• 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?

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...
You were 100% proven wrong and the fact that you refuse to admit it goes to show that there is little point in arguing with you because you aren't discussing it in good faith.

Even if, for the sake of argument, he had been "sent to Germany to get him away from Diana" as you claim (and by the way "Everyone on the face of the planet" does not believe that), he still would not have been "deported" as you claimed because that isn't what the word deport means.

Here is the dictionary definition of "deport":
verb

  1. 1.
    expel (a foreigner) from a country, typically on the grounds of illegal status or for having committed a crime.
    "he was deported for violation of immigration laws"
Click to expand...
A member of the military getting orders to report to a command overseas IS NOT and never has been "deportation", which is what YOU CLAIMED.
You were proven wrong conclusively, and you are simply stubbornly refusing to admit it now.
 
Last edited:
Darat said:
Drunk driver has an accident. Sadly, nothing at all unusual.
Click to expand...
This is the ultimately the real reason. Deadly traffic accidents are all too common, and often they involve drunk drivers.

I don't want to throw around fancy words like "Bayesian inference", but it is applicable to this case.

A pithy analogy is that when you hear the sound of hooves clopping, what is more likely, that you are hearing a horse or a zebra? Well, unless you happen to be in Africa, it's probably a horse, not a zebra. If you are in Africa, that changes the odds.
 
Puppycow said:
You were 100% proven wrong and the fact that you refuse to admit it goes to show that there is little point in arguing with you because you aren't discussing it in good faith.

Even if, for the sake of argument, he had been "sent to Germany to get him away from Diana" as you claim (and by the way "Everyone on the face of the planet" does not believe that), he still would not have been "deported" as you claimed because that isn't what the word deport means.

Here is the dictionary definition of "deport":

A member of the military getting orders to report to a command overseas IS NOT and never has been "deportation", which is what YOU CLAIMED.
You were proven wrong conclusively, and you are simply stubbornly refusing to admit it now.
Click to expand...

No, dude. I was 100 percent correct about Hewitt and you are just arguing over semantics.

There is no way his assignment/exile/deportation/promotion/whatever to Germany was "just a coincidence."
 
BartholomewWest said:
No, dude. I was 100 percent correct about Hewitt and you are just arguing over semantics.

There is no way his assignment/exile/deportation/promotion/whatever to Germany was "just a coincidence."
Click to expand...
You have posted a number of things you believe, that are provably false. You should reflect on this. The way you're going about deciding what to believe and what to disbelieve clearly isn't working. You yourself admit you are confused, and that you don't know what to believe. There is a way out of this, and you're in the right place to find it- if you are willing. You can learn a lot here about scientific scepticism and critical thinking, and this will really benefit you.
Your other option, of course, is to refuse to even consider the need to reevaluate your reasoning processes, stubbornly keep believing in things that aren't true, and continue- as you are here- to spread your mistaken beliefs around the internet.
Personally, I'd go with the first option, but hey, everyone's different.
 
I am "confused" because this story is just so weird and complicated and takes so many twists and turns.

Not because I doubt conspiracies per se. After all, MKultra happened and so did Watergate and so did the Bay of Pigs fiasco.
 
BartholomewWest said:
No, dude. I was 100 percent correct about Hewitt and you are just arguing over semantics.

There is no way his assignment/exile/deportation/promotion/whatever to Germany was "just a coincidence."
Click to expand...
And what makes you so sure that there is "no way" that it was "just a coincidence"?
 
arthwollipot said:
What you're doing is called "Anomaly Hunting". You set out to look for strange coincidences, and of course when you actively look for something like that, you tend to find them.

For example: Diana went on many peoples' shows. Did they all lose their show? Why not?
Click to expand...

No, not at all. I actually ventured into this as a non-believer!

Edited by Darat: 
Breach of Rule 11 removed.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
BartholomewWest said:
No, not at all. I actually ventured into this as a non-believer!
Click to expand...
Irrelevant. Anomaly Hunting is how you make spurious correlations between unrelated events. Anomaly hunters begin the hunt with the conclusion and look for the weird things that must be happening if it were true.

You didn't come up with all of these "strange" coincidences by yourself. I'm sure you read about them on blogs, or were told about them on YouTube videos or something. The actual originators of these theories are lost in time - most of them were first expressed shortly after Diana's death. But you've seen all of these people saying these things, a lot of different apparently "independent" (but not really) sources, and come to the conclusion that there is a consistent narrative behind them. Even if every anomalous event you have cited is absolutely true, there's no evidence of that narrative. And it's evidence that counts, not anomalies.
 
BartholomewWest said:
No, not at all. I actually ventured into this as a non-believer!

When the late Dominick Dunne, for example, accused the Reagan government of murder, I would roll my eyes and laugh. I thought Dunne was a nut. My reaction was "Oh, come on!"
Click to expand...

This is another example of where you're going wrong. Your reactions, as described here, are purely emotional. That is not a good way to judge if something is true or false. A better approach would have been to look at the evidence for that claim, and then form a conclusion based on the facts.
BartholomewWest said:
Now I know better.
Click to expand...

No, you don't. You've just fixed on a set of beliefs, regardless of the facts, and subsequently refused to reassess or question those beliefs. This is confirmation bias in action, and it is leading you astray.
BartholomewWest said:
By the way, I am surprised more people haven't had that trajectory!
Click to expand...

Has it occurred to you that it's your thinking that's at fault, not everyone else's?
Sceptics, on this forum or elsewhere, will not follow that trajectory because reacting from emotion, and not looking at the evidence, is not the sceptical way. The results speak for themselves: several of the things you believe are true have been proven categorically false. This is not the case with the forum members engaging with you here. Not one of their claims has been presented without evidence, and none of them have been proven false. Think about that.
 
BartholomewWest said:
Previously, she had assumed that Juanita
Broderickwas a right-wing conspiracy. Hitchens' articles about Juanita made her reassess that completely! She started asking herself "What else did I dismiss as a right-wing conspiracy!?"
Click to expand...

That isn't her name. Her surname is actually Broaddrick. It's a small point, but worth making: your grasp of the facts is shaky at best. If you can't even get the names right, how accurate do you think your relating of these events is? Your credibility is suffering because you're not checking your facts.
 
BartholomewWest said:
Cause other unusual things happen to people who cross the powerful.
Click to expand...
And coincidences never happen to people who cross the powerful? They only happen to the rest of us?

(Also, I can think of a lot of worse places to be sent than Germany if you are in the military and powerful people want to teach you a lesson.)
 
Last edited:
Breach of Rule 11
Sigh. I will be generous here and admit that Diana's car crash was perhaps something we could put in the "maybe" category.

Edited by Darat: 
Breach of Rule 11 removed.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
BartholomewWest said:
But that's not what happened. At all.
Click to expand...
This thread could use a bit more of this.

Then maybe we wouldn't have had you telling us how inconceivable and suspicious it was that Paris would have 12 traffic cameras which just mysteriously happened to malfunction at the convenient moment to blah blah, when in reality that is not what happened, at all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom