Joe Random
Illuminator
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2005
- Messages
- 3,428
Save time and put that in your copy/paste buffer.
Ed Does anyone here believe that Princess Diana's car crash was suspicious?
- Thread starter BartholomewWest
- Start date
-
- Tags
- princess diana
Save time and put that in your copy/paste buffer.
PookieBear
Banned
I still think it is super-strange that one of the paparazzi ended up on fire with holes through his head. And the others were victims of theft and burglary.
If memory serves, even Vanity Fair wrote an article about that and they are hardly supermarket rags.
If memory serves, even Vanity Fair wrote an article about that and they are hardly supermarket rags.
BartholomewWest
Banned
You really are a fool if you think I can't memorize whole pages of books word for word - verbatim.
My wife can attest to my accuracy. I even do it blindfolded in front of her.
Thermal
August Member
An ant can walk right through a one inch crevice in a mountain. An elephant eventually will but slowly, laboriously, and teduously, exhausting itself.
Some things don't scale, ducky, and small and lower tech move faster faster faster. That's why government to this day works with civilian contractors. We are faster and more versatile than the bloated, overcomplicated and lazy government.
What you are seeing with "spying" is that it is cheap fast and easy to do on the low end. At the scale of nation's it's slow, compllicated, and laboriously built over the decades. That's why your pal with a PC maybe could hack you (but odds are he is 99.99% in Fantasy Land and couldn't hack my daughter's iPad password), but a government takes exponentially longer than an individual business to wire its security up.
Last edited:
Thermal
August Member
Then attribute it when you post it, not after you are caught plagarizing. If you read your membership agreement, that was spelled out.
Axxman300
Philosopher
Cool, then you know the "20-Year Rule" where classified materials are generally declassified after 20 years. So it's easy to track down US spy satellite technologies from 1997. While it was probably ten years ahead of civilian technologies in 1997 it was not the super-duper gee whiz tech you'd have seen in the Tom Clancy movies of the day.
Axxman300
Philosopher
No, he's arguing that that the Hotel Ritz Paris, being a private business and 5-star luxury hotel had more resources at its disposal for things like CCT camera systems than the French government did at the time. As others had stated, Paris had CCT cameras in priority locations, but it was not all encompassing.
The Hotel Ritz Paris, on the other hand, saw a need for extensive CCT coverage throughout the hotel. A quick check of their website shows their rooms start a 2,000 Euros, or $2,072 per night. That tells me everything I need to know about their guests, and the expectations of security on property. I assume these rates in 1997 were comparable. The Ritz's cameras were top of the line, way above what a standard business would use (in 1997 most were black and white).
I'll point out that Luigi Mangione was able to vanish in Manhattan, and leave NY undetected in spite of the thousands of cameras, private and city, between the crime scene and the bus station. The idea that The Gub'Mint can watch your every move at random, or even at will is mostly a myth.
Cosmic Yak
Philosopher
Orwellian? You have absolutely no idea what that means.
This footage is available to the public: it's on YouTube, FFS. In what way do you imagine (and yes, I mean imagine: the entirety of your argument here is based on feverish paranoid imagination, not on facts or reasoning, something you seem strangely proud of) that this CCTV camera was used to control people? What negative effects have there been from this camera in the lift? Who has been oppressed?
Thermal
August Member
But Luigi was caught due to that same footage. That's the benefit of surveillance video: it aids heavy in investigation.
Mangione got out of NYC because he moved fast. By the time police figured out what had happened and who they were looking for, he was over the bridge.
Staggering back to the topic, let's assume (despite the facts known to all but one poster) that from the moment photography was invented, the streets of Paris were plastered with cameras (before that, they had French painters doing fast oils of the city scenes; its how Impressionism evolved). What would these cameras have seen that BartholomewWest feels is so critical?
Would it have shown a team of French assassins slowly rolling the Mercedes into the tunnel, then rolling it over to make it look like it wrecked, presumably after tickling the occupants to death?
Last edited:
PookieBear
Banned
It's a total invasion of privacy.
You wouldn't want a stranger watching you in the elevator. Imagine if a random dude followed you around and saw your every move. That would be a problem.
But it isn't a problem cause, what, tech is involved?
Cosmic Yak
Philosopher
Let me see if I've got this straight.
In the mid-1990's, the French government secretly installed hundreds of surveillance cameras around Paris, some 20 years before they had actually started setting them up, and presumably using technology far in advance of what was possible back then. Wishing for Diana to be killed in their city, they disabled those cameras that could have filmed the car and what happened to it. To ensure Diana was killed, they used one of their own spies to carry out a suicide mission, paying him $200,000 in installments over a number of years, to compensate him. The NSA, the CIA and the FBI were also all spying on Diana. Charles, then Prince of Wales, ordered the hit on Diana using powers he did not possess, in a fashion that was risky and not guaranteed to work, in a country where he had no juristiction, in league with the French, British and American intelligence services, because his ex-wife was dating a Muslim. Charles then went on the rampage, exiling and/or killing anyone associated with Diana. He also got British intelligence to spy on anyone suspected of having been a lover of his ex, and used this information to exact his revenge. Quite why the intelligence services of three countries would co-operate in this personal vendetta is not clear.
Well, heck, none of this is clear.
I supsect this only makes sense to the hopelessly confused and paranoid, because it makes bugger-all sense to me.
