• 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?

Breaking out the crayons to explain it for our good Mr. @BartholomewWest :

-You said multiple cameras mysteriously malfunctioned at the time of the crash.

-We considered the evidence. All investigators found that all cameras were working normally. However, it is possible that there was a coverup, so we quite fairly consider the CT counter claim and its evidence. After all, it wouldn't be the first time a government body was found to be wrong and/or lying. Evidence is King; it all gets considered.

-The CT presents no evidence whatsoever. It points (as its own source) to the EXACT FRENCH INQUIRY THAT REFUTES IT. In short, the CTers are lying. This is a black and white issue.

-Since you will not address this honestly, your integrity takes a huge hit. You are no longer given the benefit of any doubt. You, BartholomewWest , are dishonest, by your own doing, not ours. Don't blame us.

.
 
Last edited:
Also, not believing a huge steaming pile of supposition, arguments from incredulity, easily disproved claims, stream of consciousness gibberish, a blatant refusal to understand how systems work in another country, misusing words, titles, roles and names and all the rest is scarcely being rudely dismissive.

If anything most folks have been pretty polite and not responded to the repeated baiting and name calling.
 
Seriously. It would be nice if a tin foil hatter had a different line than "you guys are so mean to me for objecting to me pissing on your leg and telling you it's raining".
 
theprestige said:
The Mischon nonte was produced after Diana's death. The existence of the note is attested by several people, but the note itself and its actual contents are never presented. In addition, none of the quotes from people who have seen the note actually confirm that it contains the so-called prediction.
Click to expand...
Even if it was 100% real, how was it any more than paranoid rambling? Was Diana a car expert that had a reason to believe her brakes were being tampered with? If they were, what were the ninja mechanics doing that they were discovered, but hadn't done anything to damage the brakes or leave evidence for years, then set it up in another country with someone else's car that fortunately failed at high speeds instead of when rolling to a stop sign at 5mph, and then left no trace of this alleged tampering? It makes zero sense at all.
 
Thermal said:
Even if it was 100% real, how was it any more than paranoid rambling? Was Diana a car expert that had a reason to believe her brakes were being tampered with? If they were, what were the ninja mechanics doing that they were discovered, but hadn't done anything to damage the brakes or leave evidence for years, then set it up in another country with someone else's car that fortunately failed at high speeds instead of when rolling to a stop sign at 5mph, and then left no trace of this alleged tampering? It makes zero sense at all.
Click to expand...
But tampering with the brakes is a cliché in fiction.
 
Last edited:
And, to repeat what was said above, the supposed note was written in 1995, when Diana and Charles were still married. The note alleges that Diana would be got rid of by April 1996. That clearly didn't happen, and they were divorced by August 1996, after which time there was no need to get rid of her.
 
Thermal said:
Even if it was 100% real, how was it any more than paranoid rambling? Was Diana a car expert that had a reason to believe her brakes were being tampered with? If they were, what were the ninja mechanics doing that they were discovered, but hadn't done anything to damage the brakes or leave evidence for years, then set it up in another country with someone else's car that fortunately failed at high speeds instead of when rolling to a stop sign at 5mph, and then left no trace of this alleged tampering? It makes zero sense at all.
Click to expand...

Mojo said:
But tampering with the brakes is a cliché in fiction.
Click to expand...

zooterkin said:
And, to repeat what was said above, the supposed note was written in 1995, when Diana and Charles were still married. The note alleges that Diana would be got rid of by April 1996. That clearly didn't happen, and they were divorced by August 1996, after which time there was no need to get rid of her.
Click to expand...
The three of you make good points. My position is that I've given @BartholomewWest enough dots for him to connect up a conspiracy theory that the note is a hoax.
 
BartholomewWest said:
In the interest of fairness, I will concede that this isn't like October Surprise (the theory that Reagan stole the election from Carter). That one was just indisputable. Just cut-and-dried. They even admitted to it.

This isn't like that.
Click to expand...
To wit: everybody have fun tonight; everybody Wang Chung tonight.
 
Diana's own sister said that Diana was religious about wearing seatbelts.

I've never understood why she wasn't that night.
Carrot Flower King said:
Also, not believing a huge steaming pile of supposition, arguments from incredulity, easily disproved claims, stream of consciousness gibberish, a blatant refusal to understand how systems work in another country, misusing words, titles, roles and names and all the rest is scarcely being rudely dismissive.

If anything most folks have been pretty polite and not responded to the repeated baiting and name calling.
Click to expand...

Are you even serious? What are you even talking about?!

You've been extremely rude to me! I never once "baited" anyone and if I called anyone stupid, it was cause they really deserved it and they started the name-calling first. Right from the get go.
 
In which case you will be able to quote what I said that was rude to you, won't you?

