New info about Princess Diana death

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by Gary L

LOL Russ, constantly repeating it won't make it fact

However she did die in a car crash or are you another of the sad people who thinks there is something else in this.

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by Russ

No, various investigations did that.

Various investigations have been proven wrong before.

this may well be another one of them.

---------- Post added at 19:20 ---------- Previous post was at 19:17 ----------

Originally Posted by Sirius

However she did die in a car crash or are you another of the sad people who thinks there is something else in this.

I don't find you calling me sad offensive for thinking there's something else.

but I do think you're sad for thinking there isn't.

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by Gary L

Various investigations have been proven wrong before.

this may well be another one of them.

You keep saying that and you might make it fact

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by Sirius

You keep saying that and you might make it fact

Well it couldn't stay a secret for ever, could it.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Gary L

Various investigations have been proven wrong before.

this may well be another one of them.

Generally I think if it looks like a duck and walks like a duck then it's a duck. Various investigations and an inquest all concluded she died in a (albeit preventable) car accident. Each conspiracy accusation has been debunked. I'm guessing you won't accept any findings other than ones that say she was murdered but I think you'll be waiting longer than a lifetime for that - it didn't happen.

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by Russ

Generally I think if it looks like a duck and walks like a duck then it's a duck. Various investigations and an inquest all concluded she died in a (albeit preventable) car accident. Each conspiracy accusation has been debunked. I'm guessing you won't accept any findings other than ones that say she was murdered but I think you'll be waiting longer than a lifetime for that - it didn't happen.

We'll see..

That duck.. it was a man in fancy dress.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Gary L

We'll see..

You won't. I've witnessed bad driving in that tunnel for myself. It was an accident no matter how inconvenient a truth that is for some people.

[idi banashapan]

Originally Posted by Russ

Generally I think if it looks like a duck and walks like a duck then it's a duck. Various investigations and an inquest all concluded she died in a (albeit preventable) car accident. Each conspiracy accusation has been debunked. I'm guessing you won't accept any findings other than ones that say she was murdered but I think you'll be waiting longer than a lifetime for that - it didn't happen.

and that's perhaps what should be looked at with all events that spark conspiracies...

• who funded the released-to-public investigations into the events?
• who carried out the released-to-public investigations into the events?
• who presented the released-to-public findings of the investigations into the events?
• was anybody better off having the conclusions of the released-to-public investigations meet a specific outcome?

just because a scientist does a study and concludes that God doesn't exist and religiosity is actually down to increased / decreased activity in specified areas of the right parietal lobe, prefrontal cortex and hippocampus/amygdala, does that mean he is right? just because the president of a world power says he did not have sexual relations with that woman, does that make it the truth?

sometimes, not always, but sometimes there may be greater powers out there that we might not know about who can decide to tell the masses something which may not always be the whole truth. let's face it, it was only this very week that the US government agencies officially admitted that Area 51 exists. the installation has been a physical set of buildings since the 1950's. or perhaps you would prefer to believe that they were only built in the last few days??

[Russ]

Originally Posted by idi banashapan

sometimes, not always, but sometimes there are greater powers out there who can decide to tell the masses something which may not always be the whole truth. let's face it, it was only this very week that the US government officially admitted that Area 51 exists. the installation has been a physical set of buildings since the 1950's. or perhaps you would prefer to believe that they were only built in the last few days??

Big difference between Area 51 and Diana. With her death numerous investigations have come up with the same thing.

Area 51 has been physically proven to exist. You could (almost) go there. You could certainly walk right up to the 'gates'. It was there, satellite pictures proved it.

You could see it and touch it. The American government finally admitting it exists make zero difference.

The same could not be said about Diana dying in anything other than a car accident.

[idi banashapan]

Originally Posted by Russ

Big difference between Area 51 and Diana. With her death numerous investigations have come up with the same thing.

Area 51 has been physically proven to exist. You could (almost) go there. You could certainly walk right up to the 'gates'. It was there, satellite pictures proved it.

You could see it and touch it. The American government finally admitting it exists make zero difference.

The same could not be said about Diana dying in anything other than a car accident.

and the other points I make?

[Russ]

Originally Posted by idi banashapan

and the other points I make?

Exactly the same. There has been nothing concrete to suggest a conspiracy and plenty of evidence to say it was a car accident.

edit: you edited your post since I replied. The scientists who came up with that theory, all he did was find the part of the brain God uses to communicate with us. No problem with his findings.

And regarding Clinton, that's a good example of how major governments have a poor track record of keeping secrets from its citizens.

[Hom3r]

Were did her mercs ECU disappear to?

[idi banashapan]

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

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.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by idi banashapan

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"?

If it makes sense enough to me and what I have been presented with 'feels' right then yes, I'll accept it.

Do you never question the validity of the information, its sources or its method of investigation and presentation?

As above.

you seem to have dismissed and brushed of my other points by saying


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?

I've not said I believe "everything" we've been told (just like 9/11) but I believe enough to come to the conclusion that it was what it was - a tragic car accident.

I see nothing for anyone to credibly gain from her murder, no real motive (she may well have been a pain in the arse to the Royal Family but so was Fergie and she's still with us) and as people have survived similar and worse car accidents in the past (Richard Hammond), there would be too much scope for things to go 'wrong' (ie her survival) for it to be a viable assassination.

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.

As I said I'm sure there are aspects of this we're not told about. But nothing that would take away the fact it was just a tragic car accident.

[idi banashapan]

I agree that I think this was an accident. I too, do not know of who may have benefited from her death. but just because I don't know about them doesn't mean there isn't someone out there who did benefit in some way.

on the whole, I agree with you that it was an accident. I'm not with you on the whole 'if it feels right' bit though. but that is simply how I am. if someone explains something as intuition, to me it means there is something to be learned as to what exactly gives one that 'feeling'.

for example, if someone says they don't trust someone but can't explain why, it generally means they have picked up on elements of personality, vocal tonality / speed, spoken word, body language and so on (behaviour), which in the past have been attributed to others who turned out to be untrustworthy to that person. it's just a case of being aware of what those traits are. once we have valid explanations with repeatable consistency, there is no more mystery. those 'feelings' of intuition become behavioural patterns we can be aware of in others.