23-07-2015, 12:53 AM
David,
No, this is not Mary's Mosaic. If I did not know that, I know it now because my discovery of the lack of documentation of a 3 AM interview inside WMCA radio studios by Barry Gray, is not a discovery that there is any particular interest in having to deal with.
I sometimes am amazed at how a belief system affects receptiveness to consideration of new facts.
You seem to have missed my entire point in presenting details of my old post documenting the exposure of the lack of integrity related to the JFK Assassination in the Dallas FBI office. Even
reading it in your last post, I am still astounded that you seem to think I was saying the opposite of what I attempted to say. I have to take some responsibility for your misinterpretaion, so now I'll attempt to make it unambiguous.
I tried to show Mr. Doyle, via the Oswald note cover up example, that it is one thing for the SAIC and ASAIC, Shanklin and Clark, of the Dallas office, to conspire to suppress the truth that Hosty had been trapped into disclosing by Ms. Fenner and the HSCA, and it is quite another matter to attempt to smear Ralph Yates for the rest of his life, up to and including a result in which the word schizophrenia appeared on his death certificate. I even supported this with the example of
the closeness of the CIA men who seemed to have driven Frank Olson out of a ten story high window of an NYC hotel. Lashbrook and Gottlieb were close personally, as supported in the fact I included, Gottlieb was in Lashbrook's wedding party not long after Olson's murder.
The perjury of Shanklin and Clark in their HSCA testimony was calculated and not absurd. The claims of Ralph Yates and ensuing FBI smear to discredit him are absurd. It is reasonable upon consideration of the known record, including the details in DC Dave's recent examination of the Yates contoversy, to conclude that Yates discredited his own claims and general integrity.
I come to this using the same discernment methods I used in the missing CIA assassin of Mary Meyer claim, and the assumption that Barry Gray met James F Rizzuto in an in person late night interview and thus knew he was a different individual than Yves L'eandes.
You imply that I am somehow not equipped to accurately weigh the details in FBI reports, but you, Mr. Doyle, Mr. Scull, Hargrove, Armstrong, somehow have the right stuff to glean the truth from them.
I advised you to pick your shots. You are taking a leap of faith in claiming that the Yates controversy is a good example of FBI assassination cover up conspiracy. I think instead it exposes weakness in your broader discernment. If I was going to stick my neck out by risking my credibility over an important controversy, this certainly would not be one that I would embrace.
In contrast, I think the perjury of Shanklin and Clark in reaction to Ms. Fenner and Hosty over their testimony about the Oswald note is an incredibly strong and persuasive example.
Fred Olson's leap from the hotel window is a great example of the depths of depravity inside the CIA. If they would subject one of their own to involuntary drugging and dropping out of a tall building, what are they capable of doing to any one of us?
What is your take on this? Does it not imply that Armstrong knows how to use primary sources,
but Tom Scully does not, or do you agree with me that it makes little sense and is hypocritical?:
No, this is not Mary's Mosaic. If I did not know that, I know it now because my discovery of the lack of documentation of a 3 AM interview inside WMCA radio studios by Barry Gray, is not a discovery that there is any particular interest in having to deal with.
I sometimes am amazed at how a belief system affects receptiveness to consideration of new facts.
You seem to have missed my entire point in presenting details of my old post documenting the exposure of the lack of integrity related to the JFK Assassination in the Dallas FBI office. Even
reading it in your last post, I am still astounded that you seem to think I was saying the opposite of what I attempted to say. I have to take some responsibility for your misinterpretaion, so now I'll attempt to make it unambiguous.
I tried to show Mr. Doyle, via the Oswald note cover up example, that it is one thing for the SAIC and ASAIC, Shanklin and Clark, of the Dallas office, to conspire to suppress the truth that Hosty had been trapped into disclosing by Ms. Fenner and the HSCA, and it is quite another matter to attempt to smear Ralph Yates for the rest of his life, up to and including a result in which the word schizophrenia appeared on his death certificate. I even supported this with the example of
the closeness of the CIA men who seemed to have driven Frank Olson out of a ten story high window of an NYC hotel. Lashbrook and Gottlieb were close personally, as supported in the fact I included, Gottlieb was in Lashbrook's wedding party not long after Olson's murder.
The perjury of Shanklin and Clark in their HSCA testimony was calculated and not absurd. The claims of Ralph Yates and ensuing FBI smear to discredit him are absurd. It is reasonable upon consideration of the known record, including the details in DC Dave's recent examination of the Yates contoversy, to conclude that Yates discredited his own claims and general integrity.
I come to this using the same discernment methods I used in the missing CIA assassin of Mary Meyer claim, and the assumption that Barry Gray met James F Rizzuto in an in person late night interview and thus knew he was a different individual than Yves L'eandes.
You imply that I am somehow not equipped to accurately weigh the details in FBI reports, but you, Mr. Doyle, Mr. Scull, Hargrove, Armstrong, somehow have the right stuff to glean the truth from them.
I advised you to pick your shots. You are taking a leap of faith in claiming that the Yates controversy is a good example of FBI assassination cover up conspiracy. I think instead it exposes weakness in your broader discernment. If I was going to stick my neck out by risking my credibility over an important controversy, this certainly would not be one that I would embrace.
In contrast, I think the perjury of Shanklin and Clark in reaction to Ms. Fenner and Hosty over their testimony about the Oswald note is an incredibly strong and persuasive example.
Fred Olson's leap from the hotel window is a great example of the depths of depravity inside the CIA. If they would subject one of their own to involuntary drugging and dropping out of a tall building, what are they capable of doing to any one of us?
What is your take on this? Does it not imply that Armstrong knows how to use primary sources,
but Tom Scully does not, or do you agree with me that it makes little sense and is hypocritical?:
Quote:Jim Hargrove, on 21 Jul 2015 - 09:53 AM, said: You didn't point out the FBI claims for the "3 am interview." Tom Scully did on another forum.
Almost all of John's notes for Harvey and Lee are from original source documents. He should go back to that method and approach secondary sources with extreme caution, as he did previously.
Peter Janney's uncle was Frank Pace, chairman of General Dynamics who enlisted law partners Roswell Gilpatric and Luce's brother-in-law, Maurice "Tex" Moore, in a trade of 16 percent of Gen. Dyn. stock in exchange for Henry Crown and his Material Service Corp. of Chicago, headed by Byfield's Sherman Hotel group's Pat Hoy. The Crown family and partner Conrad Hilton next benefitted from TFX, at the time, the most costly military contract award in the history of the world. Obama was sponsored by the Crowns and Pritzkers. So was Albert Jenner Peter Janney has preferred to write of an imaginary CIA assassination of his surrogate mother, Mary Meyer, but not a word about his Uncle Frank.