Some weird breaking news in the UK on Sky News.

According to them and the Police they are accessing new information found that points to a SAS / Military involvement into the death of Princess Diana.

New information that alleges Princess Diana was murdered has been passed to Scotland Yard through the Royal Military Police, according to the Metropolitan Police.

The information will be assessed by officers from the Specialist Crime and Operations Command.

The deaths of the Princess of Wales and Dodi al Fayed in Paris in 1997 were investigated and examined during a 90-day inquest led by Lord Justice Scott Baker at the Royal Court of Justice in 2007.

http://news.sky.com/story/1129902/di...eath-police-passed-new-information

Hey.its only been 16 years Dianes drunk ass driver decided to drive into that tunnel. Its about time for those rumors based on "new details" to start coming out.

I thnk that was about the time it took for the stories about the CIA killing Kennedy to start coming out.

Quoting OA260 (Thread starter):

If it were true...there is just no way it can be allowed to be 'annoucned so'...

..imagine it proven true..

...now imagine the public on slaught..

..the UK could not survive it, the place would come apart, So the findings will result in the current official outcome, period.

Is this actually a possibility, or is it in the same category as chemtrails and 9/11 truthers?

Weird as in total BS.

No re-investigation (Sky over egging it), I should hope not after the previous long and expensive investigations, including by the French (can the nutters explain how they were 'in on it' too?)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23741483

I've a hunch that this is a bit like what friends told me about when they worked in the Press Office of the Ministry Of Defence.
Incoming mail which contained threats, or detailed plots of various kinds, conspiracy theorists, were put under three types of file known as, unofficially;
Harmless Nutter.
Potentially Harmfull Nutter.
For Serious Investigation - you'd have to know things like IRA code words for the latter.

I'm guessing this will end up under the first type but they'll all be investigated before being filed.
(The late Simon Dee, a British DJ and TV host who fell from grace in the late 1960's sent some to the MoD under the first kind, plots involving the EU and his failed career etc).

And really, even if 'they' (from the Royals and/or Government/military to those alien lizards in human form that some think control everything), wanted to kill Diana, why not take some captured IRA bomb material and attach it to the car? Then blame the terrorists.

Seems a clumsy way to go about it as the nutters say it did, when such a plot could fail merely by Diana using the seatbelt. After all, the one who did survive the crash, did just that.
It says something of the credulous, common sense free nature of some, that they take Al Fayed seriously, given his vested interest of trying to deny that his long, seedy campaign to somehow become part of the 'establishment' culminated in the death of his own son as well as Diana.
And the lethal incompetence of some of his staff.

Quoting OA260 (Thread starter): Breaking News Diana Death By SAS Being Assessed

Could KLM and Finnair be involved as well?

Quoting Confuscius (Reply 5): Quoting OA260 (Thread starter): Breaking News Diana Death By SAS Being Assessed Could KLM and Finnair be involved as well?

That was so corny bro... but I loled anyway 

Quoting Confuscius (Reply 5): Could KLM and Finnair be involved as well?

KLM spells out "Kaboom Luxury Mercedes"... coincidence? 

Quoting petertenthije (Reply 7): KLM spells out "Kaboom Luxury Mercedes"... coincidence?

You're saying they'd foreseen this all the way back in 1919!  

-Mir

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 3): Is this actually a possibility, or is it in the same category as chemtrails and 9/11 truthers?

The "information' is based on"

"It was passed to the police by the former parents-in-law of a former soldier, according to Sky sources."

In other words, from a dead source - you be the judge.

What no one has ever successfully explained to me is why? Diana was no threat to anyone by that stage, whatever harm she could do was already done, so why kill her?

She was going to marry a Muslim? So?

Diana had a a passionate affair with a Muslim - Hasnat Khan - immediately before Dodi, and had discussed living in Pakistan.

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertain...aled-vanity-fair-article-1.1413651

Princess Diana was ‘madly in love' with Hasnat Khan and 'wanted to marry him,' friends reveal in Vanity Fair profile

Staying alive she prevented Charles form marrying Camilla? So?

Princes of Wales (future kings) have - famously - had long standing mistresses before. Edward VII and Alice Keppel, Camilla's great grandmother - LOL.

Why would anyone kill her? What would the death of Diana achieve?

mariner

[Edited 2013-08-17 16:05:15]

Quoting mariner (Reply 9): Why would anyone kill her? What would the death of Diana achieve?

Quite right.
But in the minds of some who subscribe to this stuff, it's a way perhaps of reconciling their complicity, they brought the tabloids, the celeb rags, watched the low rent TV, which fed the demands, ever greater, of the photographers to get those pics and take ever greater risks to do so. Because the potential rewards were worth it.
Deep down the Diana obsessives know this but can never really accept it. Hence the desire to believe an alternative narrative, however outlandish.

Noteworthy that the one UK tabloid which stoked the conspiracy nonsense was the Daily Express, starting some years after the event, once under the ownership of Richard Desmond.
Who also owned a number of celeb rags of the type that paid big money to Diana chasing paps, as well as porn.

When will this ridiculous conspiracy crap end?

The whole thing is as clear as water, or wodka. The driver was drunk, and Diana and her lover didnt bother to enter the car nevertheless. Their own fault. The drunkard drove much too fast, being chased by paparazzi, and crashed, end of story.

