Ed Does anyone here believe that Princess Diana's car crash was suspicious?

[Andy_Ross]

It all falls down when you realise if she had put her belt on she would probably survived.

Why kill anyone with this method?

 

[Thermal]

It worked, dinnit?

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Conflicting acquaintance/buddy testimony is pretty common. That's why what people *think* is so much less valuable than actual evidence, and a major distinction a skeptic makes. We value facts over feels.

Eta: if you don't remember the greatest hits from the documentary, are you pretty sure it was convincing? Sounds... kinda forgettable, if nothing stayed with you.

How can you doubt the word of an actor? It's got to trump actual.experts like police, coroners and accident investigators...

 

[BartholomewWest]

Didn't 10 or 14 traffic cameras mysteriously "malfunction" that day in Paris? That alone makes me wonder. My mother has cameras outside of her home. Cheap ones, at that. They have NEVER broken down. Maybe they get a little bit of interference.

I just can't believe that the French government has cameras worse than what my mother has. And they only seem to break down when a celebrity is killed.

Here is another thing. One of many. Didn't one of the paparazzi commit suicide by shooting himself with a gun while locking himself into a car and setting himself on fire and then magically making both the keys and the gun vanish? Something comically suspicious like that?

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Didn't 10 or 14 traffic cameras mysteriously "malfunction" that day in Paris? That alone makes me wonder. My mother has cameras outside of her home. Cheap ones, at that. They have NEVER broken down. Maybe they get a little bit of interference.

I just can't believe that the French government has cameras worse than what my mother has. And they only seem to break down when a celebrity is killed.

Here is another thing. One of many. Didn't one of the paparazzi commit suicide by shooting himself with a gun while locking himself into a car and setting himself on fire and then magically making both the keys and the gun vanish? Something comically suspicious like that?

If either of these things is true then why don't you provide evidence of them rather than hiding behind asking questions?

 

[I Am The Scum]

It all falls down when you realise if she had put her belt on she would probably survived.

Why kill anyone with this method?

We haven't even gotten a specific accusation of murder, much less a detailed theory of the "crime." We're still in the Just Asking Questions phase right now.

 

[zooterkin]

I was utterly obsessed with Watergate for a while and read every article I could on the subject. This was a while ago, though, so my memory isn't fresh. However, I seem to recall people disputing the 2 number. Didn't Playboy (of all things) claim it was way more than 2?

Regarding the royals. They have a history of doing this. When Princess Margaret was caught banging an older man, Churchill had him sent to Belgium.

Princess Margaret and Peter Townsend - the true story behind their 'forbidden love'

How accurate is The Crown's portrayal of the royal affair?

www.radiotimes.com

Social mores changed quite a bit in the intervening 30-odd years, between 1953 and 1991.

 

[Thermal]

Didn't 10 or 14 traffic cameras mysteriously "malfunction" that day in Paris? That alone makes me wonder.

It might be significant if A) we knew it to be fact, and B) we knew the condition of those and other cameras on any other day. Like. If they were regularly vandalized by street punks and the city was somewhere in the process of preparing to upgrade/replace them, it wouldn't be very unusual.

If the cameras were actually working normally, but there was a more global problem with the equipment at the office end (glitched computer, etc), that could also account for it.

My mother has cameras outside of her home. Cheap ones, at that. They have NEVER broken down. Maybe they get a little bit of interference.

I just can't believe that the French government has cameras worse than what my mother has. And they only seem to break down when a celebrity is killed.

The French government probably has older cameras than your mother, and being on a much more massive and complex grid, they have many more weak spots to cause problems.

Here is another thing. One of many. Didn't one of the paparazzi commit suicide by shooting himself with a gun while locking himself into a car and setting himself on fire and then magically making both the keys and the gun vanish? Something comically suspicious like that?

Dunno, but pretty sure the weird ending of one of the many paparazzi doesnt mean anything, unless he was of unusual significance? Just one of many doesn't seem reason to clumsily execute him.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

It might be significant if A)we knew it to be fact, and B) we knew thr condition of those and other cameras on any other day. Like. If they were regularly vandalized by street punks and the city was somewhere in the process of preparing to upgrade/replace them, it wouldn't be very unusual.

If the cameras were actually working normally, buy there was a more global problem with the equipment at the office end (glitches computer, etc), that could also account for it.

The French government probably has older cameras than your mother, and being on a much more malice and complex grid, they have many more weak spots to cause problems

Dunno, but pretty sure the weird ending of one of the many paparazzi doesnt mean anything, unless he was of unusual significance? Jusy one of many doesnt seem reason to clumsily execute him.

And anecdote is not data, I've had four home security cameras, two broke, one works but the lens is permanently fogged and the light on it strobes (it's not meant to) and the last one's less than two months old. A single example doesn't provide a failure rate.

 

[theprestige]

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited to remove breach of rule 11. Please stay on topic.

Regarding Diana, all sort of very strange things would happen while she was still alive. IIRC, she would constantly find "hidden" microphones at the palace.

If you recall correctly? That's a terrible way for you to try to support a claim. Especially a claim of conspiracy.

If you can't even be bothered to verify your recollection against reliable sources, you have no business trying on jokes instead of addressing the many substantive questions raised about your claims.

 

[Andy_Ross]

So are the city authorities responsible for traffic cameras in Paris part of this conspiracy as well?

It seems to be growing.

 

[Thermal]

If it had been the street lights that all malfunctioned, we could have blamed the Illuminatti. It's like God doesn't love me enough.

 

[junkshop]

Regarding the crash itself, the actor Richard Belzar made a documentary about it. It was a pretty good summary of events, actually. I watched it a while back so my memory isn't fresh...but he pointed out a lot of things that don't seem to add up. Things that seem inconsistent. I would recommend it...