As for the rest: it's a pretty accurate description of your posts in this thread, which have been entirely evidence-free
 
Carrot Flower King said:
In which case you will be able to quote what I said that was rude to you, won't you?

As for the rest: it's a pretty accurate description of your posts in this thread, which have been entirely evidence-free
Click to expand...

Well, you just did it by calling my posts "gibberish", just for starters.

I gave you one article after another. Don't lie.
 
zooterkin said:
And, to repeat what was said above, the supposed note was written in 1995, when Diana and Charles were still married. The note alleges that Diana would be got rid of by April 1996. That clearly didn't happen, and they were divorced by August 1996, after which time there was no need to get rid of her.
Click to expand...


Ah yes, but the divorce doesn't matter because I've heard from 'reputable' conspiracy theorists that she was murdered because she was engaged to a muslim man and likely to bear muslim half siblings to the heirs to the British Throne (in fact wasn't that Mohammed Al-Fayed's belief?). Now admittedly she only became romantically linked to him in July 1997, which also makes the claim they were engaged somewhat suspect, but that just proves the Royal Family have access to a time machine/Nostradamas's lost prophesies/the Last Secret of Fatima/All 27 of The Colonel's Herbs & Spices, or whatever. Wake up Sheeple (nod to varwoche), we're down the rabbit hole here!
 
Just checked the first 5 pages: I wasn't rude to anyone.

Well, mebbe some royals.

ETA Another 5 pages: I quoted some Warren Zevon lyrics. Is that rude?

ETA And another 5 pages and I wasn't rude to anyone.

And the rest of the thread now checked: not rude to anyone.

I was a well drug up young man, allegedly.
 
Last edited:
So the driver was speeding to escape paparazzi. The driver was intoxicated. The British tabloids, and the larger tabloid media had made good money off of Lady Diana from the day she was formally engaged to Charles, through the ups and downs of the marriage, the divorce, and her various love interests afterword. Photos of her with Fayed were a small payday for scumbag paparazzi photographers, and the motivation to do whatever it took to snap pictures of her was high.

The driver tries to escape the paparazzi, loses control of the car, and crashes.

That's it. That's what happened. But now the tabloid press is in trouble. Not only have they lost a cash cow, they played a part in her death. While I doubt they started any CTs, they certainly have been happy to advance those claims since her death in the name of "news". At the end of the day the driver is always responsible, drunk or sober. But in this case the paparazzi were clearly over-aggressive, and should be a contributing factor. In the UK, the Royal Family is a cottage industry for rumor, intrigue, and CTs going all the way back. The UK tabloid press is happy to continue this tradition. For my fellow Americans who are not up to speed on the UK tabloid press, the biggest name is Rupert Murdoch, the same wonderful human being who owns Fox News. His papers have mastered manipulating a segment of the population, as have the others.

If there is a conspiracy here, my vote goes to the tabloids. A conspiracy greed, and insensitive risk taking,
 
Axxman300 said:
So the driver was speeding to escape paparazzi. The driver was intoxicated. The British tabloids, and the larger tabloid media had made good money off of Lady Diana from the day she was formally engaged to Charles, through the ups and downs of the marriage, the divorce, and her various love interests afterword. Photos of her with Fayed were a small payday for scumbag paparazzi photographers, and the motivation to do whatever it took to snap pictures of her was high.

The driver tries to escape the paparazzi, loses control of the car, and crashes.

That's it. That's what happened. But now the tabloid press is in trouble. Not only have they lost a cash cow, they played a part in her death. While I doubt they started any CTs, they certainly have been happy to advance those claims since her death in the name of "news". At the end of the day the driver is always responsible, drunk or sober. But in this case the paparazzi were clearly over-aggressive, and should be a contributing factor. In the UK, the Royal Family is a cottage industry for rumor, intrigue, and CTs going all the way back. The UK tabloid press is happy to continue this tradition. For my fellow Americans who are not up to speed on the UK tabloid press, the biggest name is Rupert Murdoch, the same wonderful human being who owns Fox News. His papers have mastered manipulating a segment of the population, as have the others.

If there is a conspiracy here, my vote goes to the tabloids. A conspiracy greed, and insensitive risk taking,
Click to expand...


I've no love for the tabloids or paparazzi, but they were on motorbikes. Yes being photographed is annoying but when you're in a Mercedes-Benz W140 they aren't a physical threat and if they drive dangerously they are the ones who will get hurt not the car's driver or passengers. However badly the paps behaviour it didn't in any way justify Henri Paul's illegal driving, drunk & drugged driving, and endangering his passengers. The paps and their drivers were also driving illegally and dangerously, and should have (may have?) faced consequences for that, but any driver, and especially a professional one, should know that you have to control your own behaviour because you can't control anyone elses. Henri Paul was responsible for the crash, paps being scumbags doesn't excuse his behaviour.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom