Well I didnât get an answer to my question and points above so I guess thatâs that then.
Open and shut case. Glad we cleared it up!
One for @pap
1 Like
He seems to be channelling the ghost of Barry - rambling, inaccurate posts, not answering questions asked of him, random irrelevant musings etc.
Not just the Queens coroner. The issue has been investigated elsewhere - operation Paget for examples as I have mentioned plus plenty of newspaper investigations.There was no evidence of a pregnancy. The only people who knew about it (apparently) were Mohamed Al-Fayed and a member of the Al-Fayed staff.
Could it be a massive cover up? Yes of course. But donât you think that there would be a bit more evidence out there to support Al-Fayedâs claim than his claim and that of a staff member?
Itâs all very well having a dig at me but I am only repeating what has been reporting in response to various unsubstantiated claims. If you believe that Diana was pregnant, fine. But where is the evidence to back that claim up?
Iâm not saying I believe anything here. Nor have I said youâre wrong. Just that you MIGHT be. Go back through my messages and find something where Iâve asserted something.
My sole goal has been to try and get you to accept that all might not be as it seems. To accept the possibility that certain evidence and testimony may be less than absolutely infallible.
I took exception to your liberal use of âdebunkedâ and conspiracy and have explained why I took issue so wonât go over that again.
You also said something earlier about most conspiracy theories have been debunked. Letâs accept that for the sake of argument here. But the fact you havenât said ALL of them have been debunked should at least signal the fact that in plenty of cases there are still questions to be answered and therefore we should all avoid generalised notions of alternative theories being bullshit. It only takes one element to be true to rupture the integrity of the official narrative.
If a claim is made and is then rebutted it is debunked is it not?
I donât think I have ever stated that there is a possibility that she wasnât murdered, just that I have not seen any firm evidence that indicates that she was murdered. I donât know anything as a hard fact, just that if my opinion of what happened is going to change, I will need to see something solid that hasnât been debunked, rebutted, or any other word that means that it has been disproven.
As I get accused of not answering questions, from memory here is my reasoning that the ambulance journey wasnât part of a plot to kill her.
Somewhere on the web there is a time line of events which doesnât indicate anything âdodgyâ. I canât find it but if I do I will post a link.
French paramedics spend more time on roadside treatment to patients than they do over here hence the delay in the hospital transfer.
Because of Dianaâs internal injuries it was decided to drive slowly as the acceleration/breaking could cause problems with compression in her circulatory system.
Her internal injuries were so bad that even if she had of been transferred to hospital sooner, she would not have survived.
The only person to survive the impact was the person wearing a seatbelt.
There was something about arriving at one hospital but being transferred to another because it was better equipped to deal with her type of injuries. Whether that is part of the proof that there was a massive plot to kill her I donât know, but it would seem like a logical decision to make.
Just think about the logistics involved if nothing else. The number of people that would need to have been involved. Planning that involved making sure that the car was travelling at a speed and making contact with something that would ensure fatalities. Making sure that at least two people in the car did not wear their seat belts. That none of the people involved gave the game away. Making sure that a certain car was used, that the driver was drunk, that the route used was used (apparently Diana and Dodiâs plans changed a few times that evening). It would be a tough ask here, let alone in Paris.
There have been numerous investigations into the incident and yet, all these years later, there is still no hard evidence to prove that she was murdered.
So Iâm not making this stuff up and I am not the only person who, currently with the published evidence available, thinks that it was an accident.
Once you have a âtheoryâ (sorry but I donât know what other word to use - maybe alternative reality if that is less annoying?) it is not difficult to throw things in to support it. The issue is proving those claims. Mohamed Al-Fayed has not been able to prove his claims.
There is also the matter of the actual Inquest judgement.
Diana was unlawfully killed.
So to hold on to a âit was an accidentâ opinion when the same inquest that was used to support the argument reached such a vague conclusion.
There is a glaring unknown unknown.
