Jump to content

Diana Death: New Witness


Recommended Posts

The problem with your recollection is that if indeed such images were shown on TV people out there would have copies which would be available on the Net, in this case absence of evidence IS evidence of absence.

Er...logic's obviously a strong point of yours, Len. If it ain't on the Net, it never happened, right? A truly fascinating position, for which I feel confident chemical remedy will soon be found.

It is not uncommon for people to falsely recall having seeing footage of widely reported events that doesn't exists.

Particularly eyewitnesses to an event quoted shortly afterwards who have not yet seen any television footage of the event. Jeesh, Len, you're losing it.

Greenberg struggles to explain why Bush, having remembered events differently in his second recounting, went back to the original version.

Let's see if we can help Greenie out, shall we: Bush is an habitual lier with a memory of convenience and the IQ of a gnat? There, not too difficult, surely?

If you are willing to part ways with $25 you can read Greenberg’s paper...

Most kind.

While it's true Wikipedia is not the most authoritative source...

Who said Americans don't do understatement?

Paul

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 126
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

"Another powerful motive for murdering Diana was that she had become a loose cannon, politically speaking. Her aggressive campaigning toward the instituting of a ban on the use of land mines and a reduction in armaments sales, was anathema to the major armaments consortiums such as the Carlyle Group, whose stockholders includes the Bush and bin Laden families, Condoleezza Rice and, by proxy purchase, the House of Windsor."

http://www.dianaprincessofwales.net/didbri...dianasdeath.htm

----------------------------------------------------------------------

"FEATURE-Decade after Diana campaign, few use landmines

16 Jul 2007 18:04:53 GMT

Source: Reuters

By Peter Apps

LONDON, July 16 (Reuters) - Ten years after the death of Princess Diana and the first global treaty against antipersonnel landmines, experts say only a handful of rebel groups and perhaps one state dare use what has become a pariah weapon.

...

"The supply of mines is drying up. I wouldn't say we have won the war but we have won the battles so far. We have to stop people slipping back and we have to get the mines out of the ground."

Activists say global opinion was already turning against antipersonnel mines even before Diana, Princess of Wales, began using her fame to draw attention to the issue. But they say her campaigning sped up the process.

Diana joined a British Red Cross campaign against landmines in 1997 and before she died visited Angola and Bosnia with landmine charities.

...

"Landmine warfare is not over," said one British demining specialist. "They are very effective weapons. They are not as easy to get hold of as they used to be but they are very cheap to produce."

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L13920373.htm

----------------------------------------------------------------------

"Top 25 Censored Stories of 2007

#12 Pentagon Plans to Build New Landmines

Inter Press Service, August 3, 2005

Title: “After 10-Year Hiatus, Pentagon Eyes New Landmine”

Author: Isaac Baker

...

The Bush administration plans to resume production of antipersonnel landmine systems in a move that is at odds with both the international community and previous U.S. policy, according to the leading human rights organization, Human Rights Watch (HRW).

Nearly every nation has endorsed the goal of a global ban on antipersonnel mines. In 1994 the U.S. called for the “eventual elimination” of all such mines, and in 1996 President Bill Clinton said the U.S. would “seek a worldwide agreement as soon as possible to end the use of all antipersonnel mines.” The U.S. produced its last antipersonnel landmine in 1997. It had been the stated objective of the U.S. government to eventually join the 145 countries signatory to the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty, which bans the use, production, exporting, and stockpiling of antipersonnel landmines.

The Bush administration, however, made an about-face in U.S. antipersonnel landmine policy in February 2004, when it abandoned any plan to join the Mine Ban Treaty, also known as the Ottawa Convention. “The United States will not join the Ottawa Convention because its terms would have required us to give up a needed military capability,” the U.S. Department of State’s Bureau of Political-Military announced, summing up the administration’s new policy, “The United States will continue to develop non-persistent anti-personnel and anti-tank landmines.”

...

To sidestep international opposition, the Pentagon proposes development of the “Spider” system,

...

