09-08-2012, 05:14 AM
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43
09-08-2012, 01:24 PM
I think Jim makes a mistake in thinking the only reason the intruders were in the house was the diary. What if there was no diary and the intruders were black bag men installing listening devices? This would show advanced interest in Meyer equal to that of a targeted individual.
Jim says Meyer's friends said she never questioned the Warren Report and actually agreed with it. Well, maybe she had personal conversations with JFK where he told her not to trust those around her, just as he couldn't trust those around him. Perhaps she played her cards close to her chest.
What if a listening device caught JFK and MPM having a conversation that they didn't want known? You can see the level of clearing the decks intel was undergoing post-assassination. Murdering Kilgallen, Ralph Yates, Pitzer etc was a heightened level of damage control that MPM would dovetail right in to without a wrinkle.
What if the (alleged) diary contained musings of JFK saying to her he was under threat from CIA and the military because of his peace efforts? What if it contained nothing about cannabis, LSD, and sex but instead spoke about Kennedy trying to solve the CIA/Military Industrial Complex corruption of government and its course towards nuclear war?
I see EF removed Calahan's accusation of Jim being a CIA agent.
Seamus: Any chance they were spicing-up MPM's death with cannabis, LSD, and sex the same way?
Jim says Meyer's friends said she never questioned the Warren Report and actually agreed with it. Well, maybe she had personal conversations with JFK where he told her not to trust those around her, just as he couldn't trust those around him. Perhaps she played her cards close to her chest.
What if a listening device caught JFK and MPM having a conversation that they didn't want known? You can see the level of clearing the decks intel was undergoing post-assassination. Murdering Kilgallen, Ralph Yates, Pitzer etc was a heightened level of damage control that MPM would dovetail right in to without a wrinkle.
What if the (alleged) diary contained musings of JFK saying to her he was under threat from CIA and the military because of his peace efforts? What if it contained nothing about cannabis, LSD, and sex but instead spoke about Kennedy trying to solve the CIA/Military Industrial Complex corruption of government and its course towards nuclear war?
I see EF removed Calahan's accusation of Jim being a CIA agent.
Seamus: Any chance they were spicing-up MPM's death with cannabis, LSD, and sex the same way?
09-08-2012, 03:49 PM
Albert Doyle Wrote:I think Jim makes a mistake in thinking the only reason the intruders were in the house was the diary. What if there was no diary and the intruders were black bag men installing listening devices? This would show advanced interest in Meyer equal to that of a targeted individual.
Jim says Meyer's friends said she never questioned the Warren Report and actually agreed with it. Well, maybe she had personal conversations with JFK where he told her not to trust those around her, just as he couldn't trust those around him. Perhaps she played her cards close to her chest.
What if a listening device caught JFK and MPM having a conversation that they didn't want known? You can see the level of clearing the decks intel was undergoing post-assassination. Murdering Kilgallen, Ralph Yates, Pitzer etc was a heightened level of damage control that MPM would dovetail right in to without a wrinkle.
What if the (alleged) diary contained musings of JFK saying to her he was under threat from CIA and the military because of his peace efforts? What if it contained nothing about cannabis, LSD, and sex but instead spoke about Kennedy trying to solve the CIA/Military Industrial Complex corruption of government and its course towards nuclear war?
I see EF removed Calahan's accusation of Jim being a CIA agent.
Seamus: Any chance they were spicing-up MPM's death with cannabis, LSD, and sex the same way?
Al I agree 'if' just 'if' some of this stuff is true the reasons you mentioned may well be good enough. The next problem is avoiding Janney and gathering the evidence. I'm of the opinion that if a conspiracy MPM could have been killed for any amount of reasons bar Kennedy. She had some interesting contacts and people. Cord and her were involved in a number of activities she had to have known were CIA fronts. I have no doubt she likely new of slags like Gloria Steinem who Cord had ties to (http://www.namebase.org/steinem.html). Its this sort of thing that interests me. Jim's not mistaken just inflexible, but I can't say I blame him when up against Janney and others crud. As for MPM That's a good question Al mate I think either way you look Al murder or not they definitely have spiced up her life for sure. It's like what I said earlier whats going on is the posthumous assassination of MPM.
09-08-2012, 09:22 PM
The next problem is avoiding Janney and gathering the evidence.
Seamus, I think this is what Charles was saying.
Jim has done his characteristic masterful deconstruction of Janney.
You have walked back a herd of cats in many quarters, e.g., UFO to Allen Dulles.
Al suggests the surveillance which is the forte of this ilk now building the borg in Utah.
Removing layers of static reveals key signatures.
They mean to disrupt and disinform.
At all times.
Peace.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]3931[/ATTACH]
Seamus, I think this is what Charles was saying.
Jim has done his characteristic masterful deconstruction of Janney.
You have walked back a herd of cats in many quarters, e.g., UFO to Allen Dulles.
Al suggests the surveillance which is the forte of this ilk now building the borg in Utah.
Removing layers of static reveals key signatures.
They mean to disrupt and disinform.
At all times.
Peace.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]3931[/ATTACH]
09-08-2012, 10:10 PM
Phil Dragoo Wrote:The next problem is avoiding Janney and gathering the evidence.
Seamus, I think this is what Charles was saying.
Jim has done his characteristic masterful deconstruction of Janney.
You have walked back a herd of cats in many quarters, e.g., UFO to Allen Dulles.
Al suggests the surveillance which is the forte of this ilk now building the borg in Utah.
Removing layers of static reveals key signatures.
They mean to disrupt and disinform.
At all times.
Peace.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]3931[/ATTACH]
I don't think I've ever had a problem with translating anything anyone's said Phil mate. I think people might have struggled with my Engrish though lol
09-08-2012, 11:39 PM
Seamus Coogan Wrote:Phil Dragoo Wrote:The next problem is avoiding Janney and gathering the evidence.
Seamus, I think this is what Charles was saying.
Jim has done his characteristic masterful deconstruction of Janney.
You have walked back a herd of cats in many quarters, e.g., UFO to Allen Dulles.
Al suggests the surveillance which is the forte of this ilk now building the borg in Utah.
Removing layers of static reveals key signatures.
They mean to disrupt and disinform.
At all times.
Peace.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]3931[/ATTACH]
I don't think I've ever had a problem with translating anything anyone's said Phil mate. I think people might have struggled with my Engrish though lol
I'll agree with the second part of your response, Seamus.
10-08-2012, 03:15 AM
Lol no hassles. I think some my replies in this exchange may have been more incidentally incendiary than intended.
12-09-2012, 05:59 PM
If Mitchell has been located then he should be agitated to find his account of what Janney accuses him of.
Funny, JFK researchers usually aren't shy about this kind of thing.
Funny, JFK researchers usually aren't shy about this kind of thing.
16-09-2012, 02:55 AM
Its always good to trace back to origins, that way we find out how things began and why. That helps elucidate why someone said what they did at the time. And why they are saying something now.
When Damore, and then Janney, worked on what became the fairy tale of Mary's Mosaic, they decided that Mitchell was going to be their fall guy. They then added an air of mystery: Mitchell disappeared into thin air after his appearance at the trial.
Albert, and then Horne, really dug this angle. Even though, by reading what Lisa and I wrote about the book, it was clear that neither writer could be trusted since they were so agenda driven. Horne wrote an embarrassing valentine to the book on Amazon and he got it up first. That critique shows us much about his analytical skills as a critic. He bought the whole mess of a book--including Mitchell.
But then, as I warned, that was not actually accurate. There does appear to be a William Mitchell who moved to California after going to Oxford. Therefore, if Janney and Damore could not find the man, it appears they did not look very hard. And that is not good research or writing. Another problem is that Damore and Janney violated another cardinal rule: They trusted their CIA sources all too willingly. Niether Horne nor Albert can find it in their critical canon to mention any of this.
So now, Horne is stung. He looks kind of silly. So what does he say, and Albert now echoes: Well why is this Mitchell guy not up in arms? This transferral is supposed to conceal the fact that Horne got duped in the first place. In other words, it doesn't matter if Mitchell disappeared or if he did not: Horne wants it both ways in order to disguise his gullibility.
The problem is this, and anyone who has done these kinds of searches should be familiar with it--as Albert clearly is not. That name is a very common one. Its not like, say, my name. William Mitchell is almost as generic as Joe Smith. Therefore, although it does appear to be him, you cannot be positive. This is a responsible approach to an issue that Janney polarized without doing due diligence.
Normally, what one does in these situations, when the indicators are positive, you turn over the info to a private detective. He takes it from there in order to confirm. This is what Janney, or Damore, should have done. Its unfair and a little outrageous to expect people who are not involved with a book to spend their own money on someone else's allegations. After all, Janney is making money off this book. No one else is.
Therefore, at this stage, other devices are being used. And they take longer.
There you go Albert, as Sean Connery said to Eliot Ness, "What do you want a free lesson in police work?" Well, you got one.
One would think that the observers would be more concerned with what the researchers and writers of the book should have done, instead of what people completely divorced from the book have to take upon themselves. But that is the topsy turvy world of the phantasmorgic Mary's Mosaic.
When Damore, and then Janney, worked on what became the fairy tale of Mary's Mosaic, they decided that Mitchell was going to be their fall guy. They then added an air of mystery: Mitchell disappeared into thin air after his appearance at the trial.
Albert, and then Horne, really dug this angle. Even though, by reading what Lisa and I wrote about the book, it was clear that neither writer could be trusted since they were so agenda driven. Horne wrote an embarrassing valentine to the book on Amazon and he got it up first. That critique shows us much about his analytical skills as a critic. He bought the whole mess of a book--including Mitchell.
But then, as I warned, that was not actually accurate. There does appear to be a William Mitchell who moved to California after going to Oxford. Therefore, if Janney and Damore could not find the man, it appears they did not look very hard. And that is not good research or writing. Another problem is that Damore and Janney violated another cardinal rule: They trusted their CIA sources all too willingly. Niether Horne nor Albert can find it in their critical canon to mention any of this.
So now, Horne is stung. He looks kind of silly. So what does he say, and Albert now echoes: Well why is this Mitchell guy not up in arms? This transferral is supposed to conceal the fact that Horne got duped in the first place. In other words, it doesn't matter if Mitchell disappeared or if he did not: Horne wants it both ways in order to disguise his gullibility.
The problem is this, and anyone who has done these kinds of searches should be familiar with it--as Albert clearly is not. That name is a very common one. Its not like, say, my name. William Mitchell is almost as generic as Joe Smith. Therefore, although it does appear to be him, you cannot be positive. This is a responsible approach to an issue that Janney polarized without doing due diligence.
Normally, what one does in these situations, when the indicators are positive, you turn over the info to a private detective. He takes it from there in order to confirm. This is what Janney, or Damore, should have done. Its unfair and a little outrageous to expect people who are not involved with a book to spend their own money on someone else's allegations. After all, Janney is making money off this book. No one else is.
Therefore, at this stage, other devices are being used. And they take longer.
There you go Albert, as Sean Connery said to Eliot Ness, "What do you want a free lesson in police work?" Well, you got one.
One would think that the observers would be more concerned with what the researchers and writers of the book should have done, instead of what people completely divorced from the book have to take upon themselves. But that is the topsy turvy world of the phantasmorgic Mary's Mosaic.
16-09-2012, 04:23 AM
I don't think that quite answers the question. Also, I haven't bought anything of Janney's. I haven't even read the book. I think the arguments have been clear that theoretically there is a lot a leeway still involved that doesn't necessarily prove it one way or another. In fact, if we were to follow the strict rule of hard evidence demanded here, Crump's gun was never found.
I guess the point is that if it is Mitchell he should be questioned. If it isn't then Mitchell remains a mystery.
As Charles noted, disproving Janney, his methodology, and his sources does not equate to Mary Meyer not being assassinated by intel, or perhaps Janney and Damore's bad material being used for deep purposes of disinformation or other.
I guess the point is that if it is Mitchell he should be questioned. If it isn't then Mitchell remains a mystery.
As Charles noted, disproving Janney, his methodology, and his sources does not equate to Mary Meyer not being assassinated by intel, or perhaps Janney and Damore's bad material being used for deep purposes of disinformation or other.