I have long been bothered by the lack of security around Princess Diana at the time of her death. To me in part the persistence of claims and conspiracies as to her death is due in part from the failures of security then. Not only was she a target of the paparazzi, she was also a target of the Real IRA and other terrorist groups, nutcases and anti-Islamic persons as well as Fayed a possible target (mainly due to his Father) that should have demanded much greater protections.

There was only one bodyguard assigned, he made a number of failures that contributed to her death. One is that they should have stayed at the hotel, and not leave knowing there was a number of paparazzi around. He should have not allowed the person assigned to be a driver do so, only someone dead sober and trained in anti-terror driving should have been used. Everyone should have been using seatbelts. Multiple vehicles and routes should have been used to evade the paparazzi.

As often with airplane crashes, a series of small but critical mistakes causes tragedy.

Quoting ltbewr (Reply 12): I have long been bothered by the lack of security around Princess Diana at the time of her death. To me in part the persistence of claims and conspiracies as to her death is due in part from the failures of security then. Not only was she a target of the paparazzi, she was also a target of the Real IRA and other terrorist groups, nutcases and anti-Islamic persons as well as Fayed a possible target (mainly due to his Father) that should have demanded much greater protections.

It may have varied. would have been more at public events for example.
Being an ex Royal was not a major factor, every ex PM and certain ministers involved in Northern Ireland from the resumption of the IRA campaign in the early 70's, had a similar level of protection long after retirement, for the rest of their lives.

Remember though, the British favour a lighter touch security posture, this is based on not having a culture of political assassination, the one murdered PM was Spencer Perceval in the early 1800's, by a failed and embittered businessman.
This did change from the start of the PIRA terror, the PM who sent troops into N.I. Harold Wilson, prior to that event he liked to indicate a burly raincoat wearing Special Branch Detective saying 'this is Fred, his job is to shoot the person who shoots me!'
That is how seriously it was taken prior to the explosion of terrorism worldwide.

Churchill's bodyguard, with him for many years, later wrote his experiences.

With the IRA, they favoured bombs in both attempts to kill a British PM. in 1984 and 1991, security was light touch but through enough to deter a gunman, helped by the IRA not being into sending it's people on suicide missions.
The year Diana died, was also the year one Osama Bin Laden had that press conference in Afghanistan declaring war on the US and West in general.
Putting him on the USA's watch list, a year later, after the US embassy attacks, on to the most wanted list.
But few people were aware of OBL and Islamist terror of the type we now know of in 1997.

Quoting na (Reply 11): When will this ridiculous conspiracy crap end?

Quoting GDB (Reply 10): Quoting mariner (Reply 9): Why would anyone kill her? What would the death of Diana achieve? Quite right. But in the minds of some who subscribe to this stuff, it's a way perhaps of reconciling their complicity, they brought the tabloids, the celeb rags, watched the low rent TV, which fed the demands, ever greater, of the photographers to get those pics and take ever greater risks to do so

The questions of the simple-minded and those paying little attention to history.

The UK/England has been fraught with Conspiracy with the circle of power... War of the Roses anyone? The killing of princes and poisoning of Kings.

A simple 'He's a complete idiot, I'm smarter than him, I'm a better archer or rider' was enough for a restless nobleman or Royal relative to make a run for the throne by way of conspiracy.

It goes 'unbroken' all the way back to Rome's 1st Emperor, Agustus to Julius Caesar and beyond, to every Royal family on the continent to the realm of the Vikings.

It reaches into the world of Victoria and Elizabeth and onto Ben Franklin scheming to secure funding from France to fight off the Brits. It reaches into nearly all American Admistrations including the pursuit of Gen. Butler (by Rockefeller and the wealthy) to overthrow the presidency of Woodrow Wilson and end the American Republic as we know it. It didn't end there - the pursuit of the wealthy to usurp power from Roosevelt. WWII would not have ever occurred were it not for radical young officers of the Japanese (black swans I believe) who'd taste warring succeses in China wanting to take it further..much further.

Power triggers Conspiracy automatically without fail. And the tools and means have only gotten more sophisticated.

I'm guessing this is one of those situations were the 'common/average person' abhors the very thought that there is no defense against Conspiracies.,..so best to 'ACT' like it doesn't exist or that it is very rare. Conspiracy planning has evolved while in the denying mind..it has yet to take hold within any reality. And when it finally does it's recognized right out the ploys of I Claudius. Maybe the tactics of Booth and crew against Lincoln...but that's it.

I's really too late for anyone past a certain age to truly grasp the realities of true Conspiratorial power and that is why they are left with encompassing their understanding to tabloids, silly gossip shows, junk tv, trash rags, etc..' that is - in their minds what centuries of actual conspiracy has been reduced to. Personally, I think there are many who sleep better this way because if the high flying mastery of conspiracy by the powerful were truly real - the average celeb rag thinker of conspiracy just might off himself - because he'd realize there's not a damn thing he can do about it..so it is best to swim in shallow understanding and silly denial.

These people act like there was some great moment in time where Conspiracy ceased - by it being rendered useless or too dangerous - no, what has happened ids... it has left you in the dust and is no longer apart of your daily mundane existence. The only use Conspiracy has the average person who doubts it's existence...is their stupidity - which is incredibly powerful when think about it. Great things can be achieved when the masses are clueless - better still, is leaving them thinking they 'do know with great certainty what's going on'...when in truth, they haven't the slightest clue - but no one can tell them any different.

It you have a true grasp of the ways of Military Intelligence or the dark side of Corporate Warfare/Dealings...I'd say you know conspiracy when you see it..shy of that... keep looking for Big Foot..that's exactly the reach of your understanding in a world where simplicity still reigns supreme. The business and political world (Ted Cruz, Sarah Palin withstanding) have more in common with Military Intelligence and Corporate Warfare/Dealings than you do. The politicians just need you for your vote (maybe) and that's it. Your thoughts..do with them whatever you wish, but should you stubble into great wealth and/or power...you've got a lot of catching up and changing of beliefs if you are to keep it - or it will surely be taken or you used and doing jail time for something you had no part in... but your fellow public, convinced you are 100% guilty. Because MOST people ARE more afraid..than brave. And if you don't think that for one second... that fact is not exploited.. you now know extent of your intelligence.

Quoting GDB (Reply 13): Churchill's bodyguard, with him for many years, later wrote his experiences.

But Churchill gave his bodyguard several times reasons for nervous breakdowns, when Churchill, in his usual complete disregard for personal safety and always willing to risk his neck, did something dangerous. Remember, it took a royal command by King George VI to prevent Churchill from landing in the Normandy in 1944 with the first assault wave.
He also liked to observe the German bombardment of London from the roof of his office building, completely unprotected.

Also remember that in 1911, as the home secretary, Churchill got personally involved in the "Siege of Sidney Street", where heavily armed Latvian anarchists (today we would call them terrorists) were in a stand off with the police and army.
Churchill is the person highlighted in this picture:


Even before, during his military service in India, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Sudan (and later during the second Boer War in South Africa), he liked to go where bullets were flying (he even went to Cuba during his leave in the military during the Spanish Mamerican War to observe the fighting).

Jan

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 3): Is this actually a possibility, or is it in the same category as chemtrails and 9/11 truthers?

Option 2

Quoting petertenthije (Reply 7): KLM spells out "Kaboom Luxury Mercedes"... coincidence?

Although,    that must actually prove that there was a conspiracy.   

The SAS did not have the techniques sufficient to kill Dodi and Diana in that tunnel without being caught.

.... But .... is it possible that there were traces of time-travelling aliens who had perfected this technique.... thousands of years ago....   

IMO, conspiracy theories as usual, ignore the obvious.

For someone not specially trained, to drive evasively, at high speed, through tunnels, particularly at night is taking a risk.

The car hit the tunnel wall.

Really as simple as that.

Quoting bennett123 (Reply 18): IMO, conspiracy theories as usual, ignore the obvious. For someone not specially trained, to drive evasively, at high speed, through tunnels, particularly at night is taking a risk. The car hit the tunnel wall. Really as simple as that.

If only reply 14 could have been so concise, rather than that long rambling.
Which also has the cheek to lecture on history.......BN747, we stopped killing Royals when there was no longer an occasional need to do so. In the 17th Century.
After Charles I, after Cromwell's 12 year Republic, since the restoration of a Constitutional Monarchy (which did not do things like ban Christmas as Cromwell did), which in fact has seen it's now limited power go in one direction ever since.

They never have a motive for killing Diana either.
In 1997 she was an ex Royal though also still the mother of a heir to the throne but really now another, maybe the ultimate, celeb.
And the 'establishment' stopped caring who she was shagging way before her tragic demise.

What I hate is how conspiracy theorists have the nerve to pick and choose which ones suit them.
Few of those who subscribe to the Diana one would not also be into the 'Elders Of Zion' the late 19th Century idea that a small cabal of Jews are global puppet masters.
An idea that festered until finally culminating in the being a central plank of the Nazi holocaust.

They also seem unaware that a real conspiracy at the heart of US government did happen, got exposed, destroyed a President. Nixon, for all his paranoia, could not prevent a mere break in by his staffers at the offices of his opponents, going public.
Perhaps because this exposed the real world and how it works.

I've already pointed out the real conspiracy, if you can call it that, where those culpable for the feeding frenzy around Diana, have a vested interest in creating this smokescreen of nonsense for the hard of thinking.
When she suddenly died, there was a lot of nervousness. The Royals, unsure of how to react, then newly elected government taking the political risk in prodding the Royals to react to the public but most of all, in the media.
The tabloids and trashy magazine sector most of all.

Quoting na (Reply 11): When will this ridiculous conspiracy crap end?

Never. There's still a ton of rumors and theories surrounding the deaths of the Kennedy brothers.

Quoting GDB (Reply 19): They also seem unaware that a real conspiracy at the heart of US government did happen, got exposed, destroyed a President.

People can't accept that strange and improbable things happen. Nixon's presidency was ruined by a piece of tape.

Quoting GDB (Reply 19): If only reply 14 could have been so concise, rather than that long rambling. .

To the ignorant it would indeed be rambling...to an casual observer it would be a clear portrayal of the power/corruption/conspiracy paradigm that has been unbroken since the days of the first Roman Emporer.

But your simple understanding of that world leaves you as confused today as you would have been back then.

Quoting GDB (Reply 19): Which also has the cheek to lecture on history..

Yes it would have been MORE rambling (for you) were in displayed in great detail and yet you cannot refute any of it but make this lame excuse of an answer.

Quoting GDB (Reply 19): BN747, we stopped killing Royals when there was no longer an occasional need to do so. In the 17th Century.

Really?? You think that's why it ended ...'because there was no occasional reason to do so'.... you should cease trying to convince anyone that you know anything about about power/wealth and corruption right there. Ever occur you that tactics actually do change? No of course not...it only must exist in a form you recognize.


''because there was no occasional reason to do so'.. has never ended any M.O. except possibly taking out an opponent with a bow & arrow - and somewhere on earth that tactic is still employed.

Quoting GDB (Reply 19): They never have a motive for killing Diana either.

YOU don't know that. That's not your world. The only thing you and Diana had in common as far as lifestyles go is using Heathrow...and even then, she used a different Terrninal and 'handling' than you.

You don't know any of facets of her relationships with anyone she knew EXCEPT what you read in tabloids..that is it.

Her world was not your world no matter how hard the PR machines try to project an imagine of 'the Royals are just like you'... they are not and neither are the aristocratic circles of any western power. If it was like your world, either they'd be where you are now or you among them. And you are not

Quoting GDB (Reply 19): What I hate is how conspiracy theorists have the nerve to pick and choose which ones suit them.

What I hate is people who think this world is everyone else's world...the perfect stage for 'ignorance is bliss' and proven to be so true every waking second.

Quoting GDB (Reply 19): They also seem unaware that a real conspiracy at the heart of US government did happen, got exposed, destroyed a President.

Who is it that think is unaware?

You think you're only person who understands Watergate? Seriously? That's delusion extra-ordinaire.

Quoting GDB (Reply 19): I've already pointed out the real conspiracy,

And you did so in the poorest fashion possible.

What you did do ...is exactly what everyone does.. be told a situation occurred - it - Watergate - was a conspiracy what ever case was made and whatever was allowed to be heard led to that conclusion and it was officially called a conspiracy by the gov't.

Big deal... you stated the obvious.

You are indeed good, brilliant in fact in highlighting the silliest of conspiracies (and theorists) are far as the absurd goes i.e 'celebrity, rags, alien abductions, Big Foot and spooky houses... and somehow you think that makes you some kind of an expert on know what is a conspiracy and what isn't. Newsflash, every $2 New Delhi hooker and supermarket shopping mom with curlers in her hair in the checkstand aisle can do what you did.

But what they cannot do and neither can you... is begin to recognize, grasp or understand the form in which conspiracies plan, unfold, operate and execute in an economic realm beyond your breadth and existence.

Those that live in those circles are fully aware and on guard against it daily if not hourly because it is the only way not to fall prey to it. They don't concern themselves with the things you do - not even close. So for you to act like their life is anything like your life is indeed childish. You are no more qualified to recognize a conspiracy thriving in that world than you are at detecting one in taking place right now in cyberspace. The only way you know or recognize one.. is after it occurs and only.. ONLY if it told you and confirmed by media sources..other than that you are as clueless then, as you are now.

So stick with the conspiracy level your lifestyle affords you.. the Justin Bieber , Lendsey Lohan gossip, aliens and average-grade of 'did they do Diana & Dodi' or not.. that is the extent of your qualifications.

Again, you are NOT military intelligence, nor are your Corporate Security & warfare, therefore you haven't the slightest clue what 'real conspiracy' is. Watergate is as close as you'll ever get...and you sir, did not uncloak that one either.

BN747

Quoting GDB (Reply 10): But in the minds of some who subscribe to this stuff, it's a way perhaps of reconciling their complicity, they brought the tabloids, the celeb rags, watched the low rent TV, which fed the demands, ever greater, of the photographers to get those pics and take ever greater risks to do so. Because the potential rewards were worth it. Deep down the Diana obsessives know this but can never really accept it. Hence the desire to believe an alternative narrative, however outlandish.

I buy all that. The Diana obsessives continue to amaze me, seeing "tributes" to their dead heroine in almost everything that Catherine does.

The ghost of Diana haunts that marriage and I think it is more than a little unhealthy.

mariner

Diana was very popular. Probably as popular, or more, as the queen. Now, I am not saying Buckingham Palace had a hand in this, but it seems awful fishy that Charles and Camilla wed after having an affair and he divorced Diana.

Long live the queen!

Quoting seb146 (Reply 23): Diana was very popular. Probably as popular, or more, as the queen.

Rupert Murdoch's press thought that. If you want a real conspiracy theory, he thought his newspapers could bring down the monarchy.

And what is Rupert Murdoch's status in Britain now?

Quoting seb146 (Reply 23): Now, I am not saying Buckingham Palace had a hand in this, but it seems awful fishy that Charles and Camilla wed after having an affair and he divorced Diana.

You do seem to be at least implying that "Buckingham Palace" had a hand in it.

The (already married) King Edward VII couldn't marry (already married) Alice Keppel either, but she became intermediary with his ministers and their relationship lasted until his death.

Nobody had to kill anyone for it to be one of the great royal love affairs.

mariner

Quoting BN747 (Reply 21): Really?? You think that's why it ended ...'because there was no occasional reason to do so'.... you should cease trying to convince anyone that you know anything about about power/wealth and corruption right there.

You should posting nonsense that seems to come from an excess of bad movies and/or graphic novels.
As for history, get all this from movies too? Go to one of those plastic faux medieval castles you have over there- with the demonstration of jousting etc?

