"Could this wallpaper prove that Napoleon was Murdered?" Topic

"Napoleon Bonaparte's mysterious death has generated a host of murder conspiracy theories over the years.

And now a large piece of wallpaper from the Emperor's bedroom is up for auction, which could prove whether he was murdered by the British.

The French emperor mysteriously died while in British custody on the South Atlantic island of St Helena on May 5, 1821 at the age of 51…"
Full article here.
link

Amicalement
Armand

Um, no. This story was debunked years ago.

Arsenic was a common colouring at the period.

The Daily Mail is not a real newspaper

There are some people who would dispute that.

Too many silly books on this. Not worth pursuing. The amazing thing is that he went on as long as he did, if you accept his chronic illness, as at "Waterloo", whether it was piles or pyelonephritis. In the end the post mortem suggested some gastric erosion process, totally unrelated to his 1815 health…….malignancy or stress ulcer who knows.

and he was not very tall either…………….no, I am kidding …….

I read a book years ago that put forward this supposition. It seemed unlikely and improbable then. Why go to all the bother of contaminating Napoleon's environment when there are many other more direct methods to kill him?

It's like slipping Castro drugs that would make his moustache fall out.

Arsenic was a common colouring at the period.

Not just that. Arsenic was a standard ingredient in wallpaper paste well into the 20th Century. Wallpaper paste was made with flour, If it didn't have poison in it, bugs would eat it, and the wallpaper would fall of.

Arsenic was also commonly used in medicines too.

link

link

Paul :)

I'm not saying the British wouldn't murder somebody with a roll of wallpaper.
Let's face it, they totally would.

BUT: they'd do it by getting a massive roll of wallpaper and beating the victim to death with it.

AND: they would only do that in a situation where they found themselves in a room with the intended victim, and no object larger, harder or spikier than a roll of wallpaper was available.

Impregnating the wallpaper with a metallic-element toxin and incorporating it into the victim's house?
For a Brit, that's over-thinking it.
Sounds like the Swiss to me.

I'm convinced.

Pass me a roll of wallpaper. Let's go get those sneaky Swiss gits.

The British were behind two previous assassination attempts against Napoleon and whine about one weak attempt against Wellington. There's a good reason why the old saying "The sun never set on the British Empire." God just couldn't trust them in the dark.

That's very inflammatory.
God trusts British men in the dark.
British women wish they couldn't.

It's a joke, ok :) Sue me, I couldn't resist.

Wasn't the only reason he was swinging from a gallows in Berlin or Vienna that the British weren't willing to have him killed? That's why he wasn't willing to surrender to any of the less civilised powers.

Why save him to kill him?

Why if you are going to kill him not bash his head in and say he fell off his horse, or knock him off a cliff… rather than giving him standard wall paper that everyone uses and hope by some miracle he gets poisoned.

Belongs in the same tin foil hat conspiracy theory nonsense along with the SAS murdering Diana, lizard men controlling the world and the illuminati…

There are some people who would dispute that.

They would be wrong.

Napoleon indeed hoped for a mild treatment by the British (rather exile than real inprisonment) however in the climate of 1815 very few monarchs were after his blood, certainly not the Austrian emperor, after all he was Napoleons father in law, also not Alexander, who saw himself as the great meditator of Europe and was abhorred at the white repression of the 1815 bourbon restoration. The murder conspiracy seems very shaky indeed, why after 6 years of letting Napoleon create his version of history for posteriority, then murdering him?
A often quoted candidate for involvement in a possible murder plot is the rather shady figure of Montholon, but would he poison wall paper in a house where he himself was staying, unlikely…

The Daily Mail is not a real newspaper

There are some people who would dispute that.

They would be wrong.

That is but your opinion.

Wow.
There are quite a lot of errors, incorrect assumptions and entrenched concepts on display here.

- The Napoleon assassination theory has not been "debunked". (It hasn't been proven either).

- The theory states that arsenic poisoning was administered directly, not through wall-paper. Debunking the wall-paper story is just debunking a straw-man (which is actually an extremely common tactic performed by crappy journalists and pseudo-skeptics when they "confront" valid conspiracy theories).