The U.S. Army spent $135 million between fiscal years 1999 and 2004 to develop Spider and another $11 million has been requested to complete research and development. A total of $390 million is budgeted to produce 1,620 Spider systems and 186,300 munitions. According to budget documents released in February 2005, the Pentagon requested $688 million for research on and $1.08 billion for the production of new landmine systems between fiscal years 2006 and 2011."

http://www.projectcensored.org/censored_2007/index.htm

Edited by Myra Bronstein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

“Dodi is killed, Diana badly injured in Paris car crash,” Sunday Times, 31 August 1997, p.1:

“Mike Walker, an American tourist from Ohio, saw Diana’s overturned Mercedes in the aftermath of the crash: ‘We were travelling in the opposite direction and saw the car lying flipped over at the bottom of the hill…’”

Again:

Mail on Sunday reporters, “Diana very grave after car crash,” Mail on Sunday, 31 August 1997, p.2:

“One witness at the scene said: ‘It looked as if the car hit the wall of the tunnel and flipped over.”

And again (though note the adverb "partially" - the car's position of rest in transition?):

Luke Harding, Owen Bowcott, John Hooper, Paul Webster, Alex Bellos, Stephen Bates, Chris Mihill in London, Paris and Rome, “How a game of cat and mouse ended with carnage in Paris,” The Guardian, Monday, 1 September 1997, p.5:

“The Mercedes had partially fallen on its roof, crushing it and forcing the engine back into the driver’s and passenger’s compartment.”

The delay in getting the injured and dead out of the car:

Luke Harding, Owen Bowcott, John Hooper, Paul Webster, Alex Bellos, Stephen Bates, Chris Mihill in London, Paris and Rome, “How a game of cat and mouseended with carnage in Paris,” The Guardian, Monday, 1 September 1997, p.5:

“The race to cut her free was proving difficult. The problem was the car’s dense armour plating…The specially reinforced steel made it extremely difficult to cut through and reach Princess Diana and the injured bodyguard…The firemen needed a good hour…After more than an hour of cutting, at 2am Diana was finally lifted clear of the carnage of the Mercedes.”

Given the weight and speed of the Mercedes, it would appear unlikely that a small Fiat Uno - or whatever it was - was capable of bumping the Merc into an unwanted change of direction. Was the white Fiat introduced into the tale as a "grassy knoll" piece of mis-direction from the Merc itself?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul and Myra,

As one who had previously not considered Diana's death as anything more than a reckless accident, I must say you are making a strong case that there was more to this than we have been told.

And Myra, your reasons for suspecting foul play are convincing, imo. In relation to landmines, Diana was well known for her campaign to end the use of these weapons. She would have been a powerful foe of the US on this issue. According to this 2005 article about proposed changes by Ambassador Bolton to a draft document on UN Reform, the US said this (in relation to landmines):

"The targeting and deliberate killing of civilians and non-combatants is without justification or legitimacy but only when committed by terrorists"

Of course, further down the document, the US submits its definition of what it considers 'terrorists' to be:

http://www.nuclearpolicy.org/ArticleID/2568

Diana would have been horrified at the elevation of these criminals to high office in the US. Were she alive today I suspect that a vocal campaign from her targeting the land mine issue would shame the US Government into doing the right thing in very short order, considering her enormous popularity throughout the world.

Yep, it's a fair bet we've been dudded by the media again. I'm beginning to believe that starting with the assumption that the media is lying and work back from there is the shortest route to establishing the truth.

Edited by Mark Stapleton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul and Myra,

As one who had previously not considered Diana's death as anything more than a reckless accident, I must say you are making a strong case that there was more to this than we have been told.

...

Thanks Mark.

I've just recently become convinced of her murder myself.

The tipping point was when news emerged that US espionage was bugging her calls in the hours before she was killed in Paris.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/sto...1968664,00.html

That hit me right between the eyes because a few people in the forum, Terry for one, emphasized that US and British intelligence are "joined at the hip." I agree with that (in fact I think British espionage largely created the OSS in WW2). So it seems likely that any US spying was done for, or in conjunction with, MI5/MI6.

