John Hamer Diana & JFK

[Speaker 2] (0:00 - 2:35) All right, everybody, welcome back to Here for the Truth podcast. I'm Joel Rafiti, got my co-host Erasmus with me as always. Thank you so much for being here. Thank you so much for listening. We very much consider this platform a home base for the grounded seeker. We try to keep things really embodied, keep things on a rational, objective level, while obviously still venturing into the realm of conspiracy. And we certainly believe that everything needs to be questioned. But I think true questioning really comes from a place of deeper self-knowledge, because it's from that place that we're more grounded and we're more censored in our questioning and in our discovery without our minds being hijacked and taken on tangents by other people's opinions. Because it's not all about having a quote-unquote open mind. As Ayn Rand said, she advocated for an active mind, which is a mind that is willing to think, a mind that's willing to learn, willing to discover, not just be completely open and take anything that anyone says as fact, as long as it is opposite where our biases kind of sit. So thank you for being here. John previously joined us on episode 198, diving into the Titanic conspiracy and anomaly. That was a very, very popular episode with our fans. So you can go head to hereforthetruth.com or Spotify or whatever and watch that one. Today, we're exploring the deaths of Princess Diana and JFK. Now, obviously, these two high profile prominent deaths are shrouded in conspiracy. And this is an awesome opportunity to get a deeper look at the details and other views and other perspectives of what really, really went on. I think you guys are really going to get a kick out of this episode. If you want to hang out with us, we have our free school community available at school. There is basic free membership benefits. But if you want to go a step deeper, we have our paid membership community available through the membership link at our website or at friendsofthetruth.co, where we're offering six calls a month plus a private Telegram community to really support, I guess, your journey of truth seeking and of really just becoming the best version of yourself. We're a diverse podcast. We love to get into conspiracy, geopolitical anomalies, occult stuff, conspiracy stuff. But really, the framework that we've begun this on was with discovering who you really are and who you were born to be. And as always, that's a message which we want to leave with you at all times. Please enjoy this episode. [Speaker 3] (2:35 - 2:42) You are now listening to the Year for the Truth podcast, hosted by Joel Rafiti and Yerasimos. [Speaker 2] (2:45 - 3:26) John, great to have you back. Thanks for being here for The Truth, man. Yeah, thanks guys. Good to be back. Absolutely. Okay, I guess we have this story of Princess Diana. I'm not sure what the best entry point is. I think generally speaking, just to speak to our audience, there would be some questioning around the official narrative. But I guess, how do we begin to kind of paint this when it comes to Diana? Yeah, the official story. Yeah. Let's get into the official story, because this happened a while ago. There might be new listeners, there may be people out there that don't even really remember what happened and what they say happened. [Speaker 1] (3:27 - 4:16) Yeah, sure. Yeah. Well, the official story states that Princess Diana and her friend, who was called Dodi Fayed, were killed in a very unfortunate accident in Paris on August the 30th, 1997. And basically, it was the paparazzi who were chasing them to get exclusive scoops on them that caused the accident. And this was the official narrative. It was just simply an accident, and that's it. And then ever since then, it's been a kind of a whitewash and a cover up job to obscure what really happened. Yeah. So, I mean, the official story is a very, very simple one in that respect. [Speaker 2] (4:16 - 4:34) Yeah. So, the claims are that the driver, I guess, Henri Paul was intoxicated, or he was on some kind of medication or something of the sort. He was speeding away from paparazzi, I think, is one of the narratives that they throw out there as well, and things happened. Yeah. [Speaker 1] (4:36 - 4:47) Sorry. I was just going to say, there's so many things that actually prove that not to be the case. And we'll get into that as the session goes on, I guess. But yeah. Cool. Okay. [Speaker 2] (4:47 - 5:04) So, I guess some of the mainstream anomalies include, I think, there's missing CCTV footage that exists when they left the hotel. There was a lack of camera recording in the tunnel, things of that nature. Do you want to dive deeper into some of the anomalies and why this is a conspiracy? [Speaker 1] (5:05 - 6:16) Yeah. You're absolutely right. There is a very brief video footage of them actually leaving the hotel, but then it ends. And the next thing, we don't see anything else. We're just told that they went at high speed into this tunnel, which is called the Pondelalma Tunnel, which just happens to be the burial site of Merovingian kings, which were kings from the Dark Ages, if you like, of early Europe, 1500 years ago, and actually happened to be a very sacred site. And of course, Diana is the moon goddess as well. The moon goddess was named Diana and it's all very esoteric and very significant. So, that's something else that we can cover. But I'm just giving you a brief overview for now. Yeah, you're right. There were no security cameras in the tunnel. They'd been switched off an hour before. The police radio wave band went blank at just about the time the car entered the tunnel and it didn't come on again for another hour. So, nobody knew what the heck was going on. [Speaker 2] (6:17 - 6:18) What time was this around? [Speaker 1] (6:18 - 10:11) What time was this? I think it was just about midnight or just before midnight. Yeah. From memory. It's a long time since I wrote this, by the way. So, excuse me if my memory's a little bit rusty. I wanted two points, but I've made a few notes. Yeah. So, everything points to a conspiracy, which is obviously where I've come in because that's what I write about. So, yeah, the whole thing was just very, very strange. For example, I first heard about the death of Diana. Well, I actually knew the next morning when I woke up and it was splashed all over the UK news. But a few days later, we met up with some friends, my wife and I at that time. And they had been in Paris that very night. It was bank holiday weekend. So, it was kind of a weekend away trip for them. And they'd gone back to the hotel room that evening after going out for dinner and switched on the TV as you do, flopped down on the bed. And the first images that they saw when they switched on the TV were of Princess Diana walking into an ambulance. So, they thought no more about it. They just thought, oh dear, Diana's been in an accident. How sad. And then they were absolutely shocked the next morning when they woke up to find out that she'd died because she looked perfectly fine, apart from being a little bit unsteady on her feet. Now, what we were told by the mainstream was that Diana had never recovered consciousness and she'd been carried into the ambulance. And by the way, the ambulance took over two hours to reach the hospital where she died, La Petite-Salpêtrière Hospital. And that was only three kilometers away. So, a couple of miles away. And what's more, there were two other hospitals nearer than that one. And at one point, we know that the ambulance parked up at the curbside for three quarters of an hour, four to five minutes. For what reason? We don't know. We will never know. But it all adds to the mystery and the conspiracy, if you like. So, then a few years later, somebody, I'm talking about the very early 2000s, maybe 2002, 2003, somebody posted that very video that they'd seen. Somebody had captured it at the moment, as people tend to do, because one of the elements of any conspiracy is that the first news stories that come out from the mainstream are always the least accurate ones as far as the mainstream story goes. So, what happens is the mainstream report it, and then all of a sudden, the powers that be recognize, no, we shouldn't, this is not the story that we want out there. So, they hastily withdraw and delete all that stuff. So, you never see or hear about it again. But nevertheless, somebody captured that and put it on the internet. And I actually watched it for myself, because not only was it reported that way in France, it was also reported that way in the UK. And I'm guessing probably all over the world, for those that were around at the time to see it. But yeah, I saw the UK version of that. And so, I know that it did actually happen. She was actually walking into the ambulance. Is that footage still accessible today somewhere? No, absolutely. It disappeared not long after. As you know, the internet is heavily censored nowadays. It probably was in the early days, but nothing like to the extent that it is now. But no, I searched in vain for it. I've never been able to find it again. I wish I'd downloaded it, but I didn't. [Speaker 2] (10:11 - 10:29) Yeah. Well, especially if you're dealing with multiple intelligence agencies that potentially taking part in a potential assassination, which obviously I want to go into that. Yeah, absolutely. You would think it's easier, especially back then, to expunge something from the internet. [Speaker 1] (10:31 - 10:52) Yeah, absolutely. And this is just typical. This is what they do all the time, as I guess most people who are into the truth movement know that this is exactly what happens. Things are heavily censored and manipulated, and history is rewritten in that way. And this is a prime example of it. For sure. [Speaker 2] (10:55 - 11:08) Where to go next? Can we just explore a little bit of your theory on what you think happened and why it happened? Because I know you've spoken about potentially the car was taken over by technology. [Speaker 1] (11:08 - 13:01) Absolutely. There is an assassination method used certainly by the Western intelligence agencies, and it was devised concurrently with or in a coordinated plan by MI6, which is a British foreign intelligence agency, and the CIA, which of course is the American one. And this assassination method is known as Boston Brakes. Now, Boston Brakes was developed at the CIA headquarters primarily in Boston, Massachusetts, which is why it got its name, Boston Brakes. And what that allows them to do is to actually take over the control of a car remotely and actually steer it, brake it, accelerate it, whatever. The entirety of the controls can be taken over by this method. Now, funnily enough, and this is not up for question, we know this is fact, it's documented, that Mercedes, that top of the range Mercedes that was involved in the assassination, actually disappeared two weeks beforehand. It was allegedly stolen. And then a couple of days before the incident, it suddenly appeared back in the fleet of the firm who actually provided the cars for the Ritz Hotel in Paris, which was owned by Dodi Fayyad's father, Mohammed Fayyad. And so there is strong suspicion that he was somehow involved, but that's a little bit woolly because the problem with that theory is that it would have been party to his own son's assassination because Dodi sadly died in the accident, along with Diana, of course. [Speaker 2] (13:01 - 13:07) Now, did he die instantly as opposed to witnesses seeing him get up and walk into an ambulance? [Speaker 1] (13:07 - 13:13) He did. He did. Apparently, he died instantly. So that was never an issue. [Speaker 2] (13:14 - 13:26) Just quickly on the Boston Breaks thing, is it true that there was an MI6 agent, Richard Tomlinson, that claims to have seen the plans for an assassination attempt that's meant to be public knowledge as well? [Speaker 1] (13:27 - 16:31) Yeah, it might be public knowledge, but I'm not aware of that. But yeah, I know I've heard that story, but I don't know any more details about it. So when I wrote this article, which is what I'm basing this talk tonight about, or today in your case, about, none of that was common knowledge. So it's a long, long time since I wrote this piece. And to be honest, I've had so many other things to look at, you know, tasks on my plate, if you like. Since then, I have not really taken it any further than that. But yeah, I hear the story about Richard Tomlinson, but I couldn't either confirm or deny it, to be honest. It was also reported that some kind of a laser or a strobe light, which was apparently seen by several eyewitnesses, and this was used to blind the driver just before it entered the tunnel. And then some witnesses also reported that the tunnel was in total darkness as the lights inside had also been turned off, as well as the security cameras, just a few minutes earlier. And several witnesses also told British detectives that this, because British detectives got involved with it afterwards, you know, that they saw some motorcyclists point a laser into the eyes of Henry Paul, the driver. And another witness said that he saw an enormous flash of light immediately before a massive explosion and a loud bang. And apparently witnesses at the other end of the tunnel, not the tunnel end that they entered, but the other end, witnesses began running into the tunnel, only to be told to get back by personnel, persons unknown, who ran towards them out of the tunnel, heading from the direction of the crashed car, because it was at the far end of the tunnel where the car crashed. So yeah, there was already somebody there to keep people out and away from the crash scene. So again, it all adds to the mystery. And yeah, there was actually another person who involved, whose identity is still not known, allegedly, was actually got to the Mercedes before anyone else and lifted the dead driver's head, who died in the crash as well, because his head was on the horn and it was blaring. Okay. And apparently, and also again by witnesses, it was reported that a helicopter was seen above the tunnel just before the crash, presumably monitoring or even possibly directing events on the ground. Yeah. So yeah, no electricity in the tunnel and no video evidence whatsoever of incident stopped me, if you've heard this particular story before somewhere. So, it's a typical modus operandi of the way these people operate. Yeah. [Speaker 2] (16:31 - 16:40) Well, the question now, and I'm sure there's other details we can explore and we can come back to them, but like, why? Why go through the trouble to kill Princess Diana? [Speaker 1] (16:41 - 19:46) Right. Well, I mean, there's lots of theories about this and obviously there is no definitive answer, but yeah, there's lots of different theories about why the cabal, the elite, whatever you want to call them, wanted rid of her. One of the most popular ones is that the British establishment did not approve of her relationship with Dodi Fayed because she was a Muslim and there was rumors of a pregnancy. For example, Diana's body was embalmed immediately after death, which destroys any evidence of a pregnancy. So again, that's a bit of a conspiracy. His dad claimed that there was a pregnancy, right? He did, yeah. Mohammed Fayed was a social climber, okay? He'd begun life as a very poor man from a poor family and it kind of built his way up gradually, but he was a social climber. He loved to ingratiate himself with people in a higher position in society than himself. And it's thought also that he was trying to bring his son and Diana together. He wanted them to be married. So it was in his own personal interest to purvey the story that she was pregnant. And it's true or not, again, we'll never know, but it just adds to the conspiracy, really. And another theory is that her death was somehow linked to Diana. She was very, very prominent in an anti-landmine campaign and she was actually due the following week to speak at a worldwide anti-landmine campaign. Now, the thing is with Diana, she was a very, very popular person. She was even more popular than the royal family, okay? I know she was part of the royal family, but the establishment royal family. And they didn't like that. They don't like anything that usurps their position, that puts them in second place. And the public sympathy was very, very much with Diana after Charles and her split and the divorce and everything, which was very traumatic for her. And she wasn't afraid to tell it like it was. And they definitely didn't like this. So I think that's my personal favorite. I think that all the others may be side issues and true, but I think the biggest issue was that the royals, that people were taking Diana against the side of the royals. And we can't have that. We can't have that. It's also a possibility that it was just simply murdered to make way for Charles to marry Camilla Parker Bowles, because if Charles had been divorced, it wouldn't have been possible with the British constitution for him to become king. So there's that element to it as well. [Speaker 2] (19:46 - 19:56) So if she was living and he was considered divorced, then there's no pathways of kingship for him. Is that right? Absolutely. Yeah. [Speaker 1] (19:56 - 21:14) And of course, they wanted her, what they referred to as her bad influence on the young princes, William and Harry. They wanted that removing as well. So probably the truth is a blend of all those possible things. You know, just to go back to the landmine thing, obviously we know that the weapons industry is massive, very, very big indeed. Anything that threatens their profitability, of which landmines is a big part of that, obviously, then it's not going to be tolerated. And as I said, she was a