Please explain too, how a perhaps neurotic fear of terrorism and the rise of new communications technology, as seen in the whole wikileaks/NSA Prism issues, can be exposed by a mere US Army Private and in Snowden, someone at the bottom of the contractor food chain.
These mysterious, all powerful overlords of your imagination are not very secure, are they?

Quoting GDB (Reply 25): Please explain too, how a perhaps neurotic fear of terrorism and the rise of new communications technology, as seen in the whole wikileaks/NSA Prism issues, can be exposed by a mere US Army Private and in Snowden, someone at the bottom of the contractor food chain.

And let's not forget that the first (or possibly second) person to break the news of the death of Osama Bin Ladin was The Rock.

BN747

Are you saying that there is proof of a conspiracy, or that there is no proof that that there was not a conspiracy.

Quoting mariner (Reply 9): What no one has ever successfully explained to me is why? Diana was no threat to anyone by that stage, whatever harm she could do was already done, so why kill her?

Exactly what would be the point, she was really a nobody by the time she died.

Quoting ltbewr (Reply 12): I have long been bothered by the lack of security around Princess Diana at the time of her death.

Why she wasn't anyone important, she'd done her bit, produced a heir and a spare.

Quoting BN747 (Reply 14): It reaches into nearly all American Admistrations including the pursuit of Gen. Butler (by Rockefeller and the wealthy) to overthrow the presidency of Woodrow Wilson and end the American Republic as we know it.

Wrong President, it was FDR they wanted to overthrow.

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 15): Remember, it took a royal command by King George VI to prevent Churchill from landing in the Normandy in 1944 with the first assault wave. He also liked to observe the German bombardment of London from the roof of his office building, completely unprotected.

Churchill was a man or great courage, it's a pity most world leaders today don't have his guts.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 17): The SAS did not have the techniques sufficient to kill Dodi and Diana in that tunnel without being caught.

Why would you say that. I think if they had been tasked to do it they could have done it. From a book I read (The Feather Men, Ranulph Fiennes, 1991) it could have been easily done with a remote control device on the steering rack, all that would have been needed was for the car to hit something hard at speed, with some help from the French authourities afterwards the device could have been removed and nobody would be the wiser. But that's complete rubbish as it was a accident, she died, it should be left to rest.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 20): Never. There's still a ton of rumors and theories surrounding the deaths of the Kennedy brothers.

I personally don't buy the official line about JFK's death, there just too much that doesn't make sense, something stinks about it.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 23): Now, I am not saying Buckingham Palace had a hand in this, but it seems awful fishy that Charles and Camilla wed after having an affair and he divorced Diana.

They married 8 years after.

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 28): I personally don't buy the official line about JFK's death, there just too much that doesn't make sense, something stinks about it.

I agree, contrary to ex-Princess Diana JFK was a real high profile target for the most capable secret organisations at home and abroad. And in 1963 it was easier to hide something than in 1997.

Its ridiculous to think that Diana died as a result of a conspiracy. Her times as the consort of the next king were long gone and she was chased 24/7 by paparazzi. Even if someone would have tried, the ubiquitous presence of uncontrollable photographers from different countries would have rendered it far to dangerous.

It seems that that the Pap have a far more effective intell net than the Pro's.

Unless those being photographed, (or those linked to them) tip off the Pap.

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 28): Wrong President, it was FDR they wanted to overthrow.

Yes, many Americans are unaware of this. A conspiracy fostered by the well-known democracy supporters Henry Ford and Charles Lindbergh. Had they succeeded, America would have stayed out of WW2 (which might well have had a different ending), and the USA today would be a thoroughgoing police state. Philip Roth's 2004 novel, "The Plot Against America" goes into a fair bit of this. Good read.

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 28): Churchill was a man or great courage, it's a pity most world leaders today don't have his guts.

Yes, a man of great courage, also great bias. Much fortified by gallons of brandy.

Quoting na (Reply 29): Its ridiculous to think that Diana died as a result of a conspiracy.

Have never understood the world's fascination with Diana. Not drop dead gorgeous (for me, anyway), didn't strike me as particularly intelligent, but perhaps she was muzzled by the palace. She was approved by the palace as a reasonably well bred woman who would be a good breeder of future kings or queens. And spent her last few years hopping from bed to bed.

No, she died because she and Dodi were themselves probably somewhat intoxicated, and failed to note that the driver was pissed. Full stop.

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 31): also great bias.

Everyone is biased to a greater or lesser degree, non more so than politicians, it's the nature of the breed.

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 31): Not drop dead gorgeous

Midly attractive at best.

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 31): And spent her last few years hopping from bed to bed.

I still think there is something dodgy about Harry's parentage despite what the official line is.

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 32): I still think there is something dodgy about Harry's parentage despite what the official line is.

His hair colour is strange, granted. But he does look enough "Windsor" not to make me suspicious. If he would be a bastard with an early lover he would be struck from the list of potential heirs to the throne, isnt it?

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 31): ...she died because she and Dodi were themselves probably somewhat intoxicated, and failed to note that the driver was pissed. Full stop.

Di and Dodi made enough mistakes that night that would have killed anybody. They hopped into a car with a drunk at the wheel. They didnt belt up. They allowed or even forced him to drive excessively fast. At night. Through a tunnel. I have driven through that tunnel several times, I wouldnt go 100 km/h there even in a Ferrari.
The whole accident sounds too much like a typical "disco crash" of some 19 year-olds with an overdose of testosterone.

