05-06-2016, 04:21 PM
(This post was last modified: 05-06-2016, 05:19 PM by Albert Doyle.)
Jim,
We all think JFK was a cutting edge, before his time, hero and progressive who intuitively saw what needed to be done and did it, at the expense of his life. However, at least to me, it is obvious you have an over-sensitivity to anything that paints JFK as less than noble and conflate it with other "second assassination of Kennedy" material. I don't think that's the case with Janney. I believe this is evidenced by your response to the letter, which was an automatic doubting of its authenticity. Since the provenance of this letter highly suggests it is genuine, you have to admit the evidence sword you present cuts both ways and you yourself have failed to show any evidence that this letter is bogus or originates from the dubious sources you hail to, but never quite attach to any evidence yourself. Which leaves me at the point I'm getting to that you are committing outright violations of evidence and denying real evidence. Both serious violations that you yourself have spent several decades practicing criticism over. You did this with the Timothy Leary evidence in Janney. In the several times I posted the evidence that Mary Meyer did have a very real relationship with Leary, as shown by Janney, both you and Tom ignored it every time I posted it only to return to your propaganda attack on Janney. Again, no one is a sacred cow and no one has a right to ignore good proof. In my mind it is a serious ethical violation to be a person who specializes in the highly visible calling out of people for doing that and then practice it yourself when it comes to protecting your biases.
There's two ways to approach Janney. One is to try to paint Janney as associated with dubious sources. We've been down this road several times. We've already said several times that Janney is not a person well versed in your internet material or websites that show the flaws in some of the authors he used. Janney isn't a career expert at the motives and failings of some of those Kennedy-smearing authors like you are. In his zeal he reached out and bought some authors that turn out to have less than genuine backgrounds and methods. However, you can't conflate this mistake with Janney's core evidence and personal experiences. I noticed that, like courtroom lawyers, you and Tom specialize in turning up the volume on this aspect of Janney, but I also noticed that you use it in such a way as to seize the narrative and avoid Janney's condemning evidence. In short, you are trying to take Janney down via his flaws while, in my mind, ignoring his genuine proof. To me that is a serious violation of assassination research ethics and costs the public a clear understanding of the truth. Something you have championed yourself over the years. I would also advise caution over referring to Tom S while criticizing sources.
The second way to approach Janney is to look at his evidence and weigh its legitimacy directly. Janney showed that Mitchell got caught lying about his funding source for his England hiatus. This is something you would rightfully normally jump on in one of your articles. Mitchell was gotten out of the country quickly to a foreign country with a strong allied Intelligence Agency. He was also hippied-up to lower his credibility in case he needed to be destroyed - but also to possibly infiltrate what governments thought was a communist-inspired beatnik movement. Shimon practically told his daughter Toni outright that Mary Meyer was a black op hit. Janney listed Shimon's murky interface with the same mob underground associated with Dallas. And Leary did have a relationship with Mary. Anne Chamberlin was scared. Finally, Janney witnessed the lies and pre-knowledge first hand and knew its correct interpretation - probably as Mary Meyer did too. I find it less than sincere and serving of the truth to ignore this and make such an opinion-based case against Janney while looking the other way on what is obviously incriminating evidence. Jim, may I ask you honestly what the moral/research reputation price is for a major researcher denying the CIA assassination of a very real and important witness?
I'm sorry to say this Jim, but from your writing I see someone who I think is desperate to defend Kennedy's reputation to such a degree that he is willing to ignore genuine evidence. At that point, in my opinion, you have crossed a line that you yourself have made a career criticizing people for crossing and it cannot go unsaid. You've gone too far and ignored real evidence in order to support a clear bias. Wiggins said he had a strange feeling like he had been lured out there to witness something. You have to understand that the world of LSD is one where those peace instincts would be unavoidable in the conscience of those who used it. Mary Meyer was a perfect outlet for JFK for his peace initiatives and may have been his only sympathizer in close proximity, and she fit Jack's personal tastes very well as far as women. Who was next to JFK prior to the assassination? Gullion or Mary Meyer? Jim, JFK may be less than perfect but in no way does admitting that mean you are conceding to those who deny his greatness or the true record of what he did. Let the evidence speak for itself. Persons politicizing JFK's flaws should not be answered by an equal politicizing from the opposite direction. Jack's positives are strong enough to survive this onslaught. As anyone who single-handedly saved the Earth from nuclear Armageddon would be...
