Look closely at the Burrell letter - is 'X' 'Prince' Charles?
banana
to read:
"[X] is planning "an accident" in my car. brake failure & serious
head injury in order to make the path clear for Charles to marry"
So far, only the first part of this passage has been published in a
photo, i.e. the words:
"[X] is planning "an accident" in my car. brake failure & serious
head injury in order to make the path"
However, whilst the next line has been cropped out of the photo, the
TOPS OF SOME OF THE CHARACTERS IN IT are visible in the version
published at:
http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/channel.cfm?channelid=41&contentid=982&p
age=2
or click: <http://tinyurl.com/s9ik>
(If this is has been taken down by the time you are reading this, email
me and I will send you a copy).
THERE ARE SIX VISIBLE CHARACTER-TOPS.
The first two, which are very close together, could easily be the 'cl'
of 'clear'.
The third could easily be the 'loop' with which Princess Diana topped
her 'f's'.
The fourth could easily be the top of one of the letters which would
normally protrude above the middle zone, but which in Princess Diana's
writing did so only by a small amount.
The fifth, however, is definitely a dot, and almost certainly an 'i'
dot. (The only other letter that has got a dot is 'j', which is much
rarer, and going by the 'j' that appears in the word 'injury' in the
letter she does not appear to have dotted her 'j's, at least in
non-final position).
And there is no 'i' in the word 'Charles'.
It follows that the words 'clear for Charles to marry' DO NOT FIT.
The words 'clear for him to marry', however, DO FIT.
If these ARE the words, then the passage reads:
"[X] is planning "an accident" in my car. brake failure & serious
head injury in order to make the path clear for him to marry"
...making it likely (although admittedly not 100% certain) that 'X' is
the same person as 'him', i.e., in context, that 'X' is 'Prince'
Charles.
'Charles' in itself is too short for the rectangle, but it could be some
other name by which she referred to him, or words such as 'I think
Charles'.
--
banana "You know what I hate the most about you Rowntree? The way
you give Coca-Cola to your scum, your best teddy-bear to
Oxfam, then expect us to lick your cold frigid fingers for the
rest of your cold frigid life." (Mick Travis, 'If...', 1968)
Jack
Charles?
Conspiracists often assume the answer they want, then fit the facts after.
"banana" <banana@REMOVE_THIS.borve.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:bl78PrAQtam$Ew...@borve.demon.co.uk...
banana
writes
>Do you really believe it to be Prince Charles or do you want it to be Prince
>Charles?
>
>Conspiracists often assume the answer they want, then fit the facts after.
So do whoopsadaisyists. Gullibility can be remarkably 'creative'.
Why don't you comment on the facts and interpretation that I have
posted? Do you think I make a good case for the words in the following
line *not* being 'clear for Charles to marry', but rather being, if the
sense is anything similar, 'clear for *him* [emphasis added] to marry',
or don't you?
You should surely be able to deal with this having concentrated on the
facts and on the reasonableness or otherwise of the interpretation,
supposition, and argument, rather than avoiding doing so by questioning
my psychological motivation. Yes? Nothing gets published in the media
without powerful interests wanting it to be published for a reason, but
something tells me you are not in the habit of asking 'who's behind
this?'
To answer your question - if it weren't for what I'd got by analysing
the photo, no, I would not say that X was probably 'Prince' Charles, I
would give more weight to the published assertion that it is believed to
be a 'security officer', and to other possibilities. I would however
suppose that if it were a security officer, said security officer would
be doing the mentioned 'planning' on instructions.
Inge Jones
banana@REMOVE_THIS.borve.demon.co.uk says...
>
> whoopsadaisyists
>
Nice word! I shall adopt it (-:
Jim Smith
I reckon it's 'Dodi'.
Noelle
=====================
Hmm, very interesting. Makes sense the use of the pronoun "him" is
the same as X, but rather than Philip (the conventionally accepted X)
X might be Charles. Still, "him" could have been mentioned by name
somewhere else we cannot see in the photo.
