Friday, December 15, 2006

Today's Cartoon: Enquiry Dismisses Princess Diana Conspiracy Theories

It seems to me that it wouldn't really matter what the British authorities were to conclude in their inquiry into the 1997 car crash which claimed the life of Princess Diana, the mind's of "conspiracy theorists" are already made up. And unless the report generally agrees with their pre-determined belief that there was some sort of cover-up, it just becomes another part of the "conspiracy".

That being said, even if the police did find evidence which indicated that the crash was not an accident, people can't honestly expect them to suddenly disclose this information after keeping it a secret for nine years. I mean if they did, then they couldn't exactly call it a "cover-up", now could they? ;)

Now, it would appear that debunking "conspiracy theorists" would be just about the easiest thing in the world to do... as long as there was no truth to any of their theories. All the media would have to do is take the time to go down their laundry list of evidence and refute it, point by point; and yet in most cases, all they seem to have time to do is heap mounds of ridicule upon them, before going back to ignoring them again. Even government investigations and police inquiries that are deliberately designed to dispel "conspiracy theories" usually fail to do so, because they tend to ignore the main issue; that being, the public's distrust of those in authority.

In my opinion, the only way to truly debunk a "conspiracy theory” is by allowing the "conspiracy theorists" to assist in the official inquiry. That way, the public is ensured a thorough investigation that either proves or disproves their points and answers all their questions. And the best part about it is that no one can claim of any "cover-up"... That is, unless they're REALLY paranoid. To me, the public's involvement would not be an issue, if authorities were not trying to hide anything from them.

The way I see it, refuting a conspiracy theory with facts may take a few moments; however, disputing one with insults will go on indefinitely.

Labels: , , ,


Blogger redtown said...

Bottom line: a drunk driver was driving over 60 mph in a 30 mph zone and crashed into a pillar. The drunk driver was a longtime employee of the Fayed family.  End of discussion. No assassin on a grassy knoll, no Prince Philip hit squad, no alien abductions.

The late Quentin Crisp spoke truthfully, if bluntly, that Princess Diana's fast and shallow lifestyle contributed to her own demise: "She could have been Queen of England -- and she was swanning about Paris with Arabs. What disgraceful behavior. Going about saying she wanted to be the queen of hearts. The vulgarity of it is so overpowering." (Atlanta Southern Voice, 1 July 1999).

Or to put it more kindly, both Diana and her brother, Charles Spencer, probably suffered from borderline personality disorder (BPD), rooted in their mother's abandonment of them when they were young children. For Charles Spencer, BPD expressed itself as insatiable sexual promiscuity (his wife was divorcing him at the time of Diana's death). For Diana, BPD expressed itself as intense insecurity and an insatiable need for attention and affection (which even the best husband could never have fulfilled). These sowed the seeds of her fast lifestyle and her tragic fate.

11:02 a.m.  
Blogger Kevin said...

I didn't say there was an actual conspiracy here.

All I'm saying is that if authorities want to put a stop to "conspiracy theories" (whether it be about Princess Diana, 9/11 or JFK) then they need to involve the main conspiracy theorists in the investigation. It's the only way to shut them up.

Otherwise, these "official" reports will just be interpreted (by them) as yet another layer added to the "cover-up" and do absolutely nothing to dispel any "myths".

11:46 a.m.  

Post a Comment

<< Home