I truly don't know.
Who took this photo? Assuming it's genuine, why do both Henri Paul and Trevor-Rees Jones seem to be avoiding a bright light? What is Diana looking at? Was it a paparazzi photo, and if so, why did it only get released years later?
https://e3.365dm.com/17/08/1600x900/31310ebfe2c1dd65e84ec8f6d84b57251ba273b9ca61d4fa5eb9e8883e3e4087_4082693.jpg?bypass-service-worker&20170825155449
So if someone proposes a theory and can't explain how it works, can't explain why they believe it or why it's convincing, can't explain the obvious flaws and contradictions in it and can't provide any evidence to show that the factual claims them make are true, why should anyone take that theory seriously?
How can we tell the difference between such a theory and one that's entirely fictional?
How do we know that the theory is an example of something that turns out to be right and not one of the thousands of examples of conspiracy theories that turn out to be false?
I gave you an example, but yet you still bounce back to something that has nothing got to do with the example i gave you.
"by people actually doing proper investigations into the actual evidence that they found to back up their claims."
And im sure they were labelled as cranks by the conformers of the time also?
You asked :
"And how exactly was that conspiracy exposed and who was involved?"
"When people exposed it did they have evidence to back up their claims? "
I explained .
So no idea behind what the conspiracy actually might be then, just throw a bunch of shadowy organisations names out and hope that's enough to convince people?
But you don't need to come up with a single plan for how or why these groups might have been working together. Just spout random rubbish and hope nobody questions you.
Why would they be labelled as cranks? They had a theory, they found the evidence to back it up and proved it.
What they didn't do was come up with 10 different theories about what was happening and refuse to explain why any of them might have happened, or how.
The way it normally works is that you come with a theory, then you examine the evidence to see if it supports that theory. If there is any evidence that contradicts the theory, you modify the theory to fit. If there is a part of the theory for which no evidence exists, then you discard it or park it as unproven until more evidence emerges that supports or refutes it.
In terms if Diana being murdered, there is as yet no evidence of any intent act to cause Diana's death, therefore the theory of murder is unproven. There's also a theory that she was kidnapped by fairies and replaced with a demon, which has just as much evidence for it.
Yes, you're entitled to think whatever you want, but if it's going to be any random nonsense, it seems kind of pointless for there to be a discussion forum for it. Better to set up a creative writing blog if one needs an outlet for just pouring out random thoughts for others to read and not challenge.
And you lot are the self appointed deciders of what is ok to post ???
cool.
The only people who are demanding what can and can't be posted are conspiracy theorists.
Could it have just been an accident? Of course.
Could the Royal family arranged her death? Of course can't put anything past them.
Truth be told we will never truly know.
"Sir this is a Wendy's"
It doesn't seem to matter what the thread title is anymore, forum appears to be an unmoderated twilight zone, and maybe that's the best thing for it
Where was Princess Di on 3rd Nov 1963? That's the question we should be asking.
Well Mohamad Al-Fayed was friends with George De Mohrenschildt, who was friends with Oswald.
This is how bad conspiracy theories start.
what a lot of people don't know is that her real maiden name was Zapruder.
Her full name was Diana Zapruder Secret Nazis Grassy Knoll Spencer
Surprised that the Daily Mail haven't found a way to blame Starmer or Markle yet.
What I always found odd.. the driver, Henri Paul was just over 3.5 times the legal driving blood alcohol limit… he was the ‘acting’ head of security….. you have that responsibility in addition high profile guests who would be targets of paparazzi and indeed possibly various nefarious groups who in theory could target them…. So what the fûck are you doing at work 3.5 times over the limit when you are aware that it’s possible you could be called upon to think fast, act on and make decisions at a moments notice and possibly drive a very high powered vehicle at speed…
so much about what happened leaves you scratching your head… more questions then facts….
What does any of this have to do with Diana... Other than pretty obvious deflection
Nothing. Cheerful just wanted another thread to dump his rants on.
If you want discussion on Diana, try the UFO thread. Or maybe the vaccines thread.
Diana is over on the vaccines thread. Vaccines are on the UFO thread. UFOs on the JFK thread. all pretty straightforward.
Nothing. Its indicative of the scatter brain of a garden variety conspiracy theorist.
No attention spam to stay on one topic, one point or even one thread.
Since none of these threads are active, does it matter? There were two posts in February and just one in May. The forum has died a long time ago as anyone posting an alternate viewpoint will be immediately swamped. The attitude is generally one of the alligators ( can't have a different view to me) and most people are not interested in dealing with the normal debunking mindset. So they leave.
Alligators?
Is this conspiracy theorists trying to come up with a new term that they think is somehow insulting to non conspiracy theorists, like the sealion thing that was being pushed around a while ago?
you are arguing with an obvious joke.
Most people aren't interested answering basic questions about their theory. So they leave.
Most of the conspiracy theories come from this letter Diana wrote to her butler (or found by him), supposedly 10 months before her death. But why she'd refer to her husband and not her ex husband doesn't seem right if that timeline is accurate
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DkaUGmtXcAAQ6zV.jpg
Can poster please move the JFK discussion to the JFK thread.
Thanks
FWIW, back in 1997 the OH worked with a girl whose sister was married to a Parisian and living in Paris.
He said he knew the tunnel, steep incline and practically a 90 degree turn. So, if the car was travelling fast, being chased, alcohol involved, no seatbelts, then crashing the car is very credible.
If indeed the RF wanted her out of the way, the car crash is like something out of 007 movie. I'm sure they could have come up with something less elaborate, involving less people and easier to manage.
Exactly.. the truth won’t ever be known.
There were 14 cameras in the tunnel but none captured the crash…. Which is weird.
It's highly likely she died in a car crash and that's it. No one has come up with anything else that's credible.
For the camera's, I read that most were private cameras which wouldn't capture the road and others were for live viewing (not recorded). It boiled down to one camera which could have caught it but it was usually turned off after 11.
2 years it has been since this bet was proposed, accepted and agreed upon. You owe Temple Street Children's Hospital €250.
As I'm feeling in a good mood today, you can leave it at €100. I'd take your word for it, only your word ranks lower than a snakes ballbag around here so you'll have to post proof of the donation or forever be tarnished as a spoofer and a welcher. Whatever shred of credibility you once had will be gone forever.
Nobody will ever treat your crazy ramblings with any degree of credibility ever again. Up to you, pal......
If she had worn her seat belt, she'd still be alive.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w8.vanillicon.com/v2/867a9f20e705add43a3ada2e4f4480cc.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://www.boards.ie/applications/dashboard/design/images/banned.png)