Though the actual words had been blacked-out for
years, the Mirror revealed for the first time that Diana had apparently
written in full,
"my husband is planning 'an accident' in my
car, brake failure and serious head injury..."
It was the ultimate horror story of a fairy
princess brutally murdered by her ogre of an adulterous husband, and the
public loved it to death. Virtually no-one bothered to even ask if the
letter was genuine, nor whether Princess Diana, a qualified teacher with the
best education money can buy in Great Britain, would by herself have made
the provable errors in the body of the text. And all of this was printed by
a left-wing newspaper with a known vested interest in the abolition of the
Monarchy.
Just a bit too convenient, wouldn't you say?
A snip of the Mirror letter reproduced by
GuluFuture.com is posted below, and shows
very clearly where the "Princess" suddenly lost complete control of her
English language skills. In all other letters written before her death,
Princess Diana without exception starts a new sentence with a capital
letter, i.e. "is planning 'an accident' in my car. Brake failure..."
Not with this single letter though.
All of a sudden Diana loses her grasp of the
English language for the very first time, and writes instead,
"is planning 'an accident' in my car. brake
failure..."
There is more, much much more. Just about every
wife reading this report knows that in the real world of princesses and
commoners, Diana would have used "Charles" if writing to a close friend, or
perhaps modified this to "Prince Charles" if writing to a servant. Only the
editor of a major newspaper would think of "my husband", an intimate and
very personal term, substituted in order to wring every last bit of emotion
out of a dumbstruck gullible audience.
Whether Princess Diana actually wrote this letter or not we will never know
for certain, though it seems most unlikely that she did. Indeed, the
Dutchess of York, a lifetime friend, seemed appalled.
"That just isn't her" Fergie said, shaking
her head in bewilderment.
Forgery would be simplicity with today's super
computers and graphics software.
All you need is a sample of Diana's
handwriting including all letters in the alphabet, and the computer does the
rest for you. Unfortunately, a computer would not necessarily know that
Princess Diana always started each new sentence with a capital letter, nor
that "my husband" sounds ridiculous to normal human beings.
As things stand at present, the Royal Coroner has demanded that this
"letter" be forwarded to him for use as evidence. Let us all hope that the
Royal Coroner has his wits about him, and compares this missive with others
written by the Princess in her own hand. Even the best of computers would be
overtaxed trying to duplicate the exact pressure exerted by Diana on her own
notepaper, if indeed the Mirror letter was actually written on the right
notepaper from Kensington Palace.
Food for thought...
As to why one of Britain's largest newspapers is
manipulating the truth, or itself being manipulated by others, the text
below is probably as good an explanation as any. About half of this text was
published in 2002 to explain inexplicable parallels between the Ritz Hotel
in Paris and its namesake in London, and also describes the weaponry used to
cause the crash.
The fresh half, woven into the original, reveals
for the first time the identity of those responsible for the death of Diana,
Princess of Wales.
During the evening of 29 January 1999, five
hundred and sixteen days after the death of Princess Diana, various assorted
camera crews stood assembled outside the Ritz Hotel in London.
Prince Charles was finally "coming out"
with his mistress Camilla Parker-Bowles on his arm, and the London
media had been primed in advance about the photo opportunity.
As the smiling pair happily descended the steps of the Ritz, flash bulbs
predictably started popping all over the place. But then the unthinkable
happened. From a location above and behind the media pack, someone fired a
powerful Pulsed-Strobe "Less Than Lethal" optical weapon directly at
the Prince and Camilla. Though slightly diffused by the flash bulbs below,
the intense distinctive blue-white pulses were still powerful enough
to make Camilla Parker-Bowles stumble slightly, and then turn pale.
Though taken from a slightly different angle, the remarkable photo shown
above on the right was exposed at the exact second the Pulsed-Strobe LTL
fired.
The PS-LTL is a narrow-beam weapon, and the
photo clearly shows the intense blue-white glare directly on
Camilla's right eye, and on the right side of Prince Charles' nose. Because
the Prince had his face turned away from the weapon at the instant it fired,
he escaped its neural effects.
