Tyrone McCloskey sent me a face split he had done of Ghislaine (pronounced ghee-layn) Maxwell, and of Princess Diana, who allegedly died on August 31, 1997. I found it intriguing, and since that time have been busy reading the Wikipedia pages on both. Ghislaine’s is 12 pages with 180 footnotes, Diana’s 21 pages with 510 footnotes.
I did my own face split, which pretty much confirmed Tyrone’s work, that these two women are pretty much bookends for one another. I will offer my own face split beneath the fold to let you judge.
It’s a daunting task to figure out this piece of evidence, and where it leads. Both are members of the British peerage, and both were born in 1961. In past efforts I have determined that a death can be a mere prelude to another life and identify, as in Eva Perón becoming Madonna Fortin. That is fairly cut and dried, as there is no overlap. With Ghislaine and Diana, there is plenty of overlap. In fact, both led public lives at the same time. Since they are both high profile celebrities, I wonder, is there a photo of them together?
Indeed there is. Just one, but looking it over, it appears real. I ran it through the tests at Forensically, and there is no monkey business that I can detect. Is that really Ghisleane? We see so little of her, just part of her face. It is from 1984. It is taken from ExpressDigest, an online tabloid as far as I can tell. I could not locate a date for the article. (The tabloids are littered with stories of how Ghislaine disliked Diana, even “bullying” her into crying one time.) Anyway, that one photo is all it takes to put to rest the notion that we have found Diana, at last. I know she is out there.
By the way, I found a right profile shot of Ghislaine, and compared noses. I invited you to do the same. They look identical to me.
For Ghislaine to have played two roles, that of Diana and herself, well, I considered that possibility, and so went looking for photos of Diana where her hair was real. In most images, I think she is either just out of the hairdresser (she had a personal stylist), or wearing a wig.
I did find one, a photo of her before her 7/29/81 marriage to Prince Charles. Notice that her hair is not blond.
By the way, below is the face split of Ghislaine and Diana that so intrigued me. That is a very young Diana and a more recent one of Ghislaine. The features align so well, even the lines on the face are similar. This has to mean something, but I do not know what. They are not the same person.
Anyway, all that reading, for naught? I might as well write a bit about what I learned last night and this morning.
Ghislaine Maxwell is the daughter of Robert Maxwell, born Ján Ludvík Hyman Binyamin Hoch, and of Czech descent. He is Jewish. Her mother, Elisabeth Jenny Jeanne Maxwell, is of French Huguenot extraction. Dad is listed by Wikipedia as a media proprietor, a member of Parliament, a spy and suspected fraudster. Mom is listed as a Holocaust researcher. He was found dead floating in the water near the Canary Islands in 1991. Mom died in 2013.
Ghislaine insists that her dad was not the type to commit suicide, and suggests he was murdered. I suggest another possibility, fake death. Spies are known for that. Ghislaine attended her father’s funeral in Jerusalem alongside Israeli intelligence figures, president Chaim Herzog, and prime minister Yitzhak Shamir, who gave the eulogy. I would say this lady is juiced.
Ghislaine Maxwell has just been sentenced to twenty years in prison. She is said to have recruited minors for Jeffrey Epstein’s pedophile habit. The sentencing took place in June of this year.
I did not follow the Jeffrey Epstein case knowing it was all fake, part of what Miles Mathis calls the “Men are Pigs” project, aimed at women. When I did, I knew his death to be fake. A high-profile prisoner wold not be given any means of hanging himself, and anyway, would be under video watch. The involvement of Alan Dershowitz in the case sealed it. He is brought in for most of these fake trials, which is what I suspect Ghislaine’s was. Since we know that Epstein owned an island in the Virgin Islands, I think it safe to suggest that is where she is now.
However, for anyone who cares to follow up on this, this is from Wiki: Bureau of Prisons Inmate Locator – GHISLAINE NOELLE MAXWELL Register Number: 02879-509 (https://www.bop.gov/inamteloc//). Of course, unless we spontaneously (without warning) pay her a visit in her cell, we really don’t know, do we.
Memories are not reliable, and I have never been an Anglophile, never cared about the royal family, and thought that Prince Charles in his later years was a buffoon. But now he is King Charles III, so what did I know. But I do remember hearing on the news that he was marrying a commoner. She is anything but that. “Diana was born into the British nobility and and grew up close to the royal family on their Sandringham estate. In 1981, while working as a nursery teacher’s assistant, she became engaged to the Prince of Wales, the eldest son of Queen Elizabeth II.” I think it was the “working as a nursery teacher’s assistant” that threw people. That sounds like a commoner’s job.
She led a busy life, had a messy breakup with Prince Charles, both of them having extramarital affairs, his with Camilla Parker Bowles. One time his intimate letters to her were exposed by a tabloid, and he is said to have written that he wanted to be a Kotex and inside her. Maybe that’s where I got the impression that he is a creep.
Diana was legend for supporting charitable causes, and hugged and shook hands with people suffering from AIDS and leprosy. That caused quite a stir. Her public life took her all over the world – the only member of royalty that I can think of who stirred up the public as much as Diana was Eva Perón. I think that one line from Wikipedia explains her need for a fake death:
“Diana’s relationship with the press and the paparazzi has been described as “ambivalent”. On different occasions she would complain about the way she was being treated by the media, mentioning that their constant presence in her proximity had made life impossible for her …”
Diana is said to have died on August 31, 1997 in a car accident in a tunnel in Paris. I think it far more likely that she made her escape, and now lives a quieter and more fulfilling existence somewhere else. This I know: She bore Charles two sons, and they do not look like him at all, though photos in their youth strongly suggest Diana to be the mother. From there I speculate that Charles might suffer a common problem connected with inbreeding, sterility.
That is raw speculation, of course. But it makes sense to me that the royal family, aware of this condition, would bring in a wife to bear him children by other fathers. That in mind, and I close with this, a photo sent to me by Tyrone a couple of years ago:
That man who has a commanding presence over young William is King Juan Carlos of Spain. Judge for yourself.
That was meant to be the end of this piece, but after writing it I had a feeling that I was missing something, something very big. I asked a friend (Tyrone) to read it over, and he did and answered me by private email, which I do not have permission to quote (it’s Monday, he’s at work). If I do get that permission, I will simply print his entire response. For right now I will offer my own afterthoughts, which I replied to him.
The face chops are so haunting. My main thrust is the photo of the two together, so damn well done in which we can barely discern that we are indeed looking at Diana, much less Ghisliane, who was then an unknown, suggests that in analyzing photos, we are under control of a sub-sector of Intel that manages public perception by carefully managing our photographic impressions. The photo I used, then, would have been carefully placed with the express purpose of answering the question I asked: Have they been seen together? If that is the case, I am over-matched!
Here is a blog comment by Tyrone that seems pertinent: “According to Charles N Pope, Catherine de Medici and Bloody Mary Tudor were one and the same person, working two different personas. See How To Read Shakespeare Like A Royal, vol.1 at Google books.” In my own work I have often come across one person with two identities, but not simultaneously. (I have also come across two people with one identity, the McCartney twins.) If the expression “all the world’s a stage” had any deeper meaning than just Shakespearean prose, this would be it.
Have we located the elusive Diana? Could they perhaps be identical twins with dates of birth altered, as with the McCartney’s? (Despite the word “identical,” such twins are seldom that. The face split suggests one person, two identities.) I can only speculate … maybe. Just maybe. I will never express any certainty on this subject.
Tyrone’s response to my request to look over my work, tell me what I am missing:
I had to sleep on it but here is what I think- which is what that quack doctor Joseph P Farrell would label high octane speculation.
Running simultaneous personas, I think, has gone on since the invention of royal courts. So it would not surprise me if Ghislaine and Diana were the same person. And one point, which is not based on forensics, is the fact that the Ghislaine character is a complete inversion of the Diana character. Whereas Diana was a wedding cake flavored saint, Ghislaine is a dark, swarthy ghoul.
This is not admissible, but I feel it gets at the game they play when they bait and switch-but without our consciousness picking up on it.
The game would require the same actor playing both roles. Even in the photographic era, this can be managed. Diana was in her time the most famous person in the world- certainly the most photographed. Ghislaine was around, but very few people had ever heard of her until recently when this Epstein mishigas started to elbow its way into the news cycle.
To play both parts in the same era does not seem difficult. The photo you site with the two in one frame wouldn’t be admissible either. You can’t see Ghislaine’s face.
As for the faces of the two characters, Diana was usually shown with her face tilted down but with eyes up. On any other face, this would read as sinister. For her it was described as demure.
Now look at the standard face of Ghislaine. Bright eyes, smiling, the exact opposite of what a ghoul would appear like.
