Mary's Mosaic: Entering Peter Janney's World of Fantasy

[Albert Doyle]

The "all due respect" card is hollow.

Because this thread has shown that is exactly what you do not have.

All you do is troll around at questionable sources, the LA Times, Janney's web site etc., and you then come back and say, "Well what about this?" Time after time, I show either where the info is questionable, or nonsense or a non sequitir. That does not stop you. Lamar Waldron like, you ignore that bit of enlightment or correction and just take another repeat swing with something that I already dealt with.

I have nothoing but respect for CTKA and JD's material. It isn't "hollow". I know a steel trap when I see one and depend on it for weeding-out the crap. However no matter how good one is there's a thin line between pronounced infallibility and truth. I assure you I'm sincere in this and not 'trolling'.

Waldron suggested the mafia was the sponsor of the assassination. He's obviously wrong.

But that is not the worst part. The worst part is this: You do all that without dealing with any of the stuff I (or Lisa) have evidenced which reduces Janney's ideas to mush. (Or maybe you think Mary actually did do in two weeks what it took Salandria four months to do). :loco:

Because you suggest the Mary Meyer as political counselor model is THE only model and then knock it down doesn't mean Mary Meyer didn't have some kind of lesser political relationship with JFK that CIA was worried about. Hence the intruders in Mary Meyer's house (which I believe). I've asked you several times to explain the intruders and you've ignored it. You have to understand the intruders place Mary Meyer on a much higher level of intel possibility, which is why I mention it. Somebody was worried about her. Why? I think you're failing to realize that Janney could be completely wrong about the Mary Meyer as Kumbaya/LSD guru but that doesn't mean there wasn't some kind of political sympathy going on between Meyer and JFK. JFK was enacting serious liberal moves. It is very reasonable to think he would seek a person of similar political persuasion as a sounding board or, at minimum, sympathetic supporter. This doesn't require the ironbound scenario of LSD guru. It simply requires a person whom JFK could possibly have mentioned his motives and enemies to that CIA would be worried about post-assassination. I also consider Florence Smith as a direct analog.

The difference is that what Lisa and I do is based upon evidence--and we back that up. What you do is based upon ignorance of that case--and you don't care if you cannot back it up.

The Innocence Project is full of people who were convicted on what the prosecutors were confident was sound "evidence".

Let's take for instance your almost shocking comparison of what Janney does in this case with what happened at the Ambassador. This makes me wonder if you have even studied what happened with RFK.

What Janney is saying here, and I read it twice, is that they just decided to frame Crump that hour. So they sent out for clothes, used skin pigment dye, and brought in a stand in.

WTF! Where on earth is that paralleled in the RFK case?!?

With all due respect sir, please show me where it is!? OK? It is nowhere. And I have studied that case, including the primary documents. Have you sir?

In that case, there was a girl in a polka dot dress who guided two other guys into the Ambassador (one of them Sirhan), and who's dress, as well as coffee, then served as post hypnotic suggestion since Sirhan had been programmed in advance by Bryan. Who then wen t on the radio that night to say that the shooting had the earmarks of the film The Manchurian Candidate.

Please show me, with all due respect sir, where there is a parallel for that in the Meyer case. I have read all the literature on the Mary Meyer case. And I have never seen a whiff of this anywhere.

And if this is just baseless conjecture on your part, from someone who has no expertise in the case, then its worth a thimble full of spit as evidence.

In the RFK case, one can prove with documents and evidence that a formal cover up was enacted and this extended over to planting spies in Sirhan's defense team and falsifying evidence presented in court. Plus, having the lead lawyer compromised in a quid pro quo deal.

WHERE IS THAT IN THE MEYER CASE? PLEASE SHOW ME WITH ALL DUE RESPECT SIR!

In fact, Crump, in my opinion, a guilty man, was set free simply because he had a very bright and skillful lawyer--which is exactly what Sirhan, an innocent man, was deprived of. And there was no rigging of evidence in the Meyer case.

To contaminate and pollute the excellent work done on RFK by people like Lynn Mangan, the late Larry Teeter, Lisa Pease, Bill Turner, the late Phil Melanson, the late great Greg Stone etc. to equate that great work with what Janney does is, to someone like me, just nauseating nonsense.

I see a dangerous parallel in the woman and liquor bottle in comparison to the sexy woman and coffee Sirhan was led to drink. My simple question to you is what proof do you have that this riverside picnic wasn't a perfectly-identical leading of a hypno-patsy to a close-to-the-scene introduction of the hypnotic chemicals by means of this likely 'bait'? Ms Meyer's canal path routine is something that could have been studied and figured as the best place to create a plausibly-deniable death with patsy. The trial could also have been stacked and infiltrated by the CIA spook Mitchell who is now as unknown as the fence shooters in Dealey Plaza as far as identification. This man is real because he testified at Crump's trial. It's a serious red flag that he cannot be identified now. "Baseless conjecture"? Hardly. I seriously consider these direct parallels to CIA's most cutting-edge black operation practices of the time as evidenced in RFK's case and John Lennon's.


I'm not your enemy. You can protest "you have no evidence", but in the end it doesn't answer these questions.

And this is why I don't wish to reply to you. Since your "all due respect" is transparently hollow. Not only do you have none of that for me, but you have none of it for any person I just named. And to someone like me, who really values their labor on that case, to put the name of Phil Melanson in the same realm as Janney or Damore, I mean, that is something there is no excuse for. Save utter ignorance. Or empty bombast.

My good sir, you haven't answered why they were in Mary Meyer's house?

I think Dunne is relying on technical sophistry as his main basis and perhaps Janney is wrong and you are entirely right in your criticisms. There's also no doubt you have seriously swung the issue in your favor with your review and clarified many important matters. However that still doesn't answer these questions. I guess where I am is Charles' point.