very influential woman by this time. People loved her. They listened to her. They hung upon her every word. So anything that she says against the establishment, against the powers that be, if you like, or the powers that shouldn't be, is going to cause them a problem because of her popularity. So all those things together makes up the conspiracy, if you like, and the reason as to why I believe she was killed. Not just me. I mean, it's not just me that believes she was killed. I there's a whole movement that believes it, but I'm just acting as that spokesman for the day, kind of thing. [Speaker 2] (21:14 - 21:32) Yeah. John, I'm curious. Do you know, from a historical standpoint, why the two of them ended up getting married? Obviously, it's been said that they both had a lot of extramarital affairs, or not a lot, but they had extramarital affairs. So what was the point for them to get married? [Speaker 1] (21:33 - 23:13) Right. Well, for a start, Diana was very, very young when she met Charles. I think Charles was at least 10 years older than her, possibly 12. She was 18, and he was about 30 when they got married. So she was just basically a kid. She was just a young girl. And she fell in love with him because it was like a fairytale story for her, this young girl from, albeit a wealthy family, but definitely not royalty. And the thought of becoming a princess, it was a massive dream for her. Anything like that would turn a young girl's head. But Charles, I believe, although he was, at that point, attracted to and had been having a brief relationship with Camilla Parker Bowles at that time, he would not have been, at that point in time, he was not allowed to marry her because she was already married, for one thing, and even if she'd been divorced at that point in time, he still wouldn't have been able to marry her because that would have caused a constitutional crisis of some kind. Obviously, that's been resolved now, and he has married her in the end. But back in those days, going back 40 years, when the relationship first started, that was the case. And I think his family pushed him into it. They obviously met Diana before the event and before the marriage, and they liked her. And they thought that she would make a good future mother for a future king or queen. So, yeah, that's the basic reason for it. [Speaker 2] (23:13 - 23:24) Yeah. I didn't realize this, but in my research, she was 21 years old, I think, when William was born. That's incredibly young as a mother. Absolutely. Yeah. [Speaker 1] (23:24 - 24:31) I think she was 18 when they got together, from memory, 18 and possibly 19. Are there theories that Prince Harry wasn't even Charles' son? Lots of theories about that. Lots of speculation about that. Yeah. I mean, and to be fair, he does look rather like the guy who's alleged to be his real father. Again, we'll never know for sure because they're certainly never going to do a DNA test. And if they did, they certainly aren't going to make it public, especially if it proved that Charles wasn't his father. But the other thing about it is that Harry now lives in the States with his wife, and he has distanced himself totally from the royal family. Now, why would he do that if he was still blood related to them? It's circumstantial evidence, but it's evidence that that is possibly the case. And he does look, as I said, extremely like the guy who's allegedly his father. Yeah. [Speaker 2] (24:31 - 24:35) He just needs to go on the Jerry Springer show and get this settled. [Speaker 1] (24:36 - 24:43) Yeah. Apart from the fact that Jerry Springer doesn't exist anymore. But yeah, good theory. Yeah. [Speaker 2] (24:43 - 24:57) You mentioned earlier some occult connections with Diana being considered the moon princess, the name, I guess the moon goddess. The moon connection also rings true for me with her being Cancer, star sign as well. [Speaker 1] (24:58 - 28:44) Oh, right. Okay. I didn't even know that. Yeah. Well, I mean, yeah. Yeah. Yeah. It's interesting. There's also a, yeah. What am I going to say? Yeah. The symbolism involved in that particular incident was actually also present at the final journey of JFK before his burial at Arlington Cemetery, the esoteric symbol of the flaming torch, because there is now a flaming torch, which is an Illuminati symbol above the Pont de l'Alma in Paris. Okay. Now these symbols relate back to King Louis XIV of France, who was known as the Sun King. And at his palace in Versailles in the 17th century, when he was alive, he decorated rooms in honor of Apollo, the sun god, and Diana, the moon goddess. And there was also a statue of the goddess Diana at Versailles. And so, yeah, as I said before, it was the burial place of the Merovingian kings, and the Merovingian kings are the ancestors of today's elite. Okay. So even the American elite are all descended or claim descendants from the Merovingian kings of the dark ages in Europe. Yeah. So there's lots more to it than that, but it kind of escapes my mind at the moment. I believe also that Diana's death was a Masonic ritual, which is known as the killing of the king, and that is a ritual murder in order to further their agenda, whatever that agenda may be. And again, it links to the death of JFK as well, because that was also a planned ritual killing of the king, murder. And it's done partly as a ceremonial thing, and it's done partly as a warning to everybody else. And just going off the topic slightly, I'll just mention along that point, not to do with Diana, but to do with JFK, most people out there, I guess, have heard of Bill Hicks, the comedian. He sadly died in the nineties at the age of 31. He told this story, and I just found it so amusing and yet so true. I know only Bill Hicks could have told it, but he said, I think that whenever a new president's elected, they take him into this smoky basement in the White House, and there's all these 12 industrialists, these bigwigs who sat there, who got him in there in the first place. And a big guy with a cigar says, roll the film, and a screen comes down and the projector starts rolling. And it's a film of the Kennedy assassination from an angle that you'd never seen before. And then the film ends and the screen goes up and the big guy with the cigar says, any questions, Mr. President? And it's definitely the symbolic of the fact that you do as you're told, oh, this is exactly what's going to happen to you too. And that is the killing of the king. It's a message to anybody else who goes against the establishment in the way that Kennedy did, in the way that Diana did. So it's exactly the same thing. Freemasonic ritual. [Speaker 2] (28:45 - 29:01) Are there any other elements that you want to highlight regarding the story of Diana? Because I know you've written a book on JFK. So I feel like we can maybe talk about both of them if you want. It's up to you. I just feel like that'd be pretty cool to dive into that because you have a pretty unique career. [Speaker 1] (29:03 - 29:05) Well, I mean, do you want me to go into JFK right now? [Speaker 2] (29:06 - 29:17) Well, yeah. If you don't have anything else that you want to highlight on Princess Diana around the conspiracy to assassinate her, we can go into the JFK story because everyone loves a good JFK story. [Speaker 1] (29:17 - 38:28) Yeah. Well, my book is called JFK, A Very British Coup. And it's called A Very British Coup because it is my theory, backed up with plenty of evidence, by the way, that it was organized by the British MI6 on behalf of the British crown. And by the British crown, I don't mean the royal family necessarily, although they are the figureheads of the crown empire. But the crown empire is the world financial empire that's based in the City of London. And again, by the City of London, for those people who are not aware, I don't mean London itself, the City of London. There is an area of the City of London called the City, and it's one square mile. And it's just slightly to the east of the center of London. And it is the financial capital of the world. Now, the City of London, just to give a bit of background, is very, very similar to Washington, D.C., in that it is now actually controlled by the rest of the country. It's like a little law unto itself. In effect, they're both city states separate from the jurisdictions of the federal government in the States and the government in Britain. They're separate entities completely. For example, in the City of London, they have their own laws. They have their own police force, which is different to the rest of the UK police service. For example, minor point, but they drive red cars, where the rest of the country, they're kind of blue and white. It has its own Lord Mayor separate to the London Mayor himself. It has a massive, massive presence of worldwide banks, something like 273 banks have their headquarters in the City of London, including