Richard Belzer (as I said before, the details - such as people's names - are important) wrote or co-wrote several books about conspiracy theories, including one about Diana: 'Dead Wrong 2'. He never made a documentary about Diana's death, though.

He contributed to [was interviewed for] 'Princess Diana: Tragedy or Treason' (2017), and archive footage was used in 'The Diana Conspiracy' (2004).

I am unclear as to why his musings are afforded any weight. I guess because he played a detective on TV for a really long time?

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Social mores changed quite a bit in the intervening 30-odd years, between 1953 and 1991.

Indeed, we've gone from a king abdicating to marry a divorce to one ascending while already a divorce himself and married to another divorce that he admits he was having an affair with while both were marfied in a litgle over that time.


And the fact that Margaret was third in line to the throne at the time (shortly after a World War) would have lead to Churchill's involvement, Diana was not & never would be in line for the throne. Again though, it wasn't a deportation or exile but a posting. It's also notable that it was temporary to allow Margaret to reach 25 so she'd no longer need permission to marry and could make her own choice.

 

[arthwollipot]

You are certain?

Why?

I'm not saying you are neccessarily wrong, but I am curious as to what evidence you are privy too that makes you certain of this.

There is one really important question, and it is more important than all the other questions:

How do we know what we think we know?

This is the essence of skepticism.

 

[ahhell]

Yes, this. There's no plausible reason to think anyone would want her dead and no evidence that it was a murder rather than a car crash.

ETA: I mean, who benefits, nobody, that's who. Seriously, least plausible of conspiracy theories.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

You misunderstood something. I am not "breaking out" of anything. Nor should I.

Yes, you absolutely should. Until and unless you examine the evidence for both sides of this- or any other- claim, then you won't know the full picture, and you will be unable to determine what is true and what is not. If you are surrounded by people who tell you Diana was murdered, and you never once question that, then you are being brainwashed.

I actually think this one might be true.

Such is your right. However, so far you have not shown a single shred of evidence to support that belief. Without that, your belief is on a level with believing in Santa Claus or the fairies at the bottom of the garden. It might make you feel better, but without some factual support, it's no more than a fantasy.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

Well, here's one thing.

I think something is a lie if the attempts to "explain it away" sound really, really lame and convoluted and stupid and ridiculous and desperate. Like "Cameras break all the time! They break in jail! They break in tunnels all the time!" No, they don't.

You are persisting in the same mistake. Determining truth or lie is not a matter of 'it looks lame to me'. It is about establishing the facts of the matter. Your feelings about it are irrelevant.
Furthermore, look again at what you just posted. "Like "Cameras break all the time! They break in jail! They break in tunnels all the time!" " That is not what people here have said, nor how they have said it. That is your own cognitive biases colouring what people are saying to you, and distorting it, so that your brain doesn't have to consider what they are actually saying, and so you can handwave it away.
Think about it: Is saying that cameras can break a lie? Do you really not believe that cameras can break? Plus, I think you'll find that what people here are saying to you is that, if you claim that the cameras (and you really should take this to the proper thread, by the way) were in some way deliberately disabled, then you need to show some evidence for that. Ruling out the very mundane possibility that the cameras were indeed broken, so that you can maintain the belief that Epstein was murdered (or kidnapped or whatever) is confirmation bias. You haven't seen the cameras, have you? Beyond 'it makes me feel good cos I'm right', what have you got to demonstrate sabotage or interference? I'll wager you have nothing.
I entreat you to do some reading on critical thinking and cognitive biases. It sound kind of heavy, but it's actually a fascinating subject.
Try this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_People_Believe_Weird_Things

I also think something is a lie if it uses words like "it wouldn't have helped anyway" or "I wouldn't have done that anyway cause X, Y and Z." When even the excuse casts you in a bad light.

Remember when Clinton was accused of assaulting Kathleen Willey? His excuse was "I wouldn't have done that, cause she's got small boobs." As though assaulting a woman with large boobs is something he would have done.

Nixon tried a similar trick. "I wouldn't have spied on the party headquarters! They don't keep good intelligence at HQ anyway! Everyone knows that."

That just sounds lame. And it implies he would have gotten the "good intelligence" if he could have.

If you say so. Can we go back to the topic, please?

 

[BartholomewWest]

Yes, you absolutely should. Until and unless you examine the evidence for both sides of this- or any other- claim, then you won't know the full picture, and you will be unable to determine what is true and what is not. If you are surrounded by people who tell you Diana was murdered, and you never once question that, then you are being brainwashed.


Such is your right. However, so far you have not shown a single shred of evidence to support that belief. Without that, your belief is on a level with believing in Santa Claus or the fairies at the bottom of the garden. It might make you feel better, but without some factual support, it's no more than a fantasy.

Literally everything you said is just false. I already HAVE heard both the official story and the unofficial one. I've already heard both sides of this! I already know the "full picture." As I said, I used to (ironically) be the person arguing FOR the official story. I already questioned this multiple times. I am NOT being brainwashed at all.

A witness later committing suicide is evidence. Cameras failing to work is evidence. Previous attempts to mess with the Lover Boys and humiliate them is evidence. A history of surveillance upon Diana and these dudes is evidence.

It doesn't make me feel better AT ALL. I wish it weren't true.

Eta: Even mainstream papers said "What!? No!" at the idea that the driver was a suicidal drunk.

https://www.nytimes.com/1997/09/21/world/to-those-who-knew-diana-s-driver-his-actions-are-an-unsettling-puzzle.html

 

[Dabop]

The old 'I used to believe BUT...' we have heard all so many times before here from conspiracy believers....
Put forward the EVIDENCE- not your assertions....

You are the one making the claims, up to you to provide the evidence...