Ghislaine has had work done, ‘natch. Vain women who must keep up appearances at her age would see the plastic surgeon as required. But, again, the character’s appearance is an inversion. She has jet black, dyed hair, a spray on tan- the eyes have been worked on to keep the crow’s feet and coffee ground bags at bay. This helps the deception without arousing suspicion. Diana, at least when young, was soft, pale and blonde, though that wasn’t her natural color either.
The one element of Ghislaine’s face that jumps out at me is the likelihood she’s has a chin implant. In profile, while smiling, it seems obvious to me. This isn’t the Hapsburg jaw, but I suspect the profile was too easy to spot and it’s in profile that Ghislaine deviates from the Diana mien. IMO.
Now, the background of Ghislaine may be real or may be enhanced, the persona having an actress playing her as need be while Diana was “alive” and thereby establishing the character’s past. But since she was not famous, and really on nobody’s radar, that Ghislaine could have been played by multiple actresses. And I am saying that the Ghislaine character story arc was years in the making, part of a coordinated effort to carefully demolish the culture. And given the detail work they employ, having the ghoul essayed by the saint seems so up their alley that I have to laugh. A pitiable laugh.Black and white forever-
25 thoughts on “The search for the living Diana continues”
With over 7 billion people (haha) on the face of this planet – there are bound to be people that look similar to other people.
– human DNA is funny like that
(that’s what they want us to believe)
Perhaps the AI programming (being so complicated) “human” subroutines are inserted in others (because well… why not?)
— and we aren’t supposed to notice these things
I have done thousands of these. I have seen only one set of people who looked almost exactly alike, a father and daughter. And I was unable to gauge the eye separation, and would bet that in real life, his head was bigger than hers.
The idea that with billions of people, two are bound to look alike is a bit of an easy guess but lacks precision. I would be very surprised to find two people of the same age in the same tiny social mix (the British aristocracy) who look as alike as Ghislaine and Diana. Odds very heavily say, no. We find in show business and some athletics many lookalikes, Bokanovsky Brats I call them, but that is not random selection. They are manufactured people, I think.
The Men R Pigs psyop has more to it than just putting women off men. 2 more layers at least I can perceive. 2nd layer , those men who really are pigs feel excused for their natural piginess. 3rd layer , always equate beauty with sex appeal. In healthy people beauty and sex are not the same attractors, only similar, confuse this and you disrupt development
LikeLiked by 3 people
I’m not sure I follow you on these.. maybe if you gave an example of how each of these would play out, I’d have a clearer idea of what you mean..
Sure. Though I’m not sure of your demographic to choose the best examples for you, so I will stay as broad as possible. And assuming you are already familiar with the Men R Pigs concept, which I think is fairly well-known, because I’ve not read that idea just from Miles Mathis.
It’s easy to find in the sitcoms and Disney and other Hollywood media. The series Californication is one Miles mentions, I think. But it’s very easy to see in the #MeToo scam, so I’ll use that. First, by portraying men repeatedly as womanizers, abusers, rapists, and just general stupid and uncaring assholes you set women against them as a group, as somehow inherently piggish with poor manners and ethics compared to women. Women start to peg all men like that, looking for lechers under every rock so that a man can hardly breath without getting verbally attacked.
But the implications don’t end at that surface level. Because next you get those men who really are piggy—there really are womanizers and abusers out there who now have had their bad behavior completely normalized and they feel excused to go on that way because ‘that’s just how men are’. Then on top of that you get the ‘copy cats’ who choose to become piggy because it’s popular. In a similar way as James Corbett describes in his latest vid:
The next layer of implications are the most destructive, because they foment a deeper destabilization. Beauty for its own sake disappears, as it is only equated with the desires of piggy men. Piggy men want easy picking and they are willing to pay very handsomely for that, so beautiful women equate their beauty with the ability to turn men on, they become sex objects. Then it moves to other sex objects, because piggy men are easily bored. Those other sex objects become other men, adolescent boys, and even children (just look at the disgusting practice of beauty pageants for children where they are dressed up as sex objects with makeup and bikinis and all kinds of creepy features). Now we are saturated in this culture with inescapable sex everywhere—quite a long way from Red Light districts, our entire culture is a Red Light district.
Thanks for elaborating. It’s such a vast topic, kind of hard to say much about it typing on a phone, but I guess while those scenarios might happen, I can also see the flip side.. eg, I know a guy in his late 40s who’s very “superego” driven – he reads the room based on the current media narratives, and in this case, “#metoo” filled him with anxiety about talking to women, saying the wrong thing etc. And caused him to attempt to rewire his own mind, self police, feel guilt over his “wrongthink” of whatever sort. He’s the most extreme but that’s the general reaction I’ve seen from guys in that demo – though I know mostly “liberal” ones. Conservatives might be a little more disdainful of media “lessons.” I know sometimes when the public becomes indoctrinated in some new lesson I’m tempted to say things to provoke or get a rise out of them, or just a laugh.
Another point I’d add is that the psy op plays on a grain of truth, it exacerbates a real issue, the difference between male and female sexuality. As they mostly do.. that’s why it’s so hard to combat, it plays into a real and existing tension, but distorts it into the realm of delusion and fantasy. Anyway.. this is such a can of worms topic, it would benefit from actual verbal discussion. I’m out of my depth anyway, haha.
Thanks for adding your thoughts! I agree, the psy ops are effective b/c they take advantage of existing tensions, and exaggerate, distort, invert. And this one in particular is interesting to hear men’s perspective.
That liberal man at the party with his ‘media lesson’ — do you consider his new self-policing behavior as an improvement? Like, suddenly he felt guilty how he was treating women before, is that what you mean?
Ultimately I don’t get the impression these psy ops are about helping anyone or society in general—my sense is the intention is to create chaos and make money and flaunt power. I guess I say that b/c I feel nothing has improved in the culture that I can see in the decades I’ve been alive. I see devolution and dehumanization. I can guess for those who manufacture them they have convinced themselves otherwise, or in the camp who believe a great phoenix will rise from the ashes of the corrupt civilization.
“That liberal man at the party with his ‘media lesson’ — do you consider his new self-policing behavior as an improvement? Like, suddenly he felt guilty how he was treating women before, is that what you mean?”
No I don’t see it as an improvement, it pretty much fits Miles’ analysis – both sexes have more difficulty getting past all this angst and having a healthy relationship. Although in some ways it works to his favor since he’s right there in the same narrative many women are in.
He also does stand-up comedy and sketch comedy as a side hobby, so he’s talked about how MeToo has effected his writing.. again self policing and censoring. All those guys in that scene seem very liberal and look to the big successful names for cues on what’s politically correct. He was a fan of Louis CK who went down in that psy op. So it stifles authentic expression and humor.
He was never mistreating women though, very repressed and self conscious and attracted to domineering women, so more likely to end up mistreated himself. Ruled by the superego and pleasing others.
Thank you for clarifying that, makes a lot of sense to me. The feminization of civilization is certainly nothing new, and it makes sense that a well-functioning Empire requires a majority of castrated men and declawed women. When that can be done chemically instead of physically I’m sure that’s considered an advancement, like the efficiency of the guillotine over the cumbersome axe. Seems to me there are far more men like your friend than there are those who truly mistreat women.
Not to beat a dead horse, but in New Age circles the constant refrain is “the masculine in service to the feminine” which can seem like a seductive idea—the ‘divine feminine’ aspects of nurturing, caring, tolerance, acceptance, flexibility as opposed to the ‘toxic masculine’ aspects of intransigence, brutishness, lack of empathy, etc. I was certainly seduced by that idea at the time. Now I can see it for the kind of false dichotomy that it is, conveniently leaving out the ‘divine masculine’ and the ‘toxic feminine’ from the equation. These same women had no problem whatsoever with overt or covert spying, accusing under false pretenses, manipulating, lying, using every sexual ploy to their advantage. I now hear that line completely differently, but it was a hard lesson. Now I say we must start celebrating the divine masculine—courage, honor, fortitude, loyalty . . . 🙂 live and learn . . . hopefully!
These are not human beings forcing this garbage everywhere; but it has worked marvelously at separating the sexes via media saturation. Why or better, how, do you see this programming (and discard, ignore, abstain, or recoil), yet millions (maybe billions) do not? They go along to get along? They would like to live in this future world? Just awful.
Yes, awful! And recoil is such a perfect word here. I think they have been trained to be good, where good means obedient. That is why it is so easy to get them to point fingers at the disobedient ones and call them evil and selfish. My mother is one who fashion-coordinates her masks, for heaven’s sake! How did we get here, I ask myself all the time!!
How did you get here, if you care to share??
Seriously? Me, the human being, on this thing we commonly call a planet? Or did you mean how I arrived at PoM? I’m easy to reach, and like to talk. DSKlausler -at-hotmail.com
LikeLiked by 1 person
They could also be identical twins.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That is a possibility I addressed in a postscript to the original post.