American banks, including banks from all over the world. Now, you'd think that most American banks would have their headquarters on Wall Street, wouldn't you? But no. Their headquarters mainly are in the City of London. It's the center of the UK media, TV, news, written media. It's the center of the judicial part of the UK, where all the law courts and everything, what are called the Inns of Temple, where all the ancient law takes place. It's just a totally separate entity. Now, this is controlled by what's known as the Crown Empire. As I say, it doesn't mean the royal family. This is the Crown Empire, which is a totally separate entity to the rest of the UK, but it basically is in control of the world. Now, a lot of people don't believe me when I tell them this, and especially Americans, and you'll understand why in a minute. That's not a detriment to them. I don't blame them. I wouldn't either if I was them, but it is actually true. It's easy to prove. It's on the internet as well. You can find out all sorts of information on there about it. It's not like I'm making this up. It's all absolutely documented. It was given its independence in 1776, as everyone knows. What's not known is that 95 years later, the United States Corporation, because all countries are corporations at the end of the day, the United States Corporation actually went bankrupt, and it had to crawl back on its hands and knees to the UK and say, bail us out. This was in 1871. What happened was the UK bailed them out, but they had some very onerous conditions attached to that. The onerous conditions were that A, the United States would be subsumed secretly back under the control of the British government, of the UK corporation, in other words. They bailed them out. Then, as I say, it was taken back under the control of the UK, but totally in secret. Now, the Constitution of the United States at that point in time was then rewritten, and it was written in all capital letters. Those people who've studied common law understand the significance of all capitals. All capitals refers to corporate, not to personal. It's a whole new constitution now in the States compared to what the original constitution was. As I say, the control is totally at this side of the pond, not at the other. This is why Britain... This is a very long story, and I hope you're paying attention because it's all true. It's all true, and it's easy to prove. So yeah, the real power was taken away from the United States back into the hands of Britain, and it was Britain that decided that Kennedy had to go. Okay. Now, all the elements that Kennedy upset, and there were lots of them. You name them, FBI, CIA, the big oil, big pharma, Israel, the Catholic Church, even though it was Catholic, the mafia. Again, all these elements wanted rid of JFK. There was a controlled plot, if you like, which was controlled by MI6, the British intelligence agencies. And again, I prove this in my book, JFK, a very British crew. I name names, and I tell it exactly as it is because it was absolutely a British plot to get rid of Kennedy, because the reason being that it's the British crown that could still control all those elements that I've just mentioned that Kennedy upset, and Kennedy did upset a lot of people. Now, the thing is about the Kennedy assassination, why would he go through all that trouble? Why? I mean, they could have just slipped him some poison, which has been the assassination of many a president, and I mean many a president, you know, who do we think was assassinated as a president? There was JFK, was it Warren Harding, and maybe a couple of others, Lincoln, the obvious one. But in actual fact, when you look into it and do the research, it's a lot, lot more than that that were assassinated, and most of them were by poison. And I would include FDR in that, Franklin D. Roosevelt, he was definitely poisoned. So yeah, it's an easy, quick solution. Why would they go to all this trouble of that elaborate plot to assassinate him in the way that he was? And the reason for that is, and again, I'm cutting a very long story very short here, but the reason for that was because they wanted to do the killing of the king ritual, because the killing of the king ritual is a warning. Now, anybody who was alive at the time of the Kennedy assassination, and I include myself in that because I'm an old git, they remember exactly where they were when they heard the news, in much the same way as they with Diana. And the coincidences don't end there. It's a warning, it's something that sticks in people's minds, and nobody is ever going to mess with the people who did that ever again. And that is the point of it, that is the killing of the king ritual. So yeah, they could easily have disposed of him in some other surreptitious way, because he was an ill man. I mean, he was not a well man. Again, this is probably not commonly known, but he suffered from something called Addison's disease, which can be fatal. It's a disease of the adrenal glands, and he was wasting away. So it would have been quite easy to bump him off and put the reason down to his disease. So yeah, and this is the answer to all those who question the Kennedy assassination by saying, well, what would be the point of going through all that trouble? Because they went through an enormous amount of trouble. I mean, at the end of the day, and again, I name names, there were 200 plus people who were assassinated after the event in the following year, because they knew too much. They all died very, very strange deaths. AK, can you talk about any of these that you maybe bring up? Not off the top of my head, because they're not exactly famous. So I can't remember the names, and I don't have any notes in front of me, but it's all in the book, is what I would say. If you're listening, go buy his book. Thank you. [Speaker 2] (38:29 - 38:45) Cheers. So I guess the question that raises in my mind, if Kennedy was posing such a problem while he was sitting as president, why didn't they try harder to prevent him from being president? [Speaker 1] (38:47 - 42:31) No, because they wanted to send this message. Oh, in the first place. Ah, okay. Right. Yeah. Well, again, this is all covered in the book, and it's a very good question, actually, because what happened was, now, Joe Kennedy Senior, who was his father, he was involved in all kinds of murky dealings. Okay. He was involved in bootlegging during the prohibition times, and he was very, very prominent in organizing all the illegal liquor that came into the States, mainly from Canada, but other places as well. He was very heavily involved in that. He was involved in the film industry as well. Again, he got up to all sorts of shenanigans, and he wheedled his way up through society to become quite a prominent member of society. In fact, I think he was the American ambassador in Britain during World War II. So, he wheedled his way into the upper echelons of American society, and some of the things that he did, he knew where the bodies were buried of certain prominent people, shall we say. So, he wheedled his way into a prominent place, and as a result of that, he had been made a promise in the 1940s, or possibly late 1930s, that his eldest son would become president one day, because we all know that presidents are selected and not elected. That's a cliche, but it's very true. And, of course, JFK wasn't the eldest son. The eldest son was Joe Jr. Now, Joe Jr. had stupidly, some might say, but bravely, some might say, volunteered for what was almost a suicide mission in World War II. He was in the USAF, and sadly, he was killed on one of the missions. And, of course, Joe had been brought up to be the heir to the Kennedy empire, if you like. So, he was well ensconced in that. Now, JFK was a totally different proposition. He was a loose cannon. He was very independent. He did not like authority. He never, ever conformed or kowtowed to authority, even to his father. His father was very frustrated with him. But at the end of the day, in the 1950s, because Joe had died during the war, Joe Jr., they were grooming Kennedy for his future role as president. And it was assumed that once he gained that presidency, that he would toe the line and be a good lad. But, unfortunately, he didn't. To be fair to him, he was no angel, obviously, but he did have, in many ways, the best interests of the public at heart. So, what he was doing was cleaning up all the corruption that was going on in society at that time. And, of course, he was treading on quite a few toes in the process, because he didn't care. He just did his own thing. It was reckless, to be honest. Obviously, they're not going to stand for this. So, it was kind of naive of him. But at the end of the day, he was put in that position because of the death of his elder brother, and he was not one for abiding by the rules or by the norms, shall we say. So, I'm sorry, that was a long answer, but that is the answer to your question, if that makes sense. [Speaker 2] (42:32 - 42:45) Yeah, I know. So, you said it was a British coup, but who else was involved with it? I mean, there must have been joint alliances between CIA and maybe other organizations. [Speaker 1] (42:46 - 45:30) Sure. Yeah. Well, as I said, they're all controlled, ultimately, if you fall on a pyramid to the top, back to the UK, back to the UK establishment, the British Crown Empire, they're all ultimately controlled by that. So, it was a coordinated campaign between all of them to put a stop to all the stuff that Kennedy was getting up to. He threatened to tear the CIA into a million pieces. J. Edgar Hoover, head of the FBI at the time, he absolutely hated the guy, and it was mutual. So, Hoover didn't want him there. Lyndon Johnson absolutely hated his guts, and that was mutual as well. So, they were in constant conflict. Now, Lyndon Johnson was a big noise in the Texan oil industry, and what Kennedy had done to the oil industry, this is just another example of stuff that he did that went against the grain, there was something called the oil depletion allowance that was around at that time, which in effect, it was kind of a tax break that meant that speculative drilling and exploration for oil was virtually a risk-free occupation, because I can't remember how it worked now off the top of my head, but I explain it in the book thoroughly, but it meant that if you were speculatively drilling for oil, it was virtually risk-free, because there was a tax break involved in that, and that was called the oil depletion allowance. And Kennedy just got rid of it like that. And a big oil guy actually said at the time, this has cut our profits in half straight away. So, you can see that all the major factions involved in society, and the big corporations, et cetera, especially the oil industry in that case, didn't want him there. So, it was a slowly evolving plot to get rid of the guy, and to do it in the way that I've described, which is known as the killing of the king in Freemasonic circles, because it's all controlled by Freemasonry, all these people, all these organizations. Freemasonry runs through it like a disease, basically, and it's infiltrated, just about every element of society worldwide is controlled in some way by Freemasonry. So, they're very, very powerful. And the killing of the king was actually, it was the murder of a guy called Hiram Abiff in Masonic legend in the Temple of Solomon, and that's kind of the template that they use for this kind of an operation. [Speaker 2] (45:31 - 45:43) Yeah. Obviously, there's different theories, whether it was staged or not staged. Do you think the recent Trump assassination attempt was an attempted ritual, potentially, as well? [Speaker 1] (45:45 - 46:11) I don't know. I don't believe that it was real, the Trump assassination. I think that was kind of a false flag. I mean, it's not something that I've looked into in any great detail, but just cursorily, I looked at it, and I thought, yeah, it's a false flag. I don't, I mean, I stand to be corrected. If somebody comes out and says, no, no, no, no, it was real because ABCD, then I'll accept that. But I don't know the answer, to be honest. [Speaker 2] (46:12 - 46:27) John, do you think, like, you talk about how presidents, all presidents are select, they're not elected, like, does the voting process have anything to do with anything, or does the media just go, oh, look, we have fake numbers? You know what I mean? Like, what's your thoughts around that? [Speaker 1] (46:28 - 47:48) Well, obviously, the voting machines are rigged, aren't they? I mean, we know this going back to the Bush election in 2000. It was obvious, and there's all sorts of proof about that, that the Diebold electronic voting machines were rigged. And the software for them was written in Israel, which speaks volumes. And it enabled the people who were operating them to actually fix, internally, using the software, the number of votes were cast for each person. But before the electronic machines, of course, I guess that they've just put fake ballot papers in. I don't know the answer. But yeah, I mean, it's not just about US elections here. I'm talking about elections in the Western world, probably in the rest of the world as well. Although we don't have voting machines as such in the UK, but it's very easy to fix an election if you're determined enough to do it. And I think, going back to Kennedy's day when Kennedy was elected, it was obviously not using electronic machines. It was probably through the use of fake ballot papers or surreptitiously hiding certain ballot papers or whatever. I don't know for sure, but that's the way they would have done it, I guess. [Speaker 2] (47:48 - 48:00) Yeah. Have you been following the US presidency at all in the election and your thoughts on what's happening and what you think is going to happen or why Trump was selected? [Speaker 1] (48:00 - 49:12) Yeah, well, I may be going to upset one or two people here, but they tell us the truth movement, part of the truth movement, believes that it was all through this QAnon. Well, I don't believe in QAnon at all. I just think that is a distraction. I believe that is... I mean, it's my own personal view. I mean, I'd love to be proved wrong, let me say that. I really would, because if that is true, then the world will be a much better place very soon. But sadly, I don't think so because I don't think Trump is... Although he might be kind of anti-establishment in much the same way as Kennedy was, I don't think he is on our side. I think he's just as almost as bad as the rest. It's probably the lesser of two evils is my own view on him. Could be wrong and I hope I am, but I don't believe that he's here for the good of the people. I think there's some other underlying reason for him to win, but I couldn't tell you what it is. And it was all happening at the time when I was getting married and going on honeymoon as well. I didn't actually follow it live kind of thing. [Speaker 2] (49:13 - 49:21) Yeah, better off. It wouldn't have been a great honeymoon, I think, if you were... No, it's not. And just like on your phone or computer the whole time. [Speaker 1] (49:22 - 49:32) Yeah, absolutely. No, that wouldn't have been good, would it? So, I mean, what's your view? Let me be the questioner. What do you think? I'm a wait and see. Because I'm interested. I'm interested. [Speaker 2] (49:32 - 52:18) Yeah, I'm a wait and see kind of guy, to be honest, in this regard. I mean, when you go into the truth and conspiracy movement, you have a lot of people sharing their thoughts, their points of view. I'm someone who's been into alternative health for a really long time. That's kind of what got me going down this truth path 20 plus years ago. I'm curious to see with RFK's involvement. Again, we talked about Kennedy. So then here we have Bobby Kennedy's son, RFK Jr., who has been speaking about vaccine safety for a while, and he's joined Trump's team and there's some other people have joined his team. So, yeah, could there be some potential conspiracy of bringing people from the left to the right for some reason? Sure. And at the same time, I also feel like things do happen organically. I just don't think everything is fake. Everything is bad. Everyone is psychopathic. And so I'm curious, you know, like Trump's come out and he's made like these definitive statements on what he wants to do and what he wants to shift and what he wants to change. And I don't remember any president in a very long time coming out and saying these things that are kind of meant to fracture the foundation of the status quo. And so in that regards, I'm curious. Do I think any politicians are going to save us? I mean, anyone who follows Joel and myself, our podcast and the work that we do from a coaching standpoint and educational standpoint, we realize and we share that, like, you have to change your life. You have to create what you want to create in the world and build community, not wait for some politician to, like, change everything. That said, politics does play a role in society and history and how things move forward. So that's my thought. I mean, Joel can share his views. I just think most takes on the Trump phenomena are a little bit too black and white and simplistic for my liking. There's a lot of anomalies, I think, going back to 2016. Looking at it objectively, it doesn't really seem like Trump was supposed to win, in my opinion. Why was the largest media smear campaign of all time waged against this man who was loved by Hollywood, loved by celebrity? No one thought twice. And all of a sudden, he became enemy number one. And then also, if it's all controlled, if they're all on the same team, why the open rig in 2020? Like, is it part of the plan to make it pretty obvious public knowledge