- Frank McLynn put forwards the facts of the matter very well in his excellent biography on Napoleon. He explains very simply why the cause of death put forward in the post-mortem cannot be true.

- The theory itself does not actually propose it was the British who carried it out. It states that it was the Bourbons.

- The British actually had good cause to keep Napoleon alive. But once he was dead they had even better cause to make sure the post mortem showed that the climate of St Helena was NOT a factor in the cause of death of the prisoner. Hence the fudged explanation for cause of death that was given.

On other matters,
- The verdict in the Diana inquest was actually 'unlawful death', partly caused by the drivers of the vehicles chasing Diana's car. Contrary to what the public think, the findings of the Court-case did NOT state that it was the Papperazi who were driving those vehicles. In fact, the papperazi was ruled out. That doesn't leave many other possibilities for who were driving the other cars/vans/motorbikes. And as long as former service men keep coming forward saying that they were involved in the operation to assassinate Diana, the theories obviously remain very valid.

- The Illuminati are an historical fact. Check the documentation from the 1770's. No serious historian disputes the fact that they existed. And no intelligent and informed person disputes the fact there are literally scores of groups currently in existence that are ideologically or organisationally related to them.
The only question an intelligent person needs to ask themself is how many of those groups are just interested in achieving personal progress i.e. "illumination", and how many of them have political and cultural agenda's.
The answer is both of course.

Agree with you my friend TelesticWarrior about Napoleon dead.(smile).

Amicalement
Armand

On other matters,
- The verdict in the Diana inquest was actually 'unlawful death', partly caused by the drivers of the vehicles chasing Diana's car. Contrary to what the public think, the findings of the Court-case did NOT state that it was the Papperazi who were driving those vehicles. In fact, the papperazi was ruled out. That doesn't leave many other possibilities for who were driving the other cars/vans/motorbikes. And as long as former service men keep coming forward saying that they were involved in the operation to assassinate Diana, the theories obviously remain very valid.

Have you ever driven in Paris?

(BTW People who believe Diana was mooordeered by The Duke of Edinburgh also tend to believe the Daily Mail is a newspaper…)

Have you ever driven in Paris?
(BTW People who believe Diana was mooordeered by The Duke of Edinburgh also tend to believe the Daily Mail is a newspaper…)

Well, this is the kind of silly response I have come to expect from people whenever the subject of conspiracies are mentioned. The very phrase CT seems to preclude intelligent thought in vast sections of the public.
Stick to facts please;
- How is asking whether I have driven in Paris relevant to my comment that the verdict of the Inquest was "unlawful death partly caused by the drivers of the vehicles chasing Diana's car?" Are you hoping that you can ignore the findings of a court case by making a silly remark about the hazards of Parisian traffic? Note that the court did not rule 'accidental death'.
- Who said Diana was murdered by the Duke of Edinburgh?
- Why are you spelling murdered "mooordeered"? Why the predictable childishness every time CT's are brought up?
- I don't have much faith in the ability of the Daily Mail to accurately represent reality. But I am interested as to why you (and other people on this thread) draw the distinction in this regard between the Daily Mail and other newspapers that you deem to be more "real".

Facts it is then -

- Do you think alcohol and driving are compatible?
- Do you think wearing a seatbelt is a good idea?
- Have you driven in Paris?
- Do you have a sense of humour?
- What brand of tinfoil do you prefer?
- Are you a lizard?

Yep, like I said, there is nothing quite like this kind of subject matter to cause the brains of immature people to leak out of their ears. Sorry fella but you seem to be very confused. Here's a tip for you; why don't you try to respond to what I actually write, not what you would like me to have wrote?

- The driver was found to be under the influence of alcohol. But I was not talking solely about the driver of that car, was I? I have already typed this twice but maybe a 3rd time will help you; the drivers of the OTHER vehicles were ALSO determined to be the cause of Unlawful death.
- Yes seatbelts are good, but see previous comment. We were talking about the OTHER cars. Comprendez?
- Already explained this bit to you. For the 2nd time, are you stupid enough to think that you can ignore the findings of a court case by making a silly remark about the hazards of Parisian traffic? Note that the court did not rule 'accidental death'. I know that you can understand this last bit if you really put your mind to it……
- Yes I have a sense of humour, but I don't find childish strawman comments that funny. What kind of person does?
- and you finish off with tinfoil hat and Lizard comments! How exciting! I'll take it that neither stand-up or originality or maturity are your strong suits.

I thought we were on a Napoleonic site, discussing whether Napoleon might be murdered and whether the wallpaper in his room might have anything to do with it. Lady Di is quite another matter and bestleft to another forum (if it has to be on TMP why not the "modern" page.
There have been requests to open Napoleons' tomb and check DNA etc but off course this is a sensitive matter and will not easily be granted. (there is after all the theory (conspiracy) that it might not be Napoleon in this tomb…

Marcel,
Point taken, although it is the nature of a discussion to wander wherever it will. It wasn't me that started talking about Princess Di, and it wasn't me that made the usual erroneous, ignorant & immature remarks in regards to that subject once it had been raised. I'm happy to leave it now.

In regards to Napoleon, let him rest in peace I say. A DNA test will not help determine exactly what killed him, its probably one of the things that we will never know. There isn't enough evidence to prove the idea that he was murdered, and I never said that I definitely thought that he was murdered (maybe that wasn't clear from my first posts). All I said was that the post mortem verdict of Cancer does not bear up to rational scrutiny.

Frank McLynn in his biography 'Napoleon';

The notion that Napoleon died of cancer is still widely accepted by those who are unaware of the perfunctory nature of the post-mortem, the dissenting opinions of those who conducted the autopsy, the implausibility of the verdict in view of the anamnesis, and the sheer convenience of the the judgement on cause of death from the point of view of (Governor) Lowe and the British government……All five of the British surgeons who signed the report were under severe political restraints. They knew well what had happened to O'Meara and Stokoe and what would probably happen to them if they recorded any verdict that implied British negligence or callousness or by the unhealthy climate of St Helena. Cancer was the one diagnosis that was would be totally satisfactory to Lowe and his superiors, and it had a superficial plausibility, because Napoleon's father had died that way. The one diagnosis that was not allowed was hepatitis, as this would immediately be connected with the amoebic dysentery on the island. Not surprisingly therefore, death by cancer was the verdict returned.

It is worth taking a closer look at the autopsy findings as contained in the minority report written by Antommarchi. Let us remember also that Antommarchi had infinitely greater experience in corpse dissection and autopsy than any of the others present. Antommarchi found that Napoleon's liver was abnormally large – indicating either hepatitis or poisoning – and that there were adhesions of the liver and stomach. Shortt agreed with these findings and strongly dissented from his colleagues' opinion that there was no abnormality of the liver. Shortt's notes were omitted from the majority report on the express orders of Hudson Lowe.

Since the British surgeons' observations were either distorted or constrained by political expediency, the verdict of death by cancer hardly convinces in terms of the calibre of the alleged witnesses. What of the case history itself? Here the great stumbling block to the cancer theorists is Napoleon's obesity, since it is well known that death from this disease is almost invariably preceded by extreme emaciation. Yet both post mortem reports (Antommarchi's and that signed by the British surgeons) speak of a layer of fat covering the entire body, with particularly large amounts around the chest and heart. This in turn has suggested to certain medical observers a quite different explanation for Napoleon's illness and death.

Napoleon exhibited all of the symptoms of a person poisoned by arsenic: heart palpitations, weak and irregular pulse, very sever headaches, icy chills in the legs extending to the hips, back and shoulder pain, a persistent dry cough, loosening teeth, coated tongue, pain in the liver, severe thirst, skin rash, yellowed skin and whites of eyes, shivering, deafness, sensitivity of the eyes to light, spasmodic muscle contractions, nausea, difficulty in breathing. His fat, glabrous body (even after months of illness), with an absence of fine hairs on the surface, is another indication. When the body becomes toxic, it is apt to clothe itself in fat as a kind of armour against poisons.
But perhaps the most telling piece of evidence for arsenic poisoning is that when Napoleon's body was about to be transferred from St Helena to its final resting place at Les Invalides in 1840 and his coffin was opened, it was found to be perfectly preserved. Since this outcome is another consequence of arsenic poisoning, and other attempts to explain the phenomenon simply result in absurdity (vacuum sealing in an era that did not possess the technology), the theorists of cancer have yet another mountain to climb.

Of course, you already all know about the massive levels of arsenic that were found in hairs from Napoleon's head. Objections raised by 138Squadron and Dibble above, whilst a partial possible answer to the arsenic concentrations, obviously do not address the rest of the issues and the meat of the theory (just one aspect of it).

Cheers,
TW.

Isn't anyone going to bite? The points raised by Frank McLynn that I quoted are very interesting IMO.

Is there blood on the wallpaper so we can investigate this?

Given the efforts of the Bourbons to eliminate as many key supportors of Napoleon as they could during the white repression of the 1815 restoration and their extreme fear that he would manage to repeat his previous escape, it is more surprising that the British authorities were succesful in protecting him from them for so long.

If the British allow Napoleon to rest in their country as he desire… history would be different.
He would be under strong surveillance, but happy.
My vote goes for the Bourbons too (French ones: "Monsieur" and his gang).

Amicalement
Armand

It would have been nice if he'd stayed in the UK but I think it would have been to easy for him to escape. Too close to France.

So far I find the best posts in this thread to be:

Norman D Landings & le Grande Quartier General

But that is because of my bias in treating this subject with the humor they displayed.

Cheers,

The Bandit

My friend Edwulf, I agree about the distance of France, but remember that the Bourbons were there wainting for his head! (smile).
If he decided to scape, imho it would be to America.
Not easy from England! (smile).

Amicalement
Armand

Nice for a novel. Pointless for history.

And by the way, anyone informed knows that the lizards control the world through the Illuminati. I am not scare of them, of course. My pile of lead protects me from harm. There you have it, you plastic lovers! It's all part of a conspiracy to take away from you your means of protection against Lizard-mind tricks!

David Icke… Has a lot to answer for.

Funny really as he seems like a nice chap. A raving lunatic though

Edwulf,
David Icke is a thoroughly nice chap, and far more intelligent and knowledgeable than people give him credit for.
As far as I am aware Icke has never said that people can shape-change into lizards. In fact I heard him say in a recent interview that "shape-changing is impossible". Yet folks always fall for tired media soundbites, rather than wondering about the literally hundreds of major things that Icke HAS said, and been proved right on;
- Icke was saying more than 10 years ago that Jimmy Saville was a Pedophile. Pity nobody else in the dinosaur media had the balls to expose this vileness in the same way Icke did.
- Icke stated in 1999 and then again in 2000 that a major false flag attack was about to hit New York, and that it was going to be blamed on Osama Bin Ladin. The great Bill Cooper stated the same thing in June 2001. (How do they predict these things? Well, these people are way ahead of the curve in terms of their understanding of the way the world actually works).
- But perhaps David Icke's greatest achievement is his framing of the "problem-reaction-solution" meme (a variation on the Hegelian dialectic). This meme is actually gaining ground at a phenomenal rate in the public consciousness, which can only be a good thing.

Bill Cooper predicting 9/11 in June 2001; YouTube link

Problem-Reaction-Solution explained in 4 minutes; YouTube link

It should become clear if you do your research that "Conspiracy theorists", as you all like to label them, are actually the only folks who understand the big picture of what is going on. But here's the catch; you have to actually listen to what THEY are saying, not what the media and your prejudices are telling you they are saying.

I look forward to more accusations of tin-foil hat wearing from the culturally conditioned know-nothing Know-it-alls!

"Yes, paranoid I may be, but that does not prove that they are not coming to get me!"

I alway thought hed be a good bloke to have a pint with.

Definitely. Regardless of his oddities no-one can deny that Icke's led an interesting life; Professional goal-keeper for Arsenal, presenter of Grandstand, politician for the Green Party, then becoming the laughing stock of an entire nation, and finally being proved correct on much (most?) of what he was actually saying in the first place, and now giving 8hr long lectures in packed-out theatres. He deserves a medal just for the Saville thing alone.

All of us have ridiculous beliefs when you really stop to think about it. Check out this hilarious short vid that went viral and you'll see what I mean;
YouTube link

Icke also predicted that the world would end in 1997 so I presume that what we need to do with his predictions is wait until we see if they are wrong or right, then mention all the correct predictions as evidence that he can predict the future, which unfortunately relegates his predictions to guesses (although they may be well informed guesses) as we cannot tell if the prediction is good or not until after the predicted event occurs or not.

I predict that by the end of this thread there will be no consensus that David Icke can predict the future.

David Icke is the proverbial monkey with the typewriter who accidentally managed to get one of his guesses on target. I've actually heard him speak in person (anything for a laugh) and it was pure, unadulterated bilge from beginning to end – the product of a paranoid, deluded mentalist; ramblings about the power of the colour turquoise, the lizard people and the New World Order. 30 minutes was more than I could stand, despite the comedy value.

8 HOURS???!!!! Care in the Community clearly isn't working.

In what possible way in the world of tinfoil hats and fruitloopery, is Icke's delusion of a false-flag attack in any way 'accurate'? Please explain and give us all a good laugh. And please also be specific about WHICH servicemen claim to have killed Diana – ranks, names, regiment/service and dates served, or it simply did not happen and is purely the dribblings of yet another deluded fantasist.

Sungam,
Icke seems to have been a bit confused in the 1990's. I doubt if there is any one here who has not said something daft 3 decades ago. The important thing is how people learn from their mistakes. You won't find Icke talking about the end of the world now, in fact he did as much as anyone to try and slap some sense into the 2012 Mayan Calendar end times Believers. Check out some current material.

Also, aren't you trying to be a bit literal when talking about "predicting" the future? I'm not talking about magical crystal ball type predicting here. I am simply talking about informed people taking careful notice of what is going on in the past and the present and then extrapolating that into the future using common sense. Simply meaning that if you have a better understanding of the past and present, you have a far better chance of calling unfolding events in a way that the sheeple cannot.
Icke didn't accurately predict the revelations concerning Jimmy Saville because he had a crystal ball, he predicted it simply because he saw the casual cover-ups that were going on in the BBC at the time and understood how important people can get away with sick behaviour. It was more of a whistle-blowing thing than a "predicting" thing. If any of you think that exposing Savilles crimes was a "monkey with a type-writer" trick, then you are the worst kind of coincidence theorist.
The point I am trying to make is that these people are more accurate simply because they are not constrained by the same propaganda and cultural conditioning that the rest of the population is.
Likewise Bill Cooper did not predict a false flag attack on New York in June 2001 because he was looking in a crystal ball. He called it because his world view is different (i.e. more accurate) to the rest of the herd; remember that even before 9/11 Bin Laden was America's most wanted criminal, according to the mainstream version of reality. So if the average person heard that a News crew had just interviewed Bin Ladin they ignore the information straight away. Does not compute in their worldview. How can a camera crew have found OBL if the most powerful intelligence forces were not capable of doing so? Whereas the Cooper's & Icke's of this world know that the mainstream version of reality is a fairy story, so they have no trouble at all understanding that the U.S. was not really looking for OBL (and never have been). So when OBL told the News crew that there is going to be a major attack on New York but that it was being carried out by forces within America, a truly informed and awake individual can make sense of the apparent contradiction. Hence the accurate prediction that is way beyond the abilities of the poor sods like Mark, still living in the fairy story with their delusions that a bogey man in a cave could carry out a 9/11 type event.

I'm describing this very clumsily (typing on an Iphone is never a great way to communicate), but hopefully you can kind of see what I mean.

It all comes down to a person's worldview. The person living inside the fairy tale is easy to manipulate, and that person will even shout and scream and ridicule the ones who are not inside the fairy tale.

None of this is new of course. Nazi propaganda minister Goebbels used to brag that the secret of carrying out these type of psy-ops on the unthinking herd is to "seize the first narrative", and then make sure that the few people who are smart enough to question the narrative are ridiculed as crack-pots. The truly crazy thing is that people seem to think that the purveyors of the modern control system are less advanced than the leaders in the 1930's. It's very, very worrying how quickly the meat-puppets can forget the lessons of the past.