Still I didn't research her death until the later part of this thread. The list of motives I posted was just off the top of my head. Now that I've read up a little I'd mention:

-Her campaign against Charles becoming king:

"Events had certainly reached a crisis in recent weeks, beginning with Diana's televised confessions on Nov. 20. Not only did she tell of her own bulimia, self-mutilation and adultery, but she also suggested that Charles is ill-suited to be king. She also offered that the monarchy itself could use a bit of a makeover ("more contact with people, more in-depth understanding"). She concluded with the salvo that she wished to be "queen of people's hearts," as well as an ambassador for Britain."

http://thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.c...s=M1ARTM0010555

-And I'd add that the Windsors did not want the Muslim Dodi to be a step father to the king of England.

And Myra, your reasons for suspecting foul play are convincing, imo. In relation to landmines, Diana was well known for her campaign to end the use of these weapons. She would have been a powerful foe of the US on this issue. According to this 2005 article about proposed changes by Ambassador Bolton to a draft document on UN Reform, the US said this (in relation to landmines):

"The targeting and deliberate killing of civilians and non-combatants is without justification or legitimacy but only when committed by terrorists"

Of course, further down the document, the US submits its definition of what it considers 'terrorists' to be:

http://www.nuclearpolicy.org/ArticleID/2568

Diana would have been horrified at the elevation of these criminals to high office in the US. Were she alive today I suspect that a vocal campaign from her targeting the land mine issue would shame the US Government into doing the right thing in very short order, considering her enormous popularity throughout the world.

-I think it's entirely possible that the factor that made the US eager to see her dead and willing to participate was her campaign against land mines (documented elsewhere in this thread). It's hard not to notice how often outspoken peaceniks (John Lennon, MLK, RFK, JFK) die a violent death.

According to this 2005 article about proposed changes by Ambassador Bolton to a draft document on UN Reform, the US said this (in relation to landmines):

"The targeting and deliberate killing of civilians and non-combatants is without justification or legitimacy but only when committed by terrorists"

Of course, further down the document, the US submits its definition of what it considers 'terrorists' to be:

http://www.nuclearpolicy.org/ArticleID/2568

Diana would have been horrified at the elevation of these criminals to high office in the US. Were she alive today I suspect that a vocal campaign from her targeting the land mine issue would shame the US Government into doing the right thing in very short order, considering her enormous popularity throughout the world.

That sure is a fascinating link you provided Mark.

It's like a sneak peak into the plans of the new world order.

Here's a noteworthy passage:

"In a similar vein, the US insisted on the removal of language urging "parties to the Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Convention and Amended Protocol II to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons to fully implement their respective obligations." In his letter accompanying the revisions, Ambassador Bolton explained that "[t]he U.S. did not and will not ... become a party to the Ottawa Convention, and that is why the U.S. cannot accept references to the Ottawa Convention." The US certainly has the right to refuse to become a party to the Convention. That being the case, why demand that States that are parties to the Convention not be urged to implement their obligations thereunder? Isn't it bad enough that the US retains the "right" to cause untold civilian casualties with anti-personnel mines? Why interfere with other States' agreement not to cause such casualties?"

I guess they're still trying to undo the 'damage' that pesky Diana did to their landmine sales.

...

Yep, it's a fair bet we've been dudded by the media again. I'm beginning to believe that starting with the assumption that the media is lying and work back from there is the shortest route to establishing the truth.

Yep Mark. That's the "negative template" method used so effectively by Peter Dale Scott. He observes which evidence the Warren Commission and HSCA refused to investigate and assigns it extra significance.

I think he and you are on to something with that negative template.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... I'd add that the Windsors did not want the Muslim Dodi to be a step father to the king of England.

Myra,

One of the most intriguing and, from Diana’s point of view, ominous, pre-assassination pieces on her appeared in the Guardian’s Outlook section in mid-May 1993.

Jointly attributed to Martin Kettle (a New Labour bootlicker, but a well-connected one), Richard Norton-Taylor (no stranger he to MI6) and Michael White (a political correspondent ever willing & able to discern wisdom in our unelected rulers), it bore the snappy title “Diana may be a loose cannon on the English flagship. But its officers are also feeling the heat. Accustomed to greatness, the English ruling class is being destabilised and it is reacting with venom,” Saturday, 15 May 1993, p.23.

Though making a passing nod in the direction of her utility to Rupert Murdoch’s campaign against the traditional Right in Britain, the article was primarily concerned with Diana’s serious flirtation with conversion to Catholicism. (Her papal pied piper was Dom Henry Wansborough, the Benedictine monk who was master of St. Benet’s Hall, Oxford, and a former housemaster of her “friend” James Gilbey at Ampleforth.) There followed a surprisingly serious consideration of the implications of such a conversion for the Church of England, the Monarchy – and the intelligence services. The most interesting passages in that meditation follow. Ignore the absurd bit about MI5 officers deferring to “no other power” – you can’t become head of either MI5 or MI6 without CIA approval:

All of which provides ample justification… for the alleged interest of the security services. MI5’s task is to protect “national security”. This is defined as safeguarding “the state and the community against threats to their survival or well-being”. Conceivably, actions and decisions by individual members of the royal family – even the heir to the throne and certainly his estranged wife – could be seen as just such a threat.

Faced with such a problem the response of the security services epitomises many of the tantalising contradictions which run through the culture and institutions of the English ruling-class in this swirling situation. Officers of MI5 – responsible for the “defence of the realm” – say they owe their allegiance to the “Crown”. They defer to no other power. They have used this in the past to justify operations against MPs and ministers and – in the case of Harold Wilson’s Labour administration – the elected government of the day.

They therefore have a double interest in the maintenance of the monarchy. The Crown is their protection. It also embodies and stands at the head of the shared values of the traditional establishment, which includes army officers (some of whom are court officials, while others are apparently in the Prince’s circle of advisers) as well as senior MI5 and MI6 officers.

Yet the workings of this network are labyrinthine. Sir Colin McColl, known as C, for “Chief” of MI6, regularly communicates with the Queen’s private secretary, currently Sir Robin Fellowes, who is also, to complicate things further, Diana’s brother-in-law. MI6 enjoyed a special relationship with the Queen and her Palace advisers. Adverse reports about their behaviour have been included in classified diplomatic telegrams from British missions overseas, concerned about the damage the continuing scandals are inflicting on British “prestige”.

As is obvious, this was well-informed, shrewd and deeply serious stuff – and entirely forgotten in the wake of Diana’s death, most notably by that obsessive attacker of things even remotely conspiratorial, the Guardian, the very paper in which it had appeared.

Paul

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul,

When you ask, "Was the white Fiat introduced into the tale as a 'grassy knoll' piece of mis-direction from the Merc itself?" you are precisely on target.

The operation to blur the perceptions -- of witnesses and post-event investigators -- is an all-important component in an illegal public execution.

Uno/MB contact supports a plausible hypothesis of "accident" and simultaneously sends suspicious types like us speeding down our own dark tunnels.

If one were to undertake what I guess would be called a time-motion study of the MB from the Ritz to the crash scene, one would come across conflicting eyewitness testimony as to the configuration, speed, and route of what amounted to at least one motorcade. Why?

Let's stipulate that witness reports can be unreliable. Of course this is not to say that ALL witness reports are unreliable ALL THE TIME.

That being established, let's game the assassination. Given all we've learned about the overworld's underworld, how would we have done it?

Apres vous.

Charles

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul,

When you ask, "Was the white Fiat introduced into the tale as a 'grassy knoll' piece of mis-direction from the Merc itself?" you are precisely on target.

The operation to blur the perceptions -- of witnesses and post-event investigators -- is an all-important component in an illegal public execution.

Uno/MB contact supports a plausible hypothesis of "accident" and simultaneously sends suspicious types like us speeding down our own dark tunnels.

If one were to undertake what I guess would be called a time-motion study of the MB from the Ritz to the crash scene, one would come across conflicting eyewitness testimony as to the configuration, speed, and route of what amounted to at least one motorcade. Why?

Let's stipulate that witness reports can be unreliable. Of course this is not to say that ALL witness reports are unreliable ALL THE TIME.

That being established, let's game the assassination. Given all we've learned about the overworld's underworld, how would we have done it?

Apres vous.

Charles

I admit to not be an expert on the physical situation in the tunnel, but generally:

-jimmy with seatbelts so they don't work or don't hold, if used.

-lure targets through kill zone

-target car bugged & radio beacon GPS; and under possible remote control

-have the kill zone [tunnel] all set up with lethal obstacles, cameras, diversions, doubles.

-clear out normal traffic prior to ambush and slow down follow-up traffic

-lanes blocked or bettter

-car rigged to be taken over by remote radio control [no control actual driver]

-strobe lights to confuse the target car and any others [though they would have been likely held-back by conspirator cars

-after accident first responders dressed in costume are conspirators

-if Diana and Dodi dead...end of game

-if not let them bleed and go slow

-if all else fails administer lethal substances in tunnel, ambulance or hospital, as last resort

-control of autopsy and media

-whisk body away immediately

-crocodile tears from appropriate persons

-sell stock in landmines you bought before kill

And embalm Di immediately so her pregnancy is hidden.

...

-sell stock in landmines you bought before kill

Good one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul,

When you ask, "Was the white Fiat introduced into the tale as a 'grassy knoll' piece of mis-direction from the Merc itself?" you are precisely on target.

The operation to blur the perceptions -- of witnesses and post-event investigators -- is an all-important component in an illegal public execution.

Uno/MB contact supports a plausible hypothesis of "accident" and simultaneously sends suspicious types like us speeding down our own dark tunnels.

If one were to undertake what I guess would be called a time-motion study of the MB from the Ritz to the crash scene, one would come across conflicting eyewitness testimony as to the configuration, speed, and route of what amounted to at least one motorcade. Why?

Let's stipulate that witness reports can be unreliable. Of course this is not to say that ALL witness reports are unreliable ALL THE TIME.

That being established, let's game the assassination. Given all we've learned about the overworld's underworld, how would we have done it?

Apres vous.

Charles

Charles,

A fascinating proposal, and one I may well take up at a future date. For the moment, however, an observation and two inferences from it.

Consider again the nature of the damage to the Merc. The front of the car bore a pronounced dent at the mid-front, to the extent that the wings of the car appeared to have curved round the impediment. It had clearly struck the column head on, not on either wing; and it was thus anything but a glancing blow.

My first inference from that reinforces both my own aforementioned viewing, early on the Sunday morning on BBC TV, of footage showing the car upside down, and its occupants, including Diana, still in it; and the eyewitness testimony quoted in that same day’s newspapers confirming same: A head on collision at great speed would likely cause the car, especially such a heavy one, to flip over.

My second: The fact that the Merc hit the pillar head on is powerfully suggestive that the driver was NOT in control of the vehicle. Why? Because the instinct to turn away from the looming obstacle is universal, universally powerful, and incredibly rapid. Even if Paul could not avoid it entirely, as was perhaps the case, one would confidently expect to see damage to one side or the other of the car’s front. Unless, that is, we are to believe that Monsieur Paul did not have time to make any instinctive reaction at all; or was either a hypno-programmed assassin, or else hopelessly drunk.

I’ve seen no reliable evidence for the Manchurian Candidate chauffeur hypothesis, or for his being steaming drunk. And the fact that the pillar struck was not right at the tunnel’s entrance leaves me with little option but to rule this objection unlikely.

Paul

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul,

I haven't the slightest problem with anything you postulate.

Nor do I have any reason to question the accuracy of your recollection vis a vis the car on its roof -- even though I did not see such footage, and on that holiday weekend I spent too many hours watching television and reading print coverage of the crash.

Your memory and the testimony of the eyewitnesses you cite are good enough for me -- at least at this stage of the game. If any of our correspondents can locate a photo of the wreck so inverted, we'd all be grateful.

Just two months after the incident, I took part in JFK Lancer's "November in Dallas" annual event. I recall eagerly seeking out Ian Griggs to solicit his view of the crash circumstances. George Michael Evica and I joined Ian before the morning's first presentation, and we didn't have to wait long for his statement.

"It was a simple auto accident," he confidently proclaimed.

To refute the opinion of a former copper and confirmed champion of the JFK truth was then and is now a daunting task. I haven't spoken to Brother Griggs about Diana's demise since, and I'm keen to learn his current thoughts on the issue. That being said, if he is of the same mind, I'm sure I can give him a run for his money.

As, Paul, can you.

Henri Paul, in my informed opinion, did not have control of the MB within the tunnel because control was denied to him.

Charles

Edited by Charles Drago
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...