• 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?

Andy_Ross said:
Most of the British Army was sent to Iraq.

Why do you think a Squadron Leader in an elite armoured cavalry regiment would not be sent along with his squadron?

The Life Guards is the most senior regiment of the British Army and part of the Household Cavalry,

They are a reconnaissance regiment.

A Squadron is a big command, it comprises

Squadron Headquarters Troop of two Land Rovers, Two FV105 Sultan command vehicles and FV104 Samaritan armoured ambulance
Three Reconnaissance Troops of four FV107 Scimitar tanks
Guided Weapons Troop of four FV102 Striker anti-tank guided missile vehicles
Support Troop of four FV103 Spartan armoured personnel carriers
Mechanical Engineer Section of FV103 Spartan and FV106 Samson armoured recovery vehicle

It's not an insignificant thing.
Click to expand...


Bare in mind that BatholomewWest probably thinks that being in the Life Guards means that Hewitt was responsible for minding the regimental swimming pool, so obviously sending him to the desert was part of some nefarious scheme. It's the desert, sheeple, there are no swimming pools in the desert!

(I find myself thinking of Timothy Spall saying "It was a clue, a blatant clue")
 
Last edited:
Mojo said:
I think it's standard for officers to get bumped up a rank on retirement.
Click to expand...
That's my impression, too, from the way it was described regarding Hewitt. It suggests to me that he wasn't in any particular disgrace that the tradition was followed in his case, despite his having failed to gain the promotion a couple of times during his service.
 
BartholomewWest said:
I still think it is odd that Diana told both the butler and the lawyer that Charles was going to kill her in a car crash.... before later dying in a car crash.

I still maintain that saying "If you get caught writing letters to another man's wife, you will be fired from your job, if her husband is powerful" is very, very different from (let's say) flat earth.
Click to expand...
:D More hearsay.
 
BartholomewWest said:
I still think there is a huge difference between believing in tarot cards and thinking "Someone is liable to hurt his ex's new partner."

By the way, I am surprised that left-wingers (I assume most atheists are left-wing) aren't more into conspiracies.

After all, most conspiracies would seem to favor the left. If you think Reagan was evil, wouldn't the October Surprise thing give you more ammunition?

If you think white people have mistreated blacks (a reasonable position) wouldn't thinking that Malcolm X was killed by the FBI give you more ammunition?

If you think Bush and Cheney were evil, wouldn't saying "He let 9/11 happen and possibly cheated Kerry in the elections" be music to your ears?
Click to expand...
Did anyone see a set of goalposts around here?
 
Mojo said:
I think it's standard for officers to get bumped up a rank on retirement.
Click to expand...


Yes precisely, (he'd actually failed the Major's exam two or three times which was probably part of the reason he decided to retire), it was a normal retirement if someone who'd serve their time and left honourably, not being forced out or dismissed.
 
catsmate said:
:rolleyes:
No, a fact. Based on my decades of tech experience, my knowledge of data recording and management systems and the technologies used in them.

I note, with no surprise given your history, that you have failed (as usual) to produce any refuting evidence.
Click to expand...

Let me help you with the logical reasoning.

Consider the following propositions:

  1. The driver was drunk/substance impaired and driving extremely dangerously
  2. Diana failed to take note of his state and was not wearing a seatbelt
  3. The accident is an MI5 cover up
You should now be able to ascertain that none of these conditions are mutually exclusive to each other. Any one, two or all three of them can be true and logically sound. It is also logical that not necessarily all of them or any of them are true. For example, it is possible to be drunk and driving dangerously but yet reach your destination safely. Or that being an armoured merc the passengers were sufficiently unconcerned with seatbelts as was their customary behaviour. But the main point to grasp is that logically the three statements are not mutually exclusive to each other.

Now consider the following two statements:

  • 4. The accident was orchestrated/covered up by secret intelligence agencies fearful for the British constitution/ as given the nod by Prince Philip or Prince Charles.
  • 5. The accident was bona fide /caused by dangerous driving and nothing at all to do with any plot.
Is that clear? We can state logically that statements 4 and 5 ARE mutually exclusive to each other. Both cannot be true.

Now consider the position of the national press. Your assertion is that 'because the INDEPENDENT/TELEGRAPH calls it 'a conspiracy theory' then ipso facto it must be.

Here's where your critical thinking skills fall short. If condition no. 4 holds true, then when the newspaper contacts a source for verification of the story, then of course they will be unable to confirm it, because if no. 4 is true then the information will be classified. So of course the newspapers having no confirmation of the claim the cameras were all disabled as of the time of the accident, have no choice but to label it 'a conspiracy theory' otherwise they, as a 'reputable' broadside are publishing tacky rubbish usually reserved for the gutter press.

So now you should be able to understand that if condition no. 4 or even no. 5 holds true, the reason why a broadsheet 'reliable' newspaper would call it 'a conspiracy theory'. But logically, it does not PROVE it is a conspiracy theory and therefore untrue.

