17-02-2012, 04:23 PM
(This post was last modified: 17-02-2012, 06:30 PM by Charles Drago.)
This essay is, in a word, disturbing.
Seamus, of course, will speak for himself. And I acknowledge the kinds words he used in the piece to describe me.
But it seems to me that Seamus is making THE critical errors that are most commonly made by well-intentioned but less than ideally disciplined researchers of deep political phenomena relating to assassinations: He moves to the "who" and "why" questions without first establishing the "how" of the event under scrutiny, and he riddles his arguments with straw men.
Analyses of Mohammad Al Fayed's character and sexual dalliances have as much to do with the process of discovering the "how" of the Diana case as analyses JFK's character and sexual dalliances have to do with the processes of discovering the "how" of Dealey Plaza. Such analyses likely will contribute to the "who" and "why" investigations.
Those who would draw moral and/or historical equivalency between Diana and the JFK/RFK/MLK triumvirate have as much to contribute to the efforts to establish the "how" of the Diana case as those who disparage the morals and/or historical significance of JFK, RFK, and MLK have to contribute to the efforts to establish the "hows" of Dealey Plaza, Lost Angeles, and Memphis. Analyses of said individuals and groups likely will contribute to the "who" and "why" investigations.
As was the case with JFK, RFK, and MLK, the "how" of Diana's death will be discovered by those who are willing and able to conduct a classic criminal investigation of the event -- one deeply informed and directed by the lessons and methods taught by deep political science.
I have worked on this case from Day One. I have concluded that Diana was murdered by conspirators. I am now applying the Sponsors/Facilitators/Mechanics model to my work.
I am working on reverse-engineering the "how" and moving outward from the facts in a process-of-elimination investigation designed and executed to discover the "who" and "why" of Diana's murder.
"Who" could have done it in the way it appears to have been done? For instance: "Who" had the authority to strip security that night?
Seamus: You don't have to admire Diana in order to examine the "how" of her death impartially and honorably.
Seamus, of course, will speak for himself. And I acknowledge the kinds words he used in the piece to describe me.
But it seems to me that Seamus is making THE critical errors that are most commonly made by well-intentioned but less than ideally disciplined researchers of deep political phenomena relating to assassinations: He moves to the "who" and "why" questions without first establishing the "how" of the event under scrutiny, and he riddles his arguments with straw men.
Analyses of Mohammad Al Fayed's character and sexual dalliances have as much to do with the process of discovering the "how" of the Diana case as analyses JFK's character and sexual dalliances have to do with the processes of discovering the "how" of Dealey Plaza. Such analyses likely will contribute to the "who" and "why" investigations.
Those who would draw moral and/or historical equivalency between Diana and the JFK/RFK/MLK triumvirate have as much to contribute to the efforts to establish the "how" of the Diana case as those who disparage the morals and/or historical significance of JFK, RFK, and MLK have to contribute to the efforts to establish the "hows" of Dealey Plaza, Lost Angeles, and Memphis. Analyses of said individuals and groups likely will contribute to the "who" and "why" investigations.
As was the case with JFK, RFK, and MLK, the "how" of Diana's death will be discovered by those who are willing and able to conduct a classic criminal investigation of the event -- one deeply informed and directed by the lessons and methods taught by deep political science.
I have worked on this case from Day One. I have concluded that Diana was murdered by conspirators. I am now applying the Sponsors/Facilitators/Mechanics model to my work.
I am working on reverse-engineering the "how" and moving outward from the facts in a process-of-elimination investigation designed and executed to discover the "who" and "why" of Diana's murder.
"Who" could have done it in the way it appears to have been done? For instance: "Who" had the authority to strip security that night?
Seamus: You don't have to admire Diana in order to examine the "how" of her death impartially and honorably.
Charles Drago
Co-Founder, Deep Politics Forum
If an individual, through either his own volition or events over which he had no control, found himself taking up residence in a country undefined by flags or physical borders, he could be assured of one immediate and abiding consequence: He was on his own, and solitude and loneliness would probably be his companions unto the grave.
-- James Lee Burke, Rain Gods
You can't blame the innocent, they are always guiltless. All you can do is control them or eliminate them. Innocence is a kind of insanity.
-- Graham Greene
Co-Founder, Deep Politics Forum
If an individual, through either his own volition or events over which he had no control, found himself taking up residence in a country undefined by flags or physical borders, he could be assured of one immediate and abiding consequence: He was on his own, and solitude and loneliness would probably be his companions unto the grave.
-- James Lee Burke, Rain Gods
You can't blame the innocent, they are always guiltless. All you can do is control them or eliminate them. Innocence is a kind of insanity.
-- Graham Greene