03-02-2017, 08:52 PM
That's the problem with you Jim, you ignore good evidence in order to return to a foisted demand for strict evidence. This type of CT "skepticism" is very little different in method and approach from Bugliosi. Your bias is shown in your comparing of Kilgallen, a career journalist with a professional journalism background, with Janney, a psychotherapist whose only motivation in writing his book was to inform the public of his insider experience. In my opinion a more objective analyzer would take in to account Janney's background and conspiracy analysis skill level and apply a fair scale to it in order to evaluate his legitimacy. What I see with you and Tom is two flaw-seeking advantage-takers seeking to discredit Janney while ignoring his good evidence. If you are only seeking flaws you will find them in Janney because he doesn't have the CT experience and wisdom that some veteran critics have. It is not a fair match-up and is not reasonable to hold Janney accountable to the level of CT skill you possess. However, in the many years we have been discussing Janney I have yet to see either you or Tom respond to the good evidence Janney produced like Toni Shimon or Mitchell making up a phony University funding source for his hiatus in England. It's pretty clear Mitchell was gotten out of town to a safe ally where his credibility was compromised by making him a hippy. And no matter how much you two use Damore to deny it, Janney did credibly show that Mitchell used CIA safe-houses and cover jobs, the pattern of a real spook. You and Tom don't don't seem to understand how evidence works. You guys can trumpet what you think are flaws in Janney, however the "little-bit-pregnant" rule dictates that once you find legitimate evidence it can't be cancelled-out by other failures. It just doesn't work the way you and Tom are trying to force. I thought this was a commonly understood premise of Deep Political analysis. You and Tom try to dominate the Janney issue with your attacks on his Mitchell claims while ignoring the fact he witnessed highly incriminating behavior first hand in his father pretending not to have known Mary Meyer was dead, even though he collected evidence to show his father had known hours earlier. That's where the efforts of credible analyzers should be, in my opinion.
The implications of this are not unsubstantial. What is at stake here is a very real and significant CIA black operation assassination might go unregistered because of you and Tom's backwards efforts. Frankly I think you are getting carried away with your otherwise excellent critical abilities and losing sight of the bigger picture. What I'm seeing in that bigger picture is you endorsing the denial of important assassination conspiracy evidence like Ralph Yates and Janney. If you look at the stated purpose of Deep Political analysis it is supposed to be dedicated to finding the correct record on the assassination. Wrong-headed denial of very real and meaningful assassination events works directly against that purpose. For god's sake Jim you are openly endorsing one of the most dubious assassination research organizations to ever form while trying to rally an animus against me for following the correct Deep Political line. To me there's a sharp contrast in your endorsement of that bogus group with your assumed dedication to rigor that you suggest here. In my opinion your critical analysis skill would be better spent on ROKC where there is practically an unlimited opportunity to point out flawed claims. Oh, and I read every word of your article. I'm wondering if that is true for yourself however in the Murphy issue since we are still waiting for a response from you on Davidson's metadata.
Also, no good movie can come from someone who intends to assert the Marcello mafia-did-it angle. In any case, this subject would be aided by finding the source of the off-duty cop bartender getting a large amount of money shortly after Kilgallen's death. I tried to find it but couldn't. I wouldn't doubt that it was removed from Google, like such information tends to be.
The implications of this are not unsubstantial. What is at stake here is a very real and significant CIA black operation assassination might go unregistered because of you and Tom's backwards efforts. Frankly I think you are getting carried away with your otherwise excellent critical abilities and losing sight of the bigger picture. What I'm seeing in that bigger picture is you endorsing the denial of important assassination conspiracy evidence like Ralph Yates and Janney. If you look at the stated purpose of Deep Political analysis it is supposed to be dedicated to finding the correct record on the assassination. Wrong-headed denial of very real and meaningful assassination events works directly against that purpose. For god's sake Jim you are openly endorsing one of the most dubious assassination research organizations to ever form while trying to rally an animus against me for following the correct Deep Political line. To me there's a sharp contrast in your endorsement of that bogus group with your assumed dedication to rigor that you suggest here. In my opinion your critical analysis skill would be better spent on ROKC where there is practically an unlimited opportunity to point out flawed claims. Oh, and I read every word of your article. I'm wondering if that is true for yourself however in the Murphy issue since we are still waiting for a response from you on Davidson's metadata.
Also, no good movie can come from someone who intends to assert the Marcello mafia-did-it angle. In any case, this subject would be aided by finding the source of the off-duty cop bartender getting a large amount of money shortly after Kilgallen's death. I tried to find it but couldn't. I wouldn't doubt that it was removed from Google, like such information tends to be.