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

[Cosmic Yak]

It's a total invasion of privacy.

You don't have privacy when you're in a public space.

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.

They aren't random people. CCTV is there to detect and prevent crime. It is monitored by security staff, in the case of the Ritz hotel. It is only in place in public places: hotel bedrooms in the Ritz are not under camera surveillance.

But it isn't a problem cause, what, tech is involved?

No, it isn't a problem because you are mischaracterising the use and intent of CCTV. I'll repeat the question I asked your husband: what evidence do you have that the security footage in the Ritz was used for some nefarious purpose?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

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.

You might impress us more with your claim of perfect recall if you hadn't already made claims which were wildly exaggerated.

 

[BartholomewWest]

It needn't have been used for "nefarious purposes."

It's an invasion of privacy nevertheless.

Here is a general observation about cameras. Imagine the camera weren't tech but a human being. Imagine a human being recording every single word of your conversation in an elevator. Or a restaurant. Or a laundromat. You would be infuriated at the rudeness of that alone.

And yet, when tech does the exact same thing, people just accept it. Though it's really no different from having a man do that to you, day in and day out.

Is this point really lost on you?

 

[zooterkin]

It needn't have been used for "nefarious purposes."

It's an invasion of privacy nevertheless.

Here is a general observation about cameras. Imagine the camera weren't tech but a human being. Imagine a human being recording every single word of your conversation in an elevator. Or a restaurant. Or a laundromat. You would be infuriated at the rudeness of that alone.

And yet, when tech does the exact same thing, people just accept it. Though it's really no different from having a man do that to you, day in and day out.

Is this point really lost on you?

Could you stick to the topic? Evidence that Diana was killed deliberately, please. If you want to talk about the surveillance society, start a thread about that.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Who are you talking to?

If you use the 'quote' or 'reply' functions, then it is easier for others to know what you are responding to.

I don't think it will make it make any more sense though.

 

[Vixen]

@bartholmewwest is correct: there were said to be CCTV cameras in the tunnel - 14 of them - although it is not clear whether they had the ability to play back recordings - as of the time of the accident.

Absence of CCTV imagesAccording to The Independent newspaper in 2006, there were more than 14 CCTV cameras in the Pont de l'Alma underpass, though none recorded footage of the fatal collision.
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Conspiracy_theories_a...

 

[zooterkin]

@bartholmewwest is correct: there were said to be CCTV cameras in the tunnel - 14 of them - although it is not clear whether they had the ability to play back recordings - as of the time of the accident.

Is there any source that backs up that assertion, made in 2006, nine years after the event? The official report at the time of the incident did not say so, it refers to ten cameras, on the route, not in the tunnel, that were mostly security cameras facing buildings, not the road. You'd assume they would be aware of any cameras in the underpass.

 

[zooterkin]

@bartholmewwest is correct: there were said to be CCTV cameras in the tunnel - 14 of them - although it is not clear whether they had the ability to play back recordings - as of the time of the accident.

And if we're going to use incredulity, that favoured tool of CTists, why would there be 14 CCTV cameras in an underpass that's only 150m long?

 

[Vixen]

Is there any source that backs up that assertion, made in 2006, nine years after the event? The official report at the time of the incident did not say so, it refers to ten cameras, on the route, not in the tunnel, that were mostly security cameras facing buildings, not the road. You'd assume they would be aware of any cameras in the underpass.

According to the archived article, Fayed seems to be the source but traffic cameras in a central metropolitan area is hardly indicative of a 'conspiracy theory' a widely misused term for 'speculation', 'uncertainty', 'news', 'disagreement', or 'query'. A proper conspiracy theory has to have a beginning, a middle and an end, complete with full explanation. Asking whether there were any bog standard common or garden traffic cameras in central Paris in a tunnel is hardly a conspiracy theory. Another instance of where words have lost their meaning.

CCTV images
Mohammed Fayed stated in 2003 that there were about ten video cameras on the route taken by the Mercedes, including one on the entrance to the tunnel itself, but there are no recordings from any of these for the night in question. The Independent also stated in 2006 that there are more than 14 CCTV cameras in the Pont de l'Alma underpass, but none recorded footage of the fatal collision.

Princess Diana's death: the conspiracy theories | Ghostarchive

ghostarchive.org

.

 

[Vixen]

And if we're going to use incredulity, that favoured tool of CTists, why would there be 14 CCTV cameras in an underpass that's only 150m long?

You can read about the humble traffic camera here. Hardly as rare as hens teeth or little green men from Mars.

Traffic camera - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Matthew Best]

OK, so where is this 2006 Independent article that says there were 14 cameras? Are you going to provide it?

 

[Andy_Ross]

It needn't have been used for "nefarious purposes."