No doubt there will be photographic "experts" out there who will claim this
was merely a media flash gun. Any and all such claims can easily be
disproved. The media pack was completely contained behind a barrier more
than sixty feet away from the London Ritz Hotel, at which range no media
flash gun ever invented can generate such an intense [and narrow] blue-white
beam or pulse.
Adding to the mystery is the fact that the weapon used, was almost identical
to one assumed to be used in the Pont de l' Alma tunnel against Princess
Diana and Dodi Al-Fayed on 31 August 1997, just after they left
the Paris Ritz hotel on their last journey. Only three weeks after that
fatal crash, I wrote to Mohammed Al-Fayed about Pulsed-Strobe LTL
Weapons.
This letter was sent to London by registered
mail on 22 September 1997, long before any "official" reasons or misleading
suggestions about the crash were published by the media:
"When this LTL weapon fires, it pulses
high-intensity brilliant white light at brain frequencies, inducing
complete neural confusion for between two and five seconds.
Line-of-sight exposure is overwhelming and renders the target completely
incapable of meaningful brain function. Exposure at oblique angles
causes moderate to severe mental confusion.
"If this LTL system was deployed at the tunnel entrance in order to
trigger a lethal event, the two-ton mass of the Mercedes colliding with
a solid concrete wall at sixty mph, would have ensured lethality due to
the car's inertia, which could be accurately calculated in advance.
"Although pulsed-strobe LTL by its very nature leaves little hard
evidence of its use, there are indicators which might be useful in
determining whether or not it was deployed at the Paris tunnel."
Before going on to examine who might have the
motive and means to orchestrate the event outside the London Ritz, it might
be instructive to examine how the media pack reacted to this extraordinary
optical weapon at the time.
The BBC, obliged to transmit quite dangerous
television footage of events at the Ritz, tried to blame it all on an
over-abundance of flash guns:
"Some had been waiting for many hours to
catch a glimpse of the couple. Many were tourists, and others had merely
stopped to see what was going on as they made their way home from pubs
and restaurants. Such was the ferocity of the flash guns, the British
Epilepsy Association urged broadcasters not to transmit more than five
seconds of the strobe-like effects, fearing that it would spark
photosensitive seizures in some sufferers."
In fact the "strobe-like effects" had already
done considerably more damage than that.
At one London TV station two editors became
severely confused, and at another station, one editor became totally
disorientated and collapsed across the control console. None of these
personnel, or other who suffered lesser effects, had any history of
epilepsy.
Working rapidly behind the scenes, The Independent Television Commission
in London took a much harder line than the BBC, swiftly circulating an
urgent directive to all TV networks.
The ITC warned that,
"the news footage [taken outside the London
Ritz] appeared significantly to breach the ITC's guidelines on the use
of flashing images," and called for subsequent broadcasts "to fall in
line with the Commission's guidance notes."
In accordance with this directive, later
transmissions had the footage slowed down, a fact reported openly by
television networks across the world including Australia's ABC and SBS.
But despite the confusion, and the fact this was
the first and only documented occasion on which television footage worldwide
had to be slowed down to avoid neural damage, not one media outlet anywhere
reported on the real reasons for this unique phenomena.
It was literally the scoop of the century. For the first time in history
people were swooning all over the floor, and collapsing across television
consoles, to the point where transmission speeds had to be altered to limit
further physical and mental damage. At best George Orwell had come to
town, and at worst the government's "Mind Controllers" had just turned up
for work. It was a giant of a story begging to be reported to the viewers,
but no one said a thing.
Are all media personnel stupid, or were they simply
told to keep their mouths shut that day?
Possible motives for this deliberate event must also include the possible
motives behind the deaths of Dodi Al-Fayed, and Diana,
Princess of Wales. The links between Prince Charles, Princess Diana, Camilla
Parker-Bowles and Dodi Al-Fayed overlap in several complex ways, to the
point where any diligent investigator or analyst would ignore them at his
peril.
The hotel name itself points to another or parallel link, which is unlikely
to be mere coincidence. The Ritz Hotel in Paris is owned by Mohammed
Al-Fayed, while the Ritz Hotel in London is jointly owned by Sir David
and Sir Frederick Barclay, affectionately known in London circles as
"The Reclusive Twins" because they shun limelight and controversy.
