Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

What Was MI6 Team Doing In Paris The Night Princess Diana Died?

page: 12
29
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 02:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Afterthought
 


I've looked through Unlawful Killing again and this is what I found.

At 25:15 the car is shown from the back, the back of the car doesn't look damaged.
At 28:43 the car looks a lot more damaged, I'm guessing they cut the top off.
At 29:50 the left side of the car is shown with doors open and the roof still on and the back still not damaged.
At 29:55 Diana in the car,
I've looked at the two pictures side by side and in my unprofessional opinion the other picture is bs.
I see you posted more videos, thanks for backing up what I said about lacerations to her legs.
I know which picture I believe. The video is still here on page 5 of this thread but they won't watch it.




posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 02:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Afterthought
 




What probably bothered them most is that the Prince/King would have a Muslim mother since she most likely would've become Muslim after marrying Dodi and having his child.

Again that would not be a problem, firstly I don’t think there is any evidence that Diana was considering changing her faith but even if she did it would not matter, it would not make King William become a Muslim.

There is no real motivation for killing Diana



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 02:35 PM
link   
reply to post by LEL01
 


Thanks for keeping a better eagle eye than I was able.
This article also backs up the film's photo and puts Boymonkey's in the BS category.
articles.philly.com...

The network said the pics, which showed an unconscious Diana being treated by a doctor as she lay slumped in the back of a car, were shown "in a journalistic context - an examination of the medical treatment given Diana after the crash."

Plus, one more for good measure:
www.cbsnews.com...

The black-and-white photo in Milan-based Chi magazine showed the princess receiving oxygen in the wreckage of the car crash that killed her on Aug. 31, 1997. The picture was excerpted from "Lady Diana: The Criminal Investigation," a new book by French author Jean-Michel Caradec'h.


The BS meter is off the charts for Boymonkey's photo because:
1. The photo was in color.
2. She's not wearing an oxygen mask.
3. The assisting crews clothing doesn't match any of the clothes in legit photos.



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 02:39 PM
link   
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
 


it would not make King William become a Muslim.

*Facepalm*

I know this!
Just forget it. You aren't able to understand how his mother's connections might make him a sympathizer for the Arab and Muslim world -- especially when the UK and US have them in the cross hairs and want everyone to believe these countries are filled with terrorists.



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 02:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Afterthought
 


No please explain to me the motivation for assassinating Diana because I am failing to see one other that she might have changed her religion and might that might have meant that the King had a Muslim mother and a Muslim step sibling. That is all based on a “IF” and it’s not even a clear motivation.



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 02:59 PM
link   
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
 


I outlined this on page 10, but I'll post it again just for you.

From the video, here's all the reasons given for why they wanted her dead:
1. She was gaining a following for her stance on banning land mines.
2. She was in love with a Muslim. (As I stated earlier, if the princes loved their step father and half brother or sister, this would cause problems as they were soon to fight in the Middle East.)
3. She was speaking out about how disturbed and warped the Royal family is.
4. She was voicing disgust at how they ran their kingdom.
5. She was more concerned with love and peace than war and tyranny.
6. She already fulfilled her duty as the Royal Womb.
7. The people loved her more than the all of the Royals combined.
8. As her boys aged, her stance on peace and love would've influenced the prices even more and probably would've disagreed with the wars they were expected to participate in and insisted on standing down and taking a different approach instead of what we're seeing today.
9. DIANA DIDN'T FEAR THEM.

Any one of these reasons, but most likely a combination, led to her death. They really hated her because they didn't intimidate her. Most of the current rulers we have today want their people fearful. She showed courage speaking out against them and they in turn started to fear her. This wasn't in the play book.


She really had an excellent backing in her campaign for banning land mines. This angered many and the film mentioned how she got a phone call telling her to back off or accidents can happen. She died about a month before they were voting on the banning of land mines.

I think it's a combination of her political stance, her desire for peace, and her connections to the Muslim world. Do you really think her son would find it appropriate to bomb a place where his half bro or sis had relatives and his mom didn't agree with war? No. Diana had the ability to change what the Royals had planned for the Princes and the palace's ideological goals in regards to war and killing would've been threatened if they had a king who disagreed with the bloodshed of war and also didn't want to believe that the Muslims were just a bunch of terrorists.



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
firstly I don’t think there is any evidence that Diana was considering changing her faith but even if she did it would not matter, it would not make King William become a Muslim.


There is just as much evidence that Dodi was going to become a christian....



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 04:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Afterthought
 

Ok lets look at thoes points.



1. She was gaining a following for her stance on banning land mines.

So ok she was gaining a following for her stance on landmines, again I don’t see why SIS would have her assassinated for this and if this was also the reason then why did the Government of the day go on to sign the Ottawa Treaty banning anti-personnel mines. Surly if they killed her because they didn’t want to ban land mines or had any kind of problem with this then they wouldn’t have signed the treaty.

So point one. Not a valid reason to have her assassinated.



She was in love with a Muslim. (As I stated earlier, if the princes loved their step father and half brother or sister, this would cause problems as they were soon to fight in the Middle East.)

So?
Again as I have said above the issue of her marrying a Muslim is a non-issue it does not matter and its not a valid reason for them to have her killed, nor would it have impacted in anyway in any wars in the Middle East.



3. She was speaking out about how disturbed and warped the Royal family is.

As has been said before, she was a drama queen and in any case there are lots of people who bad mouth the royal family and I don’t recall her publically calling for the abolishment of the Royal family. Again not a reason for them to have her killed



4. She was voicing disgust at how they ran their kingdom.

The Royal Family don’t really “run” anything they don’t really have much say in domestic and foreign policy so how could she possible be speaking out against this, the Royal Family don’t run the Kingdom, that is a rubbish point.



5. She was more concerned with love and peace than war and tyranny.

So?



6. She already fulfilled her duty as the Royal Womb.

Yeah and why is this a reason to have her assassinated



7. The people loved her more than the all of the Royals combined.

That is very subjective but at the time people probably love the Spice Girls more than the loved the Royal Family and Diana combined yet they didn’t bother assassinated Posh-Spice.



As her boys aged, her stance on peace and love would've influenced the prices even more and probably would've disagreed with the wars they were expected to participate in and insisted on standing down and taking a different approach instead of what we're seeing today.

You cannot prove that, it’s wrong anyway the two boys regularly talk about their mother as Royals they were always going to join the Armed Forces. Its not a reason to have her killed.



9. DIANA DIDN'T FEAR THEM.

And neither do I so are the going to assassinate me next.

All 9 of those are not a motivation to assassinate anyone

So again I ask you what was their motivation for assassinating her.



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 04:07 PM
link   
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
 


You believe that Diana was a drama queen and the Royals don't run anything.
Yeah. OK. Character assassination and believing that the Royals aren't in control tells me all I need to about you. Like I said earlier, we got it. You believe the official story and that's it, so be gone from this thread and let us entertain other ideas.
Toodles.



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
reply to post by CJCrawley
 




Let's suppose Diana had given birth to Dodi's child; do you think that would have been acceptable to the Royal Family?

Yes.

Why, well primarily because there wouldn’t be very much they could do about it but at the same time it wouldn’t be a big deal a “step-brother” of the king would not have any weight in the royal family so it wouldn’t really matter. The Queen for example is married to a guy whose family are member of the Greek and Danish Royal Family, her husband being a Greek does not make any difference so I don’t see how a Muslim step brother to the future King would.

There is however another reason, they would use it to their advantage the King having a Muslim Step-Brother would be spun to show the Royal Family as “modern” and reflecting the multi-cultural society that is Brittan. They would use it as a means to show how the royal family is in keeping with 21st century Brittan.

Bet of all any Step-Brother to the King would have no right to any future succession to the throne nor would his blood line allow for any of his future children or grandchildren to make a claim, they would not be considered as part of the “British Royal Family”, they would just be distant relatives of which there are many.

I can’t see how the King having a Muslim step-brother or sister would be a problem, I really don’t see how it would be a threat to the Royal Family.


Crap.

What a load of rubbish.

Diana was going out of her way to infuriate the Royals, and this was one of the ways she did it - becoming romantically involved with Mohamed al Fayed's son. The press said as much at the time.

Mohamed al Fayed, regardless of race or breeding, was a dodgy customer; he was involved in the Cash For Questions scandal only a couple of years before.

And he had somehow annoyed the guy he bought Harrods from, who had him investigated by the Department of Trade and Industry.

Twice he applied for a British passport; twice he was refused (it's thought, because of his dodgy reputation).

We all know the facility with which our gov likes to dish out passports...they refused him TWICE.

Twice refused, and that was after spending 30 years living in the country!

The Royal Family didn't want him within 100 miles of Buckingham Palace - do you really think they would take kindly to the mother of the future king marrying into his family and breeding?

Diana knew damn well what she was doing...which is, of course, why she did it.


BTW, I don't know what you would consider a close relative, but a sibling is not a "distant relative."



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 04:17 PM
link   
reply to post by CJCrawley
 


If you are going to say they assassinated her because she loved a Muslim then as I have explained in the above quote that point does not stand up to scrutiny

The rest of your post is more about Fayed than it is about Diana, if they were really worried about him they could have just assassinated Dodi.

Also by distant relatives I was talking about the possible future offspring of any step-brother/sister to the future King and his offspring


I am yet to see a reasonable reason for assassinating Diana, there is no motive.



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 04:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Afterthought
 


After seeing the other picture I had to find the one you were talking about because it just wasn't making sense. The other picture just reminded me of when I was a kid, we didn't have pumpkins at Halloween so we used turnips.

The picture in the video, you can see it's her, the other picture doesn't even look like a human head and the hair isn't attached to the head. Where her body should be just looks like a mess, I can't make out what it's supposed to be.
I thought by looking at the two pictures side by side it would help me to see the other picture better but it just convinced me the other one must be fake.

Why would they want her dead? Only they can answer that one but maybe it was to do with the influence she had over the two boys. Without her around they were free to bring them up their way.



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 05:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Afterthought
FOR THE LAST TIME, the film "Unlawful Killing" states that her uterus was removed!


Ok, one of those "I saw it on youtube/the internet so it must be true type of people. Some people are really gullible!

So in fact we have no proof at all for that silly claim. Thanks for playing.



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 05:35 PM
link   
reply to post by LEL01
 


I completely agree with your analysis. No surprise that Boymonkey hasn't reappeared in the thread to defend the photo. I also find it strange that Boymonkey's linked evidence was all from UK publications.

I have no doubt that the Royals played a part in this and that Diana was the main target. Could I be wrong, sure! If the right evidence was brought forth to prove that Dodi was the target, I'd be willing to change my mind. The evidence is most certainly pointing in the Royals direction though. If they didn't have anything to hide, why ban the video? Like it stated in the analysis, the UK required something like 83 cuts to make it viewable in their eyes. The US only required one cut. That says a whole lot and I'd love to see the list of all the things they wanted cut and numbered according to importance.



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 05:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Afterthought
If they didn't have anything to hide, why ban the video?


It is NOT banned in the UK, why claim it is? Do you think it gives the movie more credibility if you make the silly claim that it is banned?

www.bbfc.co.uk... shows what movies are censored/banned - amd there is no mention of this movie.
edit on 4-1-2013 by hellobruce because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 05:45 PM
link   
reply to post by hellobruce
 


Well, why is it like pulling teeth to find?
Everywhere I read about the film states that it was shelved. Maybe if a film is considered shelved, it's not listed as banned? Maybe they're not considering it banned since they are allowing the film to be chopped up to fit their desired cuts? I don't know, but you wouldn't think that it would be that difficult to find if there wasn't a problem with it.



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 05:47 PM
link   
reply to post by hellobruce
 


OK. So I watched a documentary that was shown during a film festival on YouTube because I can't buy it anywhere or view it on any other source. That makes me gullible?
No, don't thank me for playing. I don't play games like you do.



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 05:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Afterthought
Everywhere I read about the film states that it was shelved.


being shelved does not mean it was banned...


but you wouldn't think that it would be that difficult to find if there wasn't a problem with it.


There is a problem with it, it is full of lies, which is why it was shelved. Not banned.



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Afterthought
That makes me gullible?


No,what makes you gullible is believing everything you see on a video.



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 06:05 PM
link   
reply to post by hellobruce
 


Makes me gullible for believing what I saw in a video? Nice try.
Please review all of my posts and notice that I'm researching and comparing the evidence, then making an informed decision on what I choose to believe.
Why is it that when you and others like you have nothing of substance to add, you resort to personal attacks? It's really getting old.





new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join