BartholomewWest
Thinker
Out of curiosity, does anyone here believe that Princess Diana's car crash was, for lack of a better word, suspicious?
The search function is off for all members. Tags are still working, however, hence my link above.I know the search function is down for non Mods,
In my world, this is seen as a given. If you bring up the subject, people will react with such frustration and roll their eyes with annoyance and say "Of course they had her killed! End of story!"
They are so exasperated that you even bring it up. It is seen as such a "duh" thing. The attitude is "Don't even talk about it", as though you wanted to discuss if grass was green.
The search function is off for all members. Tags are still working, however, hence my link above.
I applaud your efforts to break out of that particular information bubble. Keep it up!
I read an article once that argued that you will rarely change a conspiracy theorists mind with facts. That's because they don't rely on facts (except convenient ones), and rely on a persona they've adopted where they are "in the know", and are the ones who understand that "things are not always what they seem". If you rattle their cages with facts that show them to be wrong, you are not challenging their narrative; you are attacking their core identity. That means war, and you can't be allowed to win.
Oh, don't get me wrong. Not many start out primed for this. One conspiracy catches their interests, than a snowballing happens and the personality starts crystalizing.That's nonsense, man. You are confusing cause with effect. In my experience, they actually started with facts...and ended up with the persona later. Not the other way around.
When I was in school, people believed this. And not cause it was part of their identity or whatever.
And that right there is the logical break. What Charles could or couldn't do has no relevance to what happened to Diana. But the CT guy will blr the distinction between speculation about what he thinks Charles is capable of, and actual evidence that he was involved at all.They would point to stuff that actually WAS sinister, like the fact that Diana had a boyfriend called James Hewitt and that Hewitt was deported to Germany.
If Charles can get you exiled, what else can he do?
That's nonsense, man. You are confusing cause with effect. In my experience, they actually started with facts...and ended up with the persona later. Not the other way around.
When I was in school, people believed this. And not cause it was part of their identity or whatever.
They would point to stuff that actually WAS sinister, like the fact that Diana had a boyfriend called James Hewitt and that
Hewitt was deported to Germany.
If Charles can get you exiled, what else can he do?
Oh, don't get me wrong. Not many start out primed for this. One conspiracy catches their interests, than a snowballing happens and the personality starts crystalizing.
Right after 9/11, I was about 2/3rds of the way into being a Truther. I found myself being more sympathetic to any crazy theory coming down the pike. It's jarring when you look at yourself one day and say "when did I become a loon?"
And that right there is the logical break. What Charles could or couldn't do has no relevance to what happened to Diana. But the CT guy will blr the distinction between speculation about what he thinks Charles is capable of, and actual evidence that he was involved at all.
You think what might actually be true? Tell us what actually happened.You misunderstood something. I am not "breaking out" of anything. Nor should I.
I actually think this one might be true.
Hewitt wrote a book about it and the book was reviewed:
![]()
On top of the deportation to Germany, which Diana was convinced was the work of Charles, he offers another crazy story. Her previous boyfriend was her bodyguard, a married man called Barry Manakee. An odd name. He died in a motorbike crash. She was convinced Charles was behind that, too.
Hewitt also shared how he once ate cat food to mess with Diana. What the actual hell.
He wasn't deported to Germany, he was posted to Germany and given his own command. And that's according to your own source. Overseas postings are the sort of thing happens when you're in the military.
His past behavior may be interesting, or seemingly relevant, but only causal links with robust evidence can put together implication. "You know how guys like him are" is not meat and potatoes for assuming or even suggesting guilt.That is weird, cause I was actually the opposite. I started out scoffing at CTs.
People who were raised Muslim in particular believed that Diana was killed cause of her association with the Fayeds. I would argue with them. How times have changed. Now people argue with me. I look back and think "How could I have been so naive back then!?"
Actually, Charles' past behavior is relevant.
Shots fired!Mebbe, just mebbe, this thread is evidence for the existence of spirits?
We definitely seem to have been infiltrated by the spirit of The Fake Pharaoh.
Yeah- when you are banging another officer's wife!
Yeah- when you are banging another officer's wife!
Chucky was never a cavalry officer; he'd left the Navy by then.
By your line of argument a whole lot of regiments were rife with shagging each other's wives, as there were loads of British military personnel serving overseas...
...pation?But that's not even the worst of it....