02-06-2012, 12:15 AM
(This post was last modified: 02-06-2012, 05:56 AM by Seamus Coogan.)
Seamus: I attempted to read this article after reading all the posts on this thread, but the lack of logic (and time- it is a work day after all) stopped me short. No one is comparing Diana with JFK. Except that both were murdered and said murders covered up by the powers that be. If you had so little interest in the subject matter why did you take the time to write what appears to be a long article about it?
While I say the following in very good heart Dawn, after my experiences with you're rather 'illogical' argument surrounding John Hankey, you may forgive me for being a little wary of replying to any questions you ask of myself. I hope you understand that your 'lack of logic' was not exactly encouraging the first time around lol. In your reply to this post, I also anticipate you will ask/demand that I show you a link and or evidence for some of my comments herein. I am rather sick of doing this for people, as I usually quote from my own works already being discussed. Hence, while I am on that topic, a lot of what I discuss herein is actually in up and coming installments of my work. Not to mention the installments, you haven't yet read!!!! All of these of course have the relevant references as do all of my online essays at Top Secret Writers and at CTKA. While it is not quite so obvious at the start of the article. You're hallowed contemporarys here on DPF helped out a lot of with what happen's later from around about Part VI onward's.
In the many different contemporary conspiracy locales I have travelled since I began exploring the 'internet' scene. Contrary to what you say Dawn, I have actually seen a lot of people compare Diana to JFK. You want some evidence, well some of it is linked in Part II of my series. Alex Jones has often included Diana in the same vein as JFK and MLK, Matchbox 20 had them all in there video. Just do a Google search on JFK and Diana. In NZ my personal experience has often been this. Once people know about my JFK stuff, I am always being asked what I thought about Diana (clearly you haven't read that far yet mate). This really annoyed me greatly because well she really annoyed me growing up here. Not being in the Commonwealth, let alone the Southern Hemisphere. Many people in the US have very little to no idea at all how much she was rammed down Antipodean throats, ever since Dame Kiri Te Kanawa (from NZ which is part of the Commonwealth like Canada Dawn) sung at her wedding to Charles. Not only that she visited NZ with William in 1981, which made her a hero. My saying I had no interest in her in anyway, would get you glares and comments as if you had insulted a family member. Sometimes even threats of violence (my mates have a few good stories about that). That's how it was growing up over here. Hence I decided next time someone asks me the question, about their being a conspiracy in her case when I discussed JFK (a person of far more importance in the grand scheme of things).They were going to wish they never asked me again.
Thus I have a pretty dispassionate view of events. Which as you can see has led me into some troubling waters with CD. Fair play to him though, he is very passionate about this case. In hindsight I think should have held back on my feelings for Spencer, as he suggested, either that or I should have reworded what I said.concerning CD. I suspect I may have held him off for the time being, as I move into a more conspiratorial vein (as I told him I would). In terms of length I actually didn't intend for the piece to be so long. I blame this on some very good conversations with Jan and Magda via a series of emails just after my first piece was finished. As a result it's taken a little longer to complete. Further, when you are dealing with a serialisation it can tough to keep a flow going. Its also a bitch if you leave something important out you have to figure out a way to include it later or in some kind of summary. Nonetheless, the results I feel are worth all the shite I've copped lol. I sincerely believe that in extricating Al Fayed from the case. Not to mention dealing with myth's concerning Diana Spencer and calling out Martin Gregory. There are still grounds for conspiracy, or at the very least a good debate for one. What's truly astounding is that in the 16 years or so since it happened, bar the advice and insights I was given here by people on this very forum. The Diana field is remarkably poor in comparison to JFK. Indeed, I asked Jan and Magda about the state of the Diana conspiracy literature. They sure as heck weren't kidding me when they confirmed it was shite.
For example, I've had a more indepth look at one of their better guys John Morgan recently. My initial praise for his excellent work concerning the toxicity tests, has given way to some deep misgivings about his methods. Like far to many of his ilk, he seems prepared to take all witnesses that are more or less pro conspiracy as bible. He doesn't keep an eye out for conflicting accounts accepting Al Fayeds pregnancy claims without questions etc, etc, etc. Jon King and his pal Beveridge are in the same mould. There's some okay stuff, yet while King and Beveridge say they try and avoid Al Fayeds musings, they essentially make all the same gaffs he does. Now these guys are amongst the top Diana experts. Oh deary me. In this piece of mine I try my best to be honest about my speculations and musings. Because heck that's what many of them are. Far to many so called 'researchers' in the Diana fold don't tend to have that sort modesty!!!
I did not ever realize that Jan, CD and Magda were all "David Guyatt influenced". Interesting. David would no doubt find that amusing. You charge that although she expreessed concerns about her safety she took no precautions. Getting past the fact of victim blaming, so unfair, I ask you just what exactly does one do when he or she believes his/her life is in danger? What could she have done differently on that terrible evening?
Lol I never said that Jan, CD or Magda were influenced by Guyatt in all other facets of conspiracy. Just this area these guys simply told me to track down what Dave Guyatt had written and commented on. Sadly there's not that much which is a real pity, but his outlook is really admired by. Believe it or not, I am very concerned about my blaming the victim. Nothings worse in my book. I also don't recall if I voice my concern about victim bashing when I discuss her security concerns in Part VII (I think). If not I wish I had.
But Dawn mate I have to say reading about my piece via the comments on this thread is hardly sensible.
The reason being is that it is all rather complex. The motives of the victim fearing for their safety can and would be questioned in any court. You'd know this being our resident ace lawyer, that being if Spencer's case was ever prosecuted the lawyers from the defence would attack or at least try and undermine the notion that Diana feared for her life. This is the big problem with Diana (and I think at least Jan and Magda may agree with me on this point, hopefully CD as well). She was many things to many people. Everybody felt as if they had a special connection with her (either that or they talked shite). Some people heard about her security fears some didn't. Somedays she was concerned about her safety and other days she simply didn't care. One day she's throwing herself down stairs, the next she's concerned that Charles Muslim friends would 'off her' for leaving him. But lo and behold the next minute she was going out with some. I mean she thought Versace's shooting was a conspiracy and she thought the same guys were also out to get her. Even her trusted friends were so used to her flippancy, like her old lawyer they rarely took her seriously.
What we have here unfortunately, is a very real Cry Wolf scenario. She may well have been proven right in the end, but the harsh reality is that she never seriously or consistently anticipated she would be. Now, I'm not a lawyer in any way, but after all this I sure as hell wouldn't use her comments regarding her safety to convince a jury of pre-meditation in a trial up against some hot shit lawyer.
In contrast we all know people like Karen Silkwood, Rosa Parks, JFK, X, MLK, RFK all expressed concern for their safety. Their closest pals didn't role their eyes and think 'shit here she/he goes again'. These guys generally only spoke about personal security fears when asked. They never pushed these envelopes to all and sundry, they didn't play victim. The defence would thus have a ton of trouble trying to discredit them and their suspicions. Simply, because these guys had no illusions about what they were up against. This I feel is key. It was after some great discussions with Magda, that I came to believe like her that Spencer while very canny with the public and the media. Was also pretty immature and naive about societies true nasties. Too few people understand she likely had no idea of the situation she was getting herself into with landmines. Susan Simmons, who I discuss in later parts of my essay is the one person who has written about Di's claims for her safety in this area. However the women (Simmons) is so full of shite with regards to Diana's fears about landmine merchants it's laughable.
Thus the question of what Spencer could have done differently that evening is a very, very difficult one. Because of course what I will say will likely come across as hostile or insensitive. If she had been a little more prescient, maybe a press conference discussing her fears about fronting the landmine campaigns, would have been a good idea well before that night in question. She may have copped some flak, but it may have put people on alert. My only insight here is an idea CD planted in my ear in his roundabout kind of way. Could Spencer have had word from a trusted insider that she was safe on the issue? Was she told that saying something about fearing for her safety publically was a bad move? Maybe Dawn there were Judas's on the inside of Spencer and Al Fayeds groups!
I promise to go back and finish the piece...with the hope that it gets better. And like CD said above: keep at it. That you care enough to investigate and write about these matters is a good thing.
Thanks Dawn, I don't really know if it will get better lol. I fully admit that it's a very rugged read at the start, while I make no apologies for that. In hindsight Dawn there are some things I'd probably change. I would get stuck into Martyn Gregory earlier for starters. I'd probably tone down my venom concerning Spencer a little. Yet I am not going to dodge the fact Al Fayed's rantings and squirmings have trivialised what could potentially be an interesting case badly. He's Diana's own inhouse Fetzer. An important aspect of this essay, not to mention the part I have most enjoyed discussing with CD, Magda and Jan. Is that people like Martyn Gregory, created a paradigm utilising Al Fayed to nullify logical debate in the topic. An example would be having the Kennedy assassination being defined, by Fetzer and Mack going at it toe to toe. This is essentially what the Diana debate for all intents and purposes is. After the dross I have seen I really don't want the tossers involved in the Diana field thinking they have a sniff in the JFK zone.
Returning to the point about 'getting better' If you also mean by 'getting better' I suddenly embrace the dubious claims that Diana Spencer was pregnant and going to marry Dodi Fayed. Then I suspect people will be bitterly dissapointed lol. If people are wanting me to say the Royals did it, I am very sorry to say people will be disappointed there also. If on the other hand they are open to it possibly being some contracted hit, aided and abetted by a proffesional bunch of assassins with interests in keeping the Royal Family's brand name free of trouble in trade circles and munition supply they might be a little happier.
Yours Coogs.
While I say the following in very good heart Dawn, after my experiences with you're rather 'illogical' argument surrounding John Hankey, you may forgive me for being a little wary of replying to any questions you ask of myself. I hope you understand that your 'lack of logic' was not exactly encouraging the first time around lol. In your reply to this post, I also anticipate you will ask/demand that I show you a link and or evidence for some of my comments herein. I am rather sick of doing this for people, as I usually quote from my own works already being discussed. Hence, while I am on that topic, a lot of what I discuss herein is actually in up and coming installments of my work. Not to mention the installments, you haven't yet read!!!! All of these of course have the relevant references as do all of my online essays at Top Secret Writers and at CTKA. While it is not quite so obvious at the start of the article. You're hallowed contemporarys here on DPF helped out a lot of with what happen's later from around about Part VI onward's.
In the many different contemporary conspiracy locales I have travelled since I began exploring the 'internet' scene. Contrary to what you say Dawn, I have actually seen a lot of people compare Diana to JFK. You want some evidence, well some of it is linked in Part II of my series. Alex Jones has often included Diana in the same vein as JFK and MLK, Matchbox 20 had them all in there video. Just do a Google search on JFK and Diana. In NZ my personal experience has often been this. Once people know about my JFK stuff, I am always being asked what I thought about Diana (clearly you haven't read that far yet mate). This really annoyed me greatly because well she really annoyed me growing up here. Not being in the Commonwealth, let alone the Southern Hemisphere. Many people in the US have very little to no idea at all how much she was rammed down Antipodean throats, ever since Dame Kiri Te Kanawa (from NZ which is part of the Commonwealth like Canada Dawn) sung at her wedding to Charles. Not only that she visited NZ with William in 1981, which made her a hero. My saying I had no interest in her in anyway, would get you glares and comments as if you had insulted a family member. Sometimes even threats of violence (my mates have a few good stories about that). That's how it was growing up over here. Hence I decided next time someone asks me the question, about their being a conspiracy in her case when I discussed JFK (a person of far more importance in the grand scheme of things).They were going to wish they never asked me again.
Thus I have a pretty dispassionate view of events. Which as you can see has led me into some troubling waters with CD. Fair play to him though, he is very passionate about this case. In hindsight I think should have held back on my feelings for Spencer, as he suggested, either that or I should have reworded what I said.concerning CD. I suspect I may have held him off for the time being, as I move into a more conspiratorial vein (as I told him I would). In terms of length I actually didn't intend for the piece to be so long. I blame this on some very good conversations with Jan and Magda via a series of emails just after my first piece was finished. As a result it's taken a little longer to complete. Further, when you are dealing with a serialisation it can tough to keep a flow going. Its also a bitch if you leave something important out you have to figure out a way to include it later or in some kind of summary. Nonetheless, the results I feel are worth all the shite I've copped lol. I sincerely believe that in extricating Al Fayed from the case. Not to mention dealing with myth's concerning Diana Spencer and calling out Martin Gregory. There are still grounds for conspiracy, or at the very least a good debate for one. What's truly astounding is that in the 16 years or so since it happened, bar the advice and insights I was given here by people on this very forum. The Diana field is remarkably poor in comparison to JFK. Indeed, I asked Jan and Magda about the state of the Diana conspiracy literature. They sure as heck weren't kidding me when they confirmed it was shite.
For example, I've had a more indepth look at one of their better guys John Morgan recently. My initial praise for his excellent work concerning the toxicity tests, has given way to some deep misgivings about his methods. Like far to many of his ilk, he seems prepared to take all witnesses that are more or less pro conspiracy as bible. He doesn't keep an eye out for conflicting accounts accepting Al Fayeds pregnancy claims without questions etc, etc, etc. Jon King and his pal Beveridge are in the same mould. There's some okay stuff, yet while King and Beveridge say they try and avoid Al Fayeds musings, they essentially make all the same gaffs he does. Now these guys are amongst the top Diana experts. Oh deary me. In this piece of mine I try my best to be honest about my speculations and musings. Because heck that's what many of them are. Far to many so called 'researchers' in the Diana fold don't tend to have that sort modesty!!!
I did not ever realize that Jan, CD and Magda were all "David Guyatt influenced". Interesting. David would no doubt find that amusing. You charge that although she expreessed concerns about her safety she took no precautions. Getting past the fact of victim blaming, so unfair, I ask you just what exactly does one do when he or she believes his/her life is in danger? What could she have done differently on that terrible evening?
Lol I never said that Jan, CD or Magda were influenced by Guyatt in all other facets of conspiracy. Just this area these guys simply told me to track down what Dave Guyatt had written and commented on. Sadly there's not that much which is a real pity, but his outlook is really admired by. Believe it or not, I am very concerned about my blaming the victim. Nothings worse in my book. I also don't recall if I voice my concern about victim bashing when I discuss her security concerns in Part VII (I think). If not I wish I had.
But Dawn mate I have to say reading about my piece via the comments on this thread is hardly sensible.
The reason being is that it is all rather complex. The motives of the victim fearing for their safety can and would be questioned in any court. You'd know this being our resident ace lawyer, that being if Spencer's case was ever prosecuted the lawyers from the defence would attack or at least try and undermine the notion that Diana feared for her life. This is the big problem with Diana (and I think at least Jan and Magda may agree with me on this point, hopefully CD as well). She was many things to many people. Everybody felt as if they had a special connection with her (either that or they talked shite). Some people heard about her security fears some didn't. Somedays she was concerned about her safety and other days she simply didn't care. One day she's throwing herself down stairs, the next she's concerned that Charles Muslim friends would 'off her' for leaving him. But lo and behold the next minute she was going out with some. I mean she thought Versace's shooting was a conspiracy and she thought the same guys were also out to get her. Even her trusted friends were so used to her flippancy, like her old lawyer they rarely took her seriously.
What we have here unfortunately, is a very real Cry Wolf scenario. She may well have been proven right in the end, but the harsh reality is that she never seriously or consistently anticipated she would be. Now, I'm not a lawyer in any way, but after all this I sure as hell wouldn't use her comments regarding her safety to convince a jury of pre-meditation in a trial up against some hot shit lawyer.
In contrast we all know people like Karen Silkwood, Rosa Parks, JFK, X, MLK, RFK all expressed concern for their safety. Their closest pals didn't role their eyes and think 'shit here she/he goes again'. These guys generally only spoke about personal security fears when asked. They never pushed these envelopes to all and sundry, they didn't play victim. The defence would thus have a ton of trouble trying to discredit them and their suspicions. Simply, because these guys had no illusions about what they were up against. This I feel is key. It was after some great discussions with Magda, that I came to believe like her that Spencer while very canny with the public and the media. Was also pretty immature and naive about societies true nasties. Too few people understand she likely had no idea of the situation she was getting herself into with landmines. Susan Simmons, who I discuss in later parts of my essay is the one person who has written about Di's claims for her safety in this area. However the women (Simmons) is so full of shite with regards to Diana's fears about landmine merchants it's laughable.
Thus the question of what Spencer could have done differently that evening is a very, very difficult one. Because of course what I will say will likely come across as hostile or insensitive. If she had been a little more prescient, maybe a press conference discussing her fears about fronting the landmine campaigns, would have been a good idea well before that night in question. She may have copped some flak, but it may have put people on alert. My only insight here is an idea CD planted in my ear in his roundabout kind of way. Could Spencer have had word from a trusted insider that she was safe on the issue? Was she told that saying something about fearing for her safety publically was a bad move? Maybe Dawn there were Judas's on the inside of Spencer and Al Fayeds groups!
I promise to go back and finish the piece...with the hope that it gets better. And like CD said above: keep at it. That you care enough to investigate and write about these matters is a good thing.
Thanks Dawn, I don't really know if it will get better lol. I fully admit that it's a very rugged read at the start, while I make no apologies for that. In hindsight Dawn there are some things I'd probably change. I would get stuck into Martyn Gregory earlier for starters. I'd probably tone down my venom concerning Spencer a little. Yet I am not going to dodge the fact Al Fayed's rantings and squirmings have trivialised what could potentially be an interesting case badly. He's Diana's own inhouse Fetzer. An important aspect of this essay, not to mention the part I have most enjoyed discussing with CD, Magda and Jan. Is that people like Martyn Gregory, created a paradigm utilising Al Fayed to nullify logical debate in the topic. An example would be having the Kennedy assassination being defined, by Fetzer and Mack going at it toe to toe. This is essentially what the Diana debate for all intents and purposes is. After the dross I have seen I really don't want the tossers involved in the Diana field thinking they have a sniff in the JFK zone.
Returning to the point about 'getting better' If you also mean by 'getting better' I suddenly embrace the dubious claims that Diana Spencer was pregnant and going to marry Dodi Fayed. Then I suspect people will be bitterly dissapointed lol. If people are wanting me to say the Royals did it, I am very sorry to say people will be disappointed there also. If on the other hand they are open to it possibly being some contracted hit, aided and abetted by a proffesional bunch of assassins with interests in keeping the Royal Family's brand name free of trouble in trade circles and munition supply they might be a little happier.
Yours Coogs.
"In the Kennedy assassination we must be careful of running off into the ether of our own imaginations." Carl Ogelsby circa 1992