+- Deep Politics Forum (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora)
+-- Forum: Deep Politics Forum (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/forum-1.html)
+--- Forum: JFK Assassination (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/forum-3.html)
+--- Thread: John F. Kennedy's letter to his alleged mistress (Mary Meyer) is up for auction (/thread-14791.html)
John F. Kennedy's letter to his alleged mistress (Mary Meyer) is up for auction - Albert Doyle - 05-06-2016
Jim DiEugenio Wrote:What a load of BS.
Guess what, there is no mention in any of them about Mary M. Either by name or description. No narrative of this blonde, vivacious, attractive woman who comes into his office and says, "He was trying to change things too fast." etc etc etc Its not like Leary passed up an opportunity to do this once or twice. Leary published literally dozens of books. And if one takes just the period from 1964 to 1983, there were, if I recall correctly, about 16 books I found at that library.
In not one of them did Leary mention this episode. Not even in his diary book, High Priest. This process is called cross checking. Responsible scholars use this method to check on the honesty and candor of a witness. No one who had reported on this issue had done this before I did. But after I discovered this lacunae, this is what made me suspicious of Leary. Who, in that same volume, said he slept with Marilyn Monroe. And who after the book came out, then went on a national tour with Gordon Liddy debating cultural issues like drugs.
I don't think you realize you've proven my point Jim. What you are doing, whether you realize it or not, is referring to your subjective dismissal of Janney while once again using it as an effective block to avoid answering the specifics I mentioned as far as evidence. What you do is a well practiced form of dealing with those specifics with offhand remarks and opinions generated by your assumptions as if you were answering those points, but any evaluation of what you offer shows you very carefully stay away from ever addressing those points directly. To me it is quite deceptive and dishonest a method, and is frankly, a form I am used to seeing coming from Lone Nutters.
Meanwhile if you observe recorded history there are many witnesses who never came out with what they knew because of its dangerousness. How could you pretend to practice such a high level of conspiracy research and then offer such a weak, logically-flawed submission like this? You are inferring that because Leary did not mention it that therefore it is 100% certain that it never happened. You ignore the political dangerousness of mentioning it and how it could be a very valid motivator for Leary who had tasted jail time and persecution from the government before in his past. After you are finished with your strongly-felt protest, truth is it is basically your suggestion and really isn't based on much but your opinion.
But let's go back to the evidence I've presented several times that you have repeatedly ignored, including this time. There's no doubt Mary Meyer had the relationship with Leary she claimed because Leary's reaction to being informed about her death was to go out on his roof and sit there in shock. His investigation of Mary Meyer's death using private investigators in New York City was well documented and witnessed. Do you realize that every single time I mentioned this proof to both you and Tom you ignored it? So your absence-of-mention claim is conditioned by a person who is on record as ignoring proof of Leary's relationship to Mary Meyer. Meanwhile there can be many completely valid reasons for Leary to avoid mentioning the radioactive assassination of his tripping friend in high places. While speaking in absolute terms, you have offered what is basically the weakest form of argument you could present and tried to totally dismiss Janney with it - which is, Jim, exactly what I accused you of isn't it? Your strong focus on Leary's history in his books has been very effectively used to avoid answering most of my examples of Janney's valid proof. Thank you, Jim, for proving my point. Any person who makes an effort to avoid Mitchell's being caught making a phony excuse for his England funding isn't being honest in my opinion. Shimon is not to be ignored either.
Jim DiEugenio Wrote:Your last paragraph is so full of malarkey I don't really comprehend it. Kennedy needed no personal outlet for his peace initiatives in the fifties. He was acting on them in letters to John Foster Dulles, in letters to his voters, in speeches he gave throughout he country and in his speeches in front of the Senate. Did Mary M consult him on those?
Again, proof of what I am saying. Mary Meyers' overt membership in the United World Federation was contemporary to 1947. She was a friend of Kennedy since school. This is entirely pertinent to the claim she was influential on JFK's early peace politics and that, with your doubt, you may have missed an important element of the formative cause of JFK's peace policies. Your inferring Kennedy needed a outlet for those politics in the 50's is not accurate to what I wrote and is another strawman answering to something I never said, just like your saying Mary was JFK's guru. She didn't need to be his guru she just needed to be in proximity to him at the right time. I made clear that that right time was just prior to the assassination where she was documented as being, and now a letter proves even more. I think it's clear that you don't like this new proof because it works against what you've been saying.
JFK very much DID desperately need a sympathetic ear to his peace moves in his last year. There's no doubt about that just like there's no doubt now that Mary Meyer was there and very adequately fit that role. You protest a lot Jim, but a true evaluation of what you write shows you've offered almost nothing towards refuting Janney. You're on the wrong side of this Jim, and on the wrong side of history and what you represent at CTKA I'm afraid.
John F. Kennedy's letter to his alleged mistress (Mary Meyer) is up for auction - Jim DiEugenio - 06-06-2016
When and where is Leary's inquiry documented?
Because its not documented in any book I could find of his.
Now let us take these sentences:
Again, proof of what I am saying. Mary Meyers' overt membership in the United World Federation was contemporary to 1947. She was a friend of Kennedy since school. This is entirely pertinent to the claim she was influential on JFK's early peace politics and that, with your doubt, you may have missed an important element of the formative cause of JFK's peace policies.
In other words, Doyle has no evidence at all to back up this piece of empty wind. So he trots out Cord Meyer's membership in the UWF. Without adding that Cord wrote in his book that Mary did not like him spending so much time on these matters.
In fact, I dealt with this issue in my review, which Doyle does not want to refer to:
"Why do I say that? Because there is no credible evidence to show that Mary Meyer was the foreign policy maven that Janney wants needsher to be. The closest that anyone can come is to say that she once worked as a reporter for both NANA and UPI. (Janney, p. 159) She also freelanced articles to Mademoiselle on things like sex education and venereal disease. (New Times, July 9, 1976) This was in the early to mid forties. So what does Janney do to fill in the breach of the intervening years? He tries to say that Mary, the housewife and mother, furthered this interest while married to Cord Meyer while he was president of United World Federalists (UFW). So I went to Cord Meyer's book Facing Reality to see if there was any proof of this. There isn't. For example, while on a working holiday, Mary was not helping him write, she was fishing. (Meyer, p. 39) In fact, Cord Meyer actually writes that his position in UWF had created a distance between him and his family and this is one reason he resigned. (Meyer, pgs. 56-57) Cord then went to Harvard on a fellowship in 1949-50. If Mary had any special interest in foreign affairs, this was the place to develop it. Yes, she did take classes, but they were in design. And this is where she first discovered her painting ability. In 1951, Cord Meyer is about to join the CIA. If Mary had really been helping Cord in his UFW work, wouldn't she have said "No, that is not what we believe in." Again, the opposite happened. Mary was all in favor of him joining the CIA. (Ibid, p. 65) But further, Cord Meyer kept a journal. In his book, when he is discussing their decision to divorce, the split in not over the nature of his work. Its simply because he spends too much time on it and therefore is not a good husband since he doesn't take enough interest in her. (ibid, p. 142) This, of course, is a common complaint among housewives."
This takes us up to 1958, which is when the couple divorced. JFK's ideas on foreign policy were very much formed by then. He had given his great Algeria speech in 1957. That was the mature fruition of all his ideas from Gullion since 1951, as modified by his relationship with Sorenson.
John F. Kennedy's letter to his alleged mistress (Mary Meyer) is up for auction - Jim Hargrove - 06-06-2016
Jim DiEugenio Wrote:When and where is Leary's inquiry documented?
Because its not documented in any book I could find of his.
FLASHBACKS, by Timothy Leary, 1983.
John F. Kennedy's letter to his alleged mistress (Mary Meyer) is up for auction - Jim Hargrove - 06-06-2016
More about Timothy Leary....
John F. Kennedy's letter to his alleged mistress (Mary Meyer) is up for auction - Drew Phipps - 06-06-2016
Jim, you said there was no way the letters could be written on White House stationary. I have read, in fact, that the letters up for auction were studied and verified that it was indeed White House stationary.
http://www.inquisitr.com/3170240/mary-pinchot-meyer-inside-her-tragic-life-with-jfk-and-her-unsolved-death/
Now, that doesn't prove, or disprove, any particular theory about Mary Meyers, or even that the letters were penned by JFK at all. If you guys have doubts about the authenticity of the documents being auctioned off, let's hear them.
However, it seems that you guys have hijacked this thread to re-argue some old familiar grounds.
John F. Kennedy's letter to his alleged mistress (Mary Meyer) is up for auction - Albert Doyle - 06-06-2016
Jim DiEugenio Wrote:When and where is Leary's inquiry documented?
In Janney. There's no doubt it happened because he gives the names of the investigators and moves Leary made in New York. You're in denial of real events Jim because of your bias, which is backwards for a person in your position who fights for assassination research truth. Do you understand that your denial of true events is the offense here and not my pointing them out? There's a point where devil's advocacy becomes truth-damaging denial and I think we've reached that here.
Jim DiEugenio Wrote:Because its not documented in any book I could find of his.
Already discussed in my last post. The absence of mention in Leary's books could be the sign of its dangerousness and therefore realness.
Jim DiEugenio Wrote:In other words, Doyle has no evidence at all to back up this piece of empty wind. So he trots out Cord Meyer's membership in the UWF. Without adding that Cord wrote in his book that Mary did not like him spending so much time on these matters.
I thought Mary was a member too? First off, what Cord writes might not be accurate because of his agenda. You are quoting the words of a CIA agent directly in Angleton's den whose wife Kennedy was having an affair with and who was very much involved in knowledge of Mary's assassination by CIA. Who are you going to quote next Jim? Allen Dulles? Geesh.
Next, from what I know Mary and Cord's divorce was due to his moving from the Federation into CIA and getting too dedicated to its peace-conflicting agenda. In other words more affirmation of Mary Meyer's liberal tendencies that were offended by Cord going to the dark side. Do you realize Jim, that you are now quoting one of the persons Hunt said was directly involved in Kennedy's assassination against Mary?
As far as no evidence, we have a full record of Mary belonging to a major peace organization, divorcing her CIA husband at least partly because of his dark side affinity, having been documented as visiting the White House on sign-in sheets, having been visited by Jack in New Jersey, and now, having boyish love letters written to her. All you have is doubt against all this obvious record. Who has less evidence? Jim, you have to understand the power of LSD. It was documented by CIA as making soldiers not want to fight because of higher awareness. I'm afraid saying "You have no evidence" (A quote often used by Von Pein) isn't good enough here.
It makes no difference if Mary was influential way back. I believe I've seen you yourself say that JFK's WWII experience was at least partly responsible for his peace inclinations. The whole emergence of the United Nations etc was under a collective feeling of not wanting to immerse the world in another conflagration. This is a non-issue compared to Mary Meyer being nearby to JFK at the critical time when he was making the moves that got him killed - which she was. Angelton wasn't worried about the diary because of exposure of a sexual tryst.
Do you realize that even if everything you quoted Cord as saying were true, and Mary had no real peace interests and wasn't showing any signs of such, that it doesn't necessarily disprove or conflict with Mary being a real witness to Kennedy's peace doings and their agency in his being assassinated? Or her being a direct threat to CIA when she started to get busy exposing them? Mary had severed ties with that aspect of CIA when she divorced Cord. All she really needed to be doing was defending a friend, confident, and potentially lover (from the looks of the letter). I know you don't like that Jim, but you are just in open conflict with what that letter makes plain.
Jim DiEugenio Wrote:"Why do I say that? Because there is no credible evidence to show that Mary Meyer was the foreign policy maven that Janney wants needsher to be. The closest that anyone can come is to say that she once worked as a reporter for both NANA and UPI. (Janney, p. 159) She also freelanced articles to Mademoiselle on things like sex education and venereal disease. (New Times, July 9, 1976) This was in the early to mid forties. So what does Janney do to fill in the breach of the intervening years? He tries to say that Mary, the housewife and mother, furthered this interest while married to Cord Meyer while he was president of United World Federalists (UFW). So I went to Cord Meyer's book Facing Reality to see if there was any proof of this. There isn't. For example, while on a working holiday, Mary was not helping him write, she was fishing. (Meyer, p. 39) In fact, Cord Meyer actually writes that his position in UWF had created a distance between him and his family and this is one reason he resigned. (Meyer, pgs. 56-57) Cord then went to Harvard on a fellowship in 1949-50. If Mary had any special interest in foreign affairs, this was the place to develop it. Yes, she did take classes, but they were in design. And this is where she first discovered her painting ability. In 1951, Cord Meyer is about to join the CIA. If Mary had really been helping Cord in his UFW work, wouldn't she have said "No, that is not what we believe in." Again, the opposite happened. Mary was all in favor of him joining the CIA. (Ibid, p. 65) But further, Cord Meyer kept a journal. In his book, when he is discussing their decision to divorce, the split in not over the nature of his work. Its simply because he spends too much time on it and therefore is not a good husband since he doesn't take enough interest in her. (ibid, p. 142) This, of course, is a common complaint among housewives."
None of this really answers the pertinent evidence Jim. You can't use the quotes of a high level CIA officer who had a grudge against Kennedy because he was having an affair with his wife and who was also involved in at least knowledge of and the cover-up of her assassination. This is just ruminating Jim. The real issue is Mary being around Kennedy privately and becoming a direct threat to the CIA plotters to whom she was an insider and a direct witness to their body language and insider doings. You seem to be making an effort to dismiss her instead of investigating any possible evidence - which is opposite what your assassination research should do. You present this spin but then ask the reader to accept your ignoring of Janney's direct witnessing of cohorts of Cord having incriminating knowledge before Mary was even identified. Or pretending not to know, as Janney witnessed his CIA father doing.
There's one thing any credible assassination researcher would not overlook. Janney accused a professor emeritus in public, in a book, of being a black op assassination team member. He did so involving a popular Kennedy era Washington insider personality, Mary Meyer. In other words, this had all the ingredients of a hot story. The US media reaction? ZERO. Like it never even happened. 'Come on Jim. There's only one thing that can create an absorbing black hole void like that and both of us know what it is. The status quo had every opportunity to destroy a nutty conspiracy theorist in public, if his evidence was so flimsy as you say. Why didn't they?
RR Auction in Boston specializes in valuable documents and papers. They possess first class evaluators and would be liable for selling an auction item for 30,000 dollars under false pretenses. Jim, you suggest the document is false in a similar way that you suggest Janney is false. Do you see what I'm getting at here?
.
John F. Kennedy's letter to his alleged mistress (Mary Meyer) is up for auction - Jim DiEugenio - 06-06-2016
The documentation is from Leary's Flashbacks?
LOL :
:This is exactly what I mean. Doyle is shameless on this. As he has been from the beginning.
I shouldn't even have to say this but I will. When you are measuring evidence in a scholarly way you don't use a 20 year later source that is self-reinforcing. Especially when the guy has credibility problems to begin with. This is like Tony Summers buying into Slatzer on his alleged affair and three day marriage with Marilyn Monroe. That blew up in his face. But it was a part of the industry.
As Leary's biographer wrote, Leary was going to use anything to punch up his book--Mary M, Marilyn Monroe etc. And he succeeded. Because he got the gig with Liddy. And they went on their clown tour after.
What you want is something independent that occurred in the meantime. I couldn't find anything. As an historian, the last source I would use is Flashbacks.
As per the paper, my God did you not read what I wrote about Russo?
This is why I don't like arguing with Doyle about this subject. Because he has so little respect for rules of evidence--or even commons sense. As others have pointed out here, like Lauren, like Walter Bowart, its strongly suspected that Leary was a CIA asset. He was then cut loose. And he then became a complete and total opportunist. What with JFK making his turn toward peace because of his drugs via Mary. When, in fact, Kennedy had already been on this angle since 1951 and his meeting with Gullion.
And he then started asserting it in the White House, not in 1963, but immediately in 1961 with the Congo crisis. (Geez was Leary there at those meetings four days after Kennedy was inaugurated passing around his pills? Can't you just see Dean Rusk on acid?)
The enemy of a pernicious mythology is knowledge and skepticism. Janney had neither.
John F. Kennedy's letter to his alleged mistress (Mary Meyer) is up for auction - Albert Doyle - 06-06-2016
Jim DiEugenio Wrote:This is why I don't like arguing with Doyle about this subject.
Jim, you're clearly avoiding acknowledging evidence. If you read Janney there's enough detail about Leary's reaction to Mary Meyers' death that he must have had the relationship Janney claims. You don't go out on your roof to meditate in shock for a person you don't know. This is the real common sense here that you seem to be avoiding. Also, there's enough detail, names, and places in Janney for Leary's New York-based investigation of Mary Meyers' death for it to be real.
I believe this letter is important because it shows JFK was getting loose and free during his ultimate peace moves. So much so that he risked openly inviting the single most person who would be sympathetic and receptive to them up to the Cape. To think Mary Meyer was not fully conscious of the import of this crescendo is to ignore reality in my opinion and avoid the obvious. She was an intelligent woman, which was part of her attractiveness to JFK, and not one who would miss the significance of this in relation to Kennedy's assassination, or miss an opportunity to expose it.
Forgive me Jim, but your feelings towards arguing this with me are totally irrelevant to the facts being discussed here. You seem to be practicing research by ridicule.
.
John F. Kennedy's letter to his alleged mistress (Mary Meyer) is up for auction - Jim DiEugenio - 06-06-2016
Oh will you stop it.
I just pointed out the irregular and faulty methodology you use in this regard. Recall this: Because he has so little respect for rules of evidence--or even commons sense.
No wonder Tom and I were disdainful of your use of Flashbacks.
What's next with you? Heymann? Gregory Douglass?
John F. Kennedy's letter to his alleged mistress (Mary Meyer) is up for auction - Albert Doyle - 06-06-2016
Jim DiEugenio Wrote:Oh will you stop it.
I just pointed out the irregular and faulty methodology you use in this regard. Recall this: Because he has so little respect for rules of evidence--or even commons sense.
No wonder Tom and I were disdainful of your use of Flashbacks.
What's next with you? Heymann? Gregory Douglass?
I'm glad you're living up to my level of input Jim and not just casually brushing it off.
There's no doubt Leary's investigation was real and therefore his relationship with Mary Meyer as well. Just like this letter that RR Auctions would never get away with selling for 30 grand if it wasn't.
Jim, which research type are you offering here? The bloodhound type that makes the DiEugenio name or hand-waving? Seriously. Who are the facts with here?
By the way, I never used Flashbacks.