30-03-2012, 07:17 PM
(This post was last modified: 30-03-2012, 07:36 PM by Seamus Coogan.)
You and CD may have jumped the gun on this trust me. However I don't blame you for your apprehension. As I said, I think CD was right I may have over indulged at the beginning. Rest assured mate Gregory gets his in and around Part VII. I have also written of the false dichotomy. This is in Part 5.
In the last four installments, my articles have criticised Muhammed Al Fayed. I also said in Part II that one cannot blame Gregory for focusing on him.
Nonetheless, Gregory for all his salient points concerning the man is guilty of not examining Al Fayed nor the Diana controversy in a broader focus. When I discussed David Icke, I also discussed how conspiracy arguments are framed within the parameters of a dominant paradigm. That being, sceptics like Michael Barkun and Daniel Pipes target conspirahypocrites like Icke and Alex Jones to prove their thesis, which are based on extreme conspirahypocrite cases.
Martyn Gregory, a man I believe who is much smarter than both Barkun and Pipes combined, has done much the same thing by ignoring alternative views from more legitimate sources and real researchers.One of his central targets has been Al Fayed's claims of an imminent marriage and pregnancy to Spencer. If Gregory really wanted to take Al Fayed to task, why has he not discussed the little known fact that Al Fayed's spin-doctoring in the media prior to the events on August 31st 1997 could well have provided potential plotters with an itch to scratch?
Why didn't Gregory criticise Al Fayed for making up stories about Spencer's pregnancy and conjuring up a convenient false sponsor, like the Royal Family for the crime? Regardless of what was floating around in Diana Spencer's head about the Royals, and despite the hype that Al Fayed has since stoked, if there was a conspiracy, there may well have been dark clouds gathering around Spencer and Al Fayed from another quarter.
Namely, those in the conservative elite circles of Britain, with contacts in intelligence and munitions who had far more reach and organisational nous than the much vaunted Royal family would ever have.
Gregory is really no friend of mine as you will see from Part VII. Maybe I am guilty of throwing the baby out with the bath water. But if someone makes up the same amount of lies that Hankey did, how could you want to believe them a second time. Call me old fashioned (and I think you have before lol) but I do operate in a pretty ruthless manner. I have never actually panned the whole Diana conspiracy crowd. I have only really done so in terms of Al Fayed's stuff. I have continually sought to distinguish you guys from the dross. In that dept.
In the last four installments, my articles have criticised Muhammed Al Fayed. I also said in Part II that one cannot blame Gregory for focusing on him.
Nonetheless, Gregory for all his salient points concerning the man is guilty of not examining Al Fayed nor the Diana controversy in a broader focus. When I discussed David Icke, I also discussed how conspiracy arguments are framed within the parameters of a dominant paradigm. That being, sceptics like Michael Barkun and Daniel Pipes target conspirahypocrites like Icke and Alex Jones to prove their thesis, which are based on extreme conspirahypocrite cases.
Martyn Gregory, a man I believe who is much smarter than both Barkun and Pipes combined, has done much the same thing by ignoring alternative views from more legitimate sources and real researchers.One of his central targets has been Al Fayed's claims of an imminent marriage and pregnancy to Spencer. If Gregory really wanted to take Al Fayed to task, why has he not discussed the little known fact that Al Fayed's spin-doctoring in the media prior to the events on August 31st 1997 could well have provided potential plotters with an itch to scratch?
Why didn't Gregory criticise Al Fayed for making up stories about Spencer's pregnancy and conjuring up a convenient false sponsor, like the Royal Family for the crime? Regardless of what was floating around in Diana Spencer's head about the Royals, and despite the hype that Al Fayed has since stoked, if there was a conspiracy, there may well have been dark clouds gathering around Spencer and Al Fayed from another quarter.
Namely, those in the conservative elite circles of Britain, with contacts in intelligence and munitions who had far more reach and organisational nous than the much vaunted Royal family would ever have.
Gregory is really no friend of mine as you will see from Part VII. Maybe I am guilty of throwing the baby out with the bath water. But if someone makes up the same amount of lies that Hankey did, how could you want to believe them a second time. Call me old fashioned (and I think you have before lol) but I do operate in a pretty ruthless manner. I have never actually panned the whole Diana conspiracy crowd. I have only really done so in terms of Al Fayed's stuff. I have continually sought to distinguish you guys from the dross. In that dept.
"In the Kennedy assassination we must be careful of running off into the ether of our own imaginations." Carl Ogelsby circa 1992