• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories
  • You may need to edit your signatures.

    When we moved to Xenfora some of the signature options didn't come over. In the old software signatures were limited by a character limit, on Xenfora there are more options and there is a character number and number of lines limit. I've set maximum number of lines to 4 and unlimited characters.

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

I know the search function is down for non Mods, but a Google search of International Skeptics Forum plus the subject will give you an idea if the subject has been discussed before on this decades old site.

Also, when starting a thread it's advisable to make the heading reference specifically what the thread is about.

And "No".
 
Last edited:
No. It's the stuff of jokes.

If anyone reaches for a lazy joke about Prince Philip, as sure as that parrot has shuffled off this mortal coil, it'll be that he had Diana assassinated.
 
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.
 
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.

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.
 
You rarely change any entrenched opinion with facts, because the opponent does not trust your source of facts. They've put their trust in other sources. But you can absolutely sow the seeds of doubt that reality is as straightforwardly on their side as they imagined. Softening someone's opinion takes time and in the end they do it for themselves.
 
It depends on if they happen to buy into a conspiracy theory or two, or if they globally buy into them all, some truly whacky ones aside. Interestingly, conspiracy theorists often try to prove they are not conspiracy theorists by arguing that they don't believe that the moon landing was faked. See? They are skeptics and reasonable.

You can plant seeds of doubt in salad bar conspiracy theorists, but not the ones who wholesale embrace the intellectual approach of the gossip table in the lunchroom.
 
Last edited:
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.

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?
 
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.
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?"
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?
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.
 
Wait! Wut?

Hewitt was deported to Germany?

Oh really?

You might want to provide some evidence for that one, as I'm pretty sure that never happened.

If that's what your folk are going on...
 
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?


So, I'm sure you have some kind of evidence for this? When was it? After all he was certainly in the UK when he appeared in Top Gear, and he was in hospital in Plymouth after his heart attack in 2017. Given Hewitt's affair ended in 1991, post 2017 seems a long time to wait... 🤔
 
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.

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.
 
If you want a conspiracy around Chucky, then try how the buggery bollocks that brain-dead twerp got into Cambridge and then managed to graduate having spent a chunk of his time away at Aberystwyth.

Start with Cambridge admissions procedures in the early to mid 70s...
 
"Al" Fayed?

Y'mean the guy who managed to avoid all the rape and sexual assault allegations for decades?

If Chucky had wanted to bring him down he'll have had the Met give yer man a thorough shake down and then get him banged up in Belmarsh forever and a day. None of which happened...Why do you think that was?
 
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.
 
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.
 
Mate, that does not support what you say.

Hewitt, a then serving army officer, was POSTED to Germany, where at the time there was a hefty British Army presence (I visited Munster in the early 80s and there were parts of town you did not want to visit in order to avoid aggressive, drunken squaddies), so a posting to a German base for a serving officer in a tank regiment was very, very, very normal. Hint, our military presence in Germany then included a whole heap of tanks, as the presumption was fighting a land war across the North German Plain, which needs tanks, which Hewitt commanded.

This is NOT a deportation, 'cos if it was I know a whole heap of folk who were "deported". FFS, my late father-in-law was "deported" to Germany, as he served in the Army over there.

◊◊◊◊ knows where Andy Ross was "deported" to when he served..
 
Last edited:
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.
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.

I once had to sit in that damned defendant's seat charged with, among other things, aggravated assault (failed on proofs). Does that mean any time someone i know gets assaulted, I should be a suspect, if there is no other known connection? Those dots don't connect.
 
Judging by the reviewer's tone, I think he agrees that the royals were behind it. The exile of Hewitt, anyway.


Hewitt seemed to think it was an actual promotion, cause he's an idiot, and Diana asked him "So how come none of Camilla's relatives ever get sent to Germany?"

But that's not even the worst of it....
 
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...


more to the point even if we accepted that his affair was the reason for the posting, he was given the command, that's a bribe, and a posting NOT deportation OR an exile.
 
Last edited:

Back
Top Bottom