03-03-2012, 11:08 PM
These trashy articles, bereft of even the most simple manifestations of deep politics-informed reasoning and insight, seem designed to deflect attention from the investigation of the "how" of Diana's death and instead shift our focus to the apparently unseemly life, times, and character of Mohammed Al-Fayed.
Mr. Al-Fayed, we are told over and over and over again, is a racist, a cad, an insensitive bigot.
Which tells us, exactly, about how Diana, Mr. Al-Fayed's son, and their driver were killed?
Hey hold on CD. How does Al Fayed's foot and mouth musings of racist royals in a film about Diana Spencers murder 'tells us what exactly' about how anyone was killed? You have amused me with countless cleverly worded diatribes against individuals like Bob Morrow and others. Do they do anything for the JFK case? Further are my comments about Al Fayed, as venomous as the ones we have used against many a mutual foe here? CD, the Royals racism is a central tennant of Keith Allens film. If you had read the first part CD, not only that my previous reply you'd see where I am coming from. If you read part two I also discussed issues of the case presented in Allens documentary. In fact I stated along the lines of 'there's some good food for thought or at least a debate'. A debate I appreiciate you have many a valid point on, further it's also a topic you undoubtedly have more interest and knowledge in than myself. I don't agree or disagree with you, I am sure the collective wits of yourself, Magda and Jan can come up with something better than or in addition too Allens dabblings. Combined with Guyatt, you guys are the best chance of there actually being a respectable counter to it all I can see anywhere. What an asshole I am for saying that.
And it gets worse. The author(s) of this disjointed little smear titillate(s) us with news that, in the next installment, "we will check out Spencer's inconsistent musings about her personal security." Which will tell us, exactly, about how "Spencer" was killed?
"Spencer"???
What else do I call her big guy? I call her Diana occassionally. Queen of Hearts and Peoples Princess is a bit frothy for me mate. I've called John F Kennedy, 'Kennedy' before.
And my oh my, might the use of the word "we" to reference the author(s) of these articles be inadvertently revealing?
Well 'we' in my use of it was the interested reader. Hell, maybe I should have said just that. The next part I think you will also dislike intensely CD. In it I discuss Spencer/Diana and her claims and fears for her security. Now she was once quoted that the same people that killed Versace would come and kill her. Okay cool. But apparently she was in tears when she found out she had been condemned by members of the government for her land mine work. Now there's something of a disconnect here. She expressed fears for her safety, but never followed up with her own security checks in her own vehicles and so on. But these fears have been taken on as if she was deeply afraid of the Royal Family. Her actions in all reality indicate she wasn't at all, or at least not all of the time. Now none of this takes away from the fact that there could have been dark forces enveloping her. But it clearly indicates that she was hardly of the JFK, MLK, X, RFK or even Karen Silkwood variety that genuinely viewed themselves as having a date with destiny. Which makes it all the more interesting that you make the below comment.
All of this is reminiscent of the posthumous assassinations of JFK, RFK, and MLK. Wittingly or not, the author(s) would advise us, "Relax, the victims aren't worthy of our respect, so there's no good reason to inquire after the circumstances of their deaths."
Your words not mine. But it is true I have never shied away from saying I never found Spencer interesting at all, in fact I found her jaunts replacing real news and current events and a number of really important conspiracy issues a very real bore. Numerous posts on DPF as you should know CD, take the crap out of trivial news and stories. This trivialisation that she was part of has seeped into her death. This is IMO is summed up by Al Fayed. He's trivialising the case for conspiracy not me. One thing I think I deleted from the piece is that for a BRIEF time fairly soon after she died, I did make an attempt to at least look into the case. While my natural antipathy towards Spencer was a likely barrier, what turned me off the conspiracy angles, not to mention the Diana crowd straight away (until encountering DPF) was that I mistakenly anticipated there would have been a lot of discussion and articles on the web about her death being linked to landmines. I was stunned, gob smacked in fact, that there was nothing about this critical debate at all damn well anywhere. It was all the pregnancy and marriage garbage.
Further that, where was Al Fayed discussing landmines then? He never did and he decided to go off into his land of the Lala's. In saying that I believe Al Fayed was cleverly manipulated by the way and also compromised by his own past in the arms industry. Look if Al Fayed from day one had been coming out with good rational stuff like yourself, Jan and Magda and Guyatt have I wouldn't be writing this piece. My main spur for this article was precisely Spencer being put on the same pedastool as the above guys. I don't think she is worthy of it IMO and I guess we will have to agree to disagree there. Because my main fear CD, however rational or not. Is if we put Spencer up there, with all of this tawdry tabloidised crap spouted by Al Fayed and others, not real research into credible sources by the likes of you guys here. Then by proxy I feel we legitimise any hack advocating the bollocks scenarios implicating Kennedy's death because of his supposed love triangle with Judyth Exner and Giancana/RFK with Monroe and all sorts of other rubbish Mary Meyer and all kinds of crap.
And it gets worse.
The author(s)' disparagement of assassination investigators prompts his/her/their use of the following rhetorical gems:<br>
"conspiravangelists"
"conspirahypocrite"
"the gaping maw that is the conspiracy-hungry United States"
Sound familiar?
CD, sadly DPF and it's good researchers here are in comparatively small numbers. You of course know this. I've used the above terms not only in articles at TSW but in CTKA articles and even here. I don't get why all of a sudden you take offence to them now. Well I do, you obviously have some deep feelings for the case. Yet, I have not criticised your research nor Jan's or Magda's analysis. You have also been cynical of the Alex Jones and David Icke crowds. That's effectively what I am discussing with the 'gaping maw' angle. And it really is a gaping maw as you know. I am bitterly sorry if I don't see you and DPF as rabid conspiracists and nut jobs who swallow any old crap and won't be cueing up with bowls, like the rest.
These half-witted, ham-fisted attacks, clearly intended to marginalize and demonize conspiracy research and researchers, are all TOO familiar to those of us who seek truth and justice for John Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, Martin Luther King, and, yes, Diana Spencer.
CD let me figure this one out, just because I am neutral on Spencers death and dislike Al Fayed's angles on the controversy, that I am somehow offending the memory of the other guys, is beyond me. CD I firmly believe as do you that high level conspiracies were enacted upon JFK, X, MLK and RFK by agencies of the US government and it's cronies in big business. Just because I don't believe Al Fayeds mad ramblings, does not mean I don't think there is not any chance of something funny happening with Miss Spencer. Just because I criticised John Hankey doesn't make me a lone nut, nor does criticising Jim Fetzer make me anti 9/11. What it does to the public at large is simply say I don't have anything to do with that wash. Again CD this is no different from you have done with these types of guys as well.
Who in God's name is responsible for these travesties? Moldea? Posner? Russo? Bugliosi?
"Colby"???
CD, you will note that in my reply to Mr Gregory, I have asked him to have a debate with yourself, Jan or Magda. I write...
Martin cheers for the compliment. I have to add I am 50/50 on
there being an assassination or not. Thanks to some gun researchers at
DPF Jan, Charles and Magda I am definitely more open to the idea of
there being one. These guys make Al Fayed look stupid. Further that
Diana is not their lives. She is merely one topic of interest they have
looked at and researched. They are not your average Diana loons by any
stretch. I think you would have some pretty worthy combatants there. In
fact could I arrange a debate with you and one of their number? I am
sure Ryan would agree this would make a nice addendum to the end of this
piece.
Now, I doubt that Russo, Bugliosi, Moldea, Colby or Posner would challenge Gregory to discuss the case with the likes of yourself. If Keith Allen can ask some pertinant questions of Gregory, I certainly know yourself, Magda, Guyatt and Jan are more than capable of giving Mr Gregory a very good run for his money. Maybe to good. If Gregory does not accept the chance of debate with you guys or a designated hitter from here. I shall definitely make mention of it in the article. For him not to front up would be a credibility fail. Indeed, Gregory in praising the piece may like you have jumped the gun a little early in criticising it. I have a feeling that despite how polite he was to me and how ever much the debate is moderated, he probably won't. Why because you guys are not easy targets like Al Fayed is. I also add I see Fetzer, Cinque, Hankey, Jones and Icke as just as bad as Moldea, Posner, Russo, Bugliosi, and Colby. I also see Al Fayed and Gregory as being the flip side of the same coin. What I think I have made a mistake on may have been the introduction to my piece. It seems as if I was inadvertantly challenging you. Or somehow tying you in to some of the negative conspiracy connotations. That I can heartily say was never my intention.
Mr. Al-Fayed, we are told over and over and over again, is a racist, a cad, an insensitive bigot.
Which tells us, exactly, about how Diana, Mr. Al-Fayed's son, and their driver were killed?
Hey hold on CD. How does Al Fayed's foot and mouth musings of racist royals in a film about Diana Spencers murder 'tells us what exactly' about how anyone was killed? You have amused me with countless cleverly worded diatribes against individuals like Bob Morrow and others. Do they do anything for the JFK case? Further are my comments about Al Fayed, as venomous as the ones we have used against many a mutual foe here? CD, the Royals racism is a central tennant of Keith Allens film. If you had read the first part CD, not only that my previous reply you'd see where I am coming from. If you read part two I also discussed issues of the case presented in Allens documentary. In fact I stated along the lines of 'there's some good food for thought or at least a debate'. A debate I appreiciate you have many a valid point on, further it's also a topic you undoubtedly have more interest and knowledge in than myself. I don't agree or disagree with you, I am sure the collective wits of yourself, Magda and Jan can come up with something better than or in addition too Allens dabblings. Combined with Guyatt, you guys are the best chance of there actually being a respectable counter to it all I can see anywhere. What an asshole I am for saying that.
And it gets worse. The author(s) of this disjointed little smear titillate(s) us with news that, in the next installment, "we will check out Spencer's inconsistent musings about her personal security." Which will tell us, exactly, about how "Spencer" was killed?
"Spencer"???
What else do I call her big guy? I call her Diana occassionally. Queen of Hearts and Peoples Princess is a bit frothy for me mate. I've called John F Kennedy, 'Kennedy' before.
And my oh my, might the use of the word "we" to reference the author(s) of these articles be inadvertently revealing?
Well 'we' in my use of it was the interested reader. Hell, maybe I should have said just that. The next part I think you will also dislike intensely CD. In it I discuss Spencer/Diana and her claims and fears for her security. Now she was once quoted that the same people that killed Versace would come and kill her. Okay cool. But apparently she was in tears when she found out she had been condemned by members of the government for her land mine work. Now there's something of a disconnect here. She expressed fears for her safety, but never followed up with her own security checks in her own vehicles and so on. But these fears have been taken on as if she was deeply afraid of the Royal Family. Her actions in all reality indicate she wasn't at all, or at least not all of the time. Now none of this takes away from the fact that there could have been dark forces enveloping her. But it clearly indicates that she was hardly of the JFK, MLK, X, RFK or even Karen Silkwood variety that genuinely viewed themselves as having a date with destiny. Which makes it all the more interesting that you make the below comment.
All of this is reminiscent of the posthumous assassinations of JFK, RFK, and MLK. Wittingly or not, the author(s) would advise us, "Relax, the victims aren't worthy of our respect, so there's no good reason to inquire after the circumstances of their deaths."
Your words not mine. But it is true I have never shied away from saying I never found Spencer interesting at all, in fact I found her jaunts replacing real news and current events and a number of really important conspiracy issues a very real bore. Numerous posts on DPF as you should know CD, take the crap out of trivial news and stories. This trivialisation that she was part of has seeped into her death. This is IMO is summed up by Al Fayed. He's trivialising the case for conspiracy not me. One thing I think I deleted from the piece is that for a BRIEF time fairly soon after she died, I did make an attempt to at least look into the case. While my natural antipathy towards Spencer was a likely barrier, what turned me off the conspiracy angles, not to mention the Diana crowd straight away (until encountering DPF) was that I mistakenly anticipated there would have been a lot of discussion and articles on the web about her death being linked to landmines. I was stunned, gob smacked in fact, that there was nothing about this critical debate at all damn well anywhere. It was all the pregnancy and marriage garbage.
Further that, where was Al Fayed discussing landmines then? He never did and he decided to go off into his land of the Lala's. In saying that I believe Al Fayed was cleverly manipulated by the way and also compromised by his own past in the arms industry. Look if Al Fayed from day one had been coming out with good rational stuff like yourself, Jan and Magda and Guyatt have I wouldn't be writing this piece. My main spur for this article was precisely Spencer being put on the same pedastool as the above guys. I don't think she is worthy of it IMO and I guess we will have to agree to disagree there. Because my main fear CD, however rational or not. Is if we put Spencer up there, with all of this tawdry tabloidised crap spouted by Al Fayed and others, not real research into credible sources by the likes of you guys here. Then by proxy I feel we legitimise any hack advocating the bollocks scenarios implicating Kennedy's death because of his supposed love triangle with Judyth Exner and Giancana/RFK with Monroe and all sorts of other rubbish Mary Meyer and all kinds of crap.
And it gets worse.
The author(s)' disparagement of assassination investigators prompts his/her/their use of the following rhetorical gems:<br>
"conspiravangelists"
"conspirahypocrite"
"the gaping maw that is the conspiracy-hungry United States"
Sound familiar?
CD, sadly DPF and it's good researchers here are in comparatively small numbers. You of course know this. I've used the above terms not only in articles at TSW but in CTKA articles and even here. I don't get why all of a sudden you take offence to them now. Well I do, you obviously have some deep feelings for the case. Yet, I have not criticised your research nor Jan's or Magda's analysis. You have also been cynical of the Alex Jones and David Icke crowds. That's effectively what I am discussing with the 'gaping maw' angle. And it really is a gaping maw as you know. I am bitterly sorry if I don't see you and DPF as rabid conspiracists and nut jobs who swallow any old crap and won't be cueing up with bowls, like the rest.
These half-witted, ham-fisted attacks, clearly intended to marginalize and demonize conspiracy research and researchers, are all TOO familiar to those of us who seek truth and justice for John Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, Martin Luther King, and, yes, Diana Spencer.
CD let me figure this one out, just because I am neutral on Spencers death and dislike Al Fayed's angles on the controversy, that I am somehow offending the memory of the other guys, is beyond me. CD I firmly believe as do you that high level conspiracies were enacted upon JFK, X, MLK and RFK by agencies of the US government and it's cronies in big business. Just because I don't believe Al Fayeds mad ramblings, does not mean I don't think there is not any chance of something funny happening with Miss Spencer. Just because I criticised John Hankey doesn't make me a lone nut, nor does criticising Jim Fetzer make me anti 9/11. What it does to the public at large is simply say I don't have anything to do with that wash. Again CD this is no different from you have done with these types of guys as well.
Who in God's name is responsible for these travesties? Moldea? Posner? Russo? Bugliosi?
"Colby"???
CD, you will note that in my reply to Mr Gregory, I have asked him to have a debate with yourself, Jan or Magda. I write...
Martin cheers for the compliment. I have to add I am 50/50 on
there being an assassination or not. Thanks to some gun researchers at
DPF Jan, Charles and Magda I am definitely more open to the idea of
there being one. These guys make Al Fayed look stupid. Further that
Diana is not their lives. She is merely one topic of interest they have
looked at and researched. They are not your average Diana loons by any
stretch. I think you would have some pretty worthy combatants there. In
fact could I arrange a debate with you and one of their number? I am
sure Ryan would agree this would make a nice addendum to the end of this
piece.
Now, I doubt that Russo, Bugliosi, Moldea, Colby or Posner would challenge Gregory to discuss the case with the likes of yourself. If Keith Allen can ask some pertinant questions of Gregory, I certainly know yourself, Magda, Guyatt and Jan are more than capable of giving Mr Gregory a very good run for his money. Maybe to good. If Gregory does not accept the chance of debate with you guys or a designated hitter from here. I shall definitely make mention of it in the article. For him not to front up would be a credibility fail. Indeed, Gregory in praising the piece may like you have jumped the gun a little early in criticising it. I have a feeling that despite how polite he was to me and how ever much the debate is moderated, he probably won't. Why because you guys are not easy targets like Al Fayed is. I also add I see Fetzer, Cinque, Hankey, Jones and Icke as just as bad as Moldea, Posner, Russo, Bugliosi, and Colby. I also see Al Fayed and Gregory as being the flip side of the same coin. What I think I have made a mistake on may have been the introduction to my piece. It seems as if I was inadvertantly challenging you. Or somehow tying you in to some of the negative conspiracy connotations. That I can heartily say was never my intention.
"In the Kennedy assassination we must be careful of running off into the ether of our own imaginations." Carl Ogelsby circa 1992