Sorry Jim, you're going to have to get used to this since the facts all plainly point in this direction, as the letter now confirms.
.
We all think JFK was a cutting edge, before his time, hero and progressive who intuitively saw what needed to be done and did it, at the expense of his life. However, at least to me, it is obvious you have an over-sensitivity to anything that paints JFK as less than noble and conflate it with other "second assassination of Kennedy" material. I don't think that's the case with Janney. I believe this is evidenced by your response to the letter, which was an automatic doubting of its authenticity. Since the provenance of this letter highly suggests it is genuine, you have to admit the evidence sword you present cuts both ways and you yourself have failed to show any evidence that this letter is bogus or originates from the dubious sources you hail to, but never quite attach to any evidence yourself. Which leaves me at the point I'm getting to that you are committing outright violations of evidence and denying real evidence. Both serious violations that you yourself have spent several decades practicing criticism over. You did this with the Timothy Leary evidence in Janney. In the several times I posted the evidence that Mary Meyer did have a very real relationship with Leary, as shown by Janney, both you and Tom ignored it every time I posted it only to return to your propaganda attack on Janney. Again, no one is a sacred cow and no one has a right to ignore good proof. In my mind it is a serious ethical violation to be a person who specializes in the highly visible calling out of people for doing that and then practice it yourself when it comes to protecting your biases.
There's two ways to approach Janney. One is to try to paint Janney as associated with dubious sources. We've been down this road several times. We've already said several times that Janney is not a person well versed in your internet material or websites that show the flaws in some of the authors he used. Janney isn't a career expert at the motives and failings of some of those Kennedy-smearing authors like you are. In his zeal he reached out and bought some authors that turn out to have less than genuine backgrounds and methods. However, you can't conflate this mistake with Janney's core evidence and personal experiences. I noticed that, like courtroom lawyers, you and Tom specialize in turning up the volume on this aspect of Janney, but I also noticed that you use it in such a way as to seize the narrative and avoid Janney's condemning evidence. In short, you are trying to take Janney down via his flaws while, in my mind, ignoring his genuine proof. To me that is a serious violation of assassination research ethics and costs the public a clear understanding of the truth. Something you have championed yourself over the years. I would also advise caution over referring to Tom S while criticizing sources.
The second way to approach Janney is to look at his evidence and weigh its legitimacy directly. Janney showed that Mitchell got caught lying about his funding source for his England hiatus. This is something you would rightfully normally jump on in one of your articles. Mitchell was gotten out of the country quickly to a foreign country with a strong allied Intelligence Agency. He was also hippied-up to lower his credibility in case he needed to be destroyed - but also to possibly infiltrate what governments thought was a communist-inspired beatnik movement. Shimon practically told his daughter Toni outright that Mary Meyer was a black op hit. Janney listed Shimon's murky interface with the same mob underground associated with Dallas. And Leary did have a relationship with Mary. Anne Chamberlin was scared. Finally, Janney witnessed the lies and pre-knowledge first hand and knew its correct interpretation - probably as Mary Meyer did too. I find it less than sincere and serving of the truth to ignore this and make such an opinion-based case against Janney while looking the other way on what is obviously incriminating evidence. Jim, may I ask you honestly what the moral/research reputation price is for a major researcher denying the CIA assassination of a very real and important witness?
I'm sorry to say this Jim, but from your writing I see someone who I think is desperate to defend Kennedy's reputation to such a degree that he is willing to ignore genuine evidence. At that point, in my opinion, you have crossed a line that you yourself have made a career criticizing people for crossing and it cannot go unsaid. You've gone too far and ignored real evidence in order to support a clear bias. Wiggins said he had a strange feeling like he had been lured out there to witness something. You have to understand that the world of LSD is one where those peace instincts would be unavoidable in the conscience of those who used it. Mary Meyer was a perfect outlet for JFK for his peace initiatives and may have been his only sympathizer in close proximity, and she fit Jack's personal tastes very well as far as women. Who was next to JFK prior to the assassination? Gullion or Mary Meyer? Jim, JFK may be less than perfect but in no way does admitting that mean you are conceding to those who deny his greatness or the true record of what he did. Let the evidence speak for itself. Persons politicizing JFK's flaws should not be answered by an equal politicizing from the opposite direction. Jack's positives are strong enough to survive this onslaught. As anyone who single-handedly saved the Earth from nuclear Armageddon would be...
Sorry Jim, you're going to have to get used to this since the facts all plainly point in this direction, as the letter now confirms.
.