Quote:
Originally Posted by Russ
Exactly the same. There has been nothing concrete to suggest a conspiracy and plenty of evidence to say it was a car accident.
|
so essentially, you are willing to blindly accept an investigative outcome, a study finding or conclusion into any event just because an 'official', 'expert', or 'authoritative figure' tells you "this is the truth"?
Do you never question the validity of the information, its sources or its method of investigation and presentation?
you seem to have dismissed and brushed of my other points by saying
Quote:
Originally Posted by Russ
Exactly the same.
|
that doesn't really explain anything away. it doesn't even confront what I said. are you not willing to address the 4 points of questioning I posed regarding 'official' investigations, nor the added 2 rather simple examples of how high profile / public interested events turned out very differently from the initial 'expert' or 'officially' presented information?
do you truly believe that you know
everything about what happened in the tunnel thanks to the newspapers and newsreels that were presented to you? you do not think in any way that evidence from someone who was actually there might have been removed from the public domain and hushed in case it brought to light something underhand?
now, to be clear, I am not saying anything was underhand in the case of Diana. But I'm also not blinkered enough to think I was ever told everything about that event. for all we know, the new evidence may go further to prove that it was simply an accident, which in all fairness, it probably was. but that does not mean to say it definitely was. there is always that chance that we, the public, do not know everything.