Jon King is a published author and optioned screenwriter with a background in music and journalism. For a good chunk of the 1990s and early 2000s he was editor of the popular high street magazines, UFO Reality and Odyssey, an enterprise which led to the publication of his first book, Cosmic Top Secret: The Unseen Agenda. He is probably best known for his two top-selling books Princess Diana: The Evidence and Princess Diana: The Hidden Evidence, with co-author John Beveridge. His latest book, The Cut-Out, is an autobiographical spy thriller based on the true story of how he was set up by MI6 in the cover-up operation that followed Princess Diana's death.
In the first hour, we discuss the details of Princess Diana's assassination. In the second hour, Jon talks about how he was drawn into the conspiracy surrounding Diana's death and the unwitting role he became earmarked to play in the conspiracy. He speaks more about the source giving him information about a "high profile" assassination that was to occur.
King also details how the MI6 and CIA have been seeking to use non-mainstream press and media in order to have them disseminate information. This has been done in an effort to try to ridicule these stories as rumors and crazy conspiracy theories, despite the core of truth in the information shared. This gives us an interesting insight into how security agencies work and that insiders, anonymous sources and whistleblowers might still be in the business of doing the bidding of the agencies they claim they are speaking out against.
Statistics: Posted by Scepcop — 08 Apr 2014, 06:42
]]>
The banned Princess Diana documentary "Unlawful Killing" is now up on YouTube in full. Here is the link to it:
It presents a pretty irrefutable case that there was a conspiracy to kill Princess Diana. It also reveals a shocking fact at the end: The jury inquest into the death of Princess Diana resulted in the verdict that Princess Diana was murdered, which they termed "Unlawful Killing". So the official jury verdict was that she was murdered. However, the media covered that up and instead FALSELY reported that the jury reported that the paparazzi caused her death. Why would the media deliberately lie like that unless they were controlled? That's pretty disturbing.
Statistics: Posted by Scepcop — 31 Oct 2013, 09:40
]]>
]]>
]]>
]]>
]]>
]]>
]]>
]]>
]]>
]]>
]]>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2dSXEZp9io
- 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?
Statistics: Posted by Scepcop — 26 Jul 2012, 20:18
]]>
]]>
]]>