Avacyn
Project Manager 
Posts: 11,247
|
Post by Avacyn on Nov 16, 2022 7:50:25 GMT
Back in July 2022, a DMCA takedown notice was issued on the original thread, and it was removed with no ability to challenge it, or find out what had caused the claim. There wasn't even a way to challenge it, which is not a good look for ProBoards.
So... after some private discussion with a couple of members, I thought it time to make it much more public.
What could have been in the thread for the entire thing to be nuked in such a way? What was it people did nit want seen... and who could have done the takedown?
|
|
UnseenI
Eternal Member 
"Part Of The Furniture"
Keeping on keeping on
Posts: 8,079 
|
Post by UnseenI on Nov 16, 2022 8:55:23 GMT
For the record, it was on October 19th that I discovered the thread had gone: something in the news made me search for some old posts, and I found that they had vanished!
I found that the cache was empty too.
It had been very quiet; I had been concentrating on just one or two other threads and mostly harmless topics so had not looked at the Illicit Organisations board for a while otherwise I would have noticed that the thread had gone missing.
There was a whole web of connections with supporting pictures of royals, celebrities and other people of interest. There were 11 pages of posts and the thread had a large number of views.
|
|
UnseenI
Eternal Member
"Part Of The Furniture"
Keeping on keeping on
Posts: 8,079
|
Post by UnseenI on Nov 16, 2022 19:08:01 GMT
The Case of the Missing Thread
Maybe we should start by thinking about which posts – and pictures - are unlikely to have caused the deletion request. Anything that was widely reported and discussed on many sites and is still there is probably not what upset whoever had the thread deleted. The names in Jeffrey Epstein's black book have been listed in many places for example, and the - probably photo-shopped - pictures of Ghislaine Maxwell in the outdoor cafe were reproduced all over the place. The problem is that this still leaves many people, pictures, topics and connections to look at. The post(s) in question may not be mine, which means there may not be any record of them. Where is Sherlock Holmes when you need him! 
|
|
UnseenI
Eternal Member
"Part Of The Furniture"
Keeping on keeping on
Posts: 8,079
|
Post by UnseenI on Aug 21, 2023 16:05:42 GMT
The recent de-banking events where people have had their accounts closed without any reason being given have reminded me of the sudden removal of the whole of the original Epstein thread. It was really bad of ProBoards: they could have let us know what the problem was and just removed a offending few posts.
|
|
Avacyn
Project Manager
Posts: 11,247
|
Post by Avacyn on Dec 24, 2023 11:59:03 GMT
The recent de-banking events where people have had their accounts closed without any reason being given have reminded me of the sudden removal of the whole of the original Epstein thread. It was really bad of ProBoards: they could have let us know what the problem was and just removed a offending few posts. Well, it will get interesting soon, as names are starting to be revealed. ProBoards was responding to a DMCA request. Basically, the only thing that could be used to take the thread down. An interesting article I found: nymag.com/intelligencer/article/who-are-the-newly-revealed-jeffrey-epstein-associates.html |
|
UnseenI
Eternal Member
"Part Of The Furniture"
Keeping on keeping on
Posts: 8,079
|
Post by UnseenI on Dec 29, 2023 8:39:16 GMT
"Well, it will get interesting soon, as names are starting to be revealed."
This raises a point that was first made in connection with the Sussexes. Names are often named and damning information released and discussed right from the start, but only on certain non-MSM sites. It takes a while to filter through, then eventually some of it appears in comments for DM articles. It takes even longer for the names and allegations to get into MSM articles and headlines. I doubt whether anything new will be revealed; Epstein's Black Book was put online ages ago for example. We shall see.
|
|
Avacyn
Project Manager
Posts: 11,247
|
Post by Avacyn on Jan 4, 2024 7:45:38 GMT
"Well, it will get interesting soon, as names are starting to be revealed." This raises a point that was first made in connection with the Sussexes. Names are often named and damning information released and discussed right from the start, but only on certain non-MSM sites. It takes a while to filter through, then eventually some of it appears in comments for DM articles. It takes even longer for the names and allegations to get into MSM articles and headlines. I doubt whether anything new will be revealed; Epstein's Black Book was put online ages ago for example. We shall see. We now know that John Doe 36 in the flight lists is Bill Clinton. This is the sort of revelation I was talking about... we will get more and more information over time. If the masses knew all of the details all at once, they would pop. It would be too much to process. But dripping out the information means it has time to be absorbed, and understood. It then makes it faster for the next piece of information to be absorbed and understood, as there is a foundation. That island is a horror story, a real one. People need tome to handle the terrible things that happened there. |
|
UnseenI
Eternal Member
"Part Of The Furniture"
Keeping on keeping on
Posts: 8,079
|
Post by UnseenI on Jan 4, 2024 10:40:49 GMT
The bursting of the dam starts with a small trickle
All the above is very true. Disturbing information does need to work its way slowly through the minds of most people.
I am reminded of the Jimmy Savile case. His connections to the then Prince Charles were discussed on the original David Icke Forum long before they became generally known. The Bill Clinton connection has been mentioned in many places; now it is BBC and DM headline news.
|
|
Avacyn
Project Manager
Posts: 11,247
|
Post by Avacyn on Jan 5, 2024 7:41:39 GMT
The bursting of the dam starts with a small trickle
All the above is very true. Disturbing information does need to work its way slowly through the minds of most people. I am reminded of the Jimmy Savile case. His connections to the then Prince Charles were discussed on the original David Icke Forum long before they became generally known. The Bill Clinton connection has been mentioned in many places; now it is BBC and DM headline news. This is why I am patient. It will take time for the information to filter through. Now, people are getting a real idea about what Bill Clinton is really like. Wait until Rachel Chandler is revealed to the masses. That is when we know the brown smelly stuff has hit the fan. I wonder if Disney World could move from Florida, to Epstein's Island? It would be a perfect match! |
|
UnseenI
Eternal Member
"Part Of The Furniture"
Keeping on keeping on
Posts: 8,079
|
Post by UnseenI on Jan 5, 2024 19:17:37 GMT
The DM was on the case in 2011!
The filtering process is not always linear: it may be more of a spiral. The wave breaks, the tide recedes than comes in again even stronger; after several iterations it finally it goes over the top.
I posted this in 2019 in the now deleted Epstein thread:
“2011 DM article named names
As previously mentioned, a lot came out many years ago, but it just didn’t ‘take’, even though it was in publications such as the DM. From 2011:
“When 200 guests gather… Ghislaine will be there, perhaps all too glad to escape America, where she has been in the eye of the storm that threatens to engulf Prince Andrew. The New York-based socialite is accused of recruiting under-age girls for convicted paedophile billionaire Jeffrey Epstein — a friend she shares with the Prince. She has denied the claims.
Ghislaine will be joined at the party by her six siblings, plus many of Britain’s Left-wing establishment luvvies.
Invitees include Lord Mandelson (who first suggested Andrew should be appointed as Britain’s trade envoy, and who was sufficiently close to Epstein to have been listed in the American’s little black book of contacts) and the Kinnocks.”
web.archive.org/web/20110314170639/http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1365444/Robert-Maxwell-daughter-Ghislaine-embroiled-Prince-Andrew-scandal.html#ixzz5ykSQw5Vn
Read more:“
|
|
UnseenI
Eternal Member
"Part Of The Furniture"
Keeping on keeping on
Posts: 8,079
|
Post by UnseenI on Jan 7, 2024 8:42:14 GMT
More old material to re-post
Once the Epstein Connections thread was created, many posts mentioning Prince Andrew that would formerly have gone on the Yorks thread in the Monarchy board were put there and thus lost when the thread was deleted by ProBoards.
I still have my old posts; Prince Andrew's Epstein connections are in the headlines again and much of the material is probably safe to re-post so I will see what more I can dig up.
|
|
UnseenI
Eternal Member
"Part Of The Furniture"
Keeping on keeping on
Posts: 8,079
|
Post by UnseenI on Jan 7, 2024 19:17:37 GMT
Prince Andrew's notorious TV interview
Prince Andrew's infamous “car crash” interview with Emily Maitlis for BBC TV's Newsnight took place on November 16th 2019. It attracted many viewers and much commentary and criticism. What he said about his friendships with Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell didn't do him any favours. It is likely that the arrival of COVID took people's attention away from him, but now those relationships and the whole sordid story are in the news again. People will be re-watching the interview and reading the transcripts. What we watched over four years ago: 
|
|
UnseenI
Eternal Member
"Part Of The Furniture"
Keeping on keeping on
Posts: 8,079
|
Post by UnseenI on Jan 8, 2024 18:28:50 GMT
Some thoughts on Prince Andrew's interview
Posters soon commented on here after seeing the interview. Another member made some good points, which I quoted:
“I do think that the court of public opinion can be misled and would like to see his innocence or guilt determined in the courts. He probably thought that saying his part would clear everything up, but he is of the age of entitled royalty and that sense of superiority does come across.”
This is what I said in response:
“I agree with both points. He wanted to draw a line and get on with other things. How wrong he was!
I also think that while the questions were good there should have been some follow-up. Emily Maitlis should have taken him up when he said something feeble.
For example, Prince Andrew explained what he got out of the relationship with Epstein:
"The people that I met and the opportunities that I was given to learn, either by him or because of him, were actually very useful."
Examples? Why would someone in his position need Epstein for ordinary business opportunities? He probably meant that Epstein gave him opportunities to be involved with nefarious activities.
Money was probably part of it.
Going to the pizza place does not necessarily mean that he didn’t go to the nightclub - he could have gone on afterwards. Why didn’t she come right back and say so?
A good prosecutor wouldn’t let him get away with such evasive and misleading answers. A good prosecutor would know that guilty people often don’t give outright denials as this might get them into trouble for lying later, they come up with what looks like a denial but is really a distraction.“
|
|
Avacyn
Project Manager
Posts: 11,247
|
Post by Avacyn on Jan 9, 2024 7:58:48 GMT
I really need to sit down, and look at the files for myself. More have been released, and the revelations keep coming.
|
|
UnseenI
Eternal Member
"Part Of The Furniture"
Keeping on keeping on
Posts: 8,079
|
Post by UnseenI on Jan 9, 2024 17:24:34 GMT
Amanda Thirsk got the blame
Amanda Thirsk, who was Prince Andrew's private secretary at the time and appears in posts in the Yorks thread, was blamed for persuading him to do the disastrous interview. This is another of my old posts: “Assuming that ‘sources’ are reliable, Prince Andrew was not keen on the idea but Amanda Thirsk talked him round: “In the end, Andrew followed his private secretary's advice. 'She's like his gatekeeper and everyone knows that in the Palace,' said another source.’ Amanda is a force of nature, she's hugely influential – if Amanda wants something done it gets done. ' She thinks it is quite simple: that he has apologised for visiting Epstein after his release from prison and has denied all the allegations. She feels there's nothing to see here. She just thinks the Duke has done nothing wrong... all he did was go and see his friend.” www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7695777/RICHARD-KAY-hes-achieved-fuel-controversy.htmlIs she out of her mind? Perhaps this is just spin and she is being scapegoated.” 
