05-06-2016, 07:03 PM
(This post was last modified: 05-06-2016, 07:22 PM by Jim DiEugenio.)
What a load of BS.
This shows how little you know about me, and how little you have read about what I have written on this.
I actually believed this whole Mary M stuff. In fact, I actually talked about it in a lecture I did up in San Francisco back in the nineties. Someone had sent me an article about it concerning Leary. And because that was one of the first times I encountered it, I used it. So much for me being "over sensitive" to Kennedy's legacy.
Later on I read the book Acid Dreams. That volume makes a very good case that the CIA was involved in the spread of LSD in America and throughout the world. When I saw who Leary's early backers were--some wealthy members of the power elite--this is when I began to wonder who he was and what he was up to. So I went back and did some research.
I spent a whole afternoon at a college library. I got every book Leary ever published up to the eighties, when Flashbacks came out.
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.
Once I did that, I began to wonder about this whole issue in respect to Meyer, and also in relation to Exner. I then found out through library research that Exner had also changed her story and expanded on it to boundless ends--for a great deal of money. That is when I decided that hey, there is a subterfuge here. And no one is writing about it.
See, that is they way real research works. Its exposing accepted myths and relating them to similar phenomenon.
As per this letter, Doyle's comments are, again, distorted and, shall we say, less than candid.. I pointed out over at Spartacus three points about this that raise my antennae. First, that Kennedy would write this on White House stationary, that 2.) The exhibit has the revealing dog ears chopped off--which would be hard to duplicate, and 3.) I pointed out a previous phony precedent like this with Kennedy that had blown up in front of the ARRB.
Why leave all that out? This is not Duncan's forum, where you can trash me without fear of reply. Here, I can respond to your distortions and excisions. And you talk about ethics in presentations of evidence?
And to say that somehow Janney missed the valuable authors on Kennedy and just happened to fall into league with the likes of David Horowitz, Peter Collier and Sy Hersh?
I mean puhlease. This is like saying the WR just happened to include all the accusatory evidence against Oswald, and just happened to leave out the exculpatory evidence. Janney had an agenda. He needed his portrait of Kennedy in order to make his Rube Goldberg contraption work. And everything in the book is assembled that way in order to fulfill that design. And not only was it the above. But in his preliminary stages, he was talking with the absolutely horrendous David Heymann. Perhaps the biggest fraud of them all. And you chalk this up to an accident? :
: Wow.
And there is no getting around this. Because you cannot ignore the gestalt of Janney's book, which I outlined above. If the whole thing about Kennedy being tutored by Mary M, and the CIA being aware of this and her figuring out the conspiracy, if that is all hooey--which it is--then Janney has no book. Because that is what he is saying that the whole elaborate CIA plot to kill Mary is about.
For you to bring up this non existent case against Mitchell is so shameful as to be ludicrous. Tom produced the petition. Did you do that? It was pathetic. So bad that Janney himself withdrew it. WITH PREJUDICE! That means it cannot be reinstated. He did that himself. Something that almost never happens. This means it has all the earmarks of being a publicity stunt. And you leave out the fact that Janney said he could not find Mitchell in the first place. Which was supposed to mean what ????? He had disappeared? Gone underground? After Damore had met the killer and he confessed to him in that safe house, that those other spooks, and Albarelli said was tied in with the CIA?
Except that turned out to be BS also. The "killer" had not escaped underground. He had gone to sunny California. And furthered his education there. Tom found him rather easily. I loved Janney's excuse for this one: Google had changed its algorithms and that is why Tom could find him now. ::cuckoo:: But beyond that, Tom proved that Damore's confessed killer could not be the same guy in California. And somehow Janney missed that also.
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?
Nope.
In fact, IMO, Kennedy's greatest speech in this regard, in 1957 on Algeria is known to be helped with by Sorenson. Think Ted was calling up Mary M? This is why Janney ignored all this, simply because it undermines his construct.
And no I don't have to get used to any of this. Because these are not facts. They are fantasy.
This shows how little you know about me, and how little you have read about what I have written on this.
I actually believed this whole Mary M stuff. In fact, I actually talked about it in a lecture I did up in San Francisco back in the nineties. Someone had sent me an article about it concerning Leary. And because that was one of the first times I encountered it, I used it. So much for me being "over sensitive" to Kennedy's legacy.
Later on I read the book Acid Dreams. That volume makes a very good case that the CIA was involved in the spread of LSD in America and throughout the world. When I saw who Leary's early backers were--some wealthy members of the power elite--this is when I began to wonder who he was and what he was up to. So I went back and did some research.
I spent a whole afternoon at a college library. I got every book Leary ever published up to the eighties, when Flashbacks came out.
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.
Once I did that, I began to wonder about this whole issue in respect to Meyer, and also in relation to Exner. I then found out through library research that Exner had also changed her story and expanded on it to boundless ends--for a great deal of money. That is when I decided that hey, there is a subterfuge here. And no one is writing about it.
See, that is they way real research works. Its exposing accepted myths and relating them to similar phenomenon.
As per this letter, Doyle's comments are, again, distorted and, shall we say, less than candid.. I pointed out over at Spartacus three points about this that raise my antennae. First, that Kennedy would write this on White House stationary, that 2.) The exhibit has the revealing dog ears chopped off--which would be hard to duplicate, and 3.) I pointed out a previous phony precedent like this with Kennedy that had blown up in front of the ARRB.
Why leave all that out? This is not Duncan's forum, where you can trash me without fear of reply. Here, I can respond to your distortions and excisions. And you talk about ethics in presentations of evidence?
And to say that somehow Janney missed the valuable authors on Kennedy and just happened to fall into league with the likes of David Horowitz, Peter Collier and Sy Hersh?
I mean puhlease. This is like saying the WR just happened to include all the accusatory evidence against Oswald, and just happened to leave out the exculpatory evidence. Janney had an agenda. He needed his portrait of Kennedy in order to make his Rube Goldberg contraption work. And everything in the book is assembled that way in order to fulfill that design. And not only was it the above. But in his preliminary stages, he was talking with the absolutely horrendous David Heymann. Perhaps the biggest fraud of them all. And you chalk this up to an accident? :
: Wow.And there is no getting around this. Because you cannot ignore the gestalt of Janney's book, which I outlined above. If the whole thing about Kennedy being tutored by Mary M, and the CIA being aware of this and her figuring out the conspiracy, if that is all hooey--which it is--then Janney has no book. Because that is what he is saying that the whole elaborate CIA plot to kill Mary is about.
For you to bring up this non existent case against Mitchell is so shameful as to be ludicrous. Tom produced the petition. Did you do that? It was pathetic. So bad that Janney himself withdrew it. WITH PREJUDICE! That means it cannot be reinstated. He did that himself. Something that almost never happens. This means it has all the earmarks of being a publicity stunt. And you leave out the fact that Janney said he could not find Mitchell in the first place. Which was supposed to mean what ????? He had disappeared? Gone underground? After Damore had met the killer and he confessed to him in that safe house, that those other spooks, and Albarelli said was tied in with the CIA?
Except that turned out to be BS also. The "killer" had not escaped underground. He had gone to sunny California. And furthered his education there. Tom found him rather easily. I loved Janney's excuse for this one: Google had changed its algorithms and that is why Tom could find him now. ::cuckoo:: But beyond that, Tom proved that Damore's confessed killer could not be the same guy in California. And somehow Janney missed that also.
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?
Nope.
In fact, IMO, Kennedy's greatest speech in this regard, in 1957 on Algeria is known to be helped with by Sorenson. Think Ted was calling up Mary M? This is why Janney ignored all this, simply because it undermines his construct.
And no I don't have to get used to any of this. Because these are not facts. They are fantasy.