ETA: Slightly confused now. I read several times that it was out but now am seeing that it is still coming soon. Perhaps it got recalled before
I watched the first 6 minutes of this documentary on Youtube and was very intrigued. I went on to see if I could buy the DVD online. I knew it was
banned in the UK but I figured I'd be able to import it easily. No such luck. I actually can't even find a single site that sells this DVD.
So then I went to look to see if I could watch it online. Again, no such luck. Plenty of links but no full movie at all.
I appreciate it's very controversial but why can't I even buy a copy? This seems very odd to me, especially in this day and age where you can't so
much as keep a family photo off of the internet. If anyone knows how I can get a copy or watch it online please DM me.
Here's the start of the documentary:
edit on 8-5-2012 by Scope and a Beam because: (no reason given)
What Wikipedia has to say about Unlawful Killing
Unlawful Killing is a British documentary film, directed by Keith Allen, about the deaths of Diana, Princess of Wales and Dodi Fayed on 31 August
1997. It has been financed by Mohamed Al-Fayed and Associated-Rediffusion  and premiered at the 2011 Cannes Film Festival. It argues that the
British and French authorities have covered up uncomfortable facts about the crash, accuses Queen Elizabeth and Princess Margaret of being 'gangsters
in tiaras', and alleges that Prince Philip has a 'Nazi background'. It is claimed that the film would need 87 cuts to be screened in the United
Kingdom, for which it is therefore not scheduled to be released. However, the director believes that it will make money in America, where
conspiracy theories about the Princess of Wales' death remain popular.
edit on 8-5-2012 by Scope and a Beam because: (no reason given)
edit on 8-5-2012 by Scope and a Beam because: (no reason
It basically looks into the details of her death with the premise that it was in fact an assassination plot hatched by the Royal Family because Diana
was pregnant with what would become a Muslim child. A big no, no in the Nazi affiliated Royal Family of England.
It was banned officially. I think because it features a shot of Diana dying. Here's reputable link on the banning story
Edge media did a good interview with a guy regarding the killing of diana and explained about the "boston breaks". she was definately murdered, but
this is not suprising. When we look back at the royals history, throughout thier history they have been killing and torturing many, many people.
What makes people think that is not going on tioday. We just dont get to hear about it becuase its carried out by MI6 and such like.
I also fully believe she was murdered. She even predicted it about 6 months before she died in a letter. The Royal Family have links to the SS and I
very much doubt the murderous ideology of such an organisation hasn't influenced minds somewhere along the line in their case.
edit on 8-5-2012
by Scope and a Beam because: (no reason given)
I did a quick google search, I thought maybe your search was skewed if you are in the U.K. All of the links are from May of last year, even the
official website has nothing about a dvd release, which I found rather odd. There is a facebook group that looks to be put up by the producers(?) and
there are a number of people asking about where to get the film, no replies that I could see from the administrators of the group. Kind of looks like
this film is being pushed underground.
You would need a region free dvd player to play it on your tv. Aparently dvd rom drives have been region specific since the year 2000 (although there
is some software out there that can convert ntsc to pal)
I just watched the 4 hour film on Lady Die above by Chris Everard, and wow, I learned a few things I didn't know before:
- When the ambulance reached Princess Diana and put her inside, it took about 90 minutes to get to the hospital which was only 3 miles away! Chris
Everard drove from that tunnel to the hospital in the film and showed that even if you drove at 30mph, you would have only needed 11 minutes to get to
the hospital. So the fact that the ambulance took 90 minutes is extremely suspicious. It's obvious that something sinister was going on in that
ambulance (such as them finishing her off and completing their Illuminati occult sacrifice ritual?). It would have had to be moving at 2 mph to move 3
miles in 90 minutes! That stinks to high heaven! How do the propagandists who say that it was just a simple drunk driving accident explain that?
- The mercedes that Diana crashed in was stolen a few weeks prior, and then found by the police. When it was found, nothing in it was missing except
for a microchip that controlled the navigation device. Obviously, it was rigged with something when it was returned, probably some kind of remote
control steering device.
- The intelligence agents would not let engineers from Mercedes company inspect or examine the crashed vehicle for some reason. Obviously, because
they would have discovered that it was rigged and tampered with?
- The cameras in the tunnel where Diana died were turned off and were the only ones in Paris that were turned off that night. They are usually on
though. No one can explain why they were off. Gee what a coincidence.
- The driver Henri Paul had carbon monoxide in his blood, which could not have come from cigarettes. Obviously, he was incapacitated somehow.
- The body guard who survived the crash doesn't remember what happened (how convenient), but he says that if the driver Henri Paul had been drunk,
that he would never have let him drive the car.
- Diana wrote a note saying that her life was in danger and that they were planning a car accident for her. You can see it here:
Obviously, something stinks to high heaven. There's no question it was an assassination and conspiracy.
Gee, I wonder what the pseudoskeptics will say about all this? I don't get why they believe that conspiracies and cover ups and assassinations by the
elite don't exist? What is their basis? Why do they believe that the official version of everything must be the only truth? What if I had a
pseudoskeptic killed and made it look like a suicide or accident? Would that mean that it really was a suicide or accident, because it looks that way?
After all, in their book, there's no such thing as a cover up or suppression of evidence. Every official story and every cover story must be true in
their book. To them, authority/establishment = truth. Totally illogical. Spock or Data would never agree with that. So why do pseudoskeptics call
themselves "rational", when Spock or Data or the Vulcan race would never agree with them or find their beliefs to be logical? I don't get it.
All they do is lie and yell "there's no evidence" over and over again, no matter how much evidence exists. Are these pseudoskeptics shills and disinfo
agents who are lying deliberately? What is their incentive to protect the establishment, unless they are paid by them?
edit on 26-7-2012 by WWu777 because: (no reason given)
The Above Top Secret Web site is a wholly owned social content community of The Above Network, LLC.
This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.
All content copyright 2015, The Above Network, LLC.