|
|
Avacyn
Project Manager
Posts: 11,247
|
Post by Avacyn on Jan 10, 2024 7:51:16 GMT
Amanda Thirsk got the blame
Amanda Thirsk, who was Prince Andrew's private secretary at the time and appears in posts in the Yorks thread, was blamed for persuading him to do the disastrous interview. This is another of my old posts: “Assuming that ‘sources’ are reliable, Prince Andrew was not keen on the idea but Amanda Thirsk talked him round: “In the end, Andrew followed his private secretary's advice. 'She's like his gatekeeper and everyone knows that in the Palace,' said another source.’ Amanda is a force of nature, she's hugely influential – if Amanda wants something done it gets done. ' She thinks it is quite simple: that he has apologised for visiting Epstein after his release from prison and has denied all the allegations. She feels there's nothing to see here. She just thinks the Duke has done nothing wrong... all he did was go and see his friend.” www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7695777/RICHARD-KAY-hes-achieved-fuel-controversy.htmlIs she out of her mind? Perhaps this is just spin and she is being scapegoated.” Why do that interview at all? There was a strategy in play, and certainly didn't go to the plan they had set out. What objectives were they out to accomplish with this? That is the true question here. |
|
UnseenI
Eternal Member
"Part Of The Furniture"
Keeping on keeping on
Posts: 8,079
|
Post by UnseenI on Jan 10, 2024 17:34:23 GMT
The objectives of the interview?
“Why do that interview at all? There was a strategy in play, and certainly didn't go to the plan they had set out. What objectives were they out to accomplish with this? That is the true question here.” Not going to plan is putting it mildly: it backfired spectacularly, at least for people who really believed that Prince Andrew's 'explanations' would silence critics, establish his innocence and put an end to all the speculation and allegations. It is possible that he was deliberately set up by people who wanted to discredit him and knew that he would be his own worst enemy! I said this a few hours before the interview was shown: “It is best to wait and see, but Prince Andrew may have made a big mistake: The Daily Telegraph says the interview comes after "years of scrutiny" over Prince Andrew's links to billionaire financier Epstein. According to the paper, royal sources said the duke had decided to give the interview in the hope it might "draw a line" under the scandal before he turns 60 next year. He is understood to have overruled aides who warned the move was a "bad idea", the paper adds.” www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-the-papers-50441757Overruled aides? Is this why Jason Stein left? Draw a line? If he thinks that more denials are enough to make people forget the whole thing he is very wrong.”
|
|
UnseenI
Eternal Member
"Part Of The Furniture"
Keeping on keeping on
Posts: 8,079
|
Post by UnseenI on Jan 10, 2024 17:38:35 GMT
Reactions to the interview
The interview was featured in many places the following morning, and not in a good way. I said this: “From what I have seen, no one is buying the feeble excuses and unconvincing denials. Is this the best he and his people can come up with? It is for me a dead give-away when people don’t deny something outright but come up with some bizarre reason for why it couldn’t have happened.“ I was reminded of an amusing comment made by Moss in an episode of The IT Crowd: 
|
|
UnseenI
Eternal Member
"Part Of The Furniture"
Keeping on keeping on
Posts: 8,079
|
Post by UnseenI on Jan 11, 2024 19:07:33 GMT
Pizza Express Woking
In his interview, Prince Andrew denied having gone to a nightclub: his alibi was that he went home after going to a children's party that was held at Pizza Express in Woking. This got a lot of publicity for the pizza venue; as mentioned in the Yorks thread, it also generated some amusing joke reviews in many places. One said: 'I have no recollection of ever visiting this restaurant or ever having heard of pizzas. Or Woking. 'If I did visit the place it must be because I am so honourable. But I stress, I never went here. Unless you have a photo of me being here, in which case I have.' Another review said: 'Wonderful staff, great food, no sweat! But I have no recollection of ever being there so I don't know why I just said that.' TripAdvisor had to suspend reviews for this venue as they were flooded with fake entries: 
|
|
UnseenI
Eternal Member
"Part Of The Furniture"
Keeping on keeping on
Posts: 8,079
|
Post by UnseenI on Jan 13, 2024 18:29:42 GMT
The Royal Pizza Express train coincidence
When I was looking for more information about Prince Andrew and the Pizza Express restaurant in Woking after the interview, I found an interesting coincidence in the form of a train in the US. It is worth reposting; it also mentions Disney Avacyn: “This is an attraction in Orlando, Florida - a place of great interest that was featured in many posts on the old forum. Holidaymakers can take a tour on the train, where pizza is served: “All aboard! Hop on a fleet of 1940’s vintage dining train cars as you leave the throngs of tourists visiting Walt Disney World, Sea World and Universal Studios in the Orlando tourist zone to travel on a fun train tour back to a simpler time in American life. You’ll feel like you’ve gone back in time as you chug along through Central Florida’s “Golden Triangle” cities of Eustis, Tavares and Mount Dora on the Royal Pizza Express, as you enjoy your choice of a personal cheese, pepperoni, veggie, or supreme pizza.” www.originalorlando.com/st_tour/mount-dora-train-tour/Is it called royal because of the royal purple engine?” 
