. I'll come to this later, but there are so many examples of my theme here.
The Warren Commission into the assassination of President Kennedy decided that he was killed by Lee Harvey Oswald and there was no wider conspiracy or group involved. This was the version that those who really killed the president wanted the public to believe and the Warren Commission was set up to reach the desired conclusion, no matter what the evidence to the contrary.
The Commission was established by Lyndon Johnson who replaced Kennedy in the White House, a life-long political crook who was well aware of what was going to happen in Dealey Plaza that November day in 1963. It was he who reversed all the Kennedy policies on the Vietnam War, interest-free money and much else, once the bullets were fired.
The Commission was headed by Chief Justice Earl Warren, a Freemasonic Grand Master in California, and was dominated by Illuminati insiders and people who hated Kennedy. These included the World Bank President, John J. McCloy, the future US President, Gerald Ford, a 100% stooge of the cartel, and the infamous Allen Dulles, the first head of the CIA who was fired by Kennedy.
They came to the conclusion that they were told to come to by the shadow people and thus supported the lie that Oswald was the killer. Hardly anyone in the United States believes this now and nor should they, given that Kennedy and Oswald were so clearly set up.
The Commission even had to invent the insane 'magic bullet theory' to explain wounds to Kennedy and Texas Governor John Connally. The magic bullet had to dramatically change direction, ricochet off bones, and yet remain in the pristine condition in which it was found. Connally refused to accept the Commission's findings and told a friend of mine that he could not say publicly what he knew because of threats made against him and his family.
This is what most official 'inquiries' are established to do. The outcome is decided beforehand and the 'facts' are made to fit. Any potentially fatal evidence, fatal to the official story that is, is simply ignored.
We saw a wonderful example of this with the 9/11 Commission that was supposed to reveal the truth of what happened that terrible September day in 2001. Of course, its real job was to maintain the cover up. This is why Bush first appointed the manipulator par excellence, Henry Kissinger, to head this 'inquiry', but he was forced to step down because of his lack of independent credibility and his refusal to reveal the client list of his Illuminati front company, Kissinger Associates.
His replacements were also insiders, as they were bound to be. Thomas Kean had been a director of the National Endowment for Democracy, a long-time front for CIA covert operations overseas and has investment connections to the same Saudi sources that have funded both President Bush and Osama bin Laden. Among them are Khalid bin Mahfouz, who was named by the Clinton State Department as a financer of terrorism. Vice chairman Lee Hamilton sits on advisory boards to the CIA, the President's Homeland Security Advisory Council, and the US Army.
The 9/11 Commission's final report was written by executive staff director, Philip Zelikow, who was appointed by Bush to the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board and was for three years on the National Security Council of father Bush. Zelikow has worked closely with Condoleezza Rice and even co-wrote a book with her, Germany Unified and Europe Transformed: A Study in Statecraft. She appointed him to be the main writer of the Bush National Security Strategy in 2002 that used 9/11 to justify the policy of attacking countries that posed no imminent threat. This was the guy who was executive director of a Commission 'investigating', among other things, the actions of Bush and Rice on September 11th.
Norman Mineta
One piece of vital evidence that the Commission refused to include in its written report was that of the Secretary of Transportation, Norman Mineta, who's testimony demolished the official story that claimed the authorities had 'lost' Flight 77 as it headed for Washington and crashed (so it is claimed despite the evidence) into the Pentagon. But Mineta told the Commission how he was in the White House underground command bunker at this time with Vice President Cheney and he knew that the 'plane' had most definitely not been 'lost'. Mineta said in evidence:
'During the time that the airplane was coming in to the Pentagon, there was a young man who would come in and say to the Vice President, "The plane is 50 miles out." "The plane is 30 miles out." And when it got down to "the plane is 10 miles out," the young man also said to the Vice President, "Do the orders still stand?" And the Vice President turned and whipped his neck around and said, "Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?"'
So Norman Mineta, the Secretary for Transportation who had ordered the skies to be cleared that morning, was telling the 9/11 Commission that the official version was a lie as he had seen at first hand. Then there was the comment from Cheney about the orders still standing. What orders? Well, they could not have been the orders to shoot down the plane because it wasn't shot down. That only the leaves the possibility that the orders referred to not shooting it down and allowing it to continue to the Pentagon.
This was devastating testimony and demanded at the very least serious questioning of Cheney. But instead of doing this, the Commission simply did not mention what Mineta had said in its written findings because the idea was to suppress the truth, not expose it.
The same technique can be found all over the world and it can be summed up in one sentence: You don't establish an investigation that could destroy you unless you know before the start that it won't.
In Britain, Prime Minister Tony Blair appointed a stooge called Lord Hutton to 'investigate' the death of weapons expert, David Kelly, and the reporting of a BBC journalist called Andrew Gilligan, who quoted Kelly anonymously as saying that the government's 'dossier' on the alleged threat from Saddam Hussein had been 'sexed up' to sell the war.
Lord Hutton, or Lord Whitewash as he became known, reported that the BBC was in the wrong, that David Kelly committed suicide when he was clearly murdered, and that Tony Blair and the Intelligence agencies did nothing amiss.
The report led to the sacking of Andrew Gilligan and the resignations of the BBC chairman and Director General when what Gilligan had said turned out to be true. The dossier had been 'sexed up', in fact massively so, because they knew that Saddam did not pose the threat they claimed and did not have the weapons of mass destruction they alleged to be stockpiled.
But place-man Hutton, appointed by Blair, gave his master the decision that he not only demanded, but needed to survive.
Which brings us to the last few days and the report of the 'inquiry' into the death of Princess Diana in that Paris tunnel on August 31st 1997. This 'inquiry', called Operation Paget, was headed by Lord Stevens, the former head of the London Metropolitan Police, who decided after three years and four million pounds that the official story was indeed true.
'Our conclusion is that, on all the evidence available at this time, there was no conspiracy to murder any of the occupants of the car', Stevens said. This was a tragic accident. There was no conspiracy and no cover-up.'
Did anyone ever think there would be any other outcome from the moment the 'inquiry' began?
Eighteen key witnesses were not interviewed by the Stevens team and the Monte Carlo jeweller, Alberto Repossi, claims that the Operation Paget detectives pressured him to change his story about providing the ring for what he said was the imminent engagement of Diana and Dodi Fayed. Repossi says he has the receipts and CCTV footage to show that Diana and Fayed chose a £230,000 emerald and diamond band called Dis-Moi Oui - Tell Me Yes.
The jeweller says he opened his store at the Place Vendome across from the Ritz Hotel for Dodi Fayed to visit on August 30th. Repossi says that detectives told him it was not an engagement ring and he went on:
'They warned me that if anyone lied to Lord Stevens then he had the power to get people sent to prison. They kept repeating the warnings of the risk to my reputation and the bad press coverage I would get. But despite all this, I was not prepared to change what I'd said before because it was the truth.'
But whatever the truth, such inquiries are not interested if it puts the establishment they serve in any danger of exposure. Stevens says he found 'no evidence' that Prince Philip was in league with British Intelligence over Diana's murder and that 'Philip saw no reason to comment on any of these claims'.
Oh, that's okay then, if British Intelligence says there was no link and no involvement and Prince Philip sees no reason to comment, there is 'no evidence' that such connections exist. Crazy.
Stevens also said there was 'no evidence' that the National Security Agency (NSA) in the United States had ever bugged Diana's phones and other communications. How does Steven's know this? Because US officials had assured him that this was the case and that secretly-recorded conversations in their possession shed no new light on her death. Firstly, those last two sentences are in direct contradiction of each other and, secondly, did he demand to hear the conversations that were secretly recorded? No, he took their word for it - the same with British Intelligence when they said the same and denied they had Diana under surveillance.
'Hello, this is Lord Stevens, is that National Security Agency?'
'Sure is, buddy.'
'Did you bug Diana's phones?'
'No, sir.'
'Okay, thank-you, sorry to bother you.'
'No problem, bye ... heh, heh, heh, heh.'
I know from my own source close to Diana that British Intelligence was indeed tracking her every movement and that she was warned by friendly agents within MI5 that she should watch her back because her life was in danger. This is where much of her information came from when she wrote about Prince Charles planning to kill her in a car accident.
My source, Christine Fitzgerald, a friend of Diana for nine years, was there to be interviewed by Lord Stevens and she is quoted extensively in The Biggest Secret, but naturally Lord Stevens and co would never go there.
Murdered detective Barry Mannakee with Diana
In the late 1980s, with her marriage nothing more than a public show, Diana was having a relationship with her personal detective, Barry Mannakee, but he died in a motorcycle 'accident' in 1988. By 1990, Diana was having a relationship with Captain James Hewitt. One day, about this time, she went rushing into Christine Fitzgerald's healing centre in London in a terrible state. Christine told me what happened next:
'She was crying hysterically and I said "What's a matter?" You know it was dog's died stuff, bottom lip out, full sob. She came galloping through the door. I gave her Rescue Remedy, clutched her, hugged her, calmed her down, and said now tell me what's going on. "I can't believe it, I can't believe it, they killed him", she sobbed. I said: "Who did they kill?" She told me about her affair with the detective [Barry Mannakee] and how he was decapitated on a motorbike and how she thought it was a terrible accident. But now she knows the royal family killed him because Prince Charles' senior detective had just told her that if she didn't cool it with Hewitt, the same would happen to him. He told her she should not think that she was indispensable, either.'
James Hewitt
In 1998, in the Independent Television documentary, Diana - Secrets of the Crash, James Hewitt says that he, too, had been warned to stop seeing Diana or the consequences would not be pleasant. He said:
'The telephone calls were anonymous, but left me in no doubt that they knew what the situation was. They were threatening. They said it was not conducive to my health to continue the relationship.'
He said that other warnings came from Diana's personal police protection officers, the Royal Household, and a member of the Royal family, whom he would not name:
'The [member of the royal family] said your relationship is known about. It is not supported. We cannot be responsible for your safety and security and suggest that you curtail it forthwith.'
James Hewitt was further quoted in The Times of London about these threats and his comments supported completely the story Diana had told Christine Fitzgerald. Hewitt said that the clearest warning came when he was told that he would suffer the same fate as Barry Mannakee.
The royal family are figureheads for the established order that includes those controlling the government, 'law enforcement' and the intelligence networks. This is the cabal which, with others in France, killed Diana.
Yet Lord Stevens tells us in his official report that there is no evidence that the royal family or intelligence agencies were involved in her death. Of course they were, the Steven's report is a farce and comes from a long line of farces collectively know as 'official inquiries'.
Nowadays, whenever I see the word 'official' my mind reads it as 'lie'.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Diogenes wrote:A) Diana wasn't pregnant.
According to Al Fyaid she told him she was. Any Child of Diana's wouldn't inherit the throne, in pretty much any circumstances.
There is no written constitution in England so anything is possible.Woa two non sequitur's in one. What's wrong the Zapruder film? What's wrong with the Diana pictures? What possible connection is there between the two
What I am highlighting here is that Zapruder film has been a point on which CT's have based their theories and I believe that the Diana pictures could show us who was around at the time of the crash and what was their purpose there.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
UnHolyMoe wrote:It's hard to get if not near impossible to retieve internet news stories from the 1990's directly from sources such as newspapers and the Time page was the only one I could get that was close to what I was saying (the unmamed associate could have been Mailliez). Their are lots of other sources which claim that Mailliez made this comment but they could be described a been biased so I won't bother linking them. Even if you leave Mailliez out then there are other sources who claim that she was pregnant, such as the French investigator.
Theres two points here,
A) Diana was pregnant and her children were part of the line succession. The latter part of this claim has been effectivelu ridiculed. There is no way a child of Diana, could be seen as a credible line of succession. So that theory as to why she was "murdered" is moot. the Doctor, again with speculative. If the doctor agreed repeataly and the evidence supported this, well you'd have a point, but well no medical evidence supports the claim diana was pregnant. You've got speculation and conjecture, I suppose they are kinds of proof, but not actual evidence... 0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
Advertisement