It's an invasion of privacy nevertheless.

Here is a general observation about cameras. Imagine the camera weren't tech but a human being. Imagine a human being recording every single word of your conversation in an elevator. Or a restaurant. Or a laundromat. You would be infuriated at the rudeness of that alone.

And yet, when tech does the exact same thing, people just accept it. Though it's really no different from having a man do that to you, day in and day out.

Is this point really lost on you?

So stay at a different hotel.

I can recommend several good ones that don't have cameras in the lifts.They don't even have lifts.

 

[Andy_Ross]

@bartholmewwest is correct: there were said to be CCTV cameras in the tunnel - 14 of them - although it is not clear whether they had the ability to play back recordings - as of the time of the accident.

He's not correct, there weren't 15 cameras in the tunnel.

Why are you repeating his lies?

 

[Vixen]

OK, so where is this 2006 Independent article that says there were 14 cameras? Are you going to provide it?

Here you go:

The CCTV cameras

There were more than 14 CCTV cameras in the Pont d'Alma underpass, yet none have recorded footage of the fatal collision.

Sources have claimed that they were turned to face the wall, or were simply switched off. The official French judicial enquiry into the crash was told that none of the cameras were working.

However, one motorist received a speeding ticket after being caught on a nearby camera 15 minutes before the accident.

Diana: Just a car crash or a murder mystery?

Former Scotland Yard chief Lord Stevens will today reveal his long-awaited report into the death of the Princess of Wales. But will it silence the conspiracy theorists? Guy Adams reports

www.independent.co.uk

So how did the errant speeding motorist get a ticket when caught on a nearby camera 15-minutes prior to the accident?

 

[catsmate]

Out of curiosity, does anyone here believe that Princess Diana's car crash was, for lack of a better word, suspicious?

No of course not, the idea is idiotic.

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

I actually think this one might be true.

That says much about you.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Here you go:

Diana: Just a car crash or a murder mystery?

Former Scotland Yard chief Lord Stevens will today reveal his long-awaited report into the death of the Princess of Wales. But will it silence the conspiracy theorists? Guy Adams reports

www.independent.co.uk

So how did the errant speeding motorist get a ticket when caught on a nearby camera 15-minutes prior to the accident?

It just repeats Fayed's claims.

Where is the evidence for these 14 cameras in the tunnel?

As for a speeding ticket.

At the time speed cameras were old fashioned still image film cameras. They took a photo of a car that triggered the speed sensor and the film was collected and processed in a lab.
They were not video cameras.

 

[catsmate]

@bartholmewwest is correct: there were said to be CCTV cameras in the tunnel - 14 of them - although it is not clear whether they had the ability to play back recordings - as of the time of the accident.

Yet again you're insinuating conspiratorial nonsense.
You cite a newspaper story, but neither it, nor you, provide any evidence to support the assertions.
Traffic cameras, of which there was one at the Place de l'Alma ,were unmonitored and unrecorded. This would have been common as sch cameras were used for daytime traffic management.

Grow up.

 

[catsmate]

If you read the declassified material of numerous intelligence agencies, you’ll notice that there is a rule of thumb, that the most heavily funded government agencies and/or government programs, are ten years ahead of the general public at large. I won’t cite a source because there are potential legal ramifications to viewing not only declassified material but classified material as well (on what is notoriously known as: The Dark Web)

Bollocks. Like most people you demonstrate little understanding of technology and technological development and are attempting to hide your conspiratorial nonsense behind mythical "sources".

 

[zooterkin]

According to the archived article, Fayed seems to be the source but traffic cameras in a central metropolitan area is hardly indicative of a 'conspiracy theory' a widely misused term for 'speculation', 'uncertainty', 'news', 'disagreement', or 'query'. A proper conspiracy theory has to have a beginning, a middle and an end, complete with full explanation. Asking whether there were any bog standard common or garden traffic cameras in central Paris in a tunnel is hardly a conspiracy theory. Another instance of where words have lost their meaning.

Princess Diana's death: the conspiracy theories | Ghostarchive

ghostarchive.org

.

Um, no. Fayed is confirming 10 cameras on the route, which is also what the official report said, not 14 cameras in the underpass.

As for the rest of your wittering, I'm at a loss as to your point. No-one is denying the presence of some CCTV cameras at the time, merely that they were not as ubiquitous as they are nowadays.

 

[zooterkin]

You can read about the humble traffic camera here. Hardly as rare as hens teeth or little green men from Mars.

Traffic camera - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Do try to retain some sort of connection to reality. Yes, we know what a traffic camera is, and how common they are today. The point at issue is their prevalence in 1997.

I'd be surprised if there were 14 cameras in the underpass even today (there certainly are some, you can see them in Google Streetview, but not one every 20 metres).