• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

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

Carrot Flower King said:
As already addressed: Chucky wasn't any of "head of the country" or "head of the military" or "literally the head of the armed forces" at the time in question; the same "clan" has not "ruled for 800 years".

The regimental colonel of the Life Guards at the time in question was Major-General Lord Michael Fitzalan-Howard, the younger brother of the 17th Duke of Norfolk, a family of English aristocracy far older than upstart newcomers like the Saxe-Coburg Gothas.

FFS, our local robber baron descendants, the Percies (y'know, Harry Hotspur in several Shakespeare plays was one), not to mention others like the Nevilles and Tankervilles, have been around the English scene far, far longer than the Saxe-Coburg Gotha/Windsors or the Hanoverians.

Seriously, try learning some basics of history.
Click to expand...
Indeed, the Duke of Norfolk is also, iirc, Earl of Arundel as recorded in the couplet

Since William rose & Harold fell
There has sat an Earl at Arundel.
 
BartholomewWest said:
...Who died in a different incident in which "all of the cameras failed."
Click to expand...
OK. You still seem to be relying on this "all the cameras failed" as being suspicious. You have presented no evidence, so I dug some up.

No cameras were reported to have failed on the night of Diana's death. None. Zero. Nada. The French investigators released this finding, which appears to be the source of the conspiracy theory. From Lieutenant Eric Gigou of the Brigade Criminelle:

"...the team identified ten locations of CCTV cameras. None of these had any images relevant to the inquiry, since they were principally security cameras facing the entrances to buildings. Most of the cameras were not maintained by the City of Paris; the owners of the buildings to which they were attached operated them privately. There was a traffic-monitoring camera above the underpass in the Place de l'Alma itself but this was under the control of la Compagnie de Circulation Urbaine de Paris (Paris Urban Traffic Unit). That department closed down at about 11 p.m., had no night duty staff and made no recordings."

{ETA: forgot to add sauce: http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/news/nol/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/14_12_06_diana_report.pdf , see chapter 5, CCTV Traffic Cameras in Paris}

You may still find this suspicious, because "how could no cameras pick this event up?" I hate to break it to you man, but in 1997, cameras were not flipping everywhere like they are today. Diana's crash happened pre-"Global War on Terrorism", and surveillance was not nearly as robust as it is since you've reached adulthood.

So before you go any further, I'm asking you to address this. You have referenced it several times, as if it were significant and suspicious, yet it appears to be wholly imaginary. Are you basing your beliefs on a ride on the Imagination Train?
 
Last edited:
BartholomewWest said:
It wasn't proven wrong. At all. Everyone on the face of the planet assumed Hewitt was sent to Germany to get him away from Diana.

Except for members of this forum. And Hewitt.
Click to expand...
No, most people don't even pretend to understand the reasonings. Maybe intentional, maybe coincidental, maybe it was "in the works" to station him or someone of similar ability there anyway, and some underling thought "might as well be Hewitt, he's kind of a thorn in our side right now anyway".

Full-tilt grown-ups don't think they can assume why people do things, and treat it as factual. That's for the gals at the gossip table.
 
Last edited:
BartholomewWest said:
Another thing. It's true that when reporters initially report on an event, they will get it wrong. That the first draft of history is often incorrect.

However, with the passage of time, this already murky story has gotten even murkier! Even more twists and turns pile on and each one is more bizarre than the next.

Like, at one point, the NSA revealed that they were spying on Diana but wouldn't say why and wouldn't release the documents.
Click to expand...
The NSA is not particularly shy about how they keep an eye on people in positions of power and influence.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
How did 'MI5' make certain she wouldn't put her seatbelt on? Walk us through the plan.
Click to expand...

I was simply pointing out simple logic. In response to people who claim "Prince Philip or Charles wanted to have Princess Diana bumped off", the usual response is, 'She died because she failed to do up her seatbelt" without realising that it doesn't disprove the first belief at all.

That is all I was pointing out. The 'failed to do up her seatbelt' brigade do not ipso facto disprove the 'Charles wanted her topped' one.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom