To be fair to Hamilton he did apologise for his comments, and he has done the same previously. Obviously I'm not a fan but it's a bit unfair to call him a spoilt brat, at the end of the day he's a young lad in his mid-twenties and is going to say daft or stupid things every now and then.
Hi Ernie, I didn't actually claim that Hamilton is definitely a MK-Ultra mind controlled slave. I said it was possible, bearing in mind the Whitmarsh quote, his MKd girlfriend and his young start. I didn't really post all that to have an argument whether he is or isn't, just to point out that Whitmarsh's quote does call the whole MK-Ultra, Monarch programming scenario to mind.
Well the American do make some unique decision's on occasion, whether one agrees or not, its a fact that the Western world has largely remained peacefull for many years, ask yourself would you want it any other way, it's not perfect but !
I'm not railing against them, mind, just wondering if encouraging conspiracy theorists is a tactic or a cock-up.
Yea, I know mate, I read it quickly once and reacted instead of thinking it through, I promise in future to read your post twice before answering.
Its all probably done for the best of reasons although one does wonder sometimes quite how and why these decisions are made, anyway some are certainly outside the law
Good points I realise that F1 is part of the TV agenda to keep people watching rather than participating, but when it comes to F1 I don't care. I'm going to watch F1 even if I watch nothing else. For years I would watch Grand Prix on a Sunday night and marvel at it, despite the footage dating a bit. Now the coverage looks spangly with bags of on board shots and I'm hooked. Apologies for going off topic though, everybody. I'd never seen that quote from Whitmarsh before, and it immediately made me think about MK-Ultra so out it all came. Maybe I should repost it as a thread, but it might just be a bit too inflammatory to a certain group of folks. I also don't want to get into discussions about the validity of MK-Ultra whistleblowers and victims, especially from people who have read nothing about it beforehand. However, bearing all this in mind, I think maybe McLaren aren't quite Lewis's team as much as they were with Ron Dennis there. If Lewis was an experiment he was Ron's experiment more than Whitmarsh's. Other than that I can't see how McLaren are ruining Hamilton. There have been a few dodgy pitstops and a couple of wrong strategy calls, but if that is evidence of an attempt to ruin Hamilton I think that McLaren are being way too subtle.
Ernie, you can slate the 5 race rookie for not being aware of what's around him when he drives his car into the back of an opponent in the pit lane, or do you think Raikonnen should've moved aside?
I think that's a little harsh on Hamilton. Look at how much he has improved at recognising that two solid objects can not occupy the same space. These days it's more glancing blows rather than full blooded pit lane smasheroos.
âMcLaren ruining Hamiltonâ What an odd view to make. Moaning about Hamilton being given the McLaren drive instead of sitting in a crappy car is usually the opinion of people who dislike Hamilton for having a girlfriend and a father that appear on TV. They will find any reason to dislike him. These moaners never seem able to suggest another driver that they consider was worthy of the 2007 drive as per their strict criteria for promotion. In all forms of motorsport the driver seldom accepts blame for anything. Try watching it and you will reach the same conclusion. As for Canada, no one saw the red light apart from Kubica. Hamilton stood by his car and waited for Kimi to come to him and he apologised directly to him. Would Schumacher or Senna done that? As for Monaco, bad weekend for Hamilton but good racing for TV viewers. You see, sport has that effect on people. We want to see excitement.
Miggins: Of course Raikkonen was at fault what a stupid place to park a car, no it was clearly Hamiltons fault, each case needs to be examined on its own merits, as you well know !
From today's press conference in Montreal, regarding the penalty Hamilton received for trying to overtake Maldonado: So let that be an end to it. He went on... That's quite interesting because I see Senna/Schumacher/Hamilton as a continuous vein in F1. He clearly doesn't.
After a couple of races in 2007, Jacques Villeneuve said in an interview that Hamilton reminded him of Schumacher, and not in a good way. Personally, I think that Alonso is more like Schumacher, in that they're both completely ruthless and will do almost anything to win. Whilst Hamilton is more like Senna in that they are/were both over-aggressive and seemed to possess a mentality of "if you don't get out of my way, we're gonna collide".
You do realise that putting Hamilton and Senna in the same sentance risks turning this thread into a 1000+ post one. You've also mentioned Alonso and Hamilton in the same paragraph so thats good for enough 300+ posts Drivers all have different styles to win, and if your talented enough then you can get away with when your style goes wrong Its when your style causes problems and not wins that you get in trouble.
These impressions are obviously completely subjective but my impression of Hamilton has always been that he goes further than Schumacher in terms of on-track tactics and outright aggression, and that Schumacher went further than Senna. I don't mean it as a denigration of their abilities (e.g. I couldn't imagine Hamilton driving into a competitor as per Schumacher in Jerez against Villeneuve) just a constant ramping up of the aggression. I agree that Alonso does it too but he never seems to get into trouble for it the way others do. I suppose they don't call him Teflonso for nothing.
I don't get this........this comparison to past drivers by jumping one to another??? Schumacher was the next Senna, not Lewis, he was the next Alonso. (Rough comparison) Fangio=Brabham=Clark=Stewart=Fittipaldi=Lauda=Villeneuve=Piquet=Prost=Senna=Schumacher=Alonso=Hamilton=Vettel=???? All wanting to win, all very quick, all very gifted! yet all very different. Gilles was known to be a gentlemens kind of driver but still flat out. If he knew you were going to beat him into the next corner, he would take it on the chin and come back at you 110% on the next one. He knew when to attack and admit defeat, until the next chance. If anything Lewis has got traits from Prost and Schumacher included, he's not the next Senna, he's Lewis Hamilton.