that that election was stolen? Like, 81 million votes, the most popular president of all time, Joe Biden. You know, it's difficult for any rational person to kind of buy that, you know? Yeah, I agree. Yeah. There's more to it. There's no doubt about that for me. [Speaker 1] (52:18 - 52:44) Yeah. I mean, it's interesting, isn't it? And obviously, time will tell, but I don't really have a handle on it, to be fair. I mean, I'll watch with interest. I mean, it won't particularly affect me directly, like you guys, but I'll definitely watch with interest and see how this develops. Because if nothing else, it's going to be fascinating to see exactly how it moves forward from here. Yeah. Yeah. [Speaker 2] (52:45 - 53:28) And again, speaking of Kennedy, I'm curious, will he have a role in the administration? Will he go after the FDA? Will he go after USDA? I mean, already, you know, one of the most well-known regenerative farmers, Joel Salentine, supposedly has accepted a position to be an assistant to the secretary of agriculture. That would never have happened in the past. But like those kinds of things, you know, especially someone who's come from like the health world and things that I've been following for 15, 20 years, I'm like, well, this is interesting. Like, will they take Florida out of the water? Like what would that mean? Like, is that just to appease people as well? Because things, people are becoming more aware of things. So it's like, okay, let's throw them some bones and then continue on with our plan again. I don't know. [Speaker 1] (53:28 - 53:57) I just, I mean, there are encouraging signs, aren't there? I mean, there are. And somebody told me, I don't know how true it is, that Trump's actually said that he's going to stop chemtrailing. I mean, whether that is true or not, I don't know, but it was just something that I heard or read somewhere. And if that's the case, wow, that is big. That is big. But I mean, the other aspect to that is if he is going to do all this stuff, how long is it going to last? Yeah, I hear you. [Speaker 2] (53:58 - 54:18) Well, I mean, the thing is, how long has he already lasted is the crazy thing with the amount of endless lawsuits, the amount of endless smear campaigns and lies and et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. Whatever anyone thinks of the man, I just think he's very, very resilient, like it seems to me, you know? [Speaker 1] (54:18 - 54:22) Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Obviously, time will tell, won't it? [Speaker 2] (54:23 - 54:43) Yeah, absolutely. Absolutely, it will. And I mean, the other thing that stands out for me is it's not like it's a typical neocon Republican family like the Bushes or something like that, you know? True, yeah. But again, I'm not putting my eggs in any particular basket. I'm trying to observe it as objectively and rationally as possible, and we'll see how things play out. [Speaker 1] (54:44 - 57:39) Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, absolutely. Yeah. So, I mean, do you want to go back onto Diana a little bit? I mean, because there's lots of stuff in there, but yeah. I mean, the way that security was handled was very, very strange as well. And again, it points to a conspiracy. You know, there were last minute changes to the arrangements, a change of cars. They brought this one that had obviously been tampered with. There was no backup support whatsoever. And then the route was changed at the last minute as well, all on the orders of Mohammed Fayed, Dodi's father. And this is a guy, don't forget, the head of security at Harrods Department Store, which Al Fayed owns, and Harrods is a big department store in the UK. It's kind of similar to Macy's, I guess, in the States. He said, compared with the protection that Al Fayed issues himself, which is very professional and of very high standard, that which was given to the mother of the future King of England was a Mickey Mouse operation. So, you know, whenever Fayed travelled in his own chauffeur-driven Merc, there was always a backup Range Rover carrying emergency medical equipment and security staff. Yet, he actually withdrew that protection from Diana and his own son. And yeah, so it's all very, very strange. Now, the car itself was actually introduced into the fleet of company cars belonging to the Ritz Hotel, which is what Fayed owned. And well, it was actually leased by a car leasing company by the name of Etoile Limousines, and that company is actually based at the Ritz itself. So, to all intents and purposes, they were like that. So, they and the Ritz Hotel, i.e. Fayed himself, must have been in league, must have been in cooperation, actually removing that car from the fleet, saying that it had been stolen for two weeks while it was fitted up with Boston brakes. So, this was all entirely controlled by Fayed himself, which is what I said right at the very beginning, which is rather strange to say that he was instrumental in the death of his son, if that's the case. And this was a guy that he absolutely doted upon. It was allegedly, I mean, we'll never know for sure, I guess. We don't know what goes on behind closed doors. But we were told that he actually doted on his son and he was absolutely distraught when he died. So, it's all very strange. [Speaker 2] (57:40 - 57:55) Yeah. Personally, I find it hard to believe that the father would play a hand in the killing of his son, especially from an Arab culture, Muslim culture. There's so much pride involved in that. [Speaker 1] (57:56 - 59:55) And it was his only son as well. So, it wasn't as though his dad got preference one over the other or something like that. So, yeah. Now, the other thing is, of course, that neither Diana nor Dodi were wearing seatbelts. And that was absolutely against protocol. They should have been wearing seatbelts. And it was the responsibility of a guy called Trevor Rees Jones, who was the only survivor of the accident. He was sat in the front seat, the front passenger seat. And it was absolutely his responsibility to make sure they were wearing their seatbelts. And he didn't. Now, is that significant? Because Trevor Rees Jones is a very, very strange character. I don't mean the man himself. I mean, the character of Trevor Rees Jones is very, very strange. And again, it comes down to some kind of conspiracy here. Because we were told that he was seriously injured. And yet, very, very quickly after the accident, it was back in circulation, but refusing to speak to anybody at all. So, again, what was going on there? We don't really know. There's talk of a Wyatt Fiat Uno car that was actually at the scene of the accident as well, had been following the Mercedes on its route. And this was driven by one of the paparazzi, a guy by the name of James Andunson, who was a Frenchman. Now, a few weeks later, Andunson's body was found in his burnt out Fiat Uno with two bullet holes in his brain. And that was ruled as suicide, which is very, very strange. How can you shoot yourself twice in the head? I don't know. It's just beyond me. But there you go. This is what we're told. [Speaker 2] (59:58 - 1:00:18) Apparently, there's a handwritten note that Diana wrote, suggesting that she believed that she's going to die in a staged car accident, and she gave it to her butler. And there's also reports that psychics were engaged with Diana and told her to look out for a potential car crash too. That's absolutely correct, yeah. [Speaker 1] (1:00:18 - 1:05:03) She wrote a note to her butler, Paul Burrell, which said, I believe my husband is trying to kill me in a car crash. So again, that's become public knowledge. In my book, False Regression and History, I've actually got a facsimile of that actual note, a photograph of it. So yeah, it's her handwriting. It's been examined by handwriting experts, and it's definitely hers. So she was very, very wary of that. But of course, you can't live your life not traveling in a car, just in case you get assassinated, can you? You just got to continue with your life. Henri Paul himself, they said he was drunk. They said he was three to four times over the blood limit, and that his blood had traces of antidepressants, including Prozac. But this is just to give the impression that the cause of the crash was simple. The driver was drunk or drugged, whichever way you want to put it. But tampering with blood samples or incorporating alcohol into a blood sample is ridiculously easy to do, especially when everything's being carried out in the strictest secrecy, which of course, it would have been. And there was certainly no sign of any drunkenness, A, on the video camera, because an expert in reading people's body language to assess drunken behavior or anything approaching drunken behavior actually watched that video of him walking down the corridor out of the hotel and said, there is absolutely no sign of drunkenness. Apparently, he