Check out Mark Davies ignorant content-less rant in the previous post and you'll see what I mean.

And there you see the arrogant, deluded, condescending and paranoid attitude of the Possessor of the Higher Truth…

'Herd'?
'Sheeple'?
'Meat Puppets'?

That's the sort of language used just before they get herded into the Camps… Good grief is must be so difficult for you, being Homo Superior and having to explain everything in small worlds and very few actual paragraphs, to all us Lesser Beings.

You Sir, are truly a Towering, Throbbing and Tumescent Thundertwunt.

You're also the creator of the funniest postings on TMP since Cdt Cpl Gideon, so please keep it up. I look forward to your future postings with high anticipation.

And speaking of content – you failed (again) to deal in specifics. Rank, name, regiment/service and dates served of the alleged assassin or it did not happen.

Yep, exactly the way people behave when their BELIEF'S are threatened. Predictable, but very very amusing.

Still no specifics… But then proof would deny your Faith…

So let's get this straight: David Icke was a ing loon in the 90s, but he's ok now? Yes, sure.

That's where your wrong Mark. Your beliefs are not the DEFAULT that has to be proven wrong. They are only the default in YOUR mind – see Goebbels comment about siezing the first narrative. If you actually stopped to think about what you just wrote for a minute you would see that YOUR version of 9/11 is a conspiracy theory too.
A CT is defined as two or more persons planning in secret to carry out an illegal or harmful event or situation. So your version of 19 men carrying out 9/11 without help is a conspiracy theory too. I could just as easily challenge you to provide good evidence for your belief, I would have no trouble at all in debunking the evidence you coughed up.

"So let's get this straight: David Icke was a ing loon in the 90s, but he's ok now? Yes, sure."

Not what I said. What I meant was that doing a hack job on a person 20-odd years ago is not that helpful. Keep it current.

Nazi propaganda minister Goebbels used to brag…

And there it is! Godwin's Law at work.

How can a camera crew have found OBL if the most powerful intelligence forces were not capable of doing so?

Wouldn't have something to do with the fact that Bin Laden wasn't hiding at the time of the 9/11 bombings but living openly in AQ training camps in Afghanistan?

Even then it wasn't easy to get an interview from him.

Likewise Bill Cooper did not predict a false flag attack on New York in June 2001 because he was looking in a crystal ball. He called it because his world view is different (i.e. more accurate) to the rest of the herd

As usual in conspiracy theorists: a lot of questions but a pathological incapacity for providing an alternative narrative based upon facts instead of distortions of the facts. It is fun the first or two times… thereafter it becomes tiresome very rapidly.

And still no specific proof… When you next see your psychiatrist, ask them to explain the concept of 'projection' to you.

Ah, now we have two pseudo-skeptics on-line.

Mark,
specific proof for what? Spit it out.

Basileus,
You both seem to have a pathological inability to address what I am saying. I'll try again; Your beliefs are not the DEFAULT that has to be proven wrong. They are only the default in YOUR mind – see Goebbels comment about siezing the first narrative. If you actually stopped to think about what you pseudo-skeptics are proposing for a minute you would see that YOUR version of 9/11 is a conspiracy theory too.
A CT is defined as two or more persons planning in secret to carry out an illegal or harmful event or situation. So your version of 19 men carrying out 9/11 without help is a conspiracy theory too. I could just as easily challenge you to provide good evidence for your belief, I would have no trouble at all in debunking the evidence you coughed up. I dare you to try.

I DOUBLE dare you to address the comment about your beleifs not being some automatic default. I know you won't do it. That is how the propaganda & the pathology works. Go on, tell me, why is your version of 9/11 the skeptical default reality that has to be be proved wrong?
True skepticism doesn't work like that. What you are doing is known as psuedo-skepticism, and people are getting sick of it.

There's that delusion of being the Keeper of the Sacred Flame of Truth again…

No answer? Didn't think so. You should go away and think about it Mark, because its at the root of your intellectual cowardice.

Basileus,
How about you?