So far as is known, both Sir Barclays have always left the day-to-day
running of the London Ritz entirely to its own management team, so we can
confidently exclude any rivalry or conflict between the hotel owners
themselves. What, then? The explanation is long and may get a little boring
in places, but stay with me people, stay with me. The means justify the end
of this story, and the end of this story is frightening.
Throughout history, a large number of powerful men [and pretenders who seek
to be powerful men] have been inexorably drawn towards symbolism and
anniversary dates. You see evidence of this all around you in everyday life.
American Independence Day is celebrated on 4 July each year, which serves
the dual role of symbolism [Independence] and a specific day on which to
celebrate it.
On the other side of the Atlantic we have the
Golden Jubilee of Queen Elizabeth II of Great Britain.
Princess Elizabeth's father, King George VI, died on 6th February 1952. As
required by tradition, the new monarch acceded to the throne instantly. At
no time is Britain left without a monarch. It is for this reason that the
monarch's flag, The Royal Standard, can never fly at half mast even though
the public expected the 'Standard' to be at half mast at the time of
Princess Diana's death.
Though the Queen's Golden Jubilee is officially celebrated in June 2002, it
was actually on 6 February 2002 that Elizabeth the Second completed exactly
fifty years as Monarch. There are other events and dates most people forgot
long ago, which can still be used subversively for more discreet
commemorative purposes.
Fine so far.
The owners of the two Ritz Hotels are not
involved, but we still have a highly charged and very symbolic situation.
The last time any of us saw Prince Charles' estranged wife Diana alive, is
when she walked out of the back door of the Ritz Hotel in Paris with Dodi
Al-Fayed. The first time we "officially" saw Prince Charles' mistress
Camilla Parker-Bowles, is when she walked out of the front door of the Ritz
Hotel in London.
So what does it all mean, and who was really pulling the symbolic strings in
this strange subliminal tableaux? To answer this we need to back up a few
years to 1992-3, when suddenly and without apparent reason, a person or
persons unknown started "bugging" the telephones of Prince Charles, Princess
Diana, and Camilla Parker-Bowles. Rumors circulated by the media insinuated
that Prince Charles started it all, but why on earth would he bother?
Nowadays we all know that back in 1993 and much earlier, Prince Charles had
both Protestant wife and Catholic mistress, i.e. the best of both worlds,
and would most certainly not upset the apple cart himself. Princess Diana
also had no motive, nor did Camilla Parker-Bowles.
Whoever ordered the bugging benefited hugely in terms of undermining the
credibility of the Royal Family, and eventually the London Sunday
Mirror newspaper pointed the finger thus:
"The US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)
and National Security Agency (NSA) are holding a 1,056 page
dossier made by bugging Princess Diana's phones and eavesdropping on her
conversations. The CIA had mounted a surveillance operation on Diana at
the request of British Intelligence Service MI6".
It would be a serious error of judgment to
assume that MI6, home of the fictional James Bond, is actually controlled by
the British Government. It would be an equally serious error of judgment to
assume that MI6 goes out of its way to protect members of the Royal Family,
because it does not do so.
Preserving national security and protecting the
Royal Family are tasks handled jointly by MI5 and The Metropolitan Police
Service.
More properly known by its correct title of the "Secret Intelligence
Service" (SIS), MI6 was long ago penetrated by both the
American Central Intelligence Agency and the Israeli Mossad. For at least
the last two decades MI6 has danced to the tune of the CIA, which
unfortunately over the same period of history has itself been subordinate to
Mossad interests.
Therefore any international agenda followed by
MI6 and the CIA, has been set by the Mossad.
"Why oh why", I hear you ask, "would the
Mossad be interested in harming Prince Charles, Princess Diana or
Camilla Parker-Bowles?"
Once again we have to delve back through the
history books for the answer, and please note here this is a serious
investigation, not an "anti-Semitic" witch hunt as many Jews are sure to
claim. It is documented historical fact that for many centuries, Jewish
financiers effectively controlled various British Kings and Queens, by
funding wars and many other ventures that the occasionally extravagant
British monarchs desired.
True, every now and then a King might, and in fact did, banish them all from
Britain, but overall the Jews were the undisputed winners. It was not until
the early 20th Century that disenchanted British bureaucrats finally knocked
them off their perch. Then the Jews lost not only financial control of the
British monarchy, but also the ear of the Royal Court.
It would be realistic to claim that the biggest grudge the Jews held against
Britain in contemporary times was the latter's absolute refusal to hand over
Palestine as the new "Jewish State". In the end the Jewish Zionists
prevailed, but it was very hard going. Thereafter the Zionist Lobbies
decided to pay more attention to Britain.
The colonies had vanished one by one over the
years but, diplomatically speaking, Britain was still a powerhouse.
Though the British monarch has very little real power nowadays, he or she
still wields enormous influence, and Prince Charles had already displayed a
desire to be the "Defender of Faiths" when eventually crowned King, i.e. not
be exclusively restricted to his traditional role as defender of the Church
of England.
Ominously perhaps, in late May 1996, just over a
year before Diana would later be murdered in a Paris tunnel, Britain's Prime
Minister John Major took the odd step of publicly disapproving of
Prince Charles' stand, while at the same time cleverly exposing the fact
that "faiths" in the Royal plural sense did not include Judaism.
Interviewed on BBC Television, Major described the desire of the Prince of
Wales to be seen as a figurehead for all religions in Britain, including
Catholics, Muslims and Hindus, as "odd" and further suggested that such a
move could be interpreted as an "empty gesture". It was a performance
watched very closely by leading members of the Jewish community, who
collectively had very bad vibes about any "King Charles."
Back in the Middle Ages, Charles I banned the Jews from Britain, and as a
result was ruthlessly pursued by Oliver Cromwell, who can fairly be
described on his actions and deeds as "Britain's first Communist leader",
complete with a subservient proletariat. The Jews wanted back in, and
Cromwell was their man body and soul.
Eventually fate and Oliver Cromwell caught up with Charles I, who faced his
execution on the 30 January 1649 at Whitehall, where he was beheaded on a
specially built scaffold. Then after a respectable interlude of just a few
years, Oliver Cromwell graciously and obediently allowed the Jews back into
Britain. Mark the 30th January 1649 well, because something extraordinary
was to happen exactly three hundred and fifty years later in London, as we
will shortly see.
With the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, the modern
Prince Charles' nineties stand on religion can now be seen as reckless, if
not downright dangerous. In the run-up to his statement about "faiths",
Charles had payed several visits to Muslim communities, while apparently
ignoring Judaism. In so doing, Prince Charles opened himself up as a target
for Jewish fanatics, none of whom were prepared to run the risk of being
ejected from Britain all over again.
It was finally considered much better [and far easier] to discredit Charles,
and thus prevent him ever ascending the throne.
Naturally enough the Zionist lobby knew all
about the exploitable skeleton in Charles' closet - Camilla Parker-Bowles -
because they had full control of the earlier "bugging" sequences by
Britain's MI6. But if the Zionists thought Prince Charles was a big problem,
they were certainly not ready for the shattering events of 1997.
Quite suddenly a catastrophe happened. Instead of continuing to hang out
with a relatively harmless wet-behind-the-ears British army officer,
Princess Diana started a relationship with Dodi Al Fayed, son of Mohammed Al
Fayed of Harrod's fame. And if there was one man in England the Zionist
lobby loved to hate with a passion it was Mohammed Al Fayed.
So intense was their hatred that for more than twenty years, members of the
Lobby had prevented Mohammed Al Fayed from obtaining British citizenship, a
privilege handed out on a daily basis to any illegal immigrant who bothered
to knock on Britain's back door.
It became instantly obvious to the Zionist Lobby that Dodi Al Fayed could
not be controlled at all. This man was not a junior British officer who
could be cowed by Whitehall or by "The Firm" at Buckingham Palace, but an
independent Special FX Producer from Hollywood with the full backing of his
immensely wealthy father.
Though the Lobby felt confident it could "influence" or even control the
rather muddled relationship between Prince Charles and Camilla
Parker-Bowles, and eventually use that relationship to undermine Prince
Charles completely, the thought of a powerful Muslim influence being
anywhere near Prince William or Prince Harry, drove its members to
distraction.
Somehow the Zionist Lobby had to get rid of Dodi Al Fayed, and then
once more arrogantly display its implicit "influence" over Prince Charles
and Camilla Parker-Bowles. If Dodi Al Fayed was allowed to continue his
relationship with Princess Diana, and perhaps marry her, then ultimately his
discreet influence over Prince William and Prince Harry could well undermine
all of their careful work, and preparations to guide the future King of
England and his heirs.
But how could they get rid of him?
Suddenly, as if from nowhere, there was an answer to the Zionist prayers.
With its driver suddenly blinded by a Pulsed-Strobe LTL Weapon, and
amid an appalling screech of brakes and twisted metal, the Mercedes 600 SEL
carrying Princess Diana and Dodi Al Fayed away from the Ritz Hotel in Paris,
cannoned off the wall of the Pont de l' Alma tunnel and came to rest in the
center lane. Dodi Al Fayed and driver Henri Paul were killed on impact.
Princess Diana died shortly afterwards. The only survivor was bodyguard
Trevor Rees Jones, though he was critically injured.
Most of Britain went into deep shock, mourning the death of Princess Diana.
Hundreds of wreaths took up acres of space
outside her official residence, and every faith on earth sent a religious
representative to her funeral in Westminster Abbey. Well, all faiths except
one. The Chief Rabbi declined to attend, ostensibly because the funeral took
place on Shabbat, the Jewish equivalent of Sunday in the Christian Church.
It was odd behavior, because I can find no religious law stating that
Jews may not enter a Christian Church on a Saturday.
In Jewish literature, poetry and music, Shabbat is described as a
bride or queen, as in the popular Shabbat hymn Lecha Dodi Likrat Kallah
(come, my beloved, to meet the [Sabbath] bride).
It is said,
"more than Israel has kept Shabbat, Shabbat
has kept Israel."
Shabbat is not specifically a day of prayer.
"To say that Shabbat is a day of prayer is
no more accurate than to say that Shabbat is a day of feasting: we eat
every day, but on Shabbat, we eat more elaborately and in a more
leisurely fashion."
To an outsider like me, the Chief Rabbi's
refusal to attend seemed more like a deliberate snub.
Over the next year or so Prince Charles fought a rising tide of
public hostility, as he tried to introduce Camilla Parker-Bowles as
his consort. The British people barely concealed their resentment and
indeed, several conspiracies started to do the rounds that tacitly accused
the Prince of being directly involved in the murder of his young wife.
There was never any direct or indirect evidence
to support these preposterous claims, and over the years they died away.
Eventually, in January 1999, arrangements were made for a party at the Ritz
Hotel in London, apparently to celebrate the birthday of one of Camilla's
many friends. It is most unlikely that Prince Charles or Camilla
Parker-Bowles decided on the date, venue or the time, because traditionally
junior staff take care of such details.
Put another way, suddenly deciding to have a
party specifically at the London Ritz on 29 January was almost certainly not
their own idea.
The media was discreetly told to be there, and when all were in place, the
Prince strode down the steps of the Ritz with Camilla Parker-Bowles on his
arm. Then the Pulsed-Strobe LTL Optical Weapon fired, and for a
millionth of a second history stood perfectly still.
Exactly fifty years before, on 29 January 1949,
the Crown had finally and very grudgingly granted diplomatic recognition to
the State of Israel.
Leading Zionists in London celebrated this victory by partying all night and
into the next day at the very same Ritz Hotel. Thus, unknown to the
participants, Prince Charles and Camilla Parker-Bowles' party
at the London Ritz on 29 January 1999, marked the Golden Jubilee of the
greatest single Zionist victory over Great Britain.
And as the hands of the clock slipped past
midnight, and the date advanced seamlessly to the 30th January 1999, the
party also marked the 350th anniversary of the execution of Charles I.
Exactly Where is "Kennington
Palace"?
The forgers of the "Diana Letter" made far less subtle mistakes than capital
letters. According to the photographs in the Mirror newspaper, Diana wrote
the horrible expose on her own stationary at Kennington Palace.
Where?
When she was alive, Diana lived at Kensington
Palace, a well-known royal residence.
"Kennington Palace" used to be part of Lambeth
Palace in southeast London, currently the London home of the Archbishop of
Canterbury.