On that, one wonders if Charles had the decisiveness to okay such a
thing (brake failure). It would have to be done by an outside person
(therefore not accountable by the royal household).
Does anyone other than Burrell know who X is? (That is, has anyone
else seen this letter, besides the film processor and photo printer?)
Noelle
banana
<perry...@aol.com> writes
>banana <banana@REMOVE_THIS.borve.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:<bl78PrAQtam
>$Ew...@borve.demon.co.uk>...
<snip>
>> "[X] is planning "an accident" in my car. brake failure & serious
>> head injury in order to make the path clear for him to marry"
>>
>> ...making it likely (although admittedly not 100% certain) that 'X' is
>> the same person as 'him', i.e., in context, that 'X' is 'Prince'
>> Charles.
>>
>> 'Charles' in itself is too short for the rectangle, but it could be some
>> other name by which she referred to him, or words such as 'I think
>> Charles'.
>Hmm, very interesting. Makes sense the use of the pronoun "him" is
>the same as X, but rather than Philip (the conventionally accepted X)
>X might be Charles. Still, "him" could have been mentioned by name
>somewhere else we cannot see in the photo.
Agreed, or more specifically, 'Prince' Charles could have been mentioned
earlier in the letter. Then you get
"Philip [or another named person] is planning "an accident" [...] in
order to make the path clear for him to marry",
with the "him" referring back to 'Prince' Charles.
Which is an interesting idea because the statements that 'Prince' Philip
thought 'Prince' Charles would be mad to leave his wife for Camilla may
have been put out precisely to counter such a supposition about what was
in the letter. Often what's in the media is the opposite of the truth.
(Re. ridiculous "'Prince' Philip is really rather cuddly" line, of
course, no media commentator is saying that even if he did write
something of this sort amid all the threats, or prior to making threats,
the assumption would be that 'Prince' Charles's wife would give up her
life to keeping up appearances, for the good of the Windsor family and
its hold on the throne, while her husband in reality virtually never saw
her, preferring to have Camilla as his actual partner - now does that
sound like 'Prince' Philip' or doesn't it?)
>On that, one wonders if Charles had the decisiveness to okay such a
>thing (brake failure).
Bolland is still spinning for 'Prince' Charles in my opinion. And if
he's not, then he's spinning for 'Prince' Charles's parents. One thing's
for sure - he ain't working for free!
>It would have to be done by an outside person
>(therefore not accountable by the royal household).
? I don't quite understand your point here.
>Does anyone other than Burrell know who X is? (That is, has anyone
>else seen this letter, besides the film processor and photo printer?)
Piers Morgan, editor of the 'Daily Mirror'.
Oo
box bit..cant see tops off letters...am i being stupid again or do i need
glasses?
"banana" <banana@REMOVE_THIS.borve.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:bl78PrAQtam$Ew...@borve.demon.co.uk...
MikeinCamden
mentioned why blank out Charles?
Noelle
>
> <snip>
> > >>
>> <snipped to point>
>>
> >It would have to be done by an outside person
> >(therefore not accountable by the royal household).
>
> ? I don't quite understand your point here.
>
(if there's such a thing), I wouldn't think, because such a person's
actions would be noticed? If mechanic X always worked on her car,
blame would come on him. He would have to be bribed or something. He
might cave and talk. He would be a loose end. I was thinking an
outside person, Saboteur Unknown, would do the brake tampering. It
would just be a job. But honestly, I have no idea how such things are
arranged and done.
But now I think of it, how would brake tampering be serious enough to
put her out of action? Wouldn't something like that be detected by,
say, the insurance company?
Noelle
Jim Smith
> Part of the letter written by Princess Diana to Paul Burrell is supposed
> to read:
>
> "[X] is planning "an accident" in my car. brake failure & serious
> head injury in order to make the path clear for Charles to marry"
>
might this be, make the way clear for Camilla?
Mrs Windsor
ding dong the ......