|
|
UnseenI
Eternal Member
"Part Of The Furniture"
Keeping on keeping on
Posts: 8,079
|
Post by UnseenI on Jan 16, 2024 17:17:24 GMT
Prince Andrew's purple connections
The colour purple is said to be associated with deception and illusion. The royal purple pizza train has reminded me of an old post in the Purple thread in the Symbolism board. Re-posted here as it has relevance to the Woking case: “Prince Andrew and a purple connection “Like other senior royals, the Prince is accompanied at all times by armed police bodyguards. Details will have been entered into a pocketbook as 'Purple Four One' — Andrew's Scotland Yard call sign — and travelling to Surrey with Woking in a bracket perhaps alongside. The times will also be noted. Andrew could easily have said that his protection officers could verify his movements that day.” www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7695233/Videos-Prince-Andrew-partying-nightclubs-beautiful-young-women-French-Riviera.htmlWhat a coincidence! Deception and illusion certainly feature in his case. 
|
|
UnseenI
Eternal Member
"Part Of The Furniture"
Keeping on keeping on
Posts: 8,079
|
Post by UnseenI on Jan 20, 2024 18:43:29 GMT
Another relevant repost: Prince Andrew and Jimmy Savile
This picture is very poor quality, but it shows them together on Savile’s TV show in 1994: 
|
|
UnseenI
Eternal Member
"Part Of The Furniture"
Keeping on keeping on
Posts: 8,079
|
Post by UnseenI on Jan 26, 2024 9:23:14 GMT
Another old post about the TV interview
I have found something else to re-post, something that would not have caused the old thread to be deleted: A message from Moss to Prince Andrew Prince Andrew said some really stupid things in his interview. He may be forced to eat his words, as evidence that contradicts many of his statements is being published everywhere. It is amazing how many relevant pictures and scenes can be found in Red Dwarf and the IT Crowd. This is a really good one: 
|
|
UnseenI
Eternal Member
"Part Of The Furniture"
Keeping on keeping on
Posts: 8,079
|
Post by UnseenI on Feb 2, 2024 18:17:18 GMT
Two for the TV interview
At least one film is being made of Prince Andrew's infamous interview with Emily Maitlis. Rufus Sewell and Gillian Anderson are the stars in the Netflix dramatisation. With their real-life counterparts: 
|
|
UnseenI
Eternal Member
"Part Of The Furniture"
Keeping on keeping on
Posts: 8,079
|
Post by UnseenI on Feb 3, 2024 18:24:57 GMT
The second interview film
Michael Sheen is playing Prince Andrew in a film that is being made for Amazon: 
|
|
UnseenI
Eternal Member
"Part Of The Furniture"
Keeping on keeping on
Posts: 8,079
|
Post by UnseenI on Feb 13, 2024 18:25:40 GMT
Scoop!
The trailer for Scoop, the impending Netflix film about Prince Andrew's interview, has been released. Rufus Sewell is good at playing villains. Is that why he was chosen for the role of Prince Andrew? He looks very like him here: 
|
|