Overall, this 'theory' is about as likely as Diana having been killed by martians using a ray gun.

Quoting GDB (Reply 25): You should posting nonsense that seems to come from an excess of bad movies and/or graphic novels.

And your claim to know and recognize 'a conspiracy' is about as legitimate as your ability predict the next unreported multi-million dollar airport heist... which is zilch and yes there are airport heist other than Zurich and Heathrow and they do go unreported.

But keep living in that bubble. And calling historical occurrences 'nonsense' with disputing it with fact (which you can not) only adds to your foolish denials about what you don't know.

Quoting GDB (Reply 25): Please explain too, how a perhaps neurotic fear of terrorism and the rise of new communications technology, as seen in the whole wikileaks/NSA Prism issues, can be exposed by a mere US Army Private and in Snowden, someone at the bottom of the contractor food chain.

What's there to explain? What's the matter coming short on how the military/gov't works suddenly has you in a flux because wiki-leaks, Snowden and Manning gave a you a rare peak into some areas of which other wise you'd never have?

What does an irrational fear of terrorism and new comm tech have to do with leakers? What? Is the door supposedly hermetically sealed? Or are you drawing the erroneous conclusion that because they 'leaked'...nothing can be kept secret?

Think you know the whole story do you? Did you figure it all out on your own or did 'read about it' like everyone else in the outside.

Do you realize the predicaments of Assange, Snowden and Manning - all living in the most undesirable of circumstances, the effects it is having on anyone remotely thinking about 'speaking out of leaking' anything ever again? Do you think their actions are encouraging MORE whistle -blowers? Or are their fates slamming the door shut on anyone speaking out.

What big super secret got out? Nothing.

George Bush told you he was spying on you (American public) ...and we accepted it, now we're shocked about it. Big effen deal.

These incidents just brought the gov't leak-proof insurance for the next 20 years because these people are basically locked away in solitary lives. And the US Gov't....still doing what it was doing and what it intended to do.

Their entire tactic here mirrors a corporation that commits a huge violation because it knows the fine to be levied .. will come from the huge profit yielded by the violation itself. The US Gov't is 20 years ahead of you and your 'ah ha!' moment of nothingness.

Quoting GDB (Reply 25): These mysterious, all powerful overlords of your imagination are not very secure, are they?

More secure than you could ever imagine, Assange was the surprise (technical loophole), Snowden and Manning = Canary in a Coal Mine. And btw the the 'mysterious, all powerful overlords' are have much bigger fish to fry than anything Assange, Snowden and Manning could ever expose.

Quoting bennett123 (Reply 27): BN747 Are you saying that there is proof of a conspiracy, or that there is no proof that that there was not a conspiracy.

Conspiracies (of the business and power elite nature) are like Multi-Million dollar Jewel Heist... you don't see them coming, no one is going tell you it's coming and when it hits.. the negative effect (the crime) doesn't always make it into the media - therefore you can never know UNLESS the media tells you. And even then, a reasonable mind will conclude he cannot know all the facts anyway.. because the (true) details are simply too far your reach.

GDB has most likely never driving at a high rate of speed thru that tunnel, he may have never driven really fast while drunk, he may have never been in an auto accident.. nor any of the combination In fact, the only high speed chase or crash he has ever seen..was on tv or in movie - areas of ridicule in his previous post. So if all you have to go on is the media's reporting - you have nothing. Any idea how many drunk pilots have landed 747s without splattering them on runways? The media couldn't tell you..so you don't know.

And in this case, if you weren't there and you don't know Diana/Dodi, family friends or enemies..you have nothing but your imagination and the media filling in the gaps - that is all you have. Anyone fantasizing about 'what they know' about this - Conspiracy wise OR other wise - is delusional. Because your only access is media feed and hearsay.

Conspiracy like all crime leaves behind as little evidence as possible - unless you want to serve jail time... you cover up and some cover up way better than others. Sure someone could speak... but as in the case of Manning, Snowden or Assange.. they can easily be painted as 'traitors, villians, etc' and MOST people will buy what the "mysterious, all powerful overlords" brand them and now doubt shades everything they've shared, leaked or exposed effectively neutralizing any damage. But only foolish tell themselves (and others as seen in this thread) .. that 'they know' what occurred without have any involvement whatsoever nor any associate professions.

If you want me to choose sides in this story I will not because I cannot access the facts I would like to make an informed opinion (the Crown isn't about to spill any dirty laundry and neither is anyone else) the only person to level charges was Dodi Fayed's father.. and he knew the players involved better GDB or any A.net member you can think off. A.net has members who know the Kennedy assassination better than Jackie O did... and she was in the car and knew all the players too - but they say she was 'too traumatized make sense of anything' . Unlike the Conspiracy Deniers, I do know (and Wall Street proves it) that as all criminal behavior evolves and gains in sophistication as society advances...so then does the element of criminal conspiracy, it is as old as human betrayal and just as effective when practiced with precision. And no amount of leakers or speakers .. will end it. And neither will Deniers who staunchly believe 'it just doesn't happen because people will talk..."

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 28): Quoting BN747 (Reply 14): It reaches into nearly all American Admistrations including the pursuit of Gen. Butler (by Rockefeller and the wealthy) to overthrow the presidency of Woodrow Wilson and end the American Republic as we know it. Wrong President, it was FDR they wanted to overthrow.

You are correct.

I thought there was a tiff between Standard Oil (and cronies) and Wilson as well.. but maybe not. Ah..found it..

http://nalert.blogspot.com/2013/05/f...ck-woodrow-wilson-warns-about.html

Flashback: Woodrow Wilson Warns About Conspiracy Against the United States
Woodrow Wilson:

"Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and manufacture, are afraid of somebody, are of afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it."

He was indeed distrusting of the very forces that would emerge later and come after Roosevelt.

BN747

[Edited 2013-08-19 08:16:27]

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 34): Overall, this 'theory' is about as likely as Diana having been killed by martians using a ray gun.

Thats because it was a plasma catcher....   idiot....  

Quoting BestWestern (Reply 36): Thats because it was a plasma catcher.... idiot....

Ah cripes....You're right, I should check my facts first!  

IMO, the UK was in far greater risk with the abdication crisis in 1936, than any possible consequence of Diana and Dodi.
Neither the Duke of Windsor or Wallis Simpson was bumped off.

She was NOT royal, and her link to royalty, (her marriage) would have to end before she could marry Dodi. Bigamy was against for Law even for her.

It is hard to see what motive anyone had to kill her.

If it came to a custody dispute, I do not see any UK letting her take the Princes out of the country.

Hard to see any cause of the crash beyond the blatently obvious.

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 28): I personally don't buy the official line about JFK's death, there just too much that doesn't make sense, something stinks about it.

What? Only if you take at face value the assertions the theorists persist with, like the 'magic bullet'. Only magic if JFK and Governor Conolly were sitting side by side like in a normal car, however the limo had staggered seating not on one level in the back and guess what? That bullet stops being 'magic'.

But those details do not address the real issue, many people cannot accept that such a powerful man like JFK could be killed by some nut.
Less than 20 years later, Reagan came to literally within an inch of having a very short term of office. Shot by a lone nut who was trying to impress Jodie Foster.

So the most powerful man in the world CAN be shot at by a lone nut.
JFK was not even the first US President to be assassinated that century let alone in history.
Between JFK and Reagan, Gerald Ford was in very close proximity on one occasion to a Charles Manson groupie armed and out to get him.

Quoting na (Reply 33): His hair colour is strange, granted.

Not when you consider than Diana was a rare blonde in a family of redheads.
And when those who make this claim, cite James Hewitt as the father, never mind that her relationship with him only some years after Harry was born.

Quoting BN747 (Reply 35): But keep living in that bubble.

Wonderfully ironic.
Though I doubt you'd see that.
Better you cut the haughty superior attitude, it fails to cover up incoherence, getting basic facts wrong and a noticeable failure to answer challenges to your assertions.

[Edited 2013-08-19 10:48:48]

Quoting GDB (Reply 39): What?

Just to clarify, you believe Oswald was the sole shooter?

Quoting GDB (Reply 39): Quoting BN747 (Reply 35): But keep living in that bubble. Wonderfully ironic. Though I doubt you'd see that. Better you cut the haughty superior attitude, it fails to cover up incoherence, getting basic facts wrong and a noticeable failure to answer challenges to your assertions.

Quite a bit was answered if possessed comprehension skills and a sliver of knowledge of how the US gov't works - but you don't.

Nor have you demonstrated any skills or knowledge of how to detect conspiracy..any conspiracy other that fighting tabloid gossip other than with your backroom homespun banter.

like I said - you and the average supermarket shopping mom and your reasoning skillset here... both without a clue and would swear they know it all. That is indeed Bubble life.

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 32): I still think there is something dodgy about Harry's parentage despite what the official line is.

We've had this debate before and it seems you want to believe it. I can't think why.

The red hair famously runs in the Spencer family and Hewiitt himself says they didn't begin the affair until two years after Harry was born.

Ian Morton, the Diana biographer who first blew the gaff on so much, absolutely denies it:

http://www.themortonreport.com/celeb...s/who-does-prince-harry-look-like/

"There is ample evidence that Harry, born September 15th 1984, was conceived over Christmas 1983, which the Royal Family then spent at Windsor before travelling on to Sandringham for the annual shoots on the estate. Diana was with the royal party the whole time. The idea that Major Hewitt managed to scale the ramparts of Windsor Castle to impregnate the Princess of Wales is beyond ridiculous. Hewitt did not even begin his affair with Diana until autumn 1986."

I think the myth - and the perpetuation of it - is extraordinarily cruel to the young man in question.

mariner

Quoting GDB (Reply 39): however the limo had staggered seating not on one level in the back and guess what? That bullet stops being 'magic'.

Who said anything about a magic bullet, I believe there were 4 shots fired, 3 by Oswald and a 4th from the Grassy Knoll. I'm not alone and the United States House Select Committee on Assassinations also thought the same.

Quote: In contrast to the conclusions of the Warren Commission, the United States House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) concluded in 1978 that Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy.[6] The HSCA found the original FBI investigation and the Warren Commission Report to be seriously flawed. While agreeing with the Commission that Oswald fired all the shots which caused the wounds to Kennedy and Connally, the HSCA stated that there were at least four shots fired (only three of which could be linked to Oswald) and that there was "...a high probability that two gunmen fired at [the] President."

Quoting GDB (Reply 39): That bullet stops being 'magic'.

Quote: According to the single-bullet theory, a three-centimeter (1.2")-long copper-jacketed lead-core 6.5-millimeter rifle bullet fired from the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository passed through President Kennedy’s neck and Governor Connally’s chest and wrist and embedded itself in the Governor’s thigh. If so, this bullet traversed 15 layers of clothing, 7 layers of skin, and approximately 15 inches of tissue, struck a necktie knot, removed 4 inches of rib, and shattered a radius bone. The bullet was found on a gurney in the corridor at the Parkland Memorial Hospital, in Dallas, after the assassination.

That's a lot of damage for only 1 bullet.




There's enough people on this forum who will probably agree that a bullet that created as much damage as this one did would end up looking pretty damaged, not in as good a condition as the actual bullet above.

What is the lethal range of this round.

I recall being told by an RAF Instructor that the lethal range of a 0.303" round was 2 miles.

My understanding is that the distance from Oswald to his target was quite short.

Quoting TristarAtLCA (Reply 40): Just to clarify, you believe Oswald was the sole shooter?

Of course he was. Trained to be a good shot by his time in the US Marines. Of course the theorists then say 'he was no good as a shot', which is patently not true.
They also play with the period JFK was in Oswald's sights, reducing the actual time to suit their conspiracy narrative.
He even used the same rifle, not long before, to shoot at a right wing, segregationist, ex General.
One chance of a shot and it hit a window pane and was deflected.
Another failure in Oswald's self loathing life.

Unhappy as a child who grew into an adult who craved attention.
When he had enough of the Marines, he defected to the USSR.
The KGB, experts in gauging people, soon realised he was a sad figure not anyone of use to them, not even for propagandar, they packed him off to Minsk.
Had he been the spy for KGB, CIA, or the no doubt myriad others that has been claimed, the KGB would have kept him at Moscow Centre.

Like everything else in his life, Oswald was soon fed up with life in the drab USSR, even after meeting his Wife.
Where were the press conferences where he could extol his thoughts, be someone?
So he went back to the US, the Russians not sorry to see him go.
The first ever person to defect twice in the Cold War, surely when he arrived back in the US there would be huge attention.
There wasn't, he was crushed.

People did feel sorry for him, in Texas neighbours, taking pity on his wife Marina (who he beat), got Oswald a menial job.
Even his brief appearance on a local TV station after he clashed with anti Castro protestors in the street, soon faded to nothing.
So he escalated, the attempt on the ex general.
Then a workmate told him the President's motorcade would pass under their workplace.
Oswald would get to make his mark on the world.

My point is this, do aspects of Oswald's unhappy, fustrated life seem familiar?
With other assassins, with many times in recent years, those who carry out mass shootings?

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 43): Who said anything about a magic bullet, I believe there were 4 shots fired, 3 by Oswald and a 4th from the Grassy Knoll. I'm not alone and the United States House Select Committee on Assassinations also thought the same.

That finding was later discounted.
The evidence did not stack up.
Also, remember, by then JFK's back troubles had worsened, without his brace he could barely walk, he was wearing the brace that day, it was so tight he could not duck.
Which also resulted in how his body reacted to being hit, head shot included.

The theorists too often forget to mention significant factors like this.

I return to my original question, Lincoln, McKinley, very nearly Reagan, what made JFK being assassinated so special when viewed in those terms?

Quoting mariner (Reply 42): The red hair famously runs in the Spencer family and Hewiitt himself says they didn't begin the affair until two years after Harry was born.

Wouldn't surprise me if Hewitt was coerced to say that. The facial resemblance between the two is rather obvious, even if he wasn't a ginger.

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 46): Wouldn't surprise me if Hewitt was coerced to say that. The facial resemblance between the two is rather obvious, even if he wasn't a ginger.

I dunno how you get around the fact that they didn't start the affair until two years after Harry was born. Hewitt denied it - you say coerced. Diana denied it - but she wasn't coerced about anything else. If she wanted, as she said, to destroy Charles' succession, this would have been great ammunition.

And Harry's imitation of his father - Prince Charles - is dazzlingly good.

But why is this so important to you that you keep hanging on to it and repeating it? Harry has just had a big swerve out of the line of succession.

mariner

[Edited 2013-08-19 14:50:11]

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 46): The facial resemblance between the two is rather obvious, even if he wasn't a ginger

Yet if you look at the hairlines of Harry and Charles in the last two pics, they are almost identical. I think Harry gets his looks more from his mother than anyone.

Quoting GDB (Reply 10): Noteworthy that the one UK tabloid which stoked the conspiracy nonsense was the Daily Express, starting some years after the event, once under the ownership of Richard Desmond.

And todays front page of the Express ? you've guessed it "Diana conspiracy"

Quoting ltbewr (Reply 12): I have long been bothered by the lack of security around Princess Diana at the time of her death

She had removed herself from Royal circles and its protection system, she was no longer part of the firm so they weren't concerned.

Quoting GDB (Reply 19): And the 'establishment' stopped caring who she was shagging way before her tragic demise.

Surgeons, England rugby captains, Egyptian playboys, it was a well worn tunnel !

Quoting seb146 (Reply 23): but it seems awful fishy that Charles and Camilla wed after having an affair and he divorced Diana.

Don't most men with a mistress marry them after their divorce ?