bent down to tie a shoelace. There was no unsteadiness. He was fine. But according to the blood tests, he drunk the equivalent of eight scotches on an empty stomach. As I said, this behavioral psychologist guy, he could find no evidence that he was drunk after absolutely meticulously studying the Ritz videos. I mean, not just the final one, but all through the night, he appeared on various different videos. And also two days earlier, Henri Paul had gone through a rigorous medical test for the renewal of his pilot's license. And there was no sign of any alcohol abuse, which the post-crash propaganda would have us all believe. And of course, all his close friends publicly testified that he was not an excessive drinker. Now, the other thing about Henri Paul, which is very, very strange and draw whatever conclusion you like, is that he was earning the equivalent of about 20,000 pounds a year, about $25,000 a year at the Ritz. And yeah, it was a keen pilot with 600 and odd hours of flying time at about 300 pounds per hour. And he had a string of bank accounts. There were something like six or seven different bank accounts plus the safety deposit box in one of the Paris banks near the Ritz. And yeah, no, in fact, there were more than six. There was about 10 bank accounts. And in the eight months before the crash, we know that sums of 4,000 pounds, which is like $5,000, give or take, were paid into an account on five separate occasions. And in total, he had 122,000 pounds, around $140,000 deposited in his account, and no one knows where it came from. And then there was a question of the missing three hours. Between 7 and 10 p.m., no one knew where he was. And apparently, Dodi called him on his cell phone and asked him to come back to the Ritz because he was needed to perform his chauffeuring duties. So his whereabouts in that period are a total mystery. So yeah, it's very, very weird. Very strange indeed. There's speculation, and I can neither confirm nor deny this, but I'm just relating this to you. The speculation is that he was actually an employee of the French security services, the SIS. And honestly, it wouldn't surprise me at all. Yeah. [Speaker 2] (1:05:05 - 1:05:21) It really seems to me in this instance, what is it? Occam's razor says that the most obvious simple answer is usually the correct answer. And it just seems like she posed way too much of a threat to the image and to the reputation of the royal family. [Speaker 3] (1:05:22 - 1:05:23) Yeah, correct. [Speaker 2] (1:05:23 - 1:05:47) And they had to get rid of her. She was building a huge following. She was about to marry a non-British, non-Christian... Muslim. Muslim, exactly. And have a kid with him. Yeah. That's right. Yeah, yeah. If she were to have a child, would there be any potential challenge to the throne from this child? Could that be a play that they could have worried about? [Speaker 1] (1:05:47 - 1:06:14) Yeah, I think if it came down to it, obviously it was younger than the two princes, William and Harry, but in the event of some kind of catastrophe and they both died and this other son or whatever became first in line to the throne, I think that would have definitely given a constitutional crisis that it would have been brought up Muslim. Because he would have been brought up Muslim. [Speaker 2] (1:06:15 - 1:06:24) Yeah. John, what was the official actual cause of death for Diana? Like she got into this accident, she supposedly walked to the ambulance and then it's like she's dead. [Speaker 1] (1:06:25 - 1:08:07) So what did they say she died from? Right. Well, after about 10 years of public pressure, they actually gave in and ordered an inquest because they weren't going to have one. I mean, again, that's red flag to me, but I think it was in about 2005, so probably eight years afterwards from memory. They actually did an official inquest. Now that official inquest found the verdict from that official inquest was unlawful killing. And there is a documentary which is suppressed, but it is out there somewhere. And whether it's still on the internet, I don't know, called just that unlawful killing. And it's an attempt to dissecting the official story and trying to provide an alternative theory. It's a very good film. If you ever get a chance to watch it, I would recommend it if you can find it anywhere. Unlawful killing it's called by a guy called Keith Allen. Now, the significant bit of that is that the media, the mainstream media and the chief culprits in this were the BBC, the good old BBC, that bastion of truth and knowledge, actually reported it as accidental death, which was a complete and utter fabrication. They knew it. And to this day, people still think that was the official verdict of the inquest because of the power and influence of organizations like the BBC. And this is how they pull the wool over our eyes, isn't it? So the BBC reported that it was accidental death, when in actual fact, it was unlawful killing. [Speaker 2] (1:08:08 - 1:08:18) Wasn't the details of the unlawful killing verdict that it was based upon gross negligence by the driver and also by the paparazzi? [Speaker 1] (1:08:19 - 1:08:42) Yeah, probably. But yeah, I can't actually remember that. But yeah. But the point being that the public were fooled into believing that it was accidental death. And to this day, a lot of people still think it was an accident, of course, which it almost certainly wasn't. I can't say 100 percent, but it almost certainly wasn't accidental. [Speaker 2] (1:08:42 - 1:08:54) Yeah. I just think everything you're sharing here, everything that's out there, just the fact that it took two or three hours to get to a hospital is like the biggest red flag for me. [Speaker 1] (1:08:54 - 1:08:56) Yeah, exactly. Yeah. [Speaker 2] (1:08:56 - 1:09:17) I mean, yeah, there's loads of red flags. And compounded with what I said before about how she wrote the letter about the potential car crash, she had four warnings about car crashes. Apparently, she was very, very, very meticulous because of this knowledge of always having to wear a seatbelt, right? And then there was no seatbelts on this day. Right. [Speaker 1] (1:09:17 - 1:09:58) Absolutely. Yeah. I mean, there's so many different things. I mean, we've spent the best part of, what is it now? Best part of an hour, at least, because we diverted into the Kennedy stuff a little bit. But we just spent an hour talking about it. We've not even scratched the surface, to be honest. I mean, there's loads of stuff. Some of it is minor details, but nevertheless, in terms of circumstantial evidence, it all mounts up. And people say to me, oh, well, that's just circumstantial, John. Yeah. But I mean, the answer to that I always give is that it may be circumstantial, but that's perfectly admissible in a court of law. So there's nothing wrong with circumstantial evidence. [Speaker 2] (1:09:59 - 1:10:51) Yeah. If you have multiple people claiming that they saw strobe lights in the tunnel or whatever else you talked about, like, what, are they all hallucinating? Every one of these people, there's a few witnesses. Yeah, absolutely. Yeah. I mean, I still remember where I was when this happened. I have a memory that's flashed into my mind. I was in, I believe, the lobby area of my father's restaurant in New Jersey. He owned a 24-hour diner. And we had a TV. I remember walking in, and right in front of me, there's an arcade game and some other machine. And then up was the TV. And I just saw Princess Diana die. Okay. Again, it's like, well, I remember that. I remember where it was, the 9-11. I remember these main events where I was about it. So please, ritualistic nature. [Speaker 1] (1:10:51 - 1:11:10) Exactly. As I said, I'm old enough to remember Kennedy's. I mean, I was only a young child, but I can still remember. It was a very significant event at the time, obviously, even in our country. And yeah, I remember exactly where I was when I found out that Kennedy had died. I obviously remember exactly where I was when I found out that Diana had died as well. Yeah. [Speaker 2] (1:11:11 - 1:12:07) You know how earlier you said that you had friends that at the time watched a video of Diana walking consciously into the ambulance? I recently watched a video on social media, which was this throwback video from the time of Diana's death, when a group of men were filming themselves just drinking and playing card games in their house. And they were watching the news of when this accident with Diana happened. And it was throughout the whole night. And in the beginning when it happened, it didn't seem like they thought Diana was going to die. It was just like, oh, Diana was in a car accident. This thing's happened. They were just carrying on. It wasn't like a big deal kind of thing. But then you watch this footage. And as it progresses, they're like, what the hell? She died? As if it was like a big, big