Several years ago I was watching Sherlock, the Cumberbach version, and Watson suggested to Holmes twins as the answer to a perplexing problem and Holmes snarled “It’s never twins, Watson! Never Twins !” I thought that odd because in my experience, it is often twins. As they saying goes Intelligence loves twins, and entertainment too.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m sorry, I must have missed that part when I read it. I know you’re well aware of them using twins, I even thought it strange that you didn’t mention it in this post lol. I clearly just overlooked it.
It is not a well-written post, as so much was added after I initially published it. I do thank you for reading it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Re the paparazzi:
So will there be a deep look into the activities of this ghoul girl & the trafficking of children? Her ties to MI6. Epstein. Ect.
I don’t think any child trafficking is going on. Sure teenage girls that are of the legal age of consent are in the mix, but not little kids. Wealthy men don’t need to do anything illegal for hanky panky. The Epstein/Maxwell story started to get heavy mainstream attention every week during the Scamdemic.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I don’t think they’re the same person, but they could be cousins. That may explain the remote similarities they share.
That is far too easy a brush off. I have perhaps fifty first cousins in my Mom and Dad’s families, and in perhaps one here in Denver do I see a resemblance where someone might guess we are related. And, as noted in the post, even with identical twins, there is usually enough difference, as with Paul and Mike McCartney, to easily tell them apart. While I wrote that I will never have any certainty regarding this pair, something more is going on than mere resemblance. Features lining up as they do in the face split, even as Ghislaine is perhaps thirty years older than Diane in the photos I chose, is not happenstance.
As I have done thousands of these, while you have done none, I suggest you not be so quick to jump to your conclusions.
Interesting comments section. I would suggest that a large part of the men are pigs project aims varies among different target groups and you are all mostly correct.
Remember Mark royals and rich people in general are much more inbred than most Americans (Icelandic people for example might be more similar than Americans). In theory there should be more of them that are more similar. Then there is also the fact that we have simply chosen these two characters because they look similar which will also play into things. There is also the possibility that the casting director chose two similar looking characters for some reason (I would have) the great saint and the great Devil (obviously the same actor would also work here especially in a short cameo role).
Has anyone looked (listened) at the voices, mannerisms, speech patterns, posture, gait etc? Although these can also be similar between siblings.
Good answer. I am riddled with doubt anyway.
Have spent quite some time looking into this subject matter as well. I offer the theory that they are clone twins. I don’t want to write a book so I’ll just throw some points I’ve come to time and again without explanation. It’s up to others to research for themselves, although I did my work on this from 2014 – 2018 when online material was abundant. The same material is no longer available.
1) they are not human
2) they ‘live’ in an inhuman manner, for example, all of the inhuman shit we see going on
• for example and related: the push for males to be females and females to be males, from a very early age is a ‘thing’ done as part of their ‘religion’ and one of the reasons for sterility.
Although it may be that a ftm can gestate a fetus. (lab produced and implanted or not, i can’t guess.) Remember the publicity of the pregnant man? Remember the gaga song… ‘Born this Way’ the performance was a being hatched from a clone encasement? Remember all the publicity around IVF and octomom? Have you seen the artificial wombs? The body sleeves they market now? Remember H Weinstein, the testimony about its genitals? I don’t believe much of what is said, but now and then, they have to release truth and such testimony would support other items of note I have come across. Did you ever see Trump with a hint of a whisker?
Whatever tech we see, these things have been ‘at it’ for a long frikken time and are far far more advanced than the kindergarten stuff they release to the public. Whatever perverse mode of ‘living’ publicized, pushed, is THEIR mode of living they’ve been salivating to bring to bear out in the open.
For them, it is high honor to be hermaphroditic, which means they resemble their god and they have gone against the Creator, natural Creation, True Life, which is the motivation of this antilife spawn. If they are produced as hermaphroditic, they will trans from childhood. Anything we have the great displeasure of witnessing – out in the matrix that is vile – is what they are doing. All this and so much more is simply what they do and what they are trying to bring to bear upon us.
I suppose that Diana, like many of these things, wore a moon bump.
Although I wouldn’t bet on anything I’ve speculated upon, I’d guess they are most often lab-produced. (They want us to become infertile like them, which is what is actively happening.) At the same time, I’ve witnessed the wearing of famous latex faces that would look very real to anyone because they don’t really see. If you can’t perceive it (the idea of it) you can’t see it. These things are really really good at playing the actor, get high honors for that.
correction: ‘..If they are NOT produced as hermaphroditic, they will trans from childhood.’
and missed the inclusion of surrogates.