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

[Thermal]

I still think that while demanding proof is a good thing, some things can be deducted based on "I know that's how the world works."

I know that when you embarrass the powerful by banging the princess, bad things happen to you.

Dodi's dead. Barry Manakee is dead. Hewitt was sent to Germany and later Iraq. James Gilbey was put under surveillance. His phone calls were leaked to the press. A total violation of his privacy.

I still think the rich and the powerful have the ability to humiliate you at the very least!

Of course they do. People in power can abuse it, often with impunity.

But your declared topic here was Diana's crash. We discussed the CCTV cameras "mysteriously not working" and determined that was a lie, spread by conspiracy theorists.

You have held this belief for years, yes? And you never once considered whether or not it was true?

That's conspiracy theory thinking in a nutshell.

 

[arthwollipot]

I still think that while demanding proof is a good thing, some things can be deducted based on "I know that's how the world works."

But you don't know how the world works. Nobody does. The world is way more complicated than people give it credit for. There are things you don't know. There are things that nobody knows. But there are also things that you don't know but other people do. Basing conclusions on "I know that's how the world works" completely opens you up to erroneous thinking. Without checking, how do you know that's how the world works?

How do you know that what you think you know is actually real?

This is the essence of skepticicm.

 

[BartholomewWest]

Admittedly, I was 9 years old when this happened. Admittedly, I wasn't a particularly smart kid, either.

But even in 1997, cameras were literally everywhere! The mall certainly had them. Even back then, it was like living in Orwell's 1984. Look at how many were in Fayed's hotel. Even the kitchen clock was equipped with one.

I just can't imagine the French government NOT installing them everywhere, given that even the owners of a rural shopping mall could! And did.

 

[arthwollipot]

I just can't imagine the French government NOT installing them everywhere, given that even the owners of a rural shopping mall could! And did.

That's a failure of your imagination, not of the French government or the Royal family.

 

[Thermal]

Admittedly, I was 9 years old when this happened. Admittedly, I wasn't a particularly smart kid, either.

But even in 1997, cameras were literally everywhere! The mall certainly had them. Even back then, it was like living in Orwell's 1984. Look at how many were in Fayed's hotel. Even the kitchen clock was equipped with one.

I just can't imagine the French government NOT installing them everywhere, given that even the owners of a rural shopping mall could! And did.

Note your examples are all private property. Individuals were buying their own small personal systems long before governments were buying them for widespread public surveillance.

And what you are doing now is called an Argument from Incredulity. Just because you can't believe it doesn't mean thats how it is.

Are there any reports of Paris having such surveillance in 1997? If not, you should assume your assumptions are in error.

 

[junkshop]

Admittedly, I was 9 years old when this happened. Admittedly, I wasn't a particularly smart kid, either.

But even in 1997, cameras were literally everywhere! The mall certainly had them. Even back then, it was like living in Orwell's 1984. Look at how many were in Fayed's hotel. Even the kitchen clock was equipped with one.

I just can't imagine the French government NOT installing them everywhere, given that even the owners of a rural shopping mall could! And did.

Your being unable to imagine a thing has no bearing on anything that may or may not have actually happened.

Reality cares not a jot for any beliefs or imaginings or ideologies, be they yours, mine, the majority's or the minority's. Be they left, right, centrist, traditional, revolutionary, weird or common sense.

Reality just is. That can't be wished or argued away.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Admittedly, I was 9 years old when this happened. Admittedly, I wasn't a particularly smart kid, either.

But even in 1997, cameras were literally everywhere! The mall certainly had them. Even back then, it was like living in Orwell's 1984. Look at how many were in Fayed's hotel. Even the kitchen clock was equipped with one.

I just can't imagine the French government NOT installing them everywhere, given that even the owners of a rural shopping mall could! And did.

So you don't know what cameras were there at the time but you know they were turned off?

Why don't you find out what cameras instead of guessing?

 

[MarkCorrigan]

I still think that while demanding proof is a good thing, some things can be deducted based on "I know that's how the world works."

Just no. That isn't how reality functions at all. You can't deduce something based entirely off your own opinion, even if your opinion is rooted in solid knowledge and let me tell you that yours is not.

 

[arthwollipot]

"The universe is not governed by individual perception. It matters what's true."

- Capt. Ed Mercer, The Orville

 

[BartholomewWest]

I STILL think that fishy things happened to her while she was still alive, like Morton's office being broken into. I know offices don't magically ransack themselves!

Is it possible Morton is lying to drive up sales of his book? Yeah. He has a motive to paint himself as a heroic victim. Is it possible that a regular old robber snuck in? Maybe.

Still, I think it was the royals or a spy agency. Or both.

If you think they don't do shady things, I mean, there's a lovely bridge in Brooklyn that's for sale that I'd love to give you.

 

[arthwollipot]

Tell me, @BartholomewWest, did you watch the comedy sketch that was posted at the beginning of the thread? It quite effectively shows why the conspiracy theory is bat ◊◊◊◊ insane.

 

[junkshop]

I STILL think that fishy things happened to her while she was still alive, like Morton's office being broken into.

Why?

Is it possible Morton is lying to drive up sales of his book? Yeah. He has a motive to paint himself as a heroic victim. Is it possible that a regular old robber snuck in? Maybe.

OK, this is good, you are being sceptical...

Still, I think it was the royals or a spy agency. Or both.

Why?

If you think they don't do shady things, I mean, there's a lovely bridge in Brooklyn that's for sale that I'd love to give you.

Nah, you're good. We've got too many bridges as it is. That's why you guys have got that old one in Arizona.

 

[BartholomewWest]

Tell me, @BartholomewWest, did you watch the comedy sketch that was posted at the beginning of the thread? It quite effectively shows why the conspiracy theory is bat ◊◊◊◊ insane.

Yeah, I watched it. But people could have said the same thing about Nixon. "Why would he be dumb enough to send known terrorists into a place that's already bugged to win an election that was his for the taking anyway, to draw attention to the bribes he's taking from Howard Hughes!?"

But that's exactly what happened.

 

[Thermal]

I STILL think that fishy things happened to her while she was still alive, like Morton's office being broken into. I know offices don't magically ransack themselves!

Is it possible Morton is lying to drive up sales of his book? Yeah. He has a motive to paint himself as a heroic victim. Is it possible that a regular old robber snuck in? Maybe.

Still, I think it was the royals or a spy agency. Or both.

If you think they don't do shady things, I mean, there's a lovely bridge in Brooklyn that's for sale that I'd love to give you.

Nobody is questioning whether "they" do shady things. So does my plumber, on his scale. So do I. So what? It doesn't remotely indicate that there was anything suspicious about her car accident.

Which is what you are insisting here.

 

[BartholomewWest]

They had a motive. Even several. This woman was an embarrassment. She would run her mouth to Morton about what a scumbag Charles was. Martin Bashir, too. She would sleep with every man who would have her. She allegedly would even stalk one and harass his wife. She was bulimic and suicidal and would do stuff like throwing herself down the stairs while pregnant. Not dignified behavior. She also twice dated a Muslim guy. They can't have that. Especially when he's a bum like Dodi. You could tell Dodi was a creep just by looking at him! At least that Khan guy was a heart surgeon and therefore somewhat respectable, I suppose.

She was also against land mines. Anyone who goes after the military industrial complex gets...uhm, well, you can't do that. Let's just put it that way.

 

[Thermal]

They had a motive. This woman was an embarrassment. She would run her mouth to Morton about what a scumbag Charles was. Martin Bashir, too. She would sleep with every man who would have her. She allegedly would even stalk one and harass his wife.

So? Perceiving a possible motive might be reason to look for evidence in that direction, nothing more.

Whaddaya got that shows steps successfully taken to do this supposed hit? So far, I haven't heard a single thing. Just speculation based on how you think people are, and therefore murder.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Well he seems like a delusional fantasist and/or grifter who joined forces with the other delusional fantasist Al Fayed, and the "really bad things" were that he lost his job and wasn't allowed to get royalties for his book for a period.

Colour me deeply unimpressed.

Also even if his "bright lights" idea was indeed something that MI6 considered doing, he provides no evidence that it is actually possible and he provides no evidence it could have been used on Diana let alone that it was.

One lone nut who did indeed work for MI6 does not evidence make.

Also further reading that article indicates that he walked back his own nonsense later:

"At the Coroner's Inquest into the death of the Princess, on 13 February 2008, speaking by video-link from France, Tomlinson conceded that, after the interval of 16 or 17 years, he "could not remember specifically" whether the document he had seen during 1992 had in fact proposed the use of a strobe light to cause a traffic accident as a means of assassinating Milošević, although use of lights for this purpose had been covered in his MI6 training. On being told that no MI6 file on Henri Paul had been found, Tomlinson said that it "would be absurd after 17 years to say I can positively disagree with it, but... I do not think the fact that they did not manage to find a file rules out anything either". He said he believed MI6 had an informant at the Paris Ritz but he could not be certain that this person was necessarily Henri Paul."

So absolutely no evidence for any of his nonsense at all.



In what universe is that the simplest answer?

Well BartholomewWest?

 

[junkshop]

They had a motive. This woman was an embarrassment. She would run her mouth to Morton about what a scumbag Charles was. Martin Bashir, too.

We have a long and storied history of ridiculing, disparaging and casting aspersions on the legitimacy or fidelity of our royal family. Nothing Diana did or was accused of doing was novel.

She would sleep with every man who would have her.

Again, not a novel accusation to be levelled at a royal. The idea that the the royal family were paragons of virtue is not, and never has been taken seriously in the UK.

Maybe look into the history of people named 'Fitzroy'. It was so normal that it was formalised.

 

[BartholomewWest]

It was considered normal when kings made bastards.

Not when the woman did it. And not when she did it with an Arab and a Muslim (admittedly, Dodi was only culturally Muslim.)

And an Arab Muslim who was a gross-looking gold digger.

 

[Thermal]

Ok, you're drawing dots all over the map. Any actual evidence to connect them? Any theories on how The Watertight Hit was planned and executed?