improbability from the information that they had observed in the beginning of the night. So it's very, very interesting. [Speaker 1] (1:12:08 - 1:12:19) Yeah. Yeah. Absolutely. And that's what my friends experienced as well. They went to bed thinking, oh, she's been in an accident. And that's a shame, but she seems fine. Next morning, they woke up to the news that she'd died. Yeah. [Speaker 2] (1:12:20 - 1:12:45) The only thing that would explain that, like, let's say that is what happened is like, people get into accidents, they hit their head, and then they get to the hospital, and they maybe have some kind of brain hemorrhage. I had a friend who fell off his skateboard, I believe, and then went to the hospital and then was in a coma and then died. So I'm not saying that's what happened. That would be the only explanation. But then again, that wasn't listed as the cause of death. [Speaker 1] (1:12:46 - 1:13:38) It seems like she was murdered in the ambulance, right? I believe so. Yeah. Yeah. Absolutely. I mean, it's interesting, the point that you just made, Ben Erosimos, the doctors said that the pulmonary vein had been ruptured near the heart, and that this was filling her lungs with blood. In effect, that must have meant that Diana was actually lying in the tunnel bleeding to death, if that was the case. And if that was correct, then the only way to save her life would be the immediate surgery. So why did it take two hours plus for her to arrive at the hospital? And of course... Has there ever been an inquisition of the drivers of the ambulance? No. No. Not that I'm aware of. Absolutely not. I've never come across anything of that nature anywhere. [Speaker 2] (1:13:38 - 1:13:48) You'd think they'd be the first people on a witness stand. Yeah. And also, is there even a record of who the ambulance drivers are? That just makes me think of these movies. [Speaker 1] (1:13:49 - 1:13:49) Again, I don't know. [Speaker 2] (1:13:49 - 1:13:58) I've seen so many movies where it's like the criminals, they have like a fake ambulance, and then they come in and they grab their person or their guy. [Speaker 1] (1:13:59 - 1:14:35) And this whole thing feels like a Hollywood movie, straight up. There was a French doctor who was first on the scene. Lucky that wasn't it, this guy. And on the one hand, he told the French magazine that, I thought at the time her life could be saved. And yet, subsequent to that, he actually said, it was hopeless. There was nothing we could ever have done to save her. Change the story. Yeah. I mean, that's the big problem with lying, isn't it? It's so difficult to get the story consistent on every occasion that you tell it. So, he contradicted himself there. So again, that's very suspicious. [Speaker 2] (1:14:36 - 1:14:56) Yeah. I'm reading that some of the official narrative kind of explanation is that French protocol is to emphasize stability of critically injured patients at the scene before transporting them. Yeah. Two and a half hours, two hours. That seems like a long time to stabilize someone before bringing them towards life-saving care. [Speaker 1] (1:14:57 - 1:15:13) Yeah. And another story came out about the reason it took so long before she arrived at the hospital was that she was trapped in the wreckage for a long time. Well, that was just absolute nonsense. But again, that's the media for you. I mean, I could have just been them being sensationalist, but that is absolutely nonsensical. [Speaker 2] (1:15:18 - 1:15:25) What else you got for us, John, Michael Jackson, Sue Peck, where are we going next? [Speaker 1] (1:15:27 - 1:15:55) Yeah. I have done a chapter in Forced Recursion of History about the deaths of famous pop stars a little bit. People like Whitney Houston and all that kind of stuff. But don't quiz me about it now, because honestly, it's 14 years since I've written it and I've never ever covered it again since. Sorry, go. I was going to say we could do another show if you like, but at this point in time, I couldn't. [Speaker 2] (1:15:55 - 1:16:39) No worries. Well, it's just a reminder to everyone to listening about your books and the wealth of knowledge in your books. And so if you watched our Titanic episode and you're listening to this one and you're curious to kind of go into the deeper details, pick up his books. But it's fascinating. I've talked to Joel where I'm like, I'm so curious about the Michael Jordan father story too. I don't know if you were around paying attention to that, Michael Jordan's father was killed. And there's a lot of controversy around that, that maybe it was that's why he left basketball for baseball and that he had gambling debts. And so I'm trying to find someone who has really dove into that story around Michael Jordan and have an episode on that. [Speaker 1] (1:16:40 - 1:17:27) Yeah. I mean, that's interesting as well, isn't it? But there's so many examples of this kind of stuff going on. I mean, like you say, that could just be a natural occurrence, as you put it, a organic thing. But the thing is that when you do what I do, and I guess what you guys do too, anything that kind of sets a little flag going in your head is worth investigating. And it kind of doing what we do, it kind of raises suspicions about almost anything. You're right in what you said, not everything is a conspiracy, but it needs to be examined to make sure that it isn't, because anything could be, this is the point, and this is the point in what I do. [Speaker 2] (1:17:27 - 1:18:20) And I think in the long run, the Buddha said three things can't be hidden long, the sun, the moon, and the truth. And I believe over time, it doesn't matter how much you try to bury that seed of truth, it's always going to come back up. And the extent of the links that the conspirators went through to, I guess, kill these high profile individuals in the long run is going to be part of their undoing, as it already is. Because there's people like you, there's people like us that are never going to let it go. They're going to keep asking the questions, right? Absolutely. And then over time, as we're seeing, and through the rise of the internet and the information age, the reputation and the credibility and the authority of these so-called authority figures has degraded monumentally. Yeah. [Speaker 1] (1:18:20 - 1:19:40) Yeah, absolutely. And the great thing from our point of view is that people are waking up now. I think COVID was a big wake up call for lots of people. And just generally, the truth information is becoming more and more prevalent and becoming more and more widespread. And so many people that I speak to now, when I first kind of hate this expression, but when I woke up, became aware, is a better expression, I guess. When I first entered this world of truth, I didn't know anyone else that felt the same way as I did, or believed the same as I did. Yet now, you just overhear people's conversations in restaurants and cafes and pubs. And people are questioning things and it's absolutely great. And I think this will just build an unstoppable momentum eventually. And eventually, not saying it'll be in my lifetime, hopefully in my children's lifetime, eventually these people perpetrating all this stuff, they'll have nowhere to go. And I believe that things will change for the better. Again, I can't put a timescale on it, hopefully sooner rather than later, but I do think that we will win through eventually. Absolutely. [Speaker 2] (1:19:40 - 1:20:06) Yeah, man. I think we're living through the transformation. And from my vantage point, I'm already sensing it and feeling it. So let's just enjoy the ride. Definitely. Indeed. Absolutely. I totally agree. Cool, man. John, such a pleasure to connect. Once again, super grateful for all the research that you've done and grateful for the opportunity to have these conversations, certainly. [Speaker 1] (1:20:07 - 1:20:11) Yeah. Well, it's great to talk to you guys. I really enjoy it. So anytime you want me back, I'm your man. [Speaker 2] (1:20:12 - 1:20:19) Sounds good, John. Wish you the best. Enjoy married life. Thank you. Yeah. Be well. Thank you. [Speaker 1] (1:20:19 - 1:20:21) You too. All the best to you. [Speaker 2] (1:20:21 - 1:20:26) Just to refresh, what's your main website and where can people purchase your books? [Speaker 1] (1:20:27 - 1:21:00) Okay. falsificationofhistory.co.uk is my website. Unfortunately, if you live outside the UK, if you're in the UK, you can buy the books from my website. But if you're outside the UK, then your only option is, sad to say, Amazon, wherever you are, whereverabouts in the world you are. But yeah, if you go to Amazon and type my name into the search bar, John Hamer, it'll bring up my author page with all my books on there. So by all means, feel free. [Speaker 2] (1:21:01 - 1:21:06) Thanks, man. And everyone else, thank you for listening. Take care. Thank you, guys. All the best to you.