• 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?

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.
 
BartholomewWest said:
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.
Click to expand...

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:
Thermal said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom