Deep Politics Forum

I think somebody has a chip on their shoulder because they didn't do well in open debate of the facts behind Mary Meyer's CIA assassination. Ralph Yates as well.



It would be my opinion that the apology is owed by the so-called conspiracy researcher who just so happens to take a Lone Nutter-type pro-government position on some of the worst victims of the assassination.




I think somebody is desperate to use cheap, off-topic attacks to try to make their bad arguments work. The topic here is Peter Janney and Mary's Mosaic.

[URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1eA5bUzVjA"]
"Have you no sense of Decency Sir?"

[/URL][URL="http://www.amazon.com/review/R7U5WM5R54DLG/ref=cm_cr_rdp_perm"]
[/URL][URL="http://www.amazon.com/review/R7U5WM5R54DLG/ref=cm_cr_rdp_perm"][B]Double Witness: The Murder Of Jimi Hendrix
[/URL]
[/B]

Drew Phipps Wrote:So Albert, you admit posting on that other site under the name of "Ralph Yates"? Just curious why you would assume the moniker of an at least "partly-discredited-by-virtue-of-insanity" eyewitness to the Oswald double story. That strikes me as callous. Wasn't the use of the Ralph Yates name the topic of some other seemingly pointless post in the recent past? What are you up to? PS: I don't believe JVB's story in the slightest, and if there are doubles showing up around here, she's one of them, according to her sometime-defender Edward Haslam...

Quote:Albert Regan Doyle - Sanibel-Captiva Islander
Feb 5, 2014 - Albert, the son of William and Gertrude Maye Doyle, attended...
... Special thanks to Albert's son Brian who provided care for him at home. ....
Survivors include five children, Patricia, Brian, Christine, Theresa, and Stephen;
five beloved grandchildren, .....

http://www.amazon.com/gp/pdp/profile/A31...cr_rdp_pdp





Mary's Mosaic: The CIA Conspiracy to Murder JFK Customer Reviews

Somebody is getting away with Amazon trolling while posing as being offended.



It amazes me that persons who would stoop so low would speak of decency. Especially ones that attack some of the worst victims of the assassination.



The on-topic discussion of Janney is in the thread above. Unfortunately it has been hijacked by an unraveled poster.



Scully has to learn how to argue evidence. Lack of blood and gunpowder trumps any kind of nitpicking he offers on Janney's version of Mitchell. If you read Scully's attack on Janney he focuses solely on his defense of Mitchell but then ignores the plethora of evidence that backs Janney throughout the case. Janney may have been wrong about Mitchell being the shooter but he's not wrong about him being an intel spook involved in the frame-up. You can see the methods Scully employs to get around having to answer this above.


Scully spends most of his efforts defending the government in CIA assassinations. Decency???

Albert Doyle Wrote:Somebody is getting away with Amazon trolling while posing as being offended. ...

Albert Doyle Wrote:No offense but I think you are switching the point from the current need to interrogate Mitchell to an argument over Janney's poor scholarship and methodology. You've won the contest over Janney's poor research and use of uncredible sources. However, as even Charles pointed out, that doesn't necessarily prove Mary Meyer wasn't covertly assassinated. And even if she was murdered by Crump for totally unrelated reasons, it doesn't preclude all this Janney theory business being used for deep political disinformation purposes. That's the trouble with a room full of mirrors is that it is hard to create just one straight image guided by straight logic. Too many words vs a simple solution Mr D. Simply knock on this Mr Mitchell's door and ask him. Otherwise Tom Scully is just an overly informational bringer of wrong information.

I think you don't understand that we can throw out all that crap Janney offers about Mitchell's possible role and still have a legitimate covert assassination remaining. Just not the way Janney described it. In the end it is still highly suspicious for Mitchell to remain quiet with all that has been said about him in public. I agree with Horne on this because it's obvious and has nothing to do with Janney's scholarship.

So.....which "one" is bashing me in this thread now? Is it the deceased "Albert Doyle" or is it "Ralph Yates". Why is Amazon only a problem if I am
referencing one of your zombie personas? I post my research rebutting Janney's accusation of "missing" Mitchell, Crump trial witness and CIA assassin.
The reaction is calling me out falsely as a "liar" and downgrading me from moderator to "guest" on a dysfunctional JFK "research" forum I will not name here.
In the same "fell swoop" Jim DiEugenio was disappeared along with all 5,000 of his posts.
Time passes and reveals that I am accurate and Janney is "mistaken". Meanwhile, an Amazon book review sock puppet has been hounding me because
of my accurate claims, for three long years......

I want to know who the author was of this empty, inaccurate criticism of me and of my research?

Albert Doyle Wrote:Judyth Baker responded on her Facebook page:

{ "DID LEE HARVEY OSWALD GO TO MEXICO CITY?"
According to "Ralph Yates" (Amazon book review comment on Me & Lee) I'm making "excuses similar to a schoolgirl" "making up excuses as she goes along" --and he focuses on The Cuban Consulate and Silvia Duran, who worked there, saying "The problem with this is the best of Kennedy Assassination research is starting to show that Oswald never went to the Cuban Consulate in Mexico City. So how could Oswald return to Baker in Texas and give her details about a place he never visited? Baker gives no answer to this." THIS IS NOT TRUE, BUT THEN, MR. YATES IS NOT COMPELLED TO TELL THE TRUTH.
..............

******************************************************************************************************************

.......

Judyth Baker begins her missive by accusing me of not being compelled to tell the truth. This is the typical paranoid type framing Ms Baker uses to condition her information in order to present herself as being the victim of unfair attackers out to persecute her.
...............
Honestly Ms Baker, you are not seriously offering this mish-mash flurry of uncredible, poorly-contexted, logically-unsound references as a refutation of what I said? Sorry, but in my mind it only serves to reinforce my accusation and prove yet again another example of what I am saying. And I'm not one of your worst critics. My official position is that there may be some truth to your story. For instance I believe Anna Lewis on seeing an Oswald double (as you now admit) in New Orleans in early 1962. But I can tell you right now you are not doing very well on your Mexico claim or your defense of it here.

Drew Phipps Wrote:So Albert, you admit posting on that other site under the name of "Ralph Yates"? Just curious why you would assume the moniker of an at least "partly-discredited-by-virtue-of-insanity" eyewitness to the Oswald double story. That strikes me as callous. Wasn't the use of the Ralph Yates name the topic of some other seemingly pointless post in the recent past? What are you up to?

PS: I don't believe JVB's story in the slightest, and if there are doubles showing up around here, she's one of them, according to her sometime-defender Edward Haslam...

Tom Scully Wrote:I want to know who the author was of this empty, inaccurate criticism of me and of my research?

You're dodging the Deep Politics poster Albert Doyle's points Tom. Amazon has nothing to do with that.



If you care to view the thread above it shows the obvious reason for your embarrassing behavior. It shows my input is not empty or inaccurate as you say. Actually it was valid enough to drive you to this trolling. It's obviously the source for your embarrassing desperation. The real question is will you honestly answer it or will we be subjected to this trolling? Do you normally go to Amazon data dump trolling when you can't answer points? You're obviously desperate to create an issue. But it is equally obvious you are using it to avoid answering the debates you are so clearly failing in. It's a crude device and what is shameful here. Primitive really.

Tom:

Did you drop that utterly fascinating observation made by Culto?

In her desperation to acquit her client in all aspects, it appears that Roundtree manufactured an alibi witness for him?

I thought that was really compelling.

That case was not just a case to her. It was a cause in which she was wedded to getting her client off, even if she had to, let us say, upholster evidence.

Jim DiEugenio Wrote:Tom:

Did you drop that utterly fascinating observation made by Culto?

In her desperation to acquit her client in all aspects, it appears that Roundtree manufactured an alibi witness for him?

I thought that was really compelling.

That case was not just a case to her. It was a cause in which she was wedded to getting her client off, even if she had to, let us say, upholster evidence.

There's lots of evidence Crump was innocent. Wiggins felt like he was lured there to witness something. The broken down car mysteriously had no record of its existence or work order. The murder scene almost certainly required blood spatter and gunpowder residue. Both Crump and his clothes came up negative. The scene was meticulously scoured yet no murder weapon was ever discovered. Janney showed that there were witnesses to Leary's investigation of Mary Meyer's death at the time. Why would Timothy Leary take extraordinary measures to travel to New York to investigate Mary Meyer's murder if he didn't have any relationship with her? Ann Chamberlin admitted to being a member of Mary Meyer's Washington LSD group but then spooked when pressed on it. Mitchell was caught lying about his funding source for his hiatus in England. He did live at a CIA safe house and did work at a known CIA cover job facility.

These are off the top of my head. If we go back to Janney we'll find more like Angleton's curiosity over Meyer's diary. Angleton was the safe-cracker like with Win Scott who was known to go after dangerous documents personally. Something was going on there and Janney personally witnessed his father faking lack of knowledge of Meyer's death as well as other incriminating timing.

Joe Shimon was practically open about it with his daughter Toni and CIA operatives Janney talked to admitted Mary Meyer was one of their jobs.

I see a similarity in modus operandi between Sirhan and Crump. CIA doesn't give a damn Crump got off. They got what they wanted.

Lauren Johnson Wrote:

I read the book long ago, and find it a very well researched book. I believe the 'Janney version' is correct. I found this video to add some interesting details not in the book about Mitchell and a few other things. While I tend to think that 'Dr. Tim' had his intelligence connections, I also think that MM was a true friend of his, and that his report of his and her conversations can be taken at face value. I met Leary later in his life and found him to be an 'interesting' man, complex, but his own man. I think he broke most [or all] of his ties with the intelligence community after a while. Anyway, Janney's narrative doesn't need Dr. Tim at all to hold together. MM is rarely listed on the JFK 'suspicious deaths' lists, but IMHO should be near the top of any such list. She was, after all, his lover and political confident when he was assassinated. She had the most amazing set of friends and relatives too. To me, it is clear, Crumb was totally an innocent patsy, and MM was assassinated by a sub-group of the JFK assassin 'brain trust' in order to keep the Cover-Up under control. Mitchell is still alive in N. CA and needs to be brought to justice! NOW! He was only a small cog in a bigger wheel..but every cog in that wheel were in some way involved in the overthrow of the USA. :tampfeet::

I think I like this Janney talk even more...

"Mary's Mosaic introduced me to a crucial new aspect of the Kennedy presidency that I was unfamiliar with. It taught me about the remarkable extent to which President Kennedy shared with his final amour, his true soul mate, the inner foreign policy workings of his administration - and the extent to which Mary Pinchot Meyer apparently challenged and influenced Jack Kennedy during the final two years of his Presidency. She was apparently there, beside him every step of the way, throughout 1963, as he embarked upon his quest to try to end the Cold War, and return sanity to America's foreign policy.
Perhaps the most chilling aspect of this mesmerizing book is the detailed and convincing manner in which it reveals the suffocating power of the official JFK assassination cover-up imposed by the U.S. government immediately after his death - the power to manipulate the media and to steal documents; the willingness to manipulate the judicial system by aggressively attempting to frame an innocent man for a crime he did not commit; and even the willingness to commit murder to silence one brave and respected citizen who was about to publicly oppose the sham conclusions of the Warren Report. Mary Meyer paid for her bravery - and her loyalty - with her life, but Peter Janney has rewarded her courage by publicly revealing, for the first time, the true and complete story of her relationship with President Kennedy during the fateful final year of his life."

- Douglas P. Horne
Chief Analyst for Military Records, The Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB) and author ofInside the Assassination Records Review Board: The U.S. Government's Final Attempt to Reconcile the Conflicting Medical Evidence in the Assassination of JFK., Vols. I-V.