05-06-2016, 08:05 PM
Jim DiEugenio Wrote:What a load of BS.
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.
I don't think you realize you've proven my point Jim. What you are doing, whether you realize it or not, is referring to your subjective dismissal of Janney while once again using it as an effective block to avoid answering the specifics I mentioned as far as evidence. What you do is a well practiced form of dealing with those specifics with offhand remarks and opinions generated by your assumptions as if you were answering those points, but any evaluation of what you offer shows you very carefully stay away from ever addressing those points directly. To me it is quite deceptive and dishonest a method, and is frankly, a form I am used to seeing coming from Lone Nutters.
Meanwhile if you observe recorded history there are many witnesses who never came out with what they knew because of its dangerousness. How could you pretend to practice such a high level of conspiracy research and then offer such a weak, logically-flawed submission like this? You are inferring that because Leary did not mention it that therefore it is 100% certain that it never happened. You ignore the political dangerousness of mentioning it and how it could be a very valid motivator for Leary who had tasted jail time and persecution from the government before in his past. After you are finished with your strongly-felt protest, truth is it is basically your suggestion and really isn't based on much but your opinion.
But let's go back to the evidence I've presented several times that you have repeatedly ignored, including this time. There's no doubt Mary Meyer had the relationship with Leary she claimed because Leary's reaction to being informed about her death was to go out on his roof and sit there in shock. His investigation of Mary Meyer's death using private investigators in New York City was well documented and witnessed. Do you realize that every single time I mentioned this proof to both you and Tom you ignored it? So your absence-of-mention claim is conditioned by a person who is on record as ignoring proof of Leary's relationship to Mary Meyer. Meanwhile there can be many completely valid reasons for Leary to avoid mentioning the radioactive assassination of his tripping friend in high places. While speaking in absolute terms, you have offered what is basically the weakest form of argument you could present and tried to totally dismiss Janney with it - which is, Jim, exactly what I accused you of isn't it? Your strong focus on Leary's history in his books has been very effectively used to avoid answering most of my examples of Janney's valid proof. Thank you, Jim, for proving my point. Any person who makes an effort to avoid Mitchell's being caught making a phony excuse for his England funding isn't being honest in my opinion. Shimon is not to be ignored either.
Jim DiEugenio Wrote: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?
Again, proof of what I am saying. Mary Meyers' overt membership in the United World Federation was contemporary to 1947. She was a friend of Kennedy since school. This is entirely pertinent to the claim she was influential on JFK's early peace politics and that, with your doubt, you may have missed an important element of the formative cause of JFK's peace policies. Your inferring Kennedy needed a outlet for those politics in the 50's is not accurate to what I wrote and is another strawman answering to something I never said, just like your saying Mary was JFK's guru. She didn't need to be his guru she just needed to be in proximity to him at the right time. I made clear that that right time was just prior to the assassination where she was documented as being, and now a letter proves even more. I think it's clear that you don't like this new proof because it works against what you've been saying.
JFK very much DID desperately need a sympathetic ear to his peace moves in his last year. There's no doubt about that just like there's no doubt now that Mary Meyer was there and very adequately fit that role. You protest a lot Jim, but a true evaluation of what you write shows you've offered almost nothing towards refuting Janney. You're on the wrong side of this Jim, and on the wrong side of history and what you represent at CTKA I'm afraid.