Kemo sabe?
 
Last edited:
BartholomewWest said:
You are splitting hairs again. The point still stands, regardless of whether he was king or prince.
Click to expand...
No it doesn't. The head of state in the UK has very different powers and influence than the heir to the throne. And of course the crash was investigated, by a country that put paid to its monarchy a couple of hundred years ago in a rather certain manner.

Your analogy failed on the two points it made.
 
Vixen said:
Let me help you with the logical reasoning.

Consider the following propositions:

  1. The driver was drunk/substance impaired and driving extremely dangerously
  2. Diana failed to take note of his state and was not wearing a seatbelt
  3. The accident is an MI5 cover up
You should now be able to ascertain that none of these conditions are mutually exclusive to each other. Any one, two or all three of them can be true and logically sound. It is also logical that not necessarily all of them or any of them are true. For example, it is possible to be drunk and driving dangerously but yet reach your destination safely. Or that being an armoured merc the passengers were sufficiently unconcerned with seatbelts as was their customary behaviour. But the main point to grasp is that logically the three statements are not mutually exclusive to each other.

Now consider the following two statements:

  • 4. The accident was orchestrated/covered up by secret intelligence agencies fearful for the Britihs constitution/ as given the nod by Prince Philip or Prince Charles.
  • 5. The accident was bona fide /caused by dangerous driving and nothing at all to do with any plot.
Is that clear? We can state logically that statements 4 and 5 ARE mutually exclusive to each other. Bth cannot be true.

Now consider the position of the national press. Your assertion is that 'because the INDEPENDENT/TELEGRAPH calls it 'a conspiracy theory' then ipso facto it must be.

Here's where your critical thinking skills fall short. If condition no. 4 holds true, then when the newspaper contacts a source for verification of the story, then of course they will be unable to confirm it, because if no. 4 is true then the information will be classified. So of course the newspapers having no confirmation of the claim the cameras were all disabled as of the time of the accident, have no choice but to label it 'a conspiracy theory' otherwise they, as a 'reputable' broadside are publishing tacky rubbish usually reserved for the gutter press.

So now you should be able to understand that if condition no.5 holds true, the reason why a broadsheet 'reliable' newspaper would call it 'a conspiracy theory'. But logically, it does not PROVE it is a conspiracy theory and therefore untrue.

Kemo sabe?
Click to expand...
Please stop with you childish attempts to teach me logic,at least until you educate yourself first.
And stop lying about what I said.
 
Vixen said:
Let me help you with the logical reasoning.

Consider the following propositions:

  1. The driver was drunk/substance impaired and driving extremely dangerously
  2. Diana failed to take note of his state and was not wearing a seatbelt
  3. The accident is an MI5 cover up
You should now be able to ascertain that none of these conditions are mutually exclusive to each other. Any one, two or all three of them can be true and logically sound. It is also logical that not necessarily all of them or any of them are true. For example, it is possible to be drunk and driving dangerously but yet reach your destination safely. Or that being an armoured merc the passengers were sufficiently unconcerned with seatbelts as was their customary behaviour. But the main point to grasp is that logically the three statements are not mutually exclusive to each other.

Now consider the following two statements:

  • 4. The accident was orchestrated/covered up by secret intelligence agencies fearful for the Britihs constitution/ as given the nod by Prince Philip or Prince Charles.
  • 5. The accident was bona fide /caused by dangerous driving and nothing at all to do with any plot.
Is that clear? We can state logically that statements 4 and 5 ARE mutually exclusive to each other. Bth cannot be true.

Now consider the position of the national press. Your assertion is that 'because the INDEPENDENT/TELEGRAPH calls it 'a conspiracy theory' then ipso facto it must be.

Here's where your critical thinking skills fall short. If condition no. 4 holds true, then when the newspaper contacts a source for verification of the story, then of course they will be unable to confirm it, because if no. 4 is true then the information will be classified. So of course the newspapers having no confirmation of the claim the cameras were all disabled as of the time of the accident, have no choice but to label it 'a conspiracy theory' otherwise they, as a 'reputable' broadside are publishing tacky rubbish usually reserved for the gutter press.

So now you should be able to understand that if condition no.5 holds true, the reason why a broadsheet 'reliable' newspaper would call it 'a conspiracy theory'. But logically, it does not PROVE it is a conspiracy theory and therefore untrue.

Kemo sabe?
Click to expand...
The constitutional issue had already passed by the time she died i.e. a divorce for the heir to the throne, when she died she was no longer a member of the royal family. So she presented even less of a constitutional issue than an ex-King being a nazi supporter.
 
Last edited:
The bottom line still seems to be if this was intended to be an assassination why was the method so haphazard that it just looks exactly like dumb luck?

"See if we can encourage their driver to crash the car and there's a slim chance it might be fatal" is not a plan.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom