05-06-2016, 02:59 PM
(This post was last modified: 05-06-2016, 06:01 PM by Jim DiEugenio.)
Doyle has never been able to let go of this half baked, fruity, completely unjustified fantasy by Janney.
Every one of Janney's constructs I named above has been shown to be unfounded.
Yet, Doyle, simply by dropping a few words, thinks that somehow, by doing that, it changes all the facts that are in evidence.
It does not.
As I showed in my long, detailed review, there was never any evidence that Mary M was any kind of foreign policy guru in any way. Not in her relationship with her former husband, and not after her divorce from him. None of the available evidence bears any of that out. And the idea that this divorced single mom who was an aspiring painter could advise someone as sophisticated as JFK on these matters is risible.
So when Doyle says: You can't ignore the common world peace background of the two.
Yes I can. Because its not there. The only person on this subject who makes as many empty assumptions to fill in the huge lacunae in the record more than Janney, is Doyle. And, like Janney, the whole time he does this, he ignores the man who did wake up Kennedy to these issues, and for whom there is an evidentiary record, namely Edmund Gullion. His influence has been certified by the following: Richard Mahoney, Thurston Clarke, Jim Douglass. And it goes back to 1951.
Now, Janney in his book did something that was simply deplorable. He went to the Kennedy hatchet jobbers, like David Horowitz and Peter Collier, and if you can believe it, Sy Hersh, in order to portray Kennedy as a Nixon type Cold Warrior upon entering the White House.
::vomit::
Let us be frank. More than vomit, this is BS. It is a cultural lie that was embedded in our collective consciousness by the MSM for decades to conceal who JFK really was, in order to cover up the reasons for his murder. It has been completely exploded in recent years as nothing but a canard.. But yet Janney used it.
This false image, in an and of itself, plunged a harpoon into the heart of Janney's book. And made its honesty and intelligence suspect. In other words, WR style, he was molding his data in order to fulfill his theory. It was a fable. And in this regard, there was nothing for the CIA to monitor, since there was nothing there. Just like there was nothing in regards to super sleuth Mary M on solving the JFK case. This part of Janney's book was simply hot air: a series of naked assumptions. Again, it was a perfect example of Janney molding the data in order to fulfill his own solipsistic design.
See, Janney had an agenda. It was based on two things, first his adolescent fantasy romance with Mary M (in his preposterous petition he actually called her a mother figure to him.) The second part was his relationship with Leo Damore. As both Tom S and Mark O have shown, Damore's alleged work on this case was largely flatulent, made up of the likes of ersatz calls to Fletcher Prouty, and dubious interviews with what Damore called the actual killer. (::noblesteed:
Tom S proved that this was simply malarkey on its own terms. That this guy, whoever the heck he was--if he existed at all is a good question--could not be the guy who Janney later confronted. And any objective person with any degree of honesty and fairness would have understood that. Somehow Janney did not. Probably because he had relied on so many bad sources up to that time that, like MacBeth, he could not turn back. This included Gregory Douglass, a proven forger; and David Heymann, a proven liar. (Who he wisely cut out later, as he did his whole Mary showing JFK the secret of UFO's as a key to cosmic peace.)
So when Doyle says that, what do you mean, the CIA would not be interested in all this? Interested in what? This silly stupid confection dreamt up by two guys who were the detective equivalent of Laurel and Hardy?
The worst part of Janney's piece of tripe was that, not only did it falsify who JFK was, it also falsified who Mary M was. There is simply no evidence that, after her divorce, she showed any interest in any of these foreign policy matters. She did the opposite: she decided to go into art and painting. And she had various romantic and sexual entanglements with her instructors. Janney tries to aggrandize her into something she simply was not. Just as he reduces Kennedy to something he was not. And again this is for the purpose of fulfilling his own design.
All of this hocus pocus is to camouflage the fact that if Mary had not been the sister of Toni Bradlee, we would not be talking about her.
Since the matter of Janney's (awful) book first surfaced, Doyle has been trying to make something out of it. Hydra like, even when the research community--even Charles Drago--had decided that Gregory Douglass, Collier and Horowitz, and Sy Hersh did not make for a very good book, here he is, still trying to say that somehow Janney was on to something. Baloney.
For those who want more proof that Janney was blowing in the wind, read my intricate review: [URL="http://www.ctka.net/reviews/DiEugenio_Janney_Mary's_Mosaic.html"]http://www.ctka.net/reviews/DiEugenio_Janney_Mary's_Mosaic.html
[/URL]
Every one of Janney's constructs I named above has been shown to be unfounded.
Yet, Doyle, simply by dropping a few words, thinks that somehow, by doing that, it changes all the facts that are in evidence.
It does not.
As I showed in my long, detailed review, there was never any evidence that Mary M was any kind of foreign policy guru in any way. Not in her relationship with her former husband, and not after her divorce from him. None of the available evidence bears any of that out. And the idea that this divorced single mom who was an aspiring painter could advise someone as sophisticated as JFK on these matters is risible.
So when Doyle says: You can't ignore the common world peace background of the two.
Yes I can. Because its not there. The only person on this subject who makes as many empty assumptions to fill in the huge lacunae in the record more than Janney, is Doyle. And, like Janney, the whole time he does this, he ignores the man who did wake up Kennedy to these issues, and for whom there is an evidentiary record, namely Edmund Gullion. His influence has been certified by the following: Richard Mahoney, Thurston Clarke, Jim Douglass. And it goes back to 1951.
Now, Janney in his book did something that was simply deplorable. He went to the Kennedy hatchet jobbers, like David Horowitz and Peter Collier, and if you can believe it, Sy Hersh, in order to portray Kennedy as a Nixon type Cold Warrior upon entering the White House.
::vomit::
Let us be frank. More than vomit, this is BS. It is a cultural lie that was embedded in our collective consciousness by the MSM for decades to conceal who JFK really was, in order to cover up the reasons for his murder. It has been completely exploded in recent years as nothing but a canard.. But yet Janney used it.
This false image, in an and of itself, plunged a harpoon into the heart of Janney's book. And made its honesty and intelligence suspect. In other words, WR style, he was molding his data in order to fulfill his theory. It was a fable. And in this regard, there was nothing for the CIA to monitor, since there was nothing there. Just like there was nothing in regards to super sleuth Mary M on solving the JFK case. This part of Janney's book was simply hot air: a series of naked assumptions. Again, it was a perfect example of Janney molding the data in order to fulfill his own solipsistic design.
See, Janney had an agenda. It was based on two things, first his adolescent fantasy romance with Mary M (in his preposterous petition he actually called her a mother figure to him.) The second part was his relationship with Leo Damore. As both Tom S and Mark O have shown, Damore's alleged work on this case was largely flatulent, made up of the likes of ersatz calls to Fletcher Prouty, and dubious interviews with what Damore called the actual killer. (::noblesteed:
Tom S proved that this was simply malarkey on its own terms. That this guy, whoever the heck he was--if he existed at all is a good question--could not be the guy who Janney later confronted. And any objective person with any degree of honesty and fairness would have understood that. Somehow Janney did not. Probably because he had relied on so many bad sources up to that time that, like MacBeth, he could not turn back. This included Gregory Douglass, a proven forger; and David Heymann, a proven liar. (Who he wisely cut out later, as he did his whole Mary showing JFK the secret of UFO's as a key to cosmic peace.)So when Doyle says that, what do you mean, the CIA would not be interested in all this? Interested in what? This silly stupid confection dreamt up by two guys who were the detective equivalent of Laurel and Hardy?
The worst part of Janney's piece of tripe was that, not only did it falsify who JFK was, it also falsified who Mary M was. There is simply no evidence that, after her divorce, she showed any interest in any of these foreign policy matters. She did the opposite: she decided to go into art and painting. And she had various romantic and sexual entanglements with her instructors. Janney tries to aggrandize her into something she simply was not. Just as he reduces Kennedy to something he was not. And again this is for the purpose of fulfilling his own design.
All of this hocus pocus is to camouflage the fact that if Mary had not been the sister of Toni Bradlee, we would not be talking about her.
Since the matter of Janney's (awful) book first surfaced, Doyle has been trying to make something out of it. Hydra like, even when the research community--even Charles Drago--had decided that Gregory Douglass, Collier and Horowitz, and Sy Hersh did not make for a very good book, here he is, still trying to say that somehow Janney was on to something. Baloney.
For those who want more proof that Janney was blowing in the wind, read my intricate review: [URL="http://www.ctka.net/reviews/DiEugenio_Janney_Mary's_Mosaic.html"]http://www.ctka.net/reviews/DiEugenio_Janney_Mary's_Mosaic.html
[/URL]