07-05-2010, 10:36 PM
Yeah I can't pin anything down here, and much less in general concerning UFOs, which are interesting but I have no real information to offer.
I had heard Di was pregnant with Dodi's child before.
If Jim Keith had decided not to seek medical treatment, would his blood clot have taken another route less deadly? I know these things happen, and sometimes your blood clots during a long air journey because of the pressure and the lack of movement. Thrombulism? I forget the term. Anything's possible.
What I found really fascinating is that Jim Keith wrote this back in, oops I forgot the year now, 1992? 94? And what he's writing then is still being discovered now, the connexion between Crowley's astral creature and the greys, different connexions between mind control, UFOs and the one-world government project. He also seems to be a bit more sober about it all than some of the present-day writers on the same topics, not to name any names, but even some of the old JFK researchers who should know better fall for some pretty tenuous connexions in their newer writings. Jim Keith seems to have really researched and thought at least somewhat critically about what he writes. It's also sort of discouraging that we're still at the same place he was two decades ago and haven't advanced much. Purely subjective observations on my part.
I had heard Di was pregnant with Dodi's child before.
If Jim Keith had decided not to seek medical treatment, would his blood clot have taken another route less deadly? I know these things happen, and sometimes your blood clots during a long air journey because of the pressure and the lack of movement. Thrombulism? I forget the term. Anything's possible.
What I found really fascinating is that Jim Keith wrote this back in, oops I forgot the year now, 1992? 94? And what he's writing then is still being discovered now, the connexion between Crowley's astral creature and the greys, different connexions between mind control, UFOs and the one-world government project. He also seems to be a bit more sober about it all than some of the present-day writers on the same topics, not to name any names, but even some of the old JFK researchers who should know better fall for some pretty tenuous connexions in their newer writings. Jim Keith seems to have really researched and thought at least somewhat critically about what he writes. It's also sort of discouraging that we're still at the same place he was two decades ago and haven't advanced much. Purely subjective observations on my part.