In the mid-1990's, the French government secretly installed hundreds of surveillance cameras around Paris, some 20 years before they had actually started setting them up, and presumably using technology far in advance of what was possible back then. Wishing for Diana to be killed in their city, they disabled those cameras that could have filmed the car and what happened to it. To ensure Diana was killed, they used one of their own spies to carry out a suicide mission, paying him $200,000 in installments over a number of years, to compensate him. The NSA, the CIA and the FBI were also all spying on Diana. Charles, then Prince of Wales, ordered the hit on Diana using powers he did not possess, in a fashion that was risky and not guaranteed to work, in a country where he had no juristiction, in league with the French, British and American intelligence services, because his ex-wife was dating a Muslim. Charles then went on the rampage, exiling and/or killing anyone associated with Diana. He also got British intelligence to spy on anyone suspected of having been a lover of his ex, and used this information to exact his revenge. Quite why the intelligence services of three countries would co-operate in this personal vendetta is not clear.
Well, heck, none of this is clear.
I supsect this only makes sense to the hopelessly confused and paranoid, because it makes bugger-all sense to me.
BartholomewWest
Banned
I've always attributed articles to the primary holders and I've used my own words!
arthwollipot
Limerick Purist
You forgot the part where Charles was ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ his valet.
BartholomewWest
Banned
Even though I think you are wrong, I admit that made me laugh hysterically
The youtube is a joke -- an amusing* music video -- as is evident 3 seconds in. Not to mention my absurd teaser. And yet here you are taking it seriously. Maybe it's a good idea to check stuff out before rendering opinions.
* He is an outstanding musician though.
Last edited:
Cosmic Yak
Philosopher
@BartholomewWest : Why don't you lay it out for us? What do you think happened to Diana, how was it done, and what evidence do you have to support that? Thus far, we've got a meandering stream of consciousness, with no coherent theory or story to bring it all together.
Matthew Best
Penultimate Amazing
Inconceivable? You use this word, but I do not think it means what you think it means.
Matthew Best
Penultimate Amazing
Your sex life is your own affair. No need to tell us about it.
BartholomewWest
Banned
I still think it might not have been an ordinary crash. It is somewhat possible that one (or more) of the paparazzi was a spy. Maybe they chased her to death on purpose. They could have been in on it. Maybe yet another guy on a motorbike blinded her driver.
As for Henri Paul's role in this, yes, it could have been a suicide mission. Or it could have been a coincidence that he just so happened to be a spy. Either way, the case for him being a spy is pretty strong. Even his own best friend said so.
There are 2 issues here, actually. One is the crash itself. The other is the other strange stuff, like Hewitt being sent away and Gilbey having his private calls leaked to the press. Regarding issue #1, maybe it was a crash and maybe it wasn't. Regarding issue #2- holy moly, that is incontrovertible. Of course Charles and his parents were behind it. I've never seen anyone doubt that, even people who aren't into conspiracies.
You underestimate how powerful surveillance is. I have a criminal record. I once had to go to New York from Pennsylvania by train.
The cops knew I was on. They created a distraction and yanked me off the train and interrogated me for hours.
Another story about this. I used to know a guy who was Swedish but of Polish parentage. He went to an elite school and got accepted to Cambridge, IIRC. Once he arrived in Britain, however, his bank account was frozen. He was left penniless in a foreign nation where he knew no one. His parents sought to find out why. The reason was jaw-dropping. Apparently, he had been on a terrorist watch list. To this day, I can't imagine why. He was a regular prep school snob. He was blonde and blue-eyed, too. How could this mistake have happened?
The only thing I can think of is that he experimented with right-wing politics while in high school in Sweden. Maybe he was a Libertarian or something at one point? Apparently, that's enough to get you detained in Britain.
Or maybe he had Muslim friends in Sweden at one point? God knows what happened.
As for Henri Paul's role in this, yes, it could have been a suicide mission. Or it could have been a coincidence that he just so happened to be a spy. Either way, the case for him being a spy is pretty strong. Even his own best friend said so.
There are 2 issues here, actually. One is the crash itself. The other is the other strange stuff, like Hewitt being sent away and Gilbey having his private calls leaked to the press. Regarding issue #1, maybe it was a crash and maybe it wasn't. Regarding issue #2- holy moly, that is incontrovertible. Of course Charles and his parents were behind it. I've never seen anyone doubt that, even people who aren't into conspiracies.
You underestimate how powerful surveillance is. I have a criminal record. I once had to go to New York from Pennsylvania by train.
The cops knew I was on. They created a distraction and yanked me off the train and interrogated me for hours.
Another story about this. I used to know a guy who was Swedish but of Polish parentage. He went to an elite school and got accepted to Cambridge, IIRC. Once he arrived in Britain, however, his bank account was frozen. He was left penniless in a foreign nation where he knew no one. His parents sought to find out why. The reason was jaw-dropping. Apparently, he had been on a terrorist watch list. To this day, I can't imagine why. He was a regular prep school snob. He was blonde and blue-eyed, too. How could this mistake have happened?
The only thing I can think of is that he experimented with right-wing politics while in high school in Sweden. Maybe he was a Libertarian or something at one point? Apparently, that's enough to get you detained in Britain.
Or maybe he had Muslim friends in Sweden at one point? God knows what happened.
Last edited:
Cosmic Yak
Philosopher
Then provide your evidence. This is just speculation.
Why would he do this? Why would the French intelligence services do this?
Do you have any evidence for this claim? If so, please post it.
Still not true, no matter how many times you say it. Look at the evidence.
No. This is just you anomaly hunting. None of this "strange stuff" is relevant. Nor, for that matter is it especially strange.
That is obviously not true. Everyone you are interacting with here doubts it. Also, argumentum ad populem.
You have yet to substantiate this claim with anything resembling evidence. Do you have any? If so, please post it.
Please. Try. To. Focus.