Mary's Mosaic: Entering Peter Janney's World of Fantasy

[Phil Dragoo]

Peter Janney grew up in Washington, DC, during the 1950s and 1960s. His father was a high-ranking CIA official and a close friend of Richard Helms, James Jesus Angleton, and Mary's husband, Cord Meyer. His mother and Mary Meyer were classmates at Vassar College.

Let's be clear: Lisa Pease is killer. On Angleton. On the RFK hit. It's not colorized, juiced, speculative, floating like a zephyr on the summer air.

Janney's cashed his cheque with the extremely extreme ballistic hyperbole exploding like a billion supernovae with a blinding Wagnerian crescendo of Valkeries firing up their Hueys on a beer run.

Janney merely continues the Hunt for Patsy Johnson, that deflection to Cord Meyer. Instead of a French Gunman on the Grassy Knoll we have a CIA Hit Man on the Jogging Path.


A lurid pulp cover for yet another sausage from Red Herring Press.

Dorothy Kilgallen had an exclusive interview with Jack Ruby. Mary Meyer had a sketchbook.


And poor Peter Janney has to carry Mary into the fiftieth year in the manner of the basketball play labeled The Barking Dog.

The poorest player runs to the out-of-bounds line, gets down on his knees and barks like a dog, drawing the defensive focus so the best shooter can score.

Poor man, he's the only mind in Western Civilization who can grasp that JFK revolved around Mary in the Sky with Diamonds, and for his gifted insight he must be shot full of arrows, stretched upon the rack, lap-danced by the Iron Maiden, and thrown out de do' flambeau.

That's him, out in the garden, eating worms; no one loves him.

[Jim DiEugenio]

Phil is our own Ferlinghetti

[Charles Drago]

If Peter Janney is a spook in sheep's clothing, then there is nothing to the Mary Pinchot Meyer conspiracy theory.

Oh really?

[Jim DiEugenio]

When did I ever say that he was a spook?

I do not think that.

i was very clear in my essay as to why I think he wrote the book as he did.

You should read it Charles.

[Charles Drago]

Fine.

If Peter Janney, honestly and/or in service to a hidden, possibly sinister agenda, has presented errors of fact and faulty judgment, then there is nothing to the Mary Pinchot Meyer conspiracy theory.

Oh really?

[Jim DiEugenio]

Fine.


Oh really?

OK Charles.

What's the conspiracy?

That the CIA ordered the clothes that morning, but did not plan for the guy being African-American in Washington D. C.?

Therefore they used a white guy with skin pigmentation dye--decades ahead and much better than anything Michael Jackson ever used. But then, they also had a stand in for Crump on the scene. And the joggers were actually spotters.

Oh my aching back.

[Albert Doyle]

If Sirhan Sirhan was used as a stand-in for himself why couldn't Crump? The way I think is once you catch intel at a modus operandi you assume it in other deep operations.

[Charles Drago]

Fine.


Oh really?

OK Charles.

What's the conspiracy?

That the CIA ordered the clothes that morning, but did not plan for the guy being African-American in Washington D. C.?

Therefore they used a white guy with skin pigmentation dye--decades ahead and much better than anything Michael Jackson ever used. But then, they also had a stand in for Crump on the scene. And the joggers were actually spotters.

Oh my aching back.

You're missing my point, Jim.

The fact that Lamar Waldron presents a demonstrably specious argument for an OC-sponsored conspiracy in JFK's death does not lead us to conclude that there was no conspiracy in Dallas. Does it?

And by the way, your Michael Jackson-driven lampooning of the Crump scenario may be on-target. But it is worthless as a comment supporting dismissal of the "joggers as spotters" argument -- on the validity of which I do not opine here.

[Jim DiEugenio]

Charles:

I don' t understand the logic of the first statement.

Most of us know what happened to JFK. In fact, I actually think I can detail the operation with plentiful evidence. So to somehow compare Waldron with Janney and then say well because Janney might be wrong, that does not mean there was not a conspiracy to kill Mary Meyer, this does not follow logically. Because there is no credible evidence for an alternative theory in that case.

And as I said, one of the worst things about Janney's book is his navigating between the JFK case and the Mary Meyer case so as to set up some kind of comparison between the two, when in reality, there is none. But evidently this has worked on you.

As per your comment on the "spotters", see this is just what I meant by the ending of my essay. If we are to have any credibility as an alternative source of information, then we have to have standards. You cannot just say, "oh the joggers were there as so and so". No. Doesn't fly since there is no credible evidence for that. As I said, its Alex Jones stuff. And I am, in some ways, as opposed to him as I am to the MSM. His is a different method for going to Hades in a hand cart.

As for Albert, he failed to understand not only what I said, but what Janney said. So I won't reply to him anymore about this matter.

[Albert Doyle]

As for Albert, he failed to understand not only what I said, but what Janney said. So I won't reply to him anymore about this matter.

With sincere and due respect Mr DiEugenio, not all people would be allowed to get away with that. Some might say that the doer was simply not able to answer.

I agree with Charles 100%. Logical soundness is a very sharp doubled-edged sword.


What were the intruders looking for in Mary Meyer's house?