She was found to be unlawfully killed because the driver of the car was intoxicated and driving well beyond the speed limit - hence dangerous driving - hence killed unlawfully.
I have no problem with conspiracy theories per se.
If substantiated evidence is provided to prove that Diana was murdered I will believe it.
If substantiated evidence is provided that America has not landed men on the moon I will believe it.
If substantiated evidence is provided that shows that George W Bush and or the CIA were responsible for the âterroristâ attack on 9/11 I will believe it.
You can add any other conspiracy theory of your choosing hereâŠ
Yes but that very much depends on the integrity of the rebuttal. Obviously an autopsy of a high profile figure can be stage managed to ensure that a favourable outcome is reached by virtue of managing who has access.
So again are you choosing to accept a particular verdict because itâs in line with your beliefs?
As for your 9/11 analogy- for every physicist, structural engineer and demolitions expert who supports the official narrative there is one who contests that. So I cannot readily accept it is a closed case, all debunked. You clearly found one argument more compelling than the other. I donât share that sentiment.
No I am choosing to believe several versions of events because there is more than one reason why the conclusion was reached that she was not pregnant, not just the autopsy, yet there was only two verbal accounts to support the claim (by Al-Fayed and a staff member). You could say they had an agenda?
Your point works both ways. If you want to believe that Diana was murdered you are more likely to believe that the autopsy, blood tests and testaments from those who know her were all fabricated.
Again, I started off with no preconceived belief. It was only after I read the claims and counter claims that I formed an opinion that the most likely cause was an accident.
I have not read every document about 9/11 of watched every documentary, but I have yet to read or see anything that proves that what we thought we saw didnât actually happen.
Exactly. Thatâs my point, every side has an agenda. Even those pushing the official version. Now it feels like we might be getting somewhere.
1 Like
I donât disagree Simon. All you can do is look at the information available and form your own opinion. If it various from the opinion of someone else, there is nothing wrong with saying you disagree and explaining why. 
Honestly, SOG, I donât even think that we are in a position to even think like them. Iâm not talking the royal family specifically, but any group of elites.
They have different problems and different solutions. In the abstract and applied to a normal family, neither the Meghan nor Diana things would be major problems.
If we take them at the worst the press describes them as, it still wouldnât be a problem.
Gobby members of the family? And they happen to be in-laws? Fancy that.
Similarly, they have different solutions and covert assassinations are among them. Again, not specifically talking about Diana.
Iâm actually thinking more about David Kelly. On the day he was found dead, I was actually visiting Parliament for work. The two civil servants I was with immediately said foul play with a chilling nonchalance that made it seem like this wasnât unusual.
I do believe I said this above about 3 days ago. But that at the end of the day, thatâs what it is - an opinion.
Just do me a favour and donât go around throwing absolutions about debunking when you cannot possibly know that is the case.
Not all âconspiracy theoriesâ belong in science fiction movies so donât tar them all with the same brush, because thatâs part of the problem and only serves to subvert critical thought.
2 Likes
I love the fact that things have been established especially to debunk stuff, or that people go out of their way to take down alternate takes.
Whenever Iâve looked at one of these debunking articles, they seem to suffer from exactly the same problems weâve been describing here.
Itâs not just these sites; itâs the news too. Things that were contested at the time and certainly not proven, such as Assadâs ostensibly insane chemical warfare attacks. become pillars of faith in later stories.
Itâs shit built on shit, basically.
1 Like
And not all conspiracy theories are fact. Iâm glad that we have reached an agreement.
Except nobody here said they were.
A rebuttal does not automatically debunk an idea.
A rebuttal is an opinion or an argument. Debunking is proving that something is not true. Therefore a rebuttal needs to have evidence to provide a debunking.
2 Likes
Who even said all conspiracy theories are fact??? What weâve said throughout that not all conspiracy theories are untrue, which I think youâve now realised.
Nobody. I was just making the point that anything put forward needs to be supported with evidence or at least a plausible explanation.
I never said that all conspiracy